AMD Falling Behind: Radeon dGPUs Absent from Steam's Top 20

[GhostRyder]

He never said that. You're injecting your own argument.

He's right, AMD's RT is almost two generations behind nvidia now, and FSR is just awful. Full of blurry text ad almost hallucinogenic color mixing at times. DLSS balanced has better image quality then FSR ultra quality does. It's just fact.

How about this: if AMD wants to make an open source DLSS, make it good?

Not sure I agree with all of that statement. I mean the FSR vs DLSS argument in terms of quality is subjective in most cases. In the side by side I have seen opinions all over the place. Personally I think they are pretty close to equal in terms of image quality with each having certain things be a weakness for them.

The RT argument is not one I am a fan of because its another one of those new tech arguments where Nvidia comes out with something and now everyone constantly references it like its the new standard. Personally I still see RT as unnecessary or overhyped especially with how much of a performance drop you get in most high end games enabling it. Neither side has it down where I would consider turning it on for most games just to watch my FPS halved in many cases. No doubt Nvidia is better, but of course they are they started the trend.

Nvidia was faster. The only reason Nvidia can keep creating proprietary features is because they simply pay off, and part of the reason they're paying off, is because AMD is always in wait and see mode.

I mean, AMD has tried proprietary things in the past but they never invest enough in getting's games to support it. Normally they just open source it and hope. Problem with Nvidia's proprietary things is in the past alot have been just performance killers if you don't have Nvidia hardware like with Gameworks which I don't think helped anyone other than them.

Let me address these points separately:

AMD's lack of RT performance doesn't matter much when even Nvidia's RT performance is abysmal on anything less than a 4080. I'm not sad that I can't RT on my 6750 XT because I couldn't on a 3070 either. Whether or not RT is really such a significant and meaningful visual upgrade that makes it worth spending more is a separate debate, but I'm personally doubtful.

I don't care what anyone says, DLSS, FSR and XeSS are tools to get better performance out of ageing or lower end hardware when even low quality graphics options won't do anymore, nothing more. And that is a sign for me that the need for a GPU upgrade is imminent.

I'm sick and tired of responding to the mindless "oooh RT, aaah DLSS" comments everywhere, so let's leave it at that, shall we?

I agree, RT is way overhyped and people talk about it like its the second coming. I have seen some of the best case scenarios on my friends 4090 PC and to be honest I was not that impressed (To be fair, it looked good on Cyberpunk at 4K settings maxed, but performance was pretty abysmal depending on the scene with DLSS off). I will say I like DLSS a lot more than I like RT. I think many people and places focus on RT way to much.

 

[64K]

Literally all 50s, 60s, and a few basic 70s series card, but everyone is like "OMG AMD doesn't compete at the high end"

It baffles me. AMD has a GPU to compete with every offering from Nvidia with the exception of the 4090 which less than 1% of gamers use and people still say that AMD doesn't compete? Over 99% competitive offerings but somehow that means AMD doesn't compete because they don't go after the 4090?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

It baffles me. AMD has a GPU to compete with every offering from Nvidia with the exception of the 4090 which less than 1% of gamers use and people still say that AMD doesn't compete? Over 99% competitive offerings but somehow that means AMD doesn't compete because they don't go after the 4090?

The halo effect is a real thing, despite claims of under 1% and how it doesnt matter. Every generation AMD has a competitor to Nvidia's flagship (6900xt, RX 290) they sell WAY better overall.

The RX 7000 series had a pricing problem. The 7900xtx was competitive, but the 7900xt sure wasnt. The 7800xt was late to the game, and was competitive when it finally released, but the 7700 wasnt. Neither was the 7600. All too expensive for what they were.

Also, this is in raster. The moment you bring RT into the conversation AMD falls apart on competitiveness.

AMD doesnt have the pull to play nvidia pricing games. By the time prices made sense the generation was nearly over, and with the high end being dropped, those like me that bought a 6800xt have no upgrade path with the 8000s.

 

[Visible Noise]

Do you want AMD to produce proprietary technologies, like Nvidia does with DLSS? I don't.

Yes. Their current strategy of copying Nvidia years later isn’t working.

 

[Assimilator]

It baffles me. AMD has a GPU to compete with every offering from Nvidia with the exception of the 4090 which less than 1% of gamers use and people still say that AMD doesn't compete? Over 99% competitive offerings but somehow that means AMD doesn't compete because they don't go after the 4090?

