That is mostly a myth now.That's true. Because AMD IS the better guy in this struggle.
More bang for the buck. Kudos to Intel too, for at least trying to change the status quo.
That is mostly a myth now.
Look at the launch pricing of these cards and really the only card to launch with significantly better bang for the buck is AMD's flagship vs Nvidia's flagship card.
Compare launch prices of AMD cards since RDNA2 and you will realize AMD deserves none of this good will in regards to pricing.
rx 6600, 6700xt, 6800 and 6800xt pricing vs the RTX 3060, 3060 ti, 3070 and 3080. All these card when compared to their direct competitor have pretty much identical price to performance if we look at launch pricing with the only card having a significant advantage being the RTX 3060 Ti. AMD even launched cards with worse price to performance like the 6500xt vs RTX 3050.
Don't confuse bad sales that lower street pricing and eventually MSRP as AMD Good guy moves. That's just the market correcting AMD's pricing.
The same is happening with this generation. The RX 7600 vs the RTX 4060 will be pretty much the same. The RTX 4070 ti at 800 vs the RX 7900 xt at 900. Only the RX 7900 XTX launched with a MSRP with any meaningful pricing to performance advantage over Nvidia.
Considering AMD's savings in R and D, driver teams(small and underfunded-> no drivers for phoenix and lack of driver releases for RDNA2 since RDNA 3 launch) and supposed savings from using a chiplet design this generation, we should really see a more savings from AMD. Having the same price to performance with AMD cutting corners everywhere except VRAM, show how distorted people's idea peoples have become. E.g Your automatically calling Nvidia Ngreedia..but AMD is just equally greedy and should be AMGREED.
AMD launching with cards with the same price to performance as Nvidia shows they are just as greedy if not more than Nvidia. AMD just loves hate marketing where buyers confuse AMD as the good guys because it raises AMD margins by manipulating buyers to buy at full MSRP.
AND you want to know the irony? Nvidia does not mind it either, AMD hate marketing(focusing on issues like video memory, power connector issues, AMD is good Nvidia is bad).
With people buying AMD card out of spite at the same pricing as Nvidia cards, this keeps AMD cards at elevated pricing which in turn non-spite buyers into Nvidia buyers. Buyers looking out for themselves, and not for AMD, will likely buy the leader brand with better software features. The ultimate result is pressure to keep AMD prices high results in Nvidia's pricing staying high.
If we want prices to fall, we need both brands to fail not just one. Voting with your wallet and buying AMD cards at full MSRP is doing nothing and the current pricing drops are showing this.
With AMD cards finally failing with RDNA 3, we are beginning to see price drops from Nvidia's side.
Buying season starts when both cards vendors drop pricing.Lulz, so AMD needs to fail so we can buy cheaper Nvidia cards?
nGreedia would DOUBLE DOWN on the horrendous pricing if AMD were to fail!Lulz, so AMD needs to fail so we can buy cheaper Nvidia cards?
Except there's plenty of decent RDNA2 options available at somewhat acceptable prices.Buying at AMD's high pricing simply justifies Nvidia's high pricing. Would you rather prices stay high for both vendors?
No except that's not how these companies will react. They will cut back on the R&D and we will be left with really bad options performancewise. COVID and mining messed everything up. We will never get the same 3D goodness we used to get for $500 before. It's over. 6800 XT is as good as it gets, for now.This is what I mean, both of them need to fail at their full MSRP. This benefit's all buyers in the market place.
Are you against this?
This has nothing to do with AMD. It was Microsoft's decision because AMD is their console hardware partner.Starfield, a game which is locked at 30 FPS on consoles because of CPU limitations, will likely have no DLSS 3, let alone DLSS 2, because AMD's intent is to block competitor technologies from appearing in games bearing their stamp of approval.
First party Microsoft studios have DLSS support in their games when not sponsored by AMD.This has nothing to do with AMD. It was Microsoft's decision because AMD is their console hardware partner.
And if Microsoft is also interested in killing DLSS, YES PLEASE!
This is the natural progression of closed technologies.
