OK, you apparently didnt read what I wrote. There is nothing wrong with supporting them if it is COMPETITIVE. See, I dont like monopolies, I like competition. You dont just support them because they are the underdog, you support them if they are the underdog AND competitive. If you still think that is the "stupidest thing" then I cant help you here.
You missed the 300 series, when nvidia owned 83% of GPU shipments at their height, and over 70% every quarter for over a year. the only reason that changed was the 400 series captured the low end low margin market, while leaving the mid range and lucrative high end and halo markets completely unopposed.
See, again, apparently you glossed over my comment. I said there was no point in supporting a noncompetitive underdog.
There are people supporting AMD in markets where they are competitive (low end CPU and GPU). And there are people who are supporting them based on promises and speculation. That second group is the issue.
The issue with being competitive on price vs performance is that nvidia has had the market for a solid year, and has made mad bucko bucks as a result. They can simply cut the price across the line and starve AMD's high end from being competitive.
Performance wise, the vega peaks AMD has shown are around 1070 level, if not slightly higher. If AMD has mature drivers at launch (which, given their history, is highly unlikely) they MIGHT reach a 1080 in some games, and be between the 1070 and 1080 in others. Given the price for making a fury, I am not confident that AMD can release vega, with HBM2, cheaper then a 1080 and make anywhere near the money nvidia makes per 1080.