Once again you are forgetting your history.

At the launch of RDNA3 in October 2022, AMD had 7900-series at crypto prices and that was it; the 7600 came along May '23 and the 7700 XT and 7800 XT in Sep, and the 7600 XT only launched Jan '24! If you're following along, that's well over a year to launch 6 SKUs at arbitrary dates. Consumers don't like arbitrary, nor do suppliers and stores.

Meanwhile NVIDIA had 4090 in Oct 2022, 4080 in Nov, 4070 Ti in Jan '23. Then 4070 in Apr, 4060 Ti in May (one day before 7600!), 4060 in Jun = 9 months to launch 6 SKUs in an incredibly predictable cadence communicated well ahead of time. Consumers like that, stores like that, suppliers like that.

That means for anyone who couldn't afford a $900+ 7900-series between Oct '22 and May '23 but wanted a new GPU, their only options were 4070 or 4070 Ti. Similarly, anyone who couldn't afford $900 but wanted something better than 7600 had no AMD option until Sep '23 - just 4060 or 4060 Ti.

So basically, if you are baffled why consumers were buying NVIDIA products when those were literally the only products they could buy that match their budget, then you need your head examined. The failure of RDNA3 to be delivered at a compelling price, and then on time, handed the market to NVIDIA on a silver platter. I can't even begin to express how little effort NVIDIA had to make here to gain the marketshare they now have, they literally did nothing different from normal while AMD shot itself in the foot repeatedly.

NVIDIA's success and AMD's failure is not rocket surgery or skullduggery, but basic business. Because NVIDIA understands basic business and AMD does not. Because NVIDIA is able to be consistent and AMD is not. Because NVIDIA doesn't have to try to succeed, while their so-called competitor fails again and again and again (at this point I would not be surprised if NVIDIA does not even consider AMD as actual competition).

This is not a size issue, it's not a market capital issue, it's a management and mindset issue: AMD's biggest enemy is AMD. Until it realises that, and acts to change it, it will continue to be a has-been, an also-ran, a could-have-and-should-have-done-better.

 

[kapone32]

Once again you are forgetting your history.

At the launch of RDNA3 in October 2022, AMD had 7900-series at crypto prices and that was it; the 7600 came along May '23 and the 7700 XT and 7800 XT in Sep, and the 7600 XT only launched Jan '24! If you're following along, that's well over a year to launch 6 SKUs at arbitrary dates. Consumers don't like arbitrary, nor do suppliers and stores.

Meanwhile NVIDIA had 4090 in Oct 2022, 4080 in Nov, 4070 Ti in Jan '23. Then 4070 in Apr, 4060 Ti in May (one day before 7600!), 4060 in Jun = 9 months to launch 6 SKUs in an incredibly predictable cadence communicated well ahead of time. Consumers like that, stores like that, suppliers like that.

That means for anyone who couldn't afford a $900+ 7900-series between Oct '22 and May '23 but wanted a new GPU, their only options were 4070 or 4070 Ti. Similarly, anyone who couldn't afford $900 but wanted something better than 7600 had no AMD option until Sep '23 - just 4060 or 4060 Ti.

So basically, if you are baffled why consumers were buying NVIDIA products when those were literally the only products they could buy that match their budget, then you need your head examined. The failure of RDNA3 to be delivered at a compelling price, and then on time, handed the market to NVIDIA on a silver platter. I can't even begin to express how little effort NVIDIA had to make here to gain the marketshare they now have, they literally did nothing different from normal while AMD shot itself in the foot repeatedly.

NVIDIA's success and AMD's failure is not rocket surgery or skullduggery, but basic business. Because NVIDIA understands basic business and AMD does not. Because NVIDIA is able to be consistent and AMD is not. Because NVIDIA doesn't have to try to succeed, while their so-called competitor fails again and again and again (at this point I would not be surprised if NVIDIA does not even consider AMD as actual competition).

This is not a size issue, it's not a market capital issue, it's a management and mindset issue: AMD's biggest enemy is AMD. Until it realises that, and acts to change it, it will continue to be a has-been, an also-ran, a could-have-and-should-have-done-better.

For what you describe to succeed AMD would have to give up their CPU business to produce GPUs at the same rate. What AMD do is they do not make the previous Gen seem useless vs what Nvidia does. Nvidia also does enough to attract attention from Govt bodies so I would not venerate them the truth might even be worse than what Intel was doing with Dell.

