AMD post big loss in Q1 2015 | New graphic cards coming in H2 2015

[poofyhairguy]

Remember how this entire forum ripped HD7950/7970 apart?

What is wrong with those cards? It seemed like they aged really well.

 

[3DVagabond]

What is wrong with those cards? It seemed like they aged really well.

They were excellent cards. They were just really poorly marketed. First they were released at too low clocks allowing nVidia to release the 680 and show higher performance. Second, they were released before they had properly optimized drivers. Nothing was done by AMD for months to correct it either.

The AMD CEO at the time, Rory Read, was clueless. He never learnt either.

 

[AnandThenMan]

What is wrong with those cards? It seemed like they aged really well.

Nothing they are great and yes they aged extremely well. But go back and look at the general reception back then, the Radeon's were treated like they were total crap and Nvidia had the second coming of hardware. That is the problem with AMD, a point I have beaten to a pulp but AMD has excellent products and terrible marketing. 90% of their issues could be fixed by having a proper marketing team.

 

[SirPauly]

What is wrong with those cards? It seemed like they aged really well.

imho,

The reason why there was some negativity at the start was the price/performance was more-so incremental and evolutionary when compared to their 6xxx series. One could make the point that the percentage MSRP jump was higher than the performance jump.

 

[2is]

I am AMD, this is my response to the matter.

I will go to Rockstar and tell them i will give them technical support with lots of software engineers, new game features such as TressFX, Hardening Shadows etc and i will help them financially to finish their game(Grand Theft Auto 6). But the Game will only support Mantle 2.0, no DX-11/12.

I will also pay them 50 dollars for every game sold with my AMD Never Settle program.

I will do the same for the rest of the 5-8 new AAA games targeting to be released in 2016.



My AMD Mantle 2.0 Gaming graphics cards MSRP will start at $1000. You will also get 1-2 or even three games for free with selected Graphics Cards. Since customers will only be able to play those Games only with my Graphics Cards nobody will complain for the price.



I will only sell 1 Million GPUs per quarter, but i will make 500-600M of operating income from them.

Now im sure since you will like to play all those games and since you will get 1-2 or even 3 of them for free you will gladly pay $1000 for the GPU without complaining like a good consumer you are.

































Hold on, Im NVIDIA

I will contact UbiSoft .........................................................
but the game will only work with a GameWorks GPU. .........................
................................


fill the rest

Except none of this is happening, so keep crying about AMD being uncompetitive in everything they compete in, lets see where it gets you.

 

[2is]

What is wrong with those cards? It seemed like they aged really well.

Nothing wrong with them. What RS is failing to mention is that when they were released they were slower and more expensive than a GTX 680. AMD soon dropped the price and eventually through driver updates along side the GHz edition they were able to match and in some cases beat out the 680.

You don't hear the AMD fans talk about that bit of history. They just complain that everyone is against their beloved AMD like it happened for no reason at all.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Nothing wrong with them. What RS is failing to mention is that when they were released they were slower and more expensive than a GTX 680. AMD soon dropped the price and eventually through driver updates along side the GHz edition they were able to match and in some cases beat out the 680.

You don't hear the AMD fans talk about that bit of history. They just complain that everyone is against their beloved AMD like it happened for no reason at all.

The 7970 released 3 months before the GTX 680 and its competition was the GTX 580 which it easily beat. This allowed AMD put the price high accordingly.

The 7970 was AMD's first GCN card which is why the drivers took more time to mature.

The cost of the 7970 went down soon after the GTX 680s release and the Ghz edition was released 3 months later.

You conveniently forgot to mention those facts too.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Obviously not but,

What if Assassins Creed/Watch Dogs etc didnt sell millions of copies but only a few hundred. Would they try to find out what the hell happen and the Game didnt sell ??
And when they would understand that people want Games both optimized for AMD and NVIDIA would they do the same mistake again ??

They would just conclude that PC gaming isn't worth supporting at all due to low interest from customers and we'd get even fewer AAA titles.

