Why are NVidia GPUs so dominant in the market?

Because Intel integrated GPUs are crap compared to anything else. AMD integrated is so much better. Really makes you wonder whether an Intel standalone GPU would be able to compete with a Radeon from 2010.

>but AMD cards haven't ever been able to run HairWorks
Actually Hairworks on Witcher 3 are better on AMD since you can "lower" their quality from 64x to 16x, visually they're the same shit but runs WAY better.

>Natively HairWorks actually operates at an extremely intensive tessellation factor of 64x which is why the game setting is so demanding even on Nvidia GPUs. Lowering it to 16x and 8x would yield a very marginal reduction in quality and a massive boost to performance.
>Also witcher 3's Hair Works AA setting is default 8x MSAA,

This, or at least if intel is using AMD hardware it'll have terrible drivers since intel doesn't even have AMD tier R&D for Radeon GPUs

Because anticompetitive practices

ngmi girl

Intel have been sporadically releasing, or trying to release a dedicated GPU since the 90's. They always ended up failing, or repurposed.

Jensen Huang is a LITERAL genius

pytorch

Same reason Apple stuff sees so much use. Morons.

Well then I stand corrected on HairWorks but GameWorks technology is still full on Jew mode.

Wrong, Nvidia and ATI/AMD RTG are pretty much dead even as far as support is concerned on the Windows platform. They each have their own demons.

The only difference is that Nvidia marketing is a lot more aggressive. They managed to rebound from FX and Fermi debacles. ATI/AMD RTG never recovered from their own debacles (HD 29xx flop/HD 5xxx shortages).

What do you mean by dead? I put in GPU, Win10 finds and install drivers without me doing anything, and then games just werk.

me in middle

>Why are NVidia GPUs so dominant in the market?

They captured the market through party better core technology but arguably a whole lot more horseshit.
They bumped up geometry throughput on Maxwell (particularly tessellation) then peddled middleware to AAA title developers to (ab)use geometry pipelines as much as possible. As a result, Maxwell cards looked more powerful and power efficient in new titles than the preceding Kepler cards despite having actually a bit less shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

Advertising.

The funny thing is 15+ years ago ATI was seen as premium graphics, and nvidia was seen as sort of a cheap budget card. A lot of people didn't know jack shit about video cards and would just view any computer with radeon graphics as more premium, and if it had cheapo nvidia it was shit.

But after a decade of sleazy advertising gimmicks and anti-consumer tactics by nvidia they came out on top. Nvidia partnered with game developers to optimize for nvidia's new cards, and focusing on proprietary gimmick features like gameworks. Tessellation is another example. They paid devs to use the new feature which didn't make games look any better, and actually run slower on nvidia card, but run even more slower on ATI cards. Crisis 3 I think was a good example, it was xbox tier graphics but just ran like dog shit because every pebble was tessellated 128x just because tessellation happened to be slightly more optimized on nvidia cards at the time.

As PC gaming became more mainstream more and more people just fell for the garbage advertising gimmicks and bought nvidia just because of the gimmick features. ATI/AMD cards have actually constantly been many magnitudes faster in raw computing power which is why crypto miners use them over nvidia.

How's compatibility with older games on AMD hardware now? I remember them essentially giving up on it a year or two ago.

Because Nvidia only has to worry about making good GPUs, while AMD has to worry about making good CPUs AND good GPUs. That's why the Ryzen processors are so good, while the best GPU that AMD can make is the RX 590, comparable to the GTX 1060, or 1070 non-ti at best

>What is Vega

Vega is shit and you know it

You do know there are multiple people, departments at AMD? Its not like one person designs all GPUs and CPUs and has to split is time. And nvidia makes a lot of things other than GPUs like handheld devices and various software.

Good post. The part about marketing is specially true. Nvidia's has been king of high-end graphics card for some years but that wasn't always the case. Somehow Nvidia managed to outsell AMD when AMD were selling faster graphics cards for less than slower Nvidia cards cost.

An interesting historic note on this worth remembering is that AMD has always kept margins rather low and tried to have the best graphics card you could by at the most attractive price-points (=best bang for your buck). NVidia has and still is charging more for their products and spending that extra cash on marketing.

This may have and probably was a concern historically. Today AMDs got their RTG - Radeon Technologies Group - working rather independently. I'm honestly a bit puzzled why they would do this, it seems like a mistake. Remember, AMD's most selling products are APUs for consoles (CPU+GPU in one die).

based

Huh? Vega is better bang per buck compare to 1080/2070. Yeah, its not "the fastest" but it came out more than a year before the 2080 and is much cheaper now.

That was true until Nvidia leapfrogged AMD/ATi with the 8800 GTX. It took almost 7 months for AMD/ATi to come out with a graphics card that exceeded it but by then Nvidia was already gaining significant market share.

because muh games. reminder that novideo is trash on any other os than windows.