 

[Onasi]

For what you describe to succeed AMD would have to give up their CPU business to produce GPUs at the same rate.

I fail to see how AMD not being able or willing to compete in both markets is a problem of us as customers, besides the obvious. I repeat - nothing stops AMD from selling Radeon to someone who gives a damn, with potential perpetual licensing for graphics IP to use in their iGPUs being part of the deal. Or spin it off, at least, also a possibility. They did so when they realized they can’t successfully run a fab business alongside their CPU one with what became GloFo, this is no different. Torturously mismanaging Radeon until it fades into irrelevance isn’t a good outcome for anyone involved.

 

[AnotherReader]

I fail to see how AMD not being able or willing to compete in both markets is a problem of us as customers, besides the obvious. I repeat - nothing stops AMD from selling Radeon to someone who gives a damn, with potential perpetual licensing for graphics IP to use in their iGPUs being part of the deal. Or spin it off, at least, also a possibility. They did so when they realized they can’t successfully run a fab business alongside their CPU one with what became GloFo, this is no different. Torturously mismanaging Radeon until it fades into irrelevance isn’t a good outcome for anyone involved.

I don't think that's the best outcome. Given the relative success that they are having with MI300, devoting more attention to Radeon would seem to be the logical course of action.

 

[Onasi]

@AnotherReader
Questionable. Said success from where I am standing is simply entities who wanted in on AI craze but couldn’t secure some of the limited NV shipments, buying what they could for now. I am not sure this will keep. Might be wrong on that, sure, but this seems like a circumstantial success to me.

 

[AnotherReader]

@AnotherReader
Questionable. Said success from where I am standing is simply entities who wanted in on AI craze but couldn’t secure some of the limited NV shipments, buying what they could for now. I am not sure this will keep. Might be wrong on that, sure, but this seems like a circumstantial success to me.

Almost certainly, it's driven primarily by the inability to get enough Nvidia GPUs, but they have also gained some sought after customers like Meta. Hopefully, this will convince management that there is money to be made from GPUs. Then again, AMD has rarely given Radeon the attention it deserves.

 

[GhostRyder]

NVIDIA's success and AMD's failure is not rocket surgery or skullduggery, but basic business. Because NVIDIA understands basic business and AMD does not. Because NVIDIA is able to be consistent and AMD is not. Because NVIDIA doesn't have to try to succeed, while their so-called competitor fails again and again and again (at this point I would not be surprised if NVIDIA does not even consider AMD as actual competition).

This is not a size issue, it's not a market capital issue, it's a management and mindset issue: AMD's biggest enemy is AMD. Until it realises that, and acts to change it, it will continue to be a has-been, an also-ran, a could-have-and-should-have-done-better.

Don't know if I would agree that AMD itself does not understand basic business, I would more agree Radeon (The Radeon Division) does not understand basic business. AMD itself on the CPU front seems to understand enough what they need to do, but the GPU business area seems to run at times like they don't need to try and compete. They need to overhaul their thinking either way and I think part of that is going to be competing by pricing below the competition even if they are neck and neck.

It baffles me. AMD has a GPU to compete with every offering from Nvidia with the exception of the 4090 which less than 1% of gamers use and people still say that AMD doesn't compete? Over 99% competitive offerings but somehow that means AMD doesn't compete because they don't go after the 4090?

Images of both companies on the GPU front are totally different. I think that is the primary reason they are held back. I like the 7900 XT and XTX (Albeit the naming sucks) but most major streamers/influencers/pro gamers are not running one. They are running RTX 4090's, 4080's, etc. Plus being able to say you sell the best GPU on the market does appeal to people.

 

[Onasi]

@AnotherReader
See, I remain unconvinced. It feels like AMD is doing the exact same strategy that keeps failing them in consumer GPUs, but now in HPC. That tactic is being the “we have NVidia at home” option and… kinda that’s it. Maybe I am overly cynical on this, but they need more than one generation of HPC wins in a wild time for the industry to actually have a solid footing.

 

[JustBenching]

Well, that is a matter of perspective. If you do not own a gaming PC, but you do want to game, you can still not care about graphics but you're buying a new card regardless. And if you're upgrading, you could certainly still be of the same opinion but your current GPU is just no longer sufficient.