Great plan :thumbsup:

 

[96Firebird]

I'm in retail, and have been for decades. When you go into a store and product is displayed in favor of one brand they are getting compensated for doing it. When you go into the supermarket and you see a big Coca-Cola display at the end of the isle, Coke paid for that. They likely have rebates and salesperson incentives too.

I also used to work in retail while I was still in college, at Circuit City/The City. We aren't talking about elaborate displays with branding everywhere. We are talking about shelf space. The products that sell more are higher up.

I worked in the PC/laptop section, which included hardware and peripherals, and sometimes the camera section. We never made commission, nor got any kickbacks from companies. It was different for the home theater crew, though.

 

[Silverforce11]

They would just conclude that PC gaming isn't worth supporting at all due to low interest from customers and we'd get even fewer AAA titles.

Great plan :thumbsup:

Nope. They would conclude if they mistreat PC gamers, they hurt their sales. Look at what happened with the COD franchise, remember when they did not included dedicated servers for the PC version? The next COD was sure to include dedicated servers as well as a plethora of PC graphics options.

I boycotted Ubifail not because of GW. It was because they butchered one of my favourite series, The Settlers, made it into a DRM mess. GW is just icing on the terrible cake that ensure I never give them my money again.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The 7970 released 3 months before the GTX 680 and its competition was the GTX 580 which it easily beat. This allowed AMD put the price high accordingly.

The 7970 was AMD's first GCN card which is why the drivers took more time to mature.

The cost of the 7970 went down soon after the GTX 680s release and the Ghz edition was released 3 months later.

You conveniently forgot to mention those facts too.

Seems like the 7970 benefited from the consoles going to the same architecture kinda, and having 3GB of ram instead of 2GB.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Nope. They would conclude if they mistreat PC gamers, they hurt their sales. Look at what happened with the COD franchise, remember when they did not included dedicated servers for the PC version? The next COD was sure to include dedicated servers as well as a plethora of PC graphics options.

I boycotted Ubifail not because of GW. It was because they butchered one of my favourite series, The Settlers, made it into a DRM mess. GW is just icing on the terrible cake that ensure I never give them my money again.

Obviously you should do what you feel is right.

However, at this point, I'm so used to consoles getting dibs on all of the good titles that I want to play that I'm just grateful when PC ports show up.

I will buy the hardware that allows me to have the best gaming experience possible. NVIDIA cards have treated me well in the past, and I continue to buy them today. However, if AMD were to, say, beat NVIDIA to 14/16nm GPUs and deliver a massive performance edge as a result, I'd have no problem giving AMD another go.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well that's a real issue if AMD needs to have a massive performance edge just to compete then they'll never win. It's not like nVidia is going to all of a sudden be completely non competitive.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well that's a real issue if AMD needs to have a massive performance edge just to compete then they'll never win. It's not like nVidia is going to all of a sudden be completely non competitive.

Yeah, that's why building a brand is so important. It's just a shame, because I think if ATI had been left to its own devices and not been integrated into the mess that is AMD, it would be faring much better today.

ATI made darn good stuff (and to be fair the 7xxx Radeons were pretty awesome) and IMHO had a much stronger brand than AMD does today.

 

[tential]

Yeah, that's why building a brand is so important. It's just a shame, because I think if ATI had been left to its own devices and not been integrated into the mess that is AMD, it would be faring much better today.

ATI made darn good stuff (and to be fair the 7xxx Radeons were pretty awesome) and IMHO had a much stronger brand than AMD does today.

AMD's acquisition of ATI tanked both companies.

 

[3DVagabond]

Yeah, that's why building a brand is so important. It's just a shame, because I think if ATI had been left to its own devices and not been integrated into the mess that is AMD, it would be faring much better today.

ATI made darn good stuff (and to be fair the 7xxx Radeons were pretty awesome) and IMHO had a much stronger brand than AMD does today.

Really we have no idea where ATI would be today. Anything we say is pure speculation.

