after reading through, i don't think Kat meant "THESE THINGS FAILED BECAUSE NOBODY OWNS THEM AT ALL", and the people saying they've got one and "it works for me" are perhaps misunderstanding. a product can fail because of the very very select group of people who're rich enough to adopt it, based on jacking up the prices. how many people do you know that game on PC? how many people do you know that game on PC, who know what 144hz is/care about high framerates? out of those, how many would buy a $600+ monitor just for that? how many of them have other monetary concerns weighing on them, but would consider buying it if were maybe $300?
2 Likes
Nonetheless I think Nvidia is aware of this, but they do have other concerns. If you think about it, they have a 1300$ GPU, some people are willing to pay this much money for absolute high end. In a similar way, G-Sync is more about manufacturer adoption, early on at least, while they only later care about it being used by many.
It clear from the video that AMD lacks the mind share. They need to work better on their branding and marketing, and I think their ZEN should help out a little bit with that. 🤞 Ways they could get more mind share is sponsor sports team or professional fighters like UFC (UFC games, hello?), and also more exclusive GPU deals with AMD Evolved brand (much like Nvidia's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" brand), they have one for the Battefield series but they need more on other big titles. Retail stores is also where they can work on gaining more mind shares because shops like Best Buy likes to predominantly display Nvidia GPUs are the forefront of their shelves more. They can enforce cut out boards for their Gaming Evolved "Choose from 5 games" program for each of their tier of card.
which they cant really do when the other companies are shadier and have deeper pockets, whats amd to do when nvidia just outbids them on any one of those deals they were trying to do?
1 Like
AMD's big trump card is OPEN SOURCE / OPEN PLATFORMS becoming wildly adopted, which its starting to lean that way with Vulkan and their Open Source drivers they've been working toward. (which may end up on Windows platform eventually...)
Not to mention the open source physics technologies, the beauty of it is getting developers interested in using your OPEN code that works on ALL HARDWARE 'well', VS NVIDIA's secret sauce that really only works well on their hardware, and often have been caught sabotaging performance on other vendor hardware....(mainly AMD)
2 Likes
I have noticed that organic path to GPU sales opening up massively. I hope it really gets a head of steam behind it as it would be healthy for tech.
Having owned an AMD R9 290 I will probably not buy another one of their products for a while, the 290 was the competition for the GTX970 which I upgraded to and was glad to do so.
AMD then stung me with a price drop making the 290 an even more worthless piece of shit.
AMD make 2nd rate products that are overclocked to their limit (and in the case of the 290 past their limit so they black screen) out of the box, In fact one of their top tier cards REQUIRED watercooling which is laughable
As for the 3.5, I didn't cry over a single modded game I don't play, everything else the GPU tanks before the vram usage gets near 3
I'd rather have 500mb I cant and don't need to use than a full 4gb that makes my screen go black randomly
eat shit AMD, you owe me more money than nvidia did
I can testify this. I got the 290 as well, installed the driver from AMD's website and everytime I came out of a game I got black screen. It happened every single day. Until I installed the older driver that was on the CD and since then it worked great.
I still got the card on a great deal. £260 plus I got about 10 free games with it. I sold most of the games which brought the cost of the card even lower. I can play all games maxed out without any problems. So I'm very happy with my purchase.
Whichever performs best for the money you could buy.
I totally dont care if the box is green or red for that matter.
1 Like
Well that's certainly a very strong opinion. I'd like to add a few things though:
The 290 was no competition for the 970. The 290 was released in November 2013, while the 970 was released in September 2014, almost a whole year later. The 390, which was released in June 2015 is a competitor for the 970, due to the closer release dates of both of them, and imho it is the better choice. (Although, since you dislike AMD in general I believe you to disagree.)
As has been demonstrated in the video above, AMD has had the technological advantage for a long time. Furthermore I think Polaris has more to offer than Pascal, which seems like a cheap upgrade.
Even though Fury was shipped with watercooling, the Fury X does seem to do fine without one.
As mentioned above 3.5GiB won't be enough for future games, considering consoles have about 6GiB fo useable VRAM.
Well, as you have mentioned you had black screens with your 290, which understanably ruined your experience. As far as i know, you should have been entitled to a refund since you did not keep it over 2y, but maybe that's different in your country. Still, I'd like for us all to keep this discussion civil and besides, the above statement does not help in doing so ;-)
@Grim_Reaper: I didn't own a 290, but on my 390 I've never had driver problems, but I can understand how very annoying something like that must be. However, it seems to me that people often expect AMD drivers to be bad, which leads to them subconsciously looking for bugs and in doing so, they also find more. That being said, you don't have to subconsciously look for black screens :D
@MisteryAngel: Which would be an intelligent decision, but right now I'd also like to save the market, by which I mean no Nvidia monopoly, and because of that I favour AMD cards as long as their performance/price ratio is roughly the same.
