Why can't AMD compete in the GPU market?

Or the CPU market.

Because they already have the console market.
Navi is designed for consoles.

>I want to believe

You mean 2011

AMD struggles at the high end of the consumer gaming GPU market because GCN's front end design is limited to processing four triangles per clock, which is not nearly enough to keep the rest of the rendering pipeline saturated when you get above about 48 CUs. That was the problem with Fury, and that is the problem with Vega.

If AMD could revise GCN's front end to handle 6 or 8 triangles per clock, you could expect a roughly 30% performance improvement at existing frequencies and TDPd on Vega 56 and Vega 64. Until AMD fixes that bottleneck, high CU count GCN card will always struggle.

First PC gamers are bigger sheep then console gamers.
Second they thank AMD and buy Nvidia.
why do you think that AMD care about the desktop GPU market.
at this point they would rather let the PC suffer and yet the sheep would beg AMD and still buy Nvidia after they come out with a better product.
And yet PC gamers think they are smart even after this.

You rang?

Attached: qaulFc3.png (308x400, 173K)

>If AMD could revise GCN's front end to handle 6 or 8 triangles per clock, you could expect a roughly 30% performance improvement at existing frequencies and TDPd on Vega 56 and Vega 64.
If this was so easy I'm sure they'd have done so already. There must be some GCN shenanigans that make it impossible to just "revise" it.

hd 4xxx I also had, the drivers where deep fucking cancer and made sure I never EVER buy AMD shite agian.

Stop lying you blind fucking shill, you probably hate video games.

cuz their open source devs are cunts that call regressions "fixes"

I love this. They tried to bully their way through and the entire Linux community in near unanimity told Rajas RTG to fuck off and do it right.

novidia will to be zenned

9xxx might've been better than FX5xxx but that wasn't hard. GF6xxx>ATi Xxxx

Whats the best card on the market for about ~200?

what do you mean? their cards look soooo much better than nvidia's

I buy Nvidia cards at 40% off MRP minimum with 2yr 6months of warranty minimum, pristine condition, absolutely zero signs that it's been used.

that would be the RX 570 or go buy used

AMDniggers better release a non-shit GPU next year unlike the current housefires.

because they overpromised and underdelivered, if raja had just kept his mouth shut until further testing they could have gotten away with just saying ïts 1080/1070 performance at a lower price with a few goodies, but instead it was shown as the second coming

source: i have a vega 64

>the tippy top end is the only part of the GPU market

Better wait for after Navi.

Oh, shut it goy.

the RX 570 beats the 1050ti in basically every game and is cheaper, but if you check the steam survey or whatever other market share data you want, the 1050ti is around 100 times more popular
Nvidia has a ton of mindshare at this point, AMD needs to make a beast of a GPU, sell it for dirt cheap, and keep at it for years to get a fraction of Nvidia's revenues

Fpbp

At least in the 3d modeling and computing side it's because nVidia has basically created a monopoly with Cuda, it's so widely used that nobody in their right mind would buy any AMD GPU for 3d modeling and rendering. I bet that hurts AMD a bit.

Amd also got turbo fucked by buttcoins though. Better compute meant coin farms bought them all, so gamers only had Nvidia. Comparing msrp is worthless when nothing has been at msrp in years.
Buy one used 480 get 9 free eBay deals gonna hamper new amd sales for a while as the coin market implodes

kek 10/10

Why are there so many trips and dubs on g? Its like every other post its weird.

I should have specified integer compute. Nvidia has better flops and always has, but coins need integer math and that's been amd until recently.
No idea why Cuda is such a meme, it's gated really harshly on gaming cards while amd let's you use whatever for whatever.

A bit? It hurts a hell of a lot since AMD cards tend to be far better at compute tasks per dollar.

Drivers writes by pajeets

AMD shouldnt try to compete with Nvidia at the same damned thing. Instead tjey should have different features. With all the indie games I think som legacy hardware support would be a smart move. Have built—in support for indexed textures/palettes like 256 color. Native support for raster effects and maybe hardware sprite collision. Perhaps even tiled graphics modes and hardware scrolling. Nvidia would get shit on by all the 2D indie games.