Face it, you just have a preference. All humans are like that. You have personally set the bar too high for you to reasonably consider AMD. I have a feeling even if the 390X was faster than the Titan-X and sold for $549.99 you wouldn't buy one. You would sit and wait for nVidia's response and buy that instead. People continued to pay more for the 780 than the 290 even though it had lower performance and cost more. The only people that can fix that are AMD themselves.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD's acquisition of ATI tanked both companies.

AMD would likely be done and buried if they only made CPU's. Intel with their shady incentive programs torpedoed AMD.

 

[2is]

The 7970 released 3 months before the GTX 680 and its competition was the GTX 580 which it easily beat. This allowed AMD put the price high accordingly.

The 7970 was AMD's first GCN card which is why the drivers took more time to mature.

The cost of the 7970 went down soon after the GTX 680s release and the Ghz edition was released 3 months later.

You conveniently forgot to mention those facts too.

Did you bother reading or were you blinded by fanboyism? I specifically mentioned the price drop as well as the release of the GHz edition. Perhaps a visit to the optometrist is in order?

The 7970 did beat the 580, too bad it's competition was actually the 680.

I'm not really sure what you're upset about anyway. I actually said there's nothing wrong with the card (I actually own one) I merely pointed out the reasons why it garnished a bit of bad press and that's because when the 680 was released, it was faster and cheaper. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

Warning issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[2is]

AMD would likely be done and buried if they only made CPU's. Intel with their shady incentive programs torpedoed AMD.

So let me summarize what I've heard in this thread...

• Intel is to blame for AMD's lack of success in the CPU market
• NVidia is to blame for AMD's lack of preemptive developer support
• Consumers are to blame for AMD's lack of sales and profit

Does that sound about right?

Well hey, at least you can rest easy knowing AMD isn't to blame for any of their misfortunes.

 

[Phynaz]

They would just conclude that PC gaming isn't worth supporting at all due to low interest from customers and we'd get even fewer AAA titles.

Great plan :thumbsup:

This.

 

[Head1985]

I dont think 7970 was that great.Sure it age well, but at launch it was only ~35% faster than 6970 and thats pretty bad for new generation with new 40>28nm process.
Nvidia manage ~100% performance increase with kepler.780TI was 100% faster than GTX580.
And also because 7970 wasnt that fast NV first time in history Charge 500USD for mid-range GPU and beat with mid-range GPU AMDs flagship.

Yes GTX680 was GTX560TI successor.

 

[casiofx]

I dont think 7970 was that great.Sure it age well, but at launch it was only ~35% faster than 6970 and thats pretty bad for new generation with new 40>28nm process.
Nvidia manage ~100% performance increase with kepler.780TI was 100% faster than GTX580.
And also because 7970 wasnt that fast NV first time in history Charge 500USD for mid-range GPU and beat with mid-range GPU AMDs flagship.

Yes GTX680 was GTX560TI successor.

Nice distraction play there.

You are comparing this:
HD7970 vs HD6970 (Dec 2010 vs Dec 2011)
780 Ti vs 580 (Nov 2013 vs Nov 2010)

It's like comparing an iPhone 6 vs Nexus 4 and said that the Nexus sucks.

Please compare apple to apple. For example R9 290X released on October 2013, which is what, around the same 100% performance increase over GTX 580 too? :hmm:

Cards that age well is actually important. Many people still using the cards few years after it's released duhhh. If everyone dumps their card after a year then the landfill sites will be buried with new cards.

 

[ocre]

I am so confused by some of the post in this thread.

The suggestion that people should just not buy games just because the game may perform better on nvidia HW, I think it extremely ridiculous to push this.

Most people who buy GPUs, they buy them to game. They aren't buying them out of their love and support for AMD. You can't be seriously saying his stuff.

It is fine and dandy if you don't buy a game that you are not interested in for whatever reasons you decide. But to tell others boycott games they may want to play, just because nvidia might have a few more fps in them? Or because crossfire may not work for the unfortunate person out there in that may be running it. What in the heck?

Most people buy their gpus to play games in their ultimate glory on PC. There are so many other cheaper ways to game and millions that go to other outlets. But PC gamers, asking them to not buy a game they may want just because AMD performance isn't as high as nvidias...........now that is completely nuts if you ask me

 

[3DVagabond]

I am so confused by some of the post in this thread.

