[Hexus]Nvidia pulls away from AMD in graphics card market share

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Both AMD and Nvidia have many wild cards in play right now, but it's AMD that is currently riding the line.

AMD has been riding the line for a long time, without any cash reserves and even in the red.

If the Chiphell leaks are true, Pirate Islands will be a real leap in terms of performance & efficiency.

Definitely would get 2x R390X for my 4K Freesync setup if its real.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
Again this doesn't matter. AMD doesn't have a product problem, they never really have since AMD took ATI over.

I think he was talking about himself... so it would matter to himself lol.

For AMD though? I agree, won't matter. First mistake, killing off the ATI brand.
Second? Everything else they do to market their products...
Third? Not taking the performance crown (You can have the best GPU at every pricepoint, if Nvidia has the GPU crown, then for some reason, regular consumers assume every single other GPU is better as well because that's how general consumers work).

Edit: When exactly is the 390x rumored to be coming out by the way?
 
Last edited:

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
Again this doesn't matter. AMD doesn't have a product problem, they never really have since AMD took ATI over.

It does matter. The last time AMD had a lead in power efficiency was way back in HD 5870 generation and to some extent in HD 6970 generation. Not surprisingly that was the last time AMD had a lead in notebook discrete.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphi..._on_Discrete_GPU_Market_Mercury_Research.html

Nvidia has subsequently had the better efficiency - GK104 vs Tahiti and GK110 vs Hawaii. This has lead to AMD not being able to compete in notebook products from performance and efficiency point of view. Optimus was also better than Enduro from a software robustness point of view. Nvidia commands 70% of notebook discrete GPU market and almost 100% if you look at the top end of the notebook discrete GPU market.

Now with AMD's improved emphasis on software robustness/quality/features and the probability that AMD beats Nvidia for power efficiency, it bodes very well for AMD in notebooks. Thats where AMD has lost massively in the last 3 years. If the chiphell leaks are accurate I foresee AMD being able to scale down their full fat R9 390X into a notebook form factor by reducing clocks,voltages and with aggressive binning. That chip would be a powerhouse for gaming notebooks something which Nvidia will be unable to replicate as MxM boards are restricted to GPUs with 256 bit memory bus. GM200 is expected to sport a 384 bit memory bus and is thus not suitable for mobile GPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_PCI_Express_Module#2nd_generation_configurations_.28MXM_3.29

With HBM on a 2.5D interposer AMD does not face any such limitations with R9 390X and they can easily sell a flagship R9 390X GPU in mobile version with reduced clocks, voltages and binning.

No they all are coming in Summer according to there statements and interview.

AMD has made no statements on exact launch dates.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/274...-technology-conference-transcript?part=single

Blayne P. Curtis - Barclays Capital Inc
And then maybe the final segment being graphics, discrete graphic, it’s interesting that market has - there is a user base that will pay increasing amounts for performance NVIDIA had increasing ASPs in their business for several years here. In terms of I know there is a back and forth in terms of who has the latest generation, but in terms of where do you stand today in terms of graphics, discrete graphics market do you have opportunities to gain back share there and more importantly kind of also see an increasing ASP to delever that kind of hardcore gaming market?
Mark D. Papermaster - Chief Technology Officer
Well, absolutely. So again graphics remains one of our pillars of strength and focus at AMD and it has been historical leapfrog game of who has the leadership, but between us and our lead competitor here. So you’re not surprised, my answer, we are not taking the foot off the gas. So you’ll see continued very, very strong graphics, we’ll have a refresh that you’ll see, that we’ll talk about later in 2015 that we are excited about."
 
Last edited:

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
To use a car analogy like yours, You are saying that Toyota sold 100 cars & 83% of their customers are satisfied so they are better than Honda who sold 80 cars & had 90% satisfied customers.
That's a valid criticism. All I can really say in response is that AMD's angry customers seem a lot more vocal. If we ignore all of the negative reviews due to DOA or heat issues, we start to see patterns emerging for the R9 290.
Keep in mind a lot of these can be caused by the manufacturer. I'm not trying to claim AMD is 100% responsible for 100% of every problem. Regardless of whose fault it is, there seem to be a lot of quality issues with AMD video cards.
product 1
-black screens (meaning it's a power issue)
-black screens
-freezing under no load conditions
-black screens

product 2
-black screens and freezing
-black screens and BSOD (I get these sometimes. They say Memory_Management when it happens).
-freezes and locks in Counter-Strike, which is a mod for Half-Life 1.
-unstable, freezes, crashes
-BSOD, crashes in games or watching youtube
-constant crashing regardless of driver version
-constant crashing even under no load
-constant crashing


As for your crashes, there was a fix for it, it is something like disabling the Video acceleration or flash player in the browser. Now we supposedly have an official fix, the new Omega driver claims to have fix that issue.
The new drivers might have fixed the issue. My fingers are crossed. The things I've tried that I know for a fact do not work are:
-Underclocking my CPU to 1ghz just to rule it out.
-Underclocking my ram to rule it out.
-Moving the video card to a different PCIe slot.
-Underclocking the video card.
-Disabling video acceleration in CCC.
-Disabling everything else in CCC.
-Running driver uninstall utility in safe mode.
-Disabling DXVA hardware decoding
-Forcing constant voltage in MSI Afterburner.
-Forcing the fan to run at 100% all the time to keep the temperature as low as possible.

They might have fixed the problem with the newest driver, but I'm still left asking why it took this long to fix that problem. That means there was a several month period where customers were buying partially defective products. I don't think AMD realizes how much money a decision like that costs. Once credibility is ruined, it takes a lot of time and money to rebuild it.
It's interesting to note that AMD cards on Newegg have a very wide range of average ratings. Some cards will have absolutely horrible ratings. Those are the cards that hit the market first. Those were the early adopters who didn't have complete driver support in the early days, so they had all kinds of problems with crashing and freezing. The cards with the same hardware that were released later tend to have better ratings. You can tell which ones are released later by looking at which games they are bundled with. A company like XFX will bundle recent games with the card. As new games come out, they end the old card+game serial number and start a new serial number to represent the same card but with a different game. Look at the 290 cards that come with recent games. Those are the ones with 4/5 