If AMDs "Ryzen" were a GPU, AMD would be highly competitive, but it's not, AMDs main business is CPU, and thus Ryzen is like the Geforce of CPUs.
Ryzen's success would not translate to the GPU market. AMD could get a running start in the CPU market because existing software, features, and APIs just work regardless of CPU vendor. There is minimal software lockout and even when software requires a new instruction set both vendors can easily adopt it and fallbacks are always provided.
It's exactly the opposite in the GPU market where an increasing number of features only work on a single vendor and no fallback is provided for older cards / cards from different vendors. In addition, entire APIs like CUDA are gated off as well.
It's the perfect example of just how anti-competitive the market is and just how unhealthy it is for customers at large. You NEED Nvidai in many fields. If they were to up and dissapear overnight, many industries couldn't switch to AMD even if they wanted to and others would have to deal with the fact that because Nvidia doesn't follow healthy market practices there's no fallback for the massive swath of applications that have Nvidia exclusive features. They would just cease to be useful, unlike in the CPU market where any existing or new vendor can come along and use a feature so long as their hardware supports the instruction set. It would take a long time to unwind the software screwery that Nvidia has embeded in the industry.
As such, an AMD Ryzen approach to the GPU market might net them more marketshare than they have now but it would not net them anywhere near the level of success they've seen with Ryzen CPUs. AMD has taken the Ryzen approach to GPUs in the past under a far less restrictive market with less software lockin and better hardware and even then only netted 1/3rd of the market. Nvidia's worst architecture Fermi vastly outsold AMD.
it's not a monopoly, the competition is just useless.
People don't want to spent almost the same amount of money to have a black screen/DDU simulator, or be a beta tester for a broken product that we can only wish will work every time you need it.
If people don't buy AMD/Intel is because the price vs quality/performance of those products aren't right.
I've had more issues with Nvidia GPUs as of late when it comes to black screens. 3060 Ti for a client didn't like his TV and wouldn't show picture. Worked perfectly fine with an AMD card. The 3000 series and later seems to be more picky in regards to which HDMI screen you are hooking up.
There have been more issues with Nvidia cards as of late (New world bricking cards, which absolutely is an Nvidia issue hence fixed by a drive update, 3000 series feeding noise into the 12Vsense pin that was never fixed which caused certain PSUs to trip, discord bug, melting power connectors, screen flickering issues in games).
That other poster was right, some people completely ignore the issues Nvidia has while claiming AMD is the worst. AMD drivers have improved leaps and bounds and yet for people like you they still black screen simulators.
You can make a subjective argument that one is better than the other but the fact that some people pretend there has been no improvement is clear evidence of bias.
I agree.
Why so many of you guys believe that the survivability and profitability of a company/branch depends on market share is beyond me.
Marketshare is calculated as a percentage of sales in a given period.
It literally is one of the best indicators of success. Revenue and total share of market revenue are critical to any business.