-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD/NVIDIA market-share graph. Spoiler Alert: it ain't pretty.
- Thread starter Pickles Spill
- Start date
My 6970 was a good card for the time that I used it though pricey and it ran hot. I had no driver problems until late last year where it literally did not allow me to use my PC until I switched to Nvidia drivers. Haven't looked back since.
AMD isn't at the bottom just because. There are a multitude of reasons, and while I would love the competition to be 50/50 I'm not just going to go out and start buying AMD cards out of good will.
AMD isn't at the bottom just because. There are a multitude of reasons, and while I would love the competition to be 50/50 I'm not just going to go out and start buying AMD cards out of good will.
I have been on an AMD only machine for almost 3 years (8350 + 7970ghz) and I am one happy customer. I don't pay too much attention to benchmarks as I am a big believer in the "good enough" school of thought plus I am a sucker for good price-performance ratio. Never had a single problem with their drivers. I hope they pick themselves up. The PC gaming industry needs AMD.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Putting aside the fact that I don't believe you about the above, I was actually just making a joke about it being silly to criticise Nvidia for releasing compatibility profiles given how differently the various game engines in use today perform similar tasks.
That's... not a $300 video card.
It is unrelated to what was being discussed.
I'm certainly not going to go into this song and dance with you again.
Kelli Lemondrop
Banned
no, its the $400 8GB model, which shows identical performance to the 4GB model at 1440p, it isnt until we get into 4k resolutions ( or look at AC unity) that 8GB actually affects performance. the 4GB models are currently $300.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1437?vs=1442 as for not believing me about the 295X2 ($650) being absurdly faster than the $560 GTX 980, take a look for yourself. the only game where this isnt the case is civilization, which i do believe is cpu bound on both cards.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1438?vs=1442
and heres a reference model 290X (which throttles, non reference cards dont) vs a 980. its very, very, very freaking close, especially considering theres a 90% price gulf between the two cards.
nvidia cards aren't any quieter than their amd counterparts if you ignore reference coolers (almost nobody has a reference 290/290X, and nobody is making/selling them anymore). they draw more power, true, but nvidias quoted TDP figures are far far too conservative, the cards often exceed them under load, where AMD cards rarely hit their TDP figures (unless overclocked). its just another way nvidia is lying to people really. I have a 290X in a silverstone RVZ01B case, heat isn't an issue, at all, so stop spreading fud please.
would you look at that, aftermarket 290X is quieter than a GTX 970? you don't say?
what's that? 290X only uses 30 - 60 watts more than GTX 970? not the 150+ more watts people are constantly claiming? come on get real with that nonsense about heat/power and noise.
what's this? the aftermarket 290X runs cooler than the GTX 970 (and thus 980 as well)? Gee.......
1. Noise wise, you're comparing a stock Nvidia to an aftermarket AMD. Compare against the EVGA ACX and the Nvidia will still be quieter. Stock to Stock nvidia wins, aftermarket to aftermarket Nvidia wins. They only lose when you do stock nvidia cooler to aftermarket AMD cooler... plus this is an overclocked Nvidia so it will be louder than a full stock Nvidia. Worst case scanario.
2. Power wise, this is a superclocked 970. Nvidia's power measurements are at stock clocks.
3. Temperature wise, see above. Stock cooler + overclock. Another worst case scenario on your Nvidia measurement.
Which games specifically? I'm sure the ones in your head are a bunch of nVidia Gameworks titles that contractually prevent developers giving AMD access to the game to optimize before release.
Edit: It is a sad state. I feel they really missed a nice window after the horribly priced Titan-X and 970 fiasco. The CPU side is off as well and 2016 will be the true test of AMDs relevancy.
justgames7604
Member
Why is it unrelated? Even if its hardware vs software why can't hardware problems be brought up in software problems regarding graphics cards?
Don't understand that line of thought. Amds heat issues are brought up when talking drivers and such but thats hardware and not considered unrelated.
CouchMaster
Member
I feel like the word of mouth against AMD is also the main culprit here. When I wanted to switch from 760 to R9 290 the number of people who told me not to was unbelievable. Good thing I didn't listen to them because it is the best $250 card I've ever owned.
What is stopping AMD from working with devs with coding? I love how Nvidia is blamed for poor AMD performance even it's ultimately up to AMD to approach devs and support them. Nvidia cares about Nvidia performance. They have no obligations towards AMD cards. Yet we don't see AMD do the same. Why? Why is working with devs and optimizing their games for your GPU brand such an impossible task for AMD? Just look at Ground Zeroes PC port. Nvidia gave KojiPro a wide range of Nvidia cards to test GZ on. Tests that most likely ended up benefitting AMD users aswell. Did AMD do anything similiar? Nope.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The driver issues are overblown. And I've ran crossfire for years. I only went green for Gsync. The fact is, Nvidia is much better at marketing.