The suggestion that people should just not buy games just because the game may perform better on nvidia HW, I think it extremely ridiculous to push this.

Most people who buy GPUs, they buy them to game. They aren't buying them out of their love and support for AMD. You can't be seriously saying his stuff.

It is fine and dandy if you don't buy a game that you are not interested in for whatever reasons you decide. But to tell others boycott games they may want to play, just because nvidia might have a few more fps in them? Or because crossfire may not work for the unfortunate person out there in that may be running it. What in the heck?

Most people buy their gpus to play games in their ultimate glory on PC. There are so many other cheaper ways to game and millions that go to other outlets. But PC gamers, asking them to not buy a game they may want just because AMD performance isn't as high as nvidias...........now that is completely nuts if you ask me

It's why it performs worse or crossfire doesn't work. It's nVidia purposely manipulating the performance to make their competitor look worse in comparison and the devs taking the "support" and screwing over the general public. I'm sure you understand this though. Why are you ignoring it and acting like you don't?

 

[RussianSensation]

imho,

The reason why there was some negativity at the start was the price/performance was more-so incremental and evolutionary when compared to their 6xxx series. One could make the point that the percentage MSRP jump was higher than the performance jump.

There you go. Even 3.5 years since HD7970 came out, you and many others still believe this. Are you kidding me? HD7970 OC matched HD6990 OC in performance with little effort and it absolutely smashed a GTX580 OC by a jaw-dropping 48-80%. It's right there, January 9, 2012 on HardOCP:

3 years later, it's still being ignored despite countless times this chart has been sighted. Let me just put this into context, for just $100 more than a GTX580 1.5GB, HD7970 overclocked easily traded blows or beat an HD6990, and it beat the fastest single overclocked GPU of the previous generation (i.e., GTX580) by up to 80%. This is at least as impressive as what the Titan X OC is doing to a 980 OC / 290X OC, but HD7970 OC did all of that for 'only' $550, almost half of the asking price the Titan X commands today!

You call that "incremental" performance improvement? As I told you and many others before, the ONLY way to show 7970's true potential was to (1) overclock it (2) use the most demanding games, highest resolutions and settings. Otherwise, almost all reviews were a combination of CPU limited benchmarks at the time 7970 launched. As a result, it never allowed 7970 to shine.

Now, using more advanced GPU limited games, we get to truly see the absolutely massive performance improvement (that you call "incremental") the 7970 brought over the 6970.

HD7970Ghz beats HD6970 by 78% at 1080P and by 87% at 1600P. (Source)

But wait, we are not done yet. It wouldn't be fair if we excluded the pounding GTX580 gets in modern games where GCN shines.

HD7970Ghz beats GTX580 by 52% at 1080P and 71% at 1600P. (Source)

None of this ^ should be suprrising to anyone who read the January 9, 2012 HardOCP HD7970 Overclocking review. All the data was right there, but people didn't pay attention. When subjected to a large workload in Eyefinity/higher resolutions, 7970 OC absolutely crushed 580 anywhere from 48-80%. And guess what we saw over the next 3-3.5 year period in PC gaming -- as GPU workloads increased, 7970Ghz began to creep to this range. But it's striking to me that until this date, you continue to call a 48-80% (or per TechSpot 52-71%) advantages over the fastest last gen flagship as "incremental." If so, then Titan X is an absolute failure since it can't even beat a GTX980 by more than 45% out of the box, yet costs $1K.

See the point, this forum criticized HD7950/7970 for poor performance because they ignored overclocking potential of these cards and they also blatantly ignored the amazing performance these cards brought at 1600P. Today, how often do you read about Maxwell's overclocking as a key selling point? A lot. Maxwell's overclocking is nothing compared to the feats HD7950 achieved on air regularly. That card would regularly hit 1.175-1.25Ghz overclocks from its 800mhz base, a 47%-56% overclock, something a GTX960/970/980/Titan X can only dream of.