>tfw I got memed into buying the $350 Vega 64 last month

>the sheep would beg AMD and still buy Nvidia after they come out with a better product
This.
Most people want AMD to release good GPUs so they can get a cheaper Nvidia GPU once they're forced to lower prices. They won't buy AMD no matter what.

> A bit? It hurts a hell of a lot
t. non-native speaker.
For example, "could you tone it down a bit" is a polite version of "shut the fuck up niggerfaggot".

Before the Turding reveal I'd call you crazy, but if those cards are the best Nvidia can come up with in over 2 years I'm inclined to agree.

/thread

because most people still play at 1080p

Both Vega 64 LC and Titan V can give 13 TFLOPS. AMD are actually really competent in tech, but they can't deliver while fighting in too many fronts. They are really lucky to have locked down crApple and consoles under them, even though they probably barely make even with them.

I bought a 4850 on release to replace my 8800gts. I had no driver issues for the three years I owned it. but had a lot of blue screens over the two years I owned my 8800gts.

I also had a +150mhz overclock on the core and +100mhz overclock on the gddr on my 4850 for all three years. and it was the stock single slot reference version too from visiontek.

iirc I think Microsoft came out in like 2008 and stated 30% of blue screen were caused by nvidia and only like 4% were ati/amd.

so go fuck yourself.

its actually kinda the same with intel too. a lot of people praised amd simply because it made intel come out with 6 core mainstream and the 8 core 9000 series.

its really sad. like my buddy who was so happy amd is competitive again because he was able to go out and buy a 9800k to replace his 3570k.....

>shitty color compression
Radeons have better colors, fuck off. It's nvidia compresses them too much.

no, you miss read him. he's actually ridiculing amd because they don't compress colors as much as nvidia does. he's proud that nvidia has shittier colors.

anyways vega 64 owner here. got it for $400. tossed on a morpheus ii cooler. life is good. amd may not have a 1080 ti / 2080 ti but I don't care. I would never pay that much for a gpu to begin with.

nvidia users can go fuck themselves in the corner circle jerking like the glorious winged faggots they are.
>pic related
average novideo users

Attached: 1538377530980.jpg (332x500, 42K)

Partially because Samgsung and SK Hynix missed their HBM2 bandwidth targets by ~25%.

The WSA bound AMD to Global Foundries so they had to use a 14nm low power process to manufacture a high performance product whereas Nvidia used TSMC's high performance 16nm FINFET process.

If these things didn't hold AMD back, Vega 56 would match the 1080 but 64 would still be roughly 10% behind the 1080ti.

Turing would still fuck Vega up.

Attached: 1533422920031.jpg (659x609, 85K)

Yep. I got Vega 56 new for less than $300.
Close to 1080 performance. Runs everything great. Nice and comfy.
Why would I spend an extra $400 on a GPU and an extra $300 on a monitor to only get like 30% higher FPS? Only cucks do that.

Eh. Even on a HPC process, they'd still only get around 15% higher performance as they're held back by memory.

Are AMD GPUs worse on a performance/price point of view? Not a hardware guy but if true and you don't look at max performance it's like why can't Fiat compete with Ferrari.

>Are AMD GPUs worse on a performance/price point of view?
mostly the opposite.

Funding for rnd is the bottleneck there.

Bad cards, basically. They're hotter per watt than Nvidia's and cards like Vega, a rehashed overclocked Fiji, just cost too much to produce thanks in part to reliance on HBM, giving AMD little to negative margins.
People are learning CUDA in graphic design departments and OpenCL is nowhere to be seen. Another a massive chunk of GPU revenue that goes exclusively to Nvidia. That also helped them dominate ML. It's basically impossible for AMD to break into it since their products would not only have to be better, but be better enough to bother restructuring ala the glacial movement away from Xeon to Epyc. They're neither, and nobody expects them to be.

Now a better question would be, "Why are they so bad".