Yeah, one presentation... versus nearly daily TPU posts about DLSS this or that

Not in disagreement, but these kinds of people can be happy with an iGPU or just a 5 year old GPU. It reminds me of the console people, they fight between them on which console has the better graphics, but when you mention PC theyll tell you that graphics don't matter.

The halo effect is a real thing, despite claims of under 1% and how it doesnt matter. Every generation AMD has a competitor to Nvidia's flagship (6900xt, RX 290) they sell WAY better overall.

The RX 7000 series had a pricing problem. The 7900xtx was competitive, but the 7900xt sure wasnt. The 7800xt was late to the game, and was competitive when it finally released, but the 7700 wasnt. Neither was the 7600. All too expensive for what they were.

Also, this is in raster. The moment you bring RT into the conversation AMD falls apart on competitiveness.

AMD doesnt have the pull to play nvidia pricing games. By the time prices made sense the generation was nearly over, and with the high end being dropped, those like me that bought a 6800xt have no upgrade path with the 8000s.

The 7900xt and - unpopular opinion - the 7800xt were the worst priced cards this gen. The 7900xt was just worse perf / $ (even for raster) than the 4070ti on launch, but my personal pet peeve is the 7800xt. I was literally considering that card as an upgrade over my gf's pc (3060ti) but man, it's basically a 6800xt with a 150$ price cut. In financial terms, it would make much more sense to buy a 6800xt back in 2020 for 650 than to buy a 7800xt in 2023 for 500$. It's way worse value than the 6800xt was and that's why I really did not buy it, I would feel silly.

For people to understand the financial side, say a card of that caliber will last until 2026. If you spend 650 in 2020, the 6800xt will cost you 108€ a year. If you spend 500 in 2023, the 7800xt 166€ a year. So 55% more money per useful lifespan. Insanely bad.

For what you describe to succeed AMD would have to give up their CPU business to produce GPUs at the same rate. What AMD do is they do not make the previous Gen seem useless vs what Nvidia does. Nvidia also does enough to attract attention from Govt bodies so I would not venerate them the truth might even be worse than what Intel was doing with Dell.

This is one of the few things we agree on, AMD doesn't have the fab space. But then the question is, why do people act like nvidia has cast mindpsells and thats why people buy nvidia when you yourself admitted that amd prefers to not compete in this market?

 

[AnotherReader]

@AnotherReader
See, I remain unconvinced. It feels like AMD is doing the exact same strategy that keeps failing them in consumer GPUs, but now in HPC. That tactic is being the “we have NVidia at home” option and… kinda that’s it. Maybe I am overly cynical on this, but they need more than one generation of HPC wins in a wild time for the industry to actually have a solid footing.

Given their history, that's a fair take, but MI300X is a very ambitious design that actually delivers so I'm cautiously optimistic about their future. Crucially, they figured out how to scale a GPGPU from multiple smaller dies, which no one else has managed to do yet. Their cadence with CDNA has been faster too which is another area where the gaming GPU division lacks.

 

[AusWolf]

Man if you don't care about graphics then you are really not the target group of either company. They are selling hardware that runs games with higher graphics. If you are fine with 1080p low - you are not really their demographic. You think AMD released RDNA 3 for people that don't care about graphics?

Such shortsighted thinking... If Joe Bloggs buys a new graphics card to be able to play Alan Wake 2, is that only because he deeply cares about graphics? Or maybe just his old GTX 760 doesn't run it and he wants to replace it with something that does? AW2 is a great game even if you play it on low.

PC World were at E3 and talking to an editor from another channel. Adam said " The 4090 is going to be expensive and the 7900XTX is over $1000. Is there a card for the person that does not want to pay that much. The Editor said "Yes the 7900XT". Adam had a look of disgust on his face and the editor said "What it is only 7% slower than the XTX and is $699". Then let's look at MSI Gaming, who in more than one live stream have openly admitted that they actively promote Intel over AMD. Then let's go to Roboytech, who will get triggered on stream if you ask him why his builds never have AMD cards. How about Kit Guru and the rest that make it seem like it's 4090 or bust when a 4090 costs the same as most of my PC;but never build using AMD cards? If we are going to use Steam Charts we should also use user reviews on retail sites. If you take the time to go to Newegg or Amazon you will see that what Varya86 said about his 7900XT is echoed. The narrative is strong though. Nvidias are also being investigated for their business practices so that China iniative may have made them lot's of money but could also lead to lot's of problems. If there were no narrative DLSS and RT would not be compared to raster. You see that is the truth AMD actually caught Nvidia on raster with the entire 6000 stack but DLSS (Which is still in lesss than 1% of Games) and RT became the media's buzzwords and Nvidia were happy to promote them too. Even TPU were gifted 4000 cards and posted about it.

