Sadly with the lack of proper competition - they are sticking to the Apple-like price strategy, taking a hit now but hoping to protect the premium brand status.
Except there is no underdog. If AMD can't make anything to directly compete with a 2080 Ti or even a plain 2080, what choice does one have if I want that level of performance?
Once you look at it from the "how many gigatexels can I provide to the screen" you are committed to paying the performance leader whatever they demand. A better question would be to compare games (or whatever software you are using) with resolutions and framerates.
Sadly, AMD still falls flat here. 4K@60 was promised with Vega (might be possible with VII), but I'm not expecting much from Navi. 1080@144 and 1440@144 are also wildly popular, and I suspect only that the Vega boards can only handle the first. There's still a market for 1080@60Hz, but regardless how many more casual gamers prefer that level, there's little money for the RX580 in it.
Sony should be pushing AMD to finally make 4K@60Hz a reality on AMD GPUs (if only the PS5 console). Whether that leads to [any] Navi being capable of that is another story. MS will have a similar story with Arcturus, but that is still way off AMD's roadmap.
I've watched people say stuff like "Radeon (blank) can *definitely* deliver ..." for a few generations now and every time it has failed to meet such expectations. I hope AMD bucks that trend but don't hold your breath. And keep in mind even if the new AMD card is what you say they will at best match Nvidia's card from 2017...
Vega 56 for $300 isn't a terrible deal (not sure what their profit margin looks like though, but it's temporary), but hopefully AMD can offer that level of performance for less money. I know they're not making a run at the performance crown any time soon, but if they can bring serious competition to the mainstream, that will help the majority of gamers more.
The thing about high-refresh monitors is... you don't have to run at that max refresh all the time to get a lot of the benefits. It's not like the old days where you've got a fixed-rate 60hz panel and you have to choose between vsync or occasional tearing, or manage to run settings low enough that you never drop below 60 (not very efficient, from a graphical standpoint).
Anyone getting a gaming display at this point should be getting a FreeSync panel... then you benefit at a huge range of framerates, especially with a decent sync range plus LFC, both of which are very common for such a high refresh panel.
So while I agree with your general sentiment, even if your framerate is fluctuating a bit and averaging around somewhere in the 90-120 range, you're still going to get a better experience than you're giving credit for. 30+ used to be considered playable (honestly still is depending on the type of game), with ~60 being ideal for anything short of a twitch shooter. Yes, times have changed, but 90+ is still pretty darn good. So the whole @144 thing is a bit misleading.
Why should AMD throw extra resources on the GPU front? People whining that there is no competition and IF AMD manages to create something that is competitive to Nvidia's top offerings, what are those same people going to do? Let me tell you what they will do. They will say "Thank you AMD for forcing Nvidia drop prices", then they will go and buy an Nvidia card at the new, discounted price (but still much higher than AMD's prices) and laugh at the faces of AMD funs for being poor peasants buying cheap AMD stuff, doing all the hard marketing job online 24/7.
AMD should stay at what it makes best and in the market that is the most important and where it has the best chances to succeed. CPUs for servers and PCs. People enjoying all those years promoting Nvidia's monopolistic business model with all those proprietary techs, should pay the extra price with a BIG smile.
Well I could say how if AMD made consistently competitive cards, learned how to do a good release so everything worked in week 1 and didn't take a year to fix the issues, and got more of their features from power point to being actually useful then over time people would switch to AMD. Right now they are simply much worse at that then Nvidia.
...but every AMD fan would just respond about how AMD is always brilliant, and look at how badly Nvidia has messed up and so on ....
...then they'd all go back to complaining no one buys AMD cards and saying there is no reason why except some grand conspiracy to keep AMD down.
Very few buy the top end cards, what you need of the top end cards is brand reputation.
Nvidia has just made entry level cards so expensive that the second hand market is too attractive, and it will stay like that unless they do something interesting.
If you look at the shift, we went from 970 most buy, to 1060, to probably 1660 or whatever lower one will come within the same price bracket. Most gamers are at 1080p, and we'll save that penny.