>being this stupid yet writing this much

>Why can't AMD compete in the GPU market?
Slow and hot.
Proof ideal qualities in women are not ideal qualities in GPUs.

how to be a fanboy in 3 easy steps
1. confuse own personal anecdotes as fact
2. spew unsourced claims
3. pretend that the other user is lying when he's mentioning that a certain card had terrible driver support for him.
4. get really angry

Attached: doggo sleeping habbits.jpg (800x582, 76K)

and cpu market also

they make the coolest coolers beside the older Nvidia compute cards with the grill.

so who cares.

because people are retarded.

Attached: 1525385873898.png (1025x572, 386K)

>requires external power
>does not require external power

>dog clearly shoved into cabinet for picture

Fucking hate people.

Because AMDis the inferior product.

youtube.com/watch?v=W3ehmETMOmw

how will nvidia and intel ever recover?

>nobody actually answers the question correctly in this whole thread

it's because nvidia bought 3dfx and they taught them how to make dank video cards. then later on AMD poached some of those 3dfx people to come to their team but by then nvidia was already way ahead in the game

miners buy 470/570 and 480/580 massive sales for AMD buy no one used it for gaming.

>68 replies as of writing
>no mention of scientific computing, AI, machine learning, etc.

Video gaymurs are truly shit, as AMD probably now nows from experience.

This
Literally the only occasion a 1050ti should be considered is if it's an upgrade for a low power OEM tower.

Because Mommy Su has big milkers

Attached: muh_tits.jpg (600x337, 22K)

rx 570 and 580 are better than gtx 1060. For anything else, Vega series is better cost-benefit and durability/efficiency wise.

Just look at this vid

>cute and attractive
>look closer
>autistic and one of the fans has started malfunctioning already, will cause a housefire out of sheer autism

Attached: 1544558244352.webm (720x900, 1.28M)

there isn't, trips/dubs are the ending numbers

I want to fuck that rtx 2080 ti until my dick catches fire.

They dominate the $250 and cheaper range.
The GTX1060 can't beat the RX580 when it comes to price/performance ratio.

At the top end I'd imagine it's less "can't" and more "don't want to," to an extent. The GTX X080-tier cards generate all the buzz, but they actually sell way more of the low to mid-tier GPUs, ie the ones where AMD actually makes compelling counterparts. Why spend a lot of money to *maybe* be able to compete with Nvidia for the relatively small bleeding edge space when most of the money to be made is in the cheaper stuff (particularly consoles)?

CUDA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMD shit

Gimmicky shit that's barely a market for GPUs.
Who cares.

Why the fuck is the 590 so expensive? Is AMD going the same way as Nvidia when it comes to pricing?

So, for about 7,5 seconds
[spoiler]It's not like you would endure more [/spoiler]

The mindshare is a huge thing, one of the other posters was right when he said PC gamers are like sheep. NVidya makes the big headlines with their "halo" products, so they're the first thing people think of when they think of graphics cards.

Many people don't know about AMD graphics, and very very few people would know that a Vega 64 is roughly as fast as a 2070.

Nvidia wouldn't cede an inch to AMD in any form whatsoever.

Intel on the other hand slept after Haswell and ignored AMD as a non-entity until Ryzen came along.

>gets destroyed in FPS measurements
>PLS DON'T MEASURE FPS BENCHMARKS, USE WHAT WE USE IN-HOUSE INSTEAD
>the state of AyyyMD

Framepacing benches were the #1 way to bash AMD during Tahiti/Hawaii times, newfag.

Sure, such people in Intel vs AMD exist. BUT. Open any random internet retailer. I can assure you that AMD processors are going to be in top 10 best sellers. i.e. despite some people see AMD only as a way to make Intel products cheaper, there are also huge amount of people, at least in the community that build PC themselves, that are genuinly interested what both side offer.
Now look at the GPUs... yeah, even in segments where AMD is competitive like around $200 mark, you won't see anything, meaning number of nRetards who are willing to forgive their favorite company everything is just skyhigh.