Prophet Steve
Member
It is perfectly fine to bring it up in the thread. It is just unrelated to bring it up as a counterargument for AMD having bad driver support.
finalflame
Banned
Makes sense, AMD GPUs and CPUs are trash for the enthusiast segment. Crappy thermal design, shit drivers, and always playing catch-up to nVidia in terms of software (ShadowPlay, DSR, GameStream).
I wouldn't recommend AMD to my worst enemy. Their market share drop reflects their piss poor performance and how they've alienated their consumer base with shit hardware and driver support for the past few years.
It'll take a lot for them to change that, but I'm hopeful for the 390X. Hopefully it doesn't consume enough power and generate enough heat to keep a small village warm.
I wouldn't recommend AMD to my worst enemy. Their market share drop reflects their piss poor performance and how they've alienated their consumer base with shit hardware and driver support for the past few years.
It'll take a lot for them to change that, but I'm hopeful for the 390X. Hopefully it doesn't consume enough power and generate enough heat to keep a small village warm.
Laymen and possibly biased since I am pretty solidly on team green, but it looks like AMD is pretty much fucked to me. They are getting slammed from all sides and unless someone massive buys them out I doubt they will be able to compete and regain market share. Though I wouldn't mind if they turn it around and someone years from now digs up this post and makes me eat crow.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
I was never burnt per se, but I did get jelly of the CUDA stuff that AMD never quite seemed to match when it came to using graphics acceleration in programs like premiere.
justgames7604
Member
Well actually is was problems with amd that he never had with nvidia. So i said a problem i had with nvida that i never had with amd.
What??????? You are aware this is something new for them as opposed to their old method?
In what way has 3,5GB VRAM in the 970 been an issue for you?
Crimsonclaw111
Member
When I was first building my PC (first ever PC too), I was looking between the two companies. I ended up choosing Nvidia because of their software, driver schedule, and power consumption plus the noise levels that I saw in benchmarks compared to AMD.
From AMD, all I could see were better prices and the struggle to play catch up with Nvidia regarding software. There's more to capturing a market than pricing. And as stated, Nvidia is much better at marketing.
From AMD, all I could see were better prices and the struggle to play catch up with Nvidia regarding software. There's more to capturing a market than pricing. And as stated, Nvidia is much better at marketing.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Yet, it will still outsell AMD's offerings until they're able to flip their company around. This is all AMD's fault. Nvidia's high prices are AMD's fault.
justgames7604
Member
Was told i was getting 4gb when im not. So getting lied to sucks. stuttering when hitting 4gb of vram early when i thought i wouldnt. Performing worse at higher resolutions then it should because of hitting a vram wall that i didnt know existed.
Etc.
I prefer AMD so it sucks that they struggle so much.
Is it wrong that I found this ironic?
Is it wrong that I found this ironic?
Your performance at higher resolutions are going to be same whether it's 3,5 GB or 4GB. There are other factors that limit the 970 at higher resolutions first and foremost. Any actual examples where you hit such "VRAM walls"?
martino
Member
You really need to explain why you refuse to acknowledge nvidia greed...it's a company with the bad that comes with it...but Does it need consumers to protect such practice ?
I'll probably never understand devotion (too much attachment to gimmicks and useless stuff and protecting bad things )
justgames7604
Member
But the stuttering was caused by the vram issue.
Stuttered like crazy during dying light, discovered later it was using 3.6gb. Game was freezing over and over for a few seconds at a time. Dropped it down a bit and stuttering stopped completely.
Not having the same issues on a 290x. Same sort of issue on shadow of mordor but not as bad.
But after Thinking this through, i am no longer certain it was sorely the 970s fault. Since its not nearly as bad in other games but still get slight stuttering as i cross 3.5gb of vram
Is this a joke? It's hard to tell.
AMD's reputation has destroyed the company in the PC market. Since the day I began PC gaming I've heard nothing but bad things about their cards, cpus, drivers, etc. I don't think AMD has ever done anything to address their reputation either.
The only promotion I hear for them is from fanatics who demand that I purchase their hardware just to stop Nvidia, which is honestly terrible logic.
The only promotion I hear for them is from fanatics who demand that I purchase their hardware just to stop Nvidia, which is honestly terrible logic.
We have you and Chris Tucker to thank next time midrange costs $400 D:
Kelli Lemondrop
Banned
the midrange on the nvidia side already costs $330, it's bad enough already. long gone are the days of performance/dollar on the nvidia side. if amd goes under expect to pay $2500 for high and and $750 for midrange. and people will pay because they wont have a choice. actually if amd goes under intel will actually put resources into making good gpus, my guess is they are waiting for AMD to die before trying to go after nvidia. and intel has the money and the engineers to put nvidia under if and/or when they decide to go to war.
freshVeggie
Member
970 costs 360 new here in Germany.
Which country do I have to smuggle myself in for those vrazy prices?
Damn it's much more expensive here. ;_;
Nvidia's mid-range GPU, the 960 does not cost 330.