It’s still the company’s choice when those dates fall, and it doesn’t make it any less silly that nvidia chose to start their fiscal year near the start of the previous calendar year. That rule normally just explains why Q1 of a fiscal year might start in the end of the prior calendar year, not why Q1 of fiscal 2020 might start in Q1 of 2019.
Probably some hare-brained accounting in the past to pad some numbers somewhere. At least they've shifted their fiscal year as far forward as they can now... I HOPE they've shifted it as far as they can, anyways.
It all depends on when they see it as beneficial for them. They can shift it to any 12-month period they want on a whim. It's their tax year that would need IRS (or relevant national authority) approval to change. But February-January isn't terribly uncommon, nor is April-March (New York State, Japan). I've seen plenty that start in the first calendar quarter of the "previous" year. Coincidentally, Best Buy (*spits on ground*) runs theirs from February to January as well, although it used to be April-March. Oracle runs June-May, but the name also stands for "One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison."
Uhm. Am i braindead ot r something.This whole article looks like it was written in 2020. "After a stellar FY 2019, the company has had to hit reset a bit. Q1 is well down compared to 2019," We ARE in 2019.What am i missing, i see data from Q1 2020 and Q4 2019.What the hell.
Fiscal years aren’t the same as calendar years. In Nvidia's case the fiscal year designated 2019 ends around the end of calendar Q1 2019, so is mostly in calendar 2018.
I am terrible curious about their OEM &IP thing. It fell by the factor of 4 YoY (which the only one matters as sequential quarters are not comparable to each other)!
So, one or both of the following has happened: 1) OEMs stopped installing NV chips in PCs. AMD APUs? Intel's CPU with AMD inside? Or did I miss an efficient mobile GPU from AMD everybody installs instead? 2) Some extremely valuable patents from 20 years ago have expired.
I wrote specifically why in the article: Finally, OEM and Other revenue was $99 million, down 74% from a year ago, which is not surprising since this is where NVIDIA stuck it’s CMP sales, meaning this entire drop can be attributed directly to cryptocurrency.
"GPU revenue accounted for 91% of the company’s revenue"
OEM includes Nintendo Switch sales- at this point that category, along with automotive, is almost if not entirely exclusively Tegra. I know it's not a huge difference, but Tegra is roughly 12%. Also their data center numbers likely include DGX sales which certainly give up more than 10% of their cost to non GPU hardware. Their revenue is still overwhelmingly GPU based, just not as much as maybe you are stating.
No it's not, as article says Switch sales are under Gaming on that table like it have always been. Of course there might be some immaterial rights agreement with Nintendo on OEM/IP but I doubt it is tied on device sales.
problem now is companies hate seeing lower numbers compared to last year. its a signal that the company is or isnt growing. which is bad for consumers. because that means price rises investors dont care about off this was cause of a crypto boom. they just see negative numbers.
nunya112 well.. thank the crypto boom, and collapse for that.. with nvidia.. they would raise or keep their prices high regardless.. with no one to challenge them.. they can charge what ever they like for their products....
Crypto-coin profitability has recently returned to levels of about the same as this time one year previous. One Bitcoin is currently valued at ~$7,900. It's about doubled in value over the last 6 weeks.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
Back to Article
Thud2 - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
They shouldn't have fu**ed the gamers. They're happy to go to the underdog.Cellar Door - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Sadly with the lack of proper competition - they are sticking to the Apple-like price strategy, taking a hit now but hoping to protect the premium brand status.nevcairiel - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Except there is no underdog. If AMD can't make anything to directly compete with a 2080 Ti or even a plain 2080, what choice does one have if I want that level of performance?wumpus - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Once you look at it from the "how many gigatexels can I provide to the screen" you are committed to paying the performance leader whatever they demand. A better question would be to compare games (or whatever software you are using) with resolutions and framerates.Sadly, AMD still falls flat here. 4K@60 was promised with Vega (might be possible with VII), but I'm not expecting much from Navi. 1080@144 and 1440@144 are also wildly popular, and I suspect only that the Vega boards can only handle the first. There's still a market for 1080@60Hz, but regardless how many more casual gamers prefer that level, there's little money for the RX580 in it.