That's not all, I distinctly recall a time when HD7950 was only $280-300 but it matched a max overclocked 680 that cost $500. This "budget" 7950 card punched so far above its weight and at the same time addressed the major 2GB flaw of 670 and 680 2GB cards, but what did the market do? They bought more 670 and 680 cards that cost hundreds of dollars more, offered less VRAM and couldn't even beat the cheap 7950!
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...z_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,13.html

In comparison to the insane performance in overclocked states that 7950 and 7970/7970Ghz series brought, 970/980 cards are very disappointing; and yet they have sold like hot-cakes since mid-Sept 2014. Mind you, I am not singling out 970/980 as I skipped R9 290/290X too because they came nowhere close to what 7970 accomplished in its time. The only card today that can stand head-to-toe with how impressive the 7970 OC was is the Titan X OC imo.

We need a GM200 6GB or R9 300 series card that when overclocked, it beats R9 290X OC and 780Ti OC by 45-70%+ but costs $550-600 -- that would be a repeat of 7970. Now when you look at all the data with hindsight, it's pretty clear that 7970Ghz was not an incremental increase. What's incremental is the pathetic 15% 980 brought over the 780Ti at $550. But because of perf/watt marketing and NV's brand name, 7950/7970/7970Ghz didn't sell that well but 970/980 are flying off the shelves despite being the least impressive cards since NV bombed with 8600GT/GTS.

I mean just look at it - 980 is just 11% faster today against the now ancient 290X/780Ti - truly a dismal result for a next gen card priced at $550.

As some noted in the thread, it's also not explainable logically how anyone could prioritize per/watt so much that they would buy a 50-60% slower 960 over an after-market 290 in the US/Canada where they are priced very closely. I told you before but I can't recall a single time in NV/ATI/AMD history when the market would embrace a $180-240 card over a $240-260 card with 50-60% more performance - it has never happened as far as I am aware.

The suggestion that people should just not buy games just because the game may perform better on nvidia HW, I think it extremely ridiculous to push this. Most people who buy GPUs, they buy them to game. They aren't buying them out of their love and support for AMD. You can't be seriously saying his stuff.

I think you have it confused. It's not about NV+developer but the idea that GPU manufacturers pay money and bribe developers and enter marketing deals that result in unfair advantage that promotes the hardware sale of their products. For example, purposely not supporting certain game features on competing brand, or CF not working unless a patch is released. If AMD engaged in the same practices, I would also not buy those games. It doesn't matter to me if it's Intel, AMD, NV, Asus, whoever that does this. If I know a developer provided special treatment that falls outside the traditional AMD GE/TWIMTBP program, I am buying that game for $5-10. The old TWIMTPB was fair and I had no problems with it. If AMD engages in the same business practices as NV does with GW, I'll only buy AMD GE games for $5. I don't support business activities which involve locking out code, or paying the developer for special treatment or setting up a marketing deal where you directly send your own game code to be inserted into the game - but code that the developer can NEVER optimize, alter in any way, release to the public or allow the competitor to see. I've said it before - get rid of AMD GE and NV GW and let all PC developers decide what they want in their game - purely brand agnostic game development. I knew from day 1 when GW was announced that the GPU industry would simply became a competition of who throws more $ and resources at developers and locks out features from the competitor. Sad to see but that's exactly what happened. Imagine if Intel did that today with its $149B market cap against AMD's $2B? That's not fair competition.

Think about it, when Michelin developed the Pilot Super Sport Cup 2 tires, did they give Ferrari or Porsche special treatment over Lamborghini and McLaren by only allowing Ferrari or Porsche to use these tires for a fixed amount of time to gain a key competitive advantage? Do you think Michelin didn't work with top supercar manufacturers when developing the new tires? Why is this insane bias accepted in the graphics industry but in other industries, the amount of criticism raised would seriously jeopardize the manufacturer's reputation? It seems in certain industries, business ethics still exist, or otherwise Porsche would just pay billions of dollars to a tire manufacturer to gain 1 year exclusive rights to the new tire compound at races....come on!