Sad to see AMD in such a state. What the fuck happened in the last few years. Haven't followed them too closely in the last few years, but back in the HD 4850/4870 times those seemed like THE mid-range GPU to have. Hell, the 4850 with 1GB VRAM carried me all the way to Summer 2014 with an overclocked Intel E8500 and just a RAM upgrade.
I bought an NVIDIA card now and their software is fantastic, but I'd still be sad to see the GPU side of AMD go the way of the dodo. They just don't deserve that (unlike their shitty CPU side) :/
I bought an NVIDIA card now and their software is fantastic, but I'd still be sad to see the GPU side of AMD go the way of the dodo. They just don't deserve that (unlike their shitty CPU side) :/
As Nvidia gets squeezed more at the low end by Intel, their profits at the high end are going to have to increase. Combine this with the increasing cost of making these GPUs (processes beyond 28nm are going to cost more, not less, as has previously been the case). Expect that all to translate into higher prices.
Kelli Lemondrop
Banned
the 970 is the midrange maxwell part, the titan-x is the high end maxwell part. nvidia has been doing this shit for a couple years now, releasing midrange cards as upper midrange/high end and charging absurd prices for the actual high end card.
The reason why the console makers didn't choose NVIDIA is little do with their actual graphics tech and more to do with the fact that AMD can make x86 APUs (as they make x86 CPUs). Unless the console makers wanted to go with some sort of ARM solution, NVIDIA didn't really have anything on that side. But probably most crucially, AMD was willing to sign away their IP - NVIDIA or Intel wouldn't do that.
NVIDIA and Intel are in a good enough position that they have the position in which they can negotiate deals where they retain more control, where they retain a higher profit margin. AMD isn't quite in that position.
SneakyStephan
Banned
It's so very sad to identify yourself as a 'fan' of any corporation and at being pleased at a lack of competition.
Misguided lost lamb.
Amd were actually the first to start the price hikes when gcn launched... they charged like 50-60 percent more for their new line of gpus as for the 5000 and 6000 series.
350 frigging dollars for their midrange 7870 at launch because they were the first to market at 28nm, just gross.
Nvidia followed along and took it to the next step with their titan branding.
Amd are greedy shits too if given the chance
Between all the history revisions , 'team green' or 'team red' bullshit, damage controlling issues with both manufacturers and ofc the inevitable 'my heart is fine' poster dismissing the grievances people have had with amd drivers (noone wins with this kind of behavior, if people pretended there were no framepacing issues with amd crossfire then it would have never been fixed) this thread has become just as pathetic as all the console wars threads.
Consumerist cheerleading, just ugh.
I'm aware of that but that does not make a 970/980 mid-range by market definitions, engineering wise it is.
You sound bitter but Nvidia's marketshare is well earned, and their partnerships with world class developpers have paid dividends. Just look at the number of games using Gameworks, and The Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Knight and The Division are coming.
Crazy.
I'm beyond salvation and not unhappy with that.
mercenar1e
Member
i went with AMD a few years ago and the constant driver failure and shit support made me turn to nvidia.. i haven't looked back since.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
People are (presumably deliberately) confusing "mid range" referring to which chip it's using in the architecture sequence and "mid range" meaning which price point it's at. The 980/970 was the 900 series high end offering. The 980/970 was also the "mid range" Maxwell chip (with the high end Maxwell chip coming this year in the form of the Titan X and the 980's successor).
The Nvidia model since the 600 series has been to alternate the "big chip" from an architecture with a new architecture every other year. So 600 series is "Little Kepler", 700 series is "Big Kepler". 900 series is 'Little Maxwell", 1000 series is "Big Maxwell". Each big chip gets it's introduction as a Titan before being introduced as a mainstream part. Despite the person you're talking to getting their panties into a twist over this, AMD has not thus far been able to do any better on average in terms of annual gains, indicating that there's probably industry wide technological reasons that this is happening and we're not getting the YoY gains we would have 10 years ago. The 300 series using a fancy new memory technology that comes along but once in a blue moon might allow it to give a big boost. But then every year after this we'll be back to the "new normal".
My 2900XT served me well, as did the HD 5750 that I bought to replace it when it unexpectedly kicked the bucket (I was happy just purchasing a cheap equivalent as CS:S was literally the only game I was playing), but I've been buying Nvidia cards for the past ~3.5 years: 570 -> 670 -> 2x 670s -> 980.
Unknown Soldier
Member
To be fair to the 300 series, the chart clearly shows the exact same market share trend vs. Nvidia that AMD has had vs. Intel for many years. AMD must release an amazing product at the exact same time Intel or Nvidia stumble, for example the Athlon 64 at the same time as Pentium 4, or the Radeon 9800 Pro at the same time as the GeForce FX 5800, in order to temporarily gain significant market share ground. And then once Intel and Nvidia recover with their next generation of products, AMD's market share immediately drops to historical levels.
Since the GeForce GTX 900 series are very good cards, even if the Radeon 300 series are really amazing, they are unlikely to pull that much market share if any from Nvidia. Especially since Nvidia already has the GTX 980 Ti ready to go, the prototype version called Titan X is already available right now.