love how everyone is beating on the stock market being down for NV
@ time of posting it is at 143.09 and UP
While AMD is DOWN @ 19.33 ... I would rather own stock in a company that is worth $143 than a company with $19. just food for thought people.
NVIDIA Corporation
NASDAQ: NVDA
143.09 USD +0.51 (0.36%)
Jan 10, 1:56 PM EST ·
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
NASDAQ: AMD
19.33 USD −0.86 (4.26%)
Jan 10, 1:55 PM EST
Doesn't that depend on the price when you actually bought the stock? Your post sure makes it ound like you don't quite understand quite how this works. Owning $150 stock if you bought in at $170 certainly is quite a lot worse than owning $15 stock having bought in at $10 - and as you're likely to have invested the same amount, you'd also have 10-20x more stock with the cheaper one, making the difference very noticeable.
Gone from a majority to a healthy minority.
If it weren't for crypto, NVDA and AMD wouldn't be crapping their trousers at this point in time.
What? You get that the total addressable market has expanded dramatically over that period of time, right? The PC gaming hardware market is not smaller than before, and the software market certainly isn't. Other devices growing into their own and establishing themselves as parallel alternatives does not at all spell impending doom for the incumbent segments. That PC gaming is now "a minority" is meaningless when the total gaming market is 10x what it was when that was the case.
To buyers, the only thing that actually matters is how well it performs, along with thermals, noise etc. What process they use, how many cores, what clocks, etc. shouldn't matter to buyers, the benchmarks should show the reality. But if AMD needs ~300W to match the performance level of RTX 2080 / GTX 1080 Ti, they need to offer up some other advantage to justify going with a TDP that much higher, e.g. lower price.
Strategically, I can't see any real good reasons why AMD releases this card. My best guess is they felt the need to get some attention in the market since they don't have anything else for a good while. This is similar to the "pointless" RX 590 released last year, released just to get another review cycle.
For the future, this doesn't look good. AMD just spent what might be the last "good" node shrink, and repurposed a GPU for the professional market, a GPU which is very expensive to make and taking up precious capacity on the 7nm node. If this was planned a long time ago, they would have made a GPU without full fp64 support and with GDDR6, then at least they could have sold it much cheaper. But with Vega 20 they are at a disadvantage, not only is the HBM2 more expensive, the die is too. And they even put 16GB on it, which is completely wasted for gaming. If they really wanted more than 8GB, they could have gone with 12GB, and at least made it a little cheaper.
You've got this all turned around.
-Very expensive chip? Not likely. It's <400mm2. Even on 7nm, that's likely to be cheaper than Nvidia's monster 12nm chips. It does need an interposer and HBM, but given that GDDR6 is reportedly 60-70% more expensive than GDDR5(X), that leaves us at roughly price parity between GDDR6 and HBM2. AMD uses twice as much, which means less margins there, but not night and day. The interposer is likely not that expensive, given that it's far smaller than the Fiji lineup's interposer.
-"That much higher TDP"? While there's no denying that Nvidia's cards are more efficient, by a significant margin, the difference between a 300W VII and a 275W 1080Ti or 225W 2080 is ... not that much, really. 9 and 33% respectively. The difference was
far bigger the last go around, with the 275W V64 roughly matching the 180W 1080 (52%).
-Strategically, this is AMD saying "Hey, we're here, and we can compete this go around too" rather than leaving the old and 1080-ish V64 as their highest performer. At the same price or cheaper than the 2080 for matching performance, this is a good alternative, particularly with a good tri-fan cooler for the reference card. That makes very much sense, as the other option would be leaving the RTX series unopposed until Navi arrives. If that's within a few months, this would be of no use, but if it's towards fall or Q4, this is a very good strategic move. Nvidia can't launch anything new in response, all they can do is lower prices on their existing cards, which we know are ridiculously expensive to produce, even if they are still overpriced. If Nvidia doesn't, AMD will sell more. What ever happens, this is a good move by AMD.
-"Spending a node shrink" on a refresh of a known architecture is a well established mode of operations in the tech world. It's when you
don't have a node shrink that you need a new arch - a position that AMD has now put itself in. This primes the market for Navi. Of course, it lessens the "wow" effect if Navi delivers on improving perf/w (combining that with a node shrink would make it
really stand out), but on the other hand it makes for continuity in AMD's offerings and the performance of their product stack.
-While I agree that Vega as an architecture is far better suited for professional applications (we've seen this proven plenty of times), apparently AMD feels confident enough in the gaming-related improvements when doubling the memory bandwidth and doubling the number of ROPs to give it a go. I suggest we wait for reviews.
-You're right that 12GB of HBM2 might have made this cheaper, but getting 6hi vs. 8hi KGSDs of HBM2 is likely a challenge, and given that 8hi is in volume production for enterprise/datacenter/etc., it might be the same price or even cheaper than special-ordered 6hi stacks.
But yes, to your point the total market has increased as the share %'s shift. Interesting thing from that graph is that PC market has almost taken over the console market from 2016-2019. Who would have thought?