Exactly. AMD can deliver absolutely fine graphics cards (RX 7000 is absolutely fine, too), but the media will still cry because Nvidia "gives the full experience" or an "ecosystem", whatever the heck these buzzwords mean. And people eat buzzwords for breakfast because they're stupid, so of course they'll buy Nvidia without even checking if there's an alternative out there.

Not in disagreement, but these kinds of people can be happy with an iGPU or just a 5 year old GPU. It reminds me of the console people, they fight between them on which console has the better graphics, but when you mention PC theyll tell you that graphics don't matter.

So if you don't own a PC yet, but you want to get into gaming, buy one with an iGPU. What?

 

[JustBenching]

Such shortsighted thinking... If Joe Bloggs buys a new graphics card to be able to play Alan Wake 2, is that only because he deeply cares about graphics? Or maybe just his old GTX 760 doesn't run it and he wants to replace it with something that does? AW2 is a great game even if you play it on low.


Exactly. AMD can deliver absolutely fine graphics cards (RX 7000 is absolutely fine, too), but the media will still cry because Nvidia "gives the full experience" or an "ecosystem", whatever the heck these buzzwords mean. And people eat buzzwords for breakfast because they're stupid, so of course they'll buy Nvidia without even checking if there's an alternative out there.


So if you don't own a PC yet, but you want to get into gaming, buy one with an iGPU. What?

Man you don't have to go the extremes. My point is neither AMD or nvidia are making GPUs for people that don't care about graphics. If you don't care about graphics you just buy the cheapest GPU you can get your hands on every 5 years and call it a day, but that's not the type of customer that can sustain nvidia or amd. The cheapest GPUs this generation were 280 and 300$ respectively, they don't even make GPUs anymore for the person that is fine with 1080p low. Best bet is an arc a380 for 120$ or a 6500xt for 140$. The cheapest RDNA 3 costs double that.

 

[Hecate91]

Doing things first doesn't take a lot of money, it takes good minds and company policy that allows those minds to do what they're good at. None of those elements have price tags attached. Its just a stance, an idea, a philosophy you have or don't have about R&D. AMD has sufficient financial space to provide that mindspace to its employees, too. They did that exact thing with Zen, I believe.

If you have good ideas, the money or the market comes anyway. Look at Freesync. That was a good AMD idea - but even there, it was just using what was already there, and pushing it forward a little bit. Not much money involved. Similarly, G-Sync obviously isn't a very costly solution either; you develop it once and use it ad infinitum. Strategically, AMD won that battle, and it proves that AMD's key values CAN work: affordable & open is where its at - as long as it doesn't suck.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying 'it sounds more like an MS problem'. Clearly, the lack of RT perf is an AMD problem, because AMDs not selling GPUs, and they DO make those GPUs to run stuff on a DX12 API.

I agree having talented people and good company policies that allow the employees to come up with new ideas and implement them helps, but its ultimately down to money. The issue with the Radeon side of AMD seems to be R&D funding, because they do come up with innovative things like chiplet tech, it just seems like they never have the money to fully commit on anything new.
AMD got lucky with Zen, and they risked the entire company on it being successful. In order for AMD to get something competitive out they'd have to take away money used on the CPU side of the business, I want Radeon to do better but at the same time I don't want to see AMD trying to compete with both Nvidia and Intel and falling behind on both CPU and GPU.
And I mentioned it possibly being an MS problem as they've been completely incompetent with developing anything for gaming and Windows for a while now.

Don't forget the 'green on the box' shows you a screenshot of game running native at 40 FPS and then one next to it running DLSS3 at 95 FPS.

You might want to reconsider that statement Nvidia just sells software performance now, and the vast majority doesn't know what that means.

I guess I haven't seen these boxes showing game screenshots, and last I checked Nvidia claims they're an AI company, they're just selling gaming cards on the side.