Had two 290's and one 390x (different machines in the house of course)
Never had an issue with any of them
I guess I was lucky three times or you was unlucky once
I am not denying that the 290's were clocked to their limit out of the box.. its just that some partners had better cooling than others
From what I've seen and read the difference between Hawaii (290) and Grenada (390) is a more sophisticated manufacturing process.
Till now i mainly only boaght AMD gpu´s.
Because they most of the time had a better value for money uphere.
And i personally never had an issue with AMD cards.
But that of course doesnt mean that i would never concider a Nvidia gpu.
Because to me its all about the best performance i could get for my money.
I know,
Ran higher and kept cooler (never throttled back from its frequency).
No way in hell could amd pull that off with a straight rebadge.
TBH I am at an age where I have too many responsibilities to ever throw silly money at a gpu anymore
from now on it will be whoever can give me the best deal at that given time for £200 to £250 (max)
As someone who runs a 390 and a 290x in crossfire you wouldn't believe the difference in temperatures. I know its not 100% equal considering the x models are always slightly higher but still with the Sapphire Tri X cooler the 290x manages to hit 80c at full load where the 390 barely touches 65c full load with a dual fan XFX cooler.
As for actual driver problems and the like, I haven't had any since I got my HD 5770 way back in 2010 other than the odd problem with old drivers when installing a new GPU meaning I had to use DDU to wipe them, but thats pretty expected.
They used to be pretty damn awful when it came to getting proper WHQL driver updates but since the launch of the new crimson drivers they are a mile beyond what Nvidia has at the minute if you ask me.
Prior to the 290 price drop there was the 290 and the 970, there was no 390
the 290x was the beta tester version for the 390, the 970 didn't need to be re-assigned it's designation throughout it's time
Well, the releass dates of 290 -> 770 and 390 -> 970 are moch closer. Considering that they were desinged to compete against each other.
I doubt the 290(x) were beta test cards, but it is true that AMD tried to push these cards to their limit, while focusing on the Fury line.
As for the re-assignment or rebranding: Both companies rebrand and re-assign chips. Maxwell was introduced in the 7xx line and Pascal 10xx only offers minor improvements.
Yea I can't take this guy seriously. At release the 280 gtx was $649, when no one bought this crap it dropped down to $499. This was the era of Nvidia rebranding. Rebranding the 8800gtx like it was a NEW GPU every 3-6 months! A comparable AMD card the 4870 was only $299. That's HUGE!!!!!! that's like having a 290x at $300 dollars, when the 780 comes at $700. 2-3 years later no one has a 780 nor can it do 4k compared to say a 290x. Which the major of AMD users still have or using 7970s and 290x. Meanwhile those that upgrade for the 780 or 780ti also upgraded for the titan and 980 only to be shat on by 980 ti months later. Only to be forced to upgrade again for the 970 and 1070 run through. Meanwhile AMD users still on 7970s and 290x. Keep in mind the 280 gtx was a DDR3 card! and 4870 was a DDR5. Too bad AMD got lazy and let nvidia catch up. They should be on HBM3 by now if they didn't slop around in their own feces.
I will never buy Nvidia every since the 8600gt/8800gtx era. just 1 tier off the highest model and you're force to play with 0 or 2X AA and emulated bloom, meanwhile the 8800gtx had max 8x AA with full bloom. Swapped over to AMD side that year and wow, even their budget cards can do MAX AA without slowdowns WTF that is not possible on Nvidia cards, turn AA on on budget cards and see your FPS drop? Is a $300 8600GT really that bad compared to a $600 8800gtx? Modern equivalence could be said nowadays of the $700 1080 vs. the $200 970 of Ultra vs. Very high settings.
AMD didn't get lazy, they simple didn't have the funds for a more face paced development. Furthermore, HBM3 would not have been profitable for them I suppose. This kind of technological research is very expensive. If AMD would be using HBM3, their losses would propably be even higher.
Oh god not another one of these threads...
Lets make it simple...
If you want the most powerful GPU.... buy Nvidia
If you dont have much money...buy AMD it is literally that simple.
AMDs marketing is atrocious, and they have themselves to blame.
Why havent they released a top tier card? left in the dust as a result. As always