ATi

Coincidentally the dual GPU 5970 behemoth was the last Radeon card I owned.

Higher name recognition which is seen as quality. Nvidia and Intel always sell more products even when AMD's products were superior that generation like when the Athlon 64 (X2) knocked the hell out of the Pentium 4/D for years, Intel still sold more CPUs.

>Gamers are just an afterthought in that regard.
they showed with their money they don't deserve them

>he didn't bought an ATi PRADEON in 2019
LMAO

>he didnt buy a hawaii card

bros the last Radeon card I had was a 5800 in 2009, the new RX 5800's are coming soon... am i finally going home?

No they won't be competitive.

AMD is finally going to beat Intel in CPUs for the first time since 2004.
But for GPUs we're gonna have to wait again.

Maybe if they brought back the ATi name for good luck.

I gave up on ATI in 2009 because of shitty drivers. Here in 2019, I have found that many of the APU based laptops are more of the same rubbish in the software department.

>AMD is finally going to beat Intel in CPUs for the first time since 2004.
2006. AMD was beating Intel until they launched the C2D in mid 2006.

5700 for $349 is competitive enough.

>There is too much money in GCN working in Datacenters.
There is no money in GCN in datacenters. Nobody buys them.

My 7970GHz is still great.
Don't know what you are talking about, user.

7970 wasn't particularly competitive compared to the Nvidia cards of the time.

Unlike the 5000 series cards which dominated what Nvidia had available.

So what if you're not an idiot and don't want to spend $700 on a graphics card? What if you don't care about ray tracing unless a graphics card is actually GOOD at ray tracing? AMD is competitive if you don't care about either of those things.

I thought it's still better in most games with my 1440p monitor compared to Nvidia cards of the time.
Was I wrong all this time?

It's really not, Nvidia's midrange cards like the 1060 or 2060 have been better at their price range than AMD's equivalents.

It was slightly better than the GTX 580 for about 2-3 months until the GTX 680 released.

7970 in December 2011 was $549
GTX 680 in March 2012 was $499

So if you bought your GPU on launch day, I guess you got an okay deal, but realistically waiting for the GTX 680 was the better option at the time.

1060 was only better when radeon were expensive due to mining. After mining craze ended, 1060 was more expensive than 580 while 580 was slightly ahead already due to mature drivers.

7970GHz came out in June 2012

It was just an OC'd 7970, you could get the exact same performance at launch if you didn't get a reference cooler and had a decent aftermarket card.

And it still lost to the stock GTX 680 in many games.

And we all know the rest from there, 700 series dominated, 900 series dominated, 1000 series dominated, now the 1600 and 2000 series are dominating.

It's been pretty consistently Nvidia winning for years now.

Attached: 2019-07-06 11_01_25.png (544x490, 30K)

No, the 580 outperforms the 1060 at the same price and the and the Vega series is catching up to the 2060, because nvidia pays for card optimization and that's a temporary advantage that only appears in early benchmarks.

youtube.com/watch?v=C_QwYgFk59o

You'll notice that the games the 2060 outperforms Vega in are recent ones. You look at something like The Witcher 3 or Battlefield 5, which weren't made with Geforce 20s in mind, and the performance is the same.

Only because NVidia has essentially had a monopoly for the past decade and was free to hike prices as much as they pleased.

7970 fucked 680 in later years though.

>7970 fucked 680 in later years though.

That's true largely due to the larger vRAM of the 7970.

Attached: 2019-07-06 11_18_36.png (1228x1936, 2.44M)

That's a good resource, where is that from? Google says it's just plaid.

babeltechreviews.com/the-hd-7970-vs-the-gtx-680-revisited-after-7-years/3/