Macro DeviceYear 5 of NV releasing absolutely nothing spectacular. AMD: "Herp derp..."

And that's why AMD's GPU marketshare is pitiful ;)

If they're serious about staying in the GPU race, they need to stop farting around!

AMD must make something so good that even Nvidia fanboys will be hard-pressed to ignore the AMD alternative. RDNA4 isn't going to do it on technical prowess, so they need to absolute murder Nvidia in the price/performance metric even if it's a loss-leader for them this generation. When I say murder, I mean like 40%+ better performance/$ than Nvidia.

If it's only 25% or something like that, the Nvidia buyers will just cite what they always cite; "but DLSS, but drivers, but Raytracing" etc - regardless of whether that's still even true in 2025.

Chrispy_If they're serious about staying in the GPU race

We both know they are not. We'd have seen an X3D of the GPU market otherwise. Imagine an 8 GB GPU that has a 3DVCache so advanced it doesn't fall off in VRAM hogs! As snappy as heavily overclocked 4060 Ti. For $300 or lower. Eh.

Macro DeviceWe both know they are not. We'd have seen an X3D of the GPU market otherwise. Imagine an 8 GB GPU that has a 3DVCache so advanced it doesn't fall off in VRAM hogs! As snappy as heavily overclocked 4060 Ti. For $300 or lower. Eh.

Pretty sure more cache doesn't really work for GPUs the same way as it does for CPUs, both in terms of how much performance it adds, and also in how difficult it is to manage power and clocks with a vCache layer in the way.

Do you remember the discussions at the start of the 7000-series launch where AMD released numbers for their internal testing with even more cache? The cache hit rate for the 7900XTX isn't great, and it's just one reason why lesser tiers just don't have as much.

Chrispy_more cache doesn't really work for GPUs the same way as it does for CPUs

I didn't say, "more," I said, "advanced."

Welp, literally anything that makes nVidia GPUs look terrible in comparison is welcome by me. The market is however nowhere near healthy.

It’s true… AMD spend too much time and effort (what ever that was) and R&D changing courses and direction of architecture.

Someone in there stupidly believed that 2 different architectures will work then and in future…
Little did they knew… And I’m very surprised by that because for their CPU line they did the exact opposite, just like nVidia did with their own GPU line.

Macro DeviceI didn't say, "more," I said, "advanced."

Welp, literally anything that makes nVidia GPUs look terrible in comparison is welcome by me. The market is however nowhere near healthy.

Yeah, the market is not healthy right now - that's for sure.

It's crazy that Nvidia has such a massive gaming market dominance when AMD have had console monopoly and been a strong (if not the primary) target for game developers since 2013!

Nvidia are killing it on the marketing and execution front, and I'm saying that with my "consumer gaming hat" on, where I have to consider the cost and value of GPUs for gaming only, not my "system integrator hat" where I get free hardware and need to worry about CUDA API support and performance in professional productivity for profit.

Chrispy_Yeah, the market is not healthy right now - that's for sure.
It's crazy that Nvidia has such a massive gaming market dominance when AMD have had console monopoly and been a strong (if not the primary) target for game developers since 2013!
Nvidia are killing it on the marketing and execution front

It's because Nvidia has the halo. Had AMD launched a card that is within 15% of RTX 4090 for $650, things would have been much different.
Remember the RX 6800 XT? It was like RX 6900 XT, but the first was $1000, while the second was $650!

It's all about the top performance.

Chrispy_And that's why AMD's GPU marketshare is pitiful ;)

If they're serious about staying in the GPU race, they need to stop farting around!

AMD must make something so good that even Nvidia fanboys will be hard-pressed to ignore the AMD alternative. RDNA4 isn't going to do it on technical prowess, so they need to absolute murder Nvidia in the price/performance metric even if it's a loss-leader for them this generation. When I say murder, I mean like 40%+ better performance/$ than Nvidia.

If it's only 25% or something like that, the Nvidia buyers will just cite what they always cite; "but DLSS, but drivers, but Raytracing" etc - regardless of whether that's still even true in 2025.

But you see, the defecit AMD faces is not in raster...it's in software. They have no means of breaking the cUDA wall. Until people start voting with their wallet they have no chance.

3valatzyIt's because Nvidia has the halo. Had AMD launched a card that is within 15% of RTX 4090 for $650, things would have been much different.
Remember the RX 6800 XT? It was like RX 6900 XT, but the first was $1000, while the second was $650!

It's all about the top performance.

It is always the same people and the same Graphs. Look at your relative performance chart and realize how you are wrong. Let's look at that through an objective lens. Halo parts are for people with more money than sense and if you think more people buy Halo cards than that you would not understand why the 3060 laptop was the best selling Gaming device during Covid. Neither do you appreciate that 21% does not translate into measurable without an FPS counter difference in performance. That is saying that if you are getting 300 FPS with the 4090 then 260 would not feel as fast with the 7900XTX. At 4K we are just starting to get to High refresh rate monitors but the absolute fastest are still 1080P TN panels. Do E Sports players use RT? I know all the live streams use Nvidia they are the best are penetration.

www.newegg.ca/asus-geforce-rtx-4090-tuf-rtx4090-24g-og-gaming/p/N82E16814126671?Item=N82E16814126671

www.newegg.ca/sapphire-pulse-11322-02-20g-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-24gb-gddr6/p/N82E16814202429?Item=N82E16814202429

If you look add price to the equation the whole narrative changes. I could buy 2 7900XTX for the price of 1 4090. Is RT at the 3090TI level bad? It is not like the TUF is a high end 4090 either those go as hifgh as $4000+.