Starfield, a game which is locked at 30 FPS on consoles because of CPU limitations, will likely have no DLSS 3, let alone DLSS 2, because AMD's intent is to block competitor technologies from appearing in games bearing their stamp of approval.
I would choose to be an AMD moron rather than a Jensen groupie any day of the weekIt's funny seeing 99% of the AMD stans here denying the reality and accusing me of baseless speculation when their rebuttals to my comments are as moronic as yours.
Buying season starts when both cards vendors drop pricing.
Buying at AMD's high pricing simply justifies Nvidia's high pricing. Would you rather prices stay high for both vendors?
If AMD pricing at MSRP fails and they lower pricing, Nvidia's will fail as well at their MSRP and they will be forced to drop as well. This is because they will have competitive pressure. That is an alternative in the market which offers better price to performance and Nvidia has an incentive to drop pricing to not lose marketshare. Not enough to price match AMD since they are leaving money off the table, but enough that AMD is not pressured enough to drop pricing further.
Cards from both vendors at full MSRP actually causes Nvidia to increase pricing next generation because the market knows AMD is the value player and they can always charge more than AMD. AMD is happy because they don't need to sell that much cards to recover their R and D.
For the market to be healthy again for consumers, AMD needs to be reestablished as the valuebrand and get more market share. This 14% marketshare with AMD with high margins and Nvidia at 84% marketshare is not healthy for the consumers. We need a market where AMD has 30 to 40% marketshare as the value player(with more volume so they are still proftiable) and Nvidia in the 60-70% marketshare for the market to be healthy again for buyers.
This is what I mean, both of them need to fail at their full MSRP. This benefit's all buyers in the market place.
Are you against this?
It really isn't all that hard for AMD to convince some developers why DLSS integration is a bad proposition especially in the context of the author (Nvidia) who has a habbit of abandoning their own libraries (PhysX/GameWorks). AMD is just picking the proverbial "low hanging fruits" because it truly didn't take a whole lot to get them on board like Microsoft who's already largely skeptical DLSS ...
But, but DLSS is better quality than native resolution!
First party Microsoft studios have DLSS support in their games when not sponsored by AMD.
AMD announced that it will be Starfield’s exclusive PC partner...
It's funny how more developers are moving from in-house developed engines (which probably had all sorts of accumulated technical debt and some from Nvidia themselves) to Unreal engine since Epic Games are one of the more eager skeptics willing to kill compatibility with technologies from Nvidia ...But, but DLSS is better quality than native resolution!
Starfield, a game which is locked at 30 FPS on consoles because of CPU limitations, will likely have no DLSS 3, let alone DLSS 2, because AMD's intent is to block competitor technologies from appearing in games bearing their stamp of approval.
-K, I'm gonna blame NV.
NV has a market cap of $1 trillion dollars vs AMD's 177 Billion, but can't somehow outbid AMD on one of the biggest titles of the year/decade? Despite their GPUs virtually always being more expensive per tier and their investment into proprietary technologies for their purchasers and an 85% market share in the DGPU space?
Shame on NV for letting the little ****heel that is AMD pull this stunt. They could have outbid AMD with the change they found in Huang's couch but decided not to. Why would they forsake their 85% marketshare this way?
Let's be real, there is no way Starfield is a "game of the decade". That kind of thing belongs to Half Life 2.
-Not to completely annihilate your sense of time, but Half Life 2 launched in 2004, 19 years ago. By my calculations that's 9 more years than a decade.
Fallout 76, Bethsoft's last title, launched in 2018, 5 years ago.
Activision Blizzard acquisition will be junked either way. FTC has made comments stating they have "substantial questions" regarding the legality of the acquisition and that "Defendants fail to rebut the FTC's market definitions", going even further to say that "Defendants Assertions about Nintendo and PCs Ignore the Evidence".Microsoft is not shy about picking winners (FSR) or losers (DLSS) in this case and in another recent case (D3D12 Work Graphs/AMD) so Nvidia users should hope to do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent their acquisition of Activision Blizzard or else they'll face more of these "AMD partnerships" ...