Sony should be pushing AMD to finally make 4K@60Hz a reality on AMD GPUs (if only the PS5 console). Whether that leads to [any] Navi being capable of that is another story. MS will have a similar story with Arcturus, but that is still way off AMD's roadmap.
WinterCharm - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Radeon VII can *definitely* deliver 4k 60. It's roughly on par with a RTX 2080 or 1080Ti, both of which are capable of 4K gaming.As for 1440p gaming, Vega is capable, but expensive thanks to its HBM. Navi will fix that by using GDDR6.
Skeptical123 - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
I've watched people say stuff like "Radeon (blank) can *definitely* deliver ..." for a few generations now and every time it has failed to meet such expectations. I hope AMD bucks that trend but don't hold your breath. And keep in mind even if the new AMD card is what you say they will at best match Nvidia's card from 2017...Alexvrb - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
Vega 56 for $300 isn't a terrible deal (not sure what their profit margin looks like though, but it's temporary), but hopefully AMD can offer that level of performance for less money. I know they're not making a run at the performance crown any time soon, but if they can bring serious competition to the mainstream, that will help the majority of gamers more.Alexvrb - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
The thing about high-refresh monitors is... you don't have to run at that max refresh all the time to get a lot of the benefits. It's not like the old days where you've got a fixed-rate 60hz panel and you have to choose between vsync or occasional tearing, or manage to run settings low enough that you never drop below 60 (not very efficient, from a graphical standpoint).Anyone getting a gaming display at this point should be getting a FreeSync panel... then you benefit at a huge range of framerates, especially with a decent sync range plus LFC, both of which are very common for such a high refresh panel.
So while I agree with your general sentiment, even if your framerate is fluctuating a bit and averaging around somewhere in the 90-120 range, you're still going to get a better experience than you're giving credit for. 30+ used to be considered playable (honestly still is depending on the type of game), with ~60 being ideal for anything short of a twitch shooter. Yes, times have changed, but 90+ is still pretty darn good. So the whole @144 thing is a bit misleading.
yannigr2 - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
Why should AMD throw extra resources on the GPU front? People whining that there is no competition and IF AMD manages to create something that is competitive to Nvidia's top offerings, what are those same people going to do? Let me tell you what they will do. They will say "Thank you AMD for forcing Nvidia drop prices", then they will go and buy an Nvidia card at the new, discounted price (but still much higher than AMD's prices) and laugh at the faces of AMD funs for being poor peasants buying cheap AMD stuff, doing all the hard marketing job online 24/7.AMD should stay at what it makes best and in the market that is the most important and where it has the best chances to succeed. CPUs for servers and PCs. People enjoying all those years promoting Nvidia's monopolistic business model with all those proprietary techs, should pay the extra price with a BIG smile.
yannigr2 - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
EDIT: doing all the hard marketing job online 24/7 FOR NVIDIA.Dribble - Monday, May 20, 2019 - link
Well I could say how if AMD made consistently competitive cards, learned how to do a good release so everything worked in week 1 and didn't take a year to fix the issues, and got more of their features from power point to being actually useful then over time people would switch to AMD. Right now they are simply much worse at that then Nvidia....but every AMD fan would just respond about how AMD is always brilliant, and look at how badly Nvidia has messed up and so on ....
...then they'd all go back to complaining no one buys AMD cards and saying there is no reason why except some grand conspiracy to keep AMD down.
RSAUser - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link
Very few buy the top end cards, what you need of the top end cards is brand reputation.Nvidia has just made entry level cards so expensive that the second hand market is too attractive, and it will stay like that unless they do something interesting.
If you look at the shift, we went from 970 most buy, to 1060, to probably 1660 or whatever lower one will come within the same price bracket. Most gamers are at 1080p, and we'll save that penny.