PC World were at E3 and talking to an editor from another channel. Adam said " The 4090 is going to be expensive and the 7900XTX is over $1000. Is there a card for the person that does not want to pay that much. The Editor said "Yes the 7900XT". Adam had a look of disgust on his face and the editor said "What it is only 7% slower than the XTX and is $699". Then let's look at MSI Gaming, who in more than one live stream have openly admitted that they actively promote Intel over AMD. Then let's go to Roboytech, who will get triggered on stream if you ask him why his builds never have AMD cards. How about Kit Guru and the rest that make it seem like it's 4090 or bust when a 4090 costs the same as most of my PC;but never build using AMD cards? If we are going to use Steam Charts we should also use user reviews on retail sites. If you take the time to go to Newegg or Amazon you will see that what Varya86 said about his 7900XT is echoed. The narrative is strong though. Nvidias are also being investigated for their business practices so that China iniative may have made them lot's of money but could also lead to lot's of problems. If there were no narrative DLSS and RT would not be compared to raster. You see that is the truth AMD actually caught Nvidia on raster with the entire 6000 stack but DLSS (Which is still in lesss than 1% of Games) and RT became the media's buzzwords and Nvidia were happy to promote them too. Even TPU were gifted 4000 cards and posted about it.

I agree, the reviewers and tech media will just find some reason to complain about AMD cards, even if AMD could deliver competitive products with the same software tech. And reviewers having a bias for Nvidia in video format reviews is why I miss having more options for written reviews, at least its easy to tell right away in a written review if a reviewer is pushing for one brand over the other.
As for TPU I thought it was odd they had every AIB 4000 series card review up on launch day, while there were only a few AMD cards reviewed on launch, and iirc TPU had an AMD gpu review where they listed not having DLSS as a downside. I still trust TPU for their reviews but unforturnately they're biased towards Nvidia as most of the tech press gets free review samples for promoting Nvidia over AMD. I think it was Hardware Unboxed that gave their honest opinion with an Nvidia card review, then Nvidia took away their review samples.

For what you describe to succeed AMD would have to give up their CPU business to produce GPUs at the same rate. What AMD do is they do not make the previous Gen seem useless vs what Nvidia does. Nvidia also does enough to attract attention from Govt bodies so I would not venerate them the truth might even be worse than what Intel was doing with Dell.

Exactly, AMD's GPU business is just a fraction of what Nvidia spends on developing their tech and that isn't even their main business anymore.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Don't know if I would agree that AMD itself does not understand basic business, I would more agree Radeon (The Radeon Division) does not understand basic business. AMD itself on the CPU front seems to understand enough what they need to do, but the GPU business area seems to run at times like they don't need to try and compete. They need to overhaul their thinking either way and I think part of that is going to be competing by pricing below the competition even if they are neck and neck.

AMD has long needed to purge most of their obsolete management system and get newer, younger, more driven people in charge. One of the worst things they did was NOT purge ATi employees in 2006. They never integrated well with AMD employees.

Images of both companies on the GPU front are totally different. I think that is the primary reason they are held back. I like the 7900 XT and XTX (Albeit the naming sucks) but most major streamers/influencers/pro gamers are not running one. They are running RTX 4090's, 4080's, etc. Plus being able to say you sell the best GPU on the market does appeal to people.

Streamers go with nvidia because of encoding. Thats it. We like to meme about all the things nvidia does better then AMD that nobody uses, like encoding, but for streamers NVENC is an absolute game changer. Especially for HD or 4k streams or anything high bitrate. AMD simply doesnt compete there, and thats the use case where it makes way more sense.

 

[kapone32]

Exactly. AMD can deliver absolutely fine graphics cards (RX 7000 is absolutely fine, too), but the media will still cry because Nvidia "gives the full experience" or an "ecosystem", whatever the heck these buzzwords mean. And people eat buzzwords for breakfast because they're stupid, so of course they'll buy Nvidia without even checking if there's an alternative out there.

I actually love it when people tell me how weak my PC is and argue with moving posts on why my system sucks. I am so glad that about 18 years ago Nvidia showed me who[ they are. I have a Nephew that had a 3060 and another that had a Gaming laptop. They both got 6800XT based PCs for their 1440P monitors and are both over the moon with the performance.

