Pretty interesting video.Showing how bad was GCN for AMD in gaming.After GCN amd was pretty much missing in top15.
A video about steam surveys, I thought we weren't allowed to mention them around here and every thread gets locked because they must be biased against AMD or something.....
If AMD wins, its allowed. If NV wins, nothing conclusive can be taken from the information, since the survey is flawed for reasons.
Disclaimer: I owned an HD 4870 and HD 4890. I miss ATI Sort of wish the "hidden" agenda Raja had of selling RTG to Intel had worked! I'd have swarmed over their products like locusts! LIKE! LOCUSTS!
And the drivers are FOSS.
OK but I will be strongly inclined to keep the power limit to where it is at. And I sure hope that AMD's future dGPUs can match Nvidia's lower power consumption and TDP.Somewhat. They still have closed drivers that allow you to extract all the functionality of your hardware that you don't necessarily get using the amdgpu driver stack. They used to call it amdgpu-pro, now it's "Radeon Software for Linux Driver".
For example, it was only recently discovered that amdgpu drivers would allow you to increase power limit:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-4.20-Increase-AMD-GPU-TDP
Because their cards have gone backwards in performance/economy/etc since GCN came out vs their direct competitor - at one point AMD was ahead in hardware.Why are people saying AMD needs a new architecture? AMD has only developed a brand new architecture what, 3 times in the last 20 years? VLIW5, VLIW4, GCN.
A lot more has changed in Nvidia's architectures since Kepler then has to GCN since it came out, that's why Nvidia is much further ahead then it was then when they were about even.nVidia has had the same number of architectures. The last ground up new architecture was when Kepler came out, which was the same time that GCN came out.
AMD has suffered from lack of development, due to lack of funds. As I understand it they moved a lot of GPU development out to China after GCN came out I guess because it was much cheaper. That clearly hit development hard, especially compared to Nvidia who have been able to throw more and more money into R&D since Kepler/GCN 1 days.What AMD suffered from was poor funding, and really poor marketing. nVidia however has very good marketing, and lots of money. So they were able to pay off lots of game producers to use their technology (GameWorks), and not allow for AMD to optimize drivers before launch. So initial benchmarks always sucked for AMD, but got much better over time. nVidia has very good marketing. Just look at DLSS, the average person thinks its amazing. But those that know what it is, just shake their heads. Thats what good marketing does.
Here you are giving the solution. No architecture has stayed stagnant at the lowest level. There is a constant revising, and AMD has lagged behind Nvidia in evolving the basic architecture, mainly because of inadequate funding.Because their cards have gone backwards in performance/economy/etc since GCN came out vs their direct competitor - at one point AMD was ahead in hardware.
A lot more has changed in Nvidia's architectures since Kepler then has to GCN since it came out, that's why Nvidia is much further ahead then it was then when they were about even.
AMD has suffered from lack of development, due to lack of funds. As I understand it they moved a lot of GPU development out to China after GCN came out I guess because it was much cheaper. That clearly hit development hard, especially compared to Nvidia who have been able to throw more and more money into R&D since Kepler/GCN 1 days.
They've also always suffered from weak software support - Nvidia decided to invest hard in software back before CUDA was released seeing it was key to selling stuff. AMD has never done that and they've suffered for it.
As for marketing, well tbh they don't do that badly given their limited budget - if it was that bad then all the tech forums would be anti AMD, but they are in fact pro-AMD and anti-Nvidia as a general rule.
I would say 2, as VLIW 4 was pretty much an evolution of VLIW5.Why are people saying AMD needs a new architecture? AMD has only developed a brand new architecture what, 3 times in the last 20 years? VLIW5, VLIW4, GCN.
nVidia has had the same number of architectures. The last ground up new architecture was when Kepler came out, which was the same time that GCN came out.
Every GPU since those launches has been an iterative improvement on the previous version. NO ground up new architectures.
What AMD suffered from was poor funding, and really poor marketing. nVidia however has very good marketing, and lots of money. So they were able to pay off lots of game producers to use their technology (GameWorks), and not allow for AMD to optimize drivers before launch. So initial benchmarks always sucked for AMD, but got much better over time. nVidia has very good marketing. Just look at DLSS, the average person thinks its amazing. But those that know what it is, just shake their heads. Thats what good marketing does.
AMD needs Navi to be good yes, but they also need some proper marketing, which they have sorely lacked for many of the years in the above video.