Ithaqua - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Q1 2020? Ummmmm ... Brett can they loan you their time-machine?FSWKU - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Fiscal Years are identified by the year in which they end. So FY2020 is correct.Guspaz - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
It’s still the company’s choice when those dates fall, and it doesn’t make it any less silly that nvidia chose to start their fiscal year near the start of the previous calendar year. That rule normally just explains why Q1 of a fiscal year might start in the end of the prior calendar year, not why Q1 of fiscal 2020 might start in Q1 of 2019.Lord of the Bored - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Probably some hare-brained accounting in the past to pad some numbers somewhere. At least they've shifted their fiscal year as far forward as they can now... I HOPE they've shifted it as far as they can, anyways.FSWKU - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
It all depends on when they see it as beneficial for them. They can shift it to any 12-month period they want on a whim. It's their tax year that would need IRS (or relevant national authority) approval to change. But February-January isn't terribly uncommon, nor is April-March (New York State, Japan). I've seen plenty that start in the first calendar quarter of the "previous" year. Coincidentally, Best Buy (*spits on ground*) runs theirs from February to January as well, although it used to be April-March. Oracle runs June-May, but the name also stands for "One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison."TristanSDX - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
NV gaming on rise, until Navi is released ? Navi may stir in lower segments (from GF 1660 to GF 2060)RaV[666] - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Uhm.Am i braindead ot r something.This whole article looks like it was written in 2020.
"After a stellar FY 2019, the company has had to hit reset a bit. Q1 is well down compared to 2019,"
We ARE in 2019.What am i missing, i see data from Q1 2020 and Q4 2019.What the hell.
benzosaurus - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
Fiscal years aren’t the same as calendar years. In Nvidia's case the fiscal year designated 2019 ends around the end of calendar Q1 2019, so is mostly in calendar 2018.tfouto - Monday, May 20, 2019 - link
wtf. What's the purpose of that?No wonder the world is all fuc*ed up.
Qasar - Monday, May 20, 2019 - link
tfouto welcome to the business world.. thats how its done, and i think how it has always been done...peevee - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
I am terrible curious about their OEM &IP thing. It fell by the factor of 4 YoY (which the only one matters as sequential quarters are not comparable to each other)!So, one or both of the following has happened:
1) OEMs stopped installing NV chips in PCs. AMD APUs? Intel's CPU with AMD inside? Or did I miss an efficient mobile GPU from AMD everybody installs instead?
2) Some extremely valuable patents from 20 years ago have expired.
It would be nice if AT could investigate...
Brett Howse - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
I wrote specifically why in the article:Finally, OEM and Other revenue was $99 million, down 74% from a year ago, which is not surprising since this is where NVIDIA stuck it’s CMP sales, meaning this entire drop can be attributed directly to cryptocurrency.
BenSkywalker - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
"GPU revenue accounted for 91% of the company’s revenue"OEM includes Nintendo Switch sales- at this point that category, along with automotive, is almost if not entirely exclusively Tegra. I know it's not a huge difference, but Tegra is roughly 12%. Also their data center numbers likely include DGX sales which certainly give up more than 10% of their cost to non GPU hardware. Their revenue is still overwhelmingly GPU based, just not as much as maybe you are stating.
Brett Howse - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
What I stated was based on the numbers:Total revenue: $2220 Million
GPU: $2022 Million
Tegra: $198 Million
GPU is 91.08% and Tegra is 8.91%
jabbadap - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
No it's not, as article says Switch sales are under Gaming on that table like it have always been. Of course there might be some immaterial rights agreement with Nintendo on OEM/IP but I doubt it is tied on device sales.nunya112 - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link
problem now is companies hate seeing lower numbers compared to last year. its a signal that the company is or isnt growing. which is bad for consumers. because that means price risesinvestors dont care about off this was cause of a crypto boom. they just see negative numbers.
Qasar - Monday, May 20, 2019 - link
nunya112 well.. thank the crypto boom, and collapse for that.. with nvidia.. they would raise or keep their prices high regardless.. with no one to challenge them.. they can charge what ever they like for their products....vailr - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link
Crypto-coin profitability has recently returned to levels of about the same as this time one year previous. One Bitcoin is currently valued at ~$7,900. It's about doubled in value over the last 6 weeks.dickeywang - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link
Well, I just hope more people will move from CUDA to OpenCL, so that AMD will get more $$$ to develop more reasonably priced GPUs. F**k Nvidia.