 

[JustBenching]

Are we really blaming reviewers? LOL, everyone was more damning on nvidia than AMD this time around. Let's look at the conclusions

RTX 4080 review - HUB = "Good performance, bad pricing, next month XTX is coming that should comfortably beat it while being cheaper". Yeap, sounds nvidia biased.
RTX 7900xtx - TPU = " Much more affordable than 4080, faster than 4080, incredibly energy efficiency, 24gb vram". Yeap, sounds nvidia biased too.
RTX 7900xtx - HUB = At 1000$ us it's not exactly cheap but it looks pretty good next to the RTX 4080"

What are you people talking about

AMD has long needed to purge most of their obsolete management system and get newer, younger, more driven people in charge. One of the worst things they did was NOT purge ATi employees in 2006. They never integrated well with AMD employees.

Streamers go with nvidia because of encoding. Thats it. We like to meme about all the things nvidia does better then AMD that nobody uses, like encoding, but for streamers NVENC is an absolute game changer. Especially for HD or 4k streams or anything high bitrate. AMD simply doesnt compete there, and thats the use case where it makes way more sense.

And nvidia broadcast is godsend when you want to go on discord.

 

[AusWolf]

Man you don't have to go the extremes. My point is neither AMD or nvidia are making GPUs for people that don't care about graphics. If you don't care about graphics you just buy the cheapest GPU you can get your hands on every 5 years and call it a day, but that's not the type of customer that can sustain nvidia or amd. The cheapest GPUs this generation were 280 and 300$ respectively, they don't even make GPUs anymore for the person that is fine with 1080p low. Best bet is an arc a380 for 120$ or a 6500xt for 140$. The cheapest RDNA 3 costs double that.

The 6500 XT won't play the latest games at 1080p due to its inadequate 4 GB VRAM. The 7600 and 4060 are perfectly fine 1080p cards, imo. Just because you don't have a PC, or because you're upgrading from an old system, it doesn't automatically mean that you want the cheapest solution with no longevity in mind. You don't need to go to extremes, either.

Midrange has historically been the best selling tier for obvious reasons. Saying that you either don't care about graphics and you're fine with a 6500 XT, or you care about graphics and you need a 4090, and there's nothing in between is nonsensical.

 

[64K]

I fail to see how AMD not being able or willing to compete in both markets is a problem of us as customers, besides the obvious. I repeat - nothing stops AMD from selling Radeon to someone who gives a damn, with potential perpetual licensing for graphics IP to use in their iGPUs being part of the deal. Or spin it off, at least, also a possibility. They did so when they realized they can’t successfully run a fab business alongside their CPU one with what became GloFo, this is no different. Torturously mismanaging Radeon until it fades into irrelevance isn’t a good outcome for anyone involved.

If AMD sold off Radeon then they would just have to start a new, albeit smaller, Radeon to keep up with integrated graphics for their CPUs. They would still need a group to make drivers as well. They will need more than just a license to continue using integrated graphics in their CPUs.

I'm going to have to bring up RT in this as well. It may be popular to dismiss RT as having little value in the future but it will be the future. By that I mean that it will continue to be in use in more and more games (there are over 500 right now). A common mistake is to look at what we have now and make a final decision of it's worth based on that. Hardware will improve. Software will improve. Time takes time. I bring this up to point out that there has already been articles about big improvements in hardware RT handling coming next generation from AMD. Despite the RT detractors, there is good reason for what AMD is doing by significantly improving RT hardware. It would mean one less strike against their GPUs anyway in people's buying decisions. So, I say we give AMD a chance to back it up.

 

[tpa-pr]

It'll be interesting to see if the next generation of cards shifts the numbers in AMD's favor a bit. I suspect that Nvidia's pricing is going to end up a bit too exorbitant for your average gamer (at least based on the rumoured pricing for the 5090, which I suspect will pull up the lower-tier pricing with it) and if AMD manage to deliver some decent mid-range cards with RDNA4 at a lower (not even reasonable, just lower) price, we may find the mindshare narrative shifts to "it's not Nvidia but it's good enough".

It's all well and good for Nvidia to be the "gold standard" in the minds of people for gaming, but it won't help if people can't afford the gold standard anymore. Anecdotal but even my dyed-in-the-wool-Nvidia-user boss is balking at the price of the 5090 (upgrading from his 3090). This hasn't happened before.

 

[AusWolf]

If AMD sold off Radeon then they would just have to start a new, albeit smaller, Radeon to keep up with integrated graphics for their CPUs. They would still need a group to make drivers as well. They will need more than just a license to continue using integrated graphics in their CPUs.