If you are a Gamer then it makes no common sense to pay double for CP2077 to look prettier as you get the Katana as it is the easiest way to dispatch enemies. The best thing about CP2077 is not the visuals but the story and the secret is that even though Nvidia features are available, playing the Game native is not a bad experience on either card.

What AMD contends with are the bombastic negative from HUB, Paul's hardware asking if AMD GPUs have DP 2.1 or still have 1.4, Robbeytech getting triggered when asked why he doesn't use AMD Gpus, Kitguru saying that their Nvidia partners are very good to them. At least they used an AMD GPU in their latest build video. Then there is what I talk about that people like you choose to ignore. The China effect. Was the Chinese Govt not buying every single 4090 Nvidia made. Did Nvidia not make the 4090D when the Govt told them to stop? Are those numbers separated from the ones that are sold at Canada Computers in the numbers? It is small wonder that AMD did not let the ravens pick at their bones as the narrative suggests. Meanwhile Nvidia are trying their hardest to get into the Handhled revolution. I expect the ever always Switch has Nvidia argument.

So be happy being a Nvidia fan to the point where you make negative comments at every oppurtunity in AMD focused threads.

RedwoodzBut you see, the defecit AMD faces is not in raster...it's in software. They have no means of breaking the cUDA wall. Until people start voting with their wallet they have no chance.

It's a little bit of both, I think. Perhaps a chicken-or-egg situation:

ROCm isn't getting much developer attention because AMD GPUs aren't a good choice for AI TOPS and cannot compete with NV's Tensor core performance for LLMs.

IF UDNA solves the hardware performance shortfall, then ROCm needs to be a viable alternative to CUDA. If that ever happens, I'm sure there will be CUDA emulators and translators to bridge the transition away from a full-on CUDA monopoly.

3valatzy15% of RTX 4090 for $650

Oh crap, somehow AMD has to sell a lot lower price and Nvidia shouldn't cut prices. It's OK for them to overcharge the costumers. And be cheap with VRAM

TheinsanegamerNEvery time AMD has made an actual competitive card, they have sold out. Evergreen pushed AMD to 49% marketshare. The 290/x were going for almost double MSRP and were unobtainable for almost a year after launch, even with the flood of used cards there were still new sales. The 6800/xt/6900xt were complete unobtainable for over a year after launch, what cards were made sold immediately, often mere seconds after coming in stock.

Literally only ONCE in the last decade have they had a superior product, the 290x. Even then, Nvidia rushed out the 780/ti to counter it. The 980ti was uncontested. Vega sucked. Fury/X were failed experiments. Polaris stopped at 1060 level. rDNA was missing features like mesh shader support or RT and was limited to mid range performance.

ya kind of my point, been 10 years now, not sure how much nvidia owners would go back. In an ideal market it would be nice if all three had about the same market share/qty in sales.

SRSConsidering that AMD has shown that it can make a competitive GPU, let's look back at how things looked when Intel released Skylake (or even Broadwell C) and AMD released Piledriver.

The difference between AMD's shocking success in CPUs and its "Polaris forever" sandbagging in GPUs isn't due to Nvidia's perfection as a monopolist of enthusiast-grade GPU tech. It's due to duopoly, which, despite the commonness of the assumption in consumer tech circles, is not the same thing as adequate competition.

The transformation of AMD from a nearly dead company which had a very shabby track record (note that not even Phenom I and Phenom II were particularly exciting) against a corporation that had been killing it since Core Duo should put to rest all of these claims about Nvidia's unbreakable dominance, particularly given how much stronger AMD's financials are — and — because Nvidia is fabless. Intel could have continued to use its fabs as a source of dominance against AMD's CPU hopes if it hadn't messed its nodes up. Nvidia has no such advantage.

It simply is more in AMD's interest to let Nvidia set prices for the stack by ceding the enthusiast-tier (aka higher-end) GPU space. What is good business for AMD is not, in this case, good business for consumers. It's an absurd situation that one can get a reasonably affordable CPU (9800X3D) that is rather overkill but must pay through the nose for GPU performance. That's not a healthy product ecosystem. It's monopolization in action.

Yes. Even though the rx480, etc. were competetive in the perf/$ range the market share gap keeps getting larger though. Ideally the market share/qty sold would be about equal for Intel/AMD/Nvidia, that would probably be best for the consumer.

kapone32if you think more people buy Halo cards than that you would not understand why the 3060 laptop was the best selling Gaming device during Covid

What does marketing mean to you ?
Those graphs are the marketing !

OnasiOh how times have changed now that people are “excited” and “hyped” to pay what used to be near-flagship prices for mid as hell cards. Meh. Snark aside, the pricing undercuts nothing - it’s 550. The 480 reference will be unobtainable in most parts of the world and even simplest AIB models will start from 550. So the entire value proposition will be based on just how much faster it will be in raster than the 5070. I say “in raster” since it sure as hell will not be faster in anything else.

I am hopeful in a year, the price drops to sub-$400 levels, but that is just that, hope. Get the price to below $350 and we have something to be excited about.