Let's wait and see what the midrange only RDNA 4 and the CDNA+RDNA merger after that will bring. If anything, I'd expect it to bring development costs down as you only need one team working on a single architecture instead of two.

I'm going to have to bring up RT in this as well. It may be popular to dismiss RT as having little value in the future but it will be the future. By that I mean that it will continue to be in use in more and more games (there are over 500 right now). A common mistake is to look at what we have now and make a final decision of it's worth based on that. Hardware will improve. Software will improve. Time takes time. I bring this up to point out that there has already been articles about big improvements in hardware RT handling coming next generation from AMD. Despite the RT detractors, there is good reason for what AMD is doing by significantly improving RT hardware. It would mean one less strike against their GPUs anyway in people's buying decisions. So, I say we give AMD a chance to back it up.

If (when) RT becomes a viable option on a midrange card at 1440p with no upscaling, I'll welcome it. Until then, it'll remain pointless.

 

[Vayra86]

I agree having talented people and good company policies that allow the employees to come up with new ideas and implement them helps, but its ultimately down to money. The issue with the Radeon side of AMD seems to be R&D funding, because they do come up with innovative things like chiplet tech, it just seems like they never have the money to fully commit on anything new.
AMD got lucky with Zen, and they risked the entire company on it being successful. In order for AMD to get something competitive out they'd have to take away money used on the CPU side of the business, I want Radeon to do better but at the same time I don't want to see AMD trying to compete with both Nvidia and Intel and falling behind on both CPU and GPU.
And I mentioned it possibly being an MS problem as they've been completely incompetent with developing anything for gaming and Windows for a while now.

AMD increased its market cap by 400% since Zen and they've bought Xilinx. They have the money, and they CERTAINLY had the money in the last 6-7 years. The money argument falls dead these days, it was always the go-to excuse for AMD's GPU failures - AND its CPU failures... until it scored a design win. Somehow, at that point you suddenly have all the money you need.

And yes, indeed, if you build CPUs and GPUs you need design wins, what other right of existence do you have otherwise? If you're just pooping new chips that are more of the same, you've basically written your own death sentence in this business, unless you've got the market locked down to your company already (like Intel used to, and Nvidia does today - this is why we get a Blackwell that is what it is, and why Intel could push quadcores for a decade). In the end this is about competence and management. Not money.

Let's also not forget AMD has been producing chips with GPUs in them for consoles, quite a lot of them too - enough even to rival Nvidia's total share of shipped gaming GPUs per year, go figure. So really, EVERYTHING was working for AMD. People are buying their RDNA GPUs, they have every reason to go all in, and last but not least, you also run AI models on GPUs. There is simply no excuse here to NOT go all in. There certainly isn't a world on the horizon where AMD would have been positioned more favorably to capture market share ever since they acquired ATI. Its just gross incompetence and a glaring lack of strategic planning. Every time.

I guess I haven't seen these boxes showing game screenshots, and last I checked Nvidia claims they're an AI company, they're just selling gaming cards on the side.

They're on TPUs news feed almost daily.

Man you don't have to go the extremes. My point is neither AMD or nvidia are making GPUs for people that don't care about graphics. If you don't care about graphics you just buy the cheapest GPU you can get your hands on every 5 years and call it a day, but that's not the type of customer that can sustain nvidia or amd. The cheapest GPUs this generation were 280 and 300$ respectively, they don't even make GPUs anymore for the person that is fine with 1080p low. Best bet is an arc a380 for 120$ or a 6500xt for 140$. The cheapest RDNA 3 costs double that.

If you want to do some half serious, but even casual gaming on a PC that is more than browser activity you are probably getting into something along the x50ti-x60 range of price/GPU. So that is the 250-350 dollar segment; not the glorified IGP segment. I build the occasional system for that target demographic and you generally end up in that segment for GPU, higher is deemed too expensive and 'doesn't pay off' for these people. They don't care about graphics at all, they just want it to run and not look completely shit and rarely have over $1k to spend.

And believe it or not but this is precisely what AMD and Nvidia target for mass markets, its also precisely what Steam surveys show as the most prevalent 'real' gaming GPUs that aren't IGPs. The overwhelming majority of gamers aren't graphics whores, but people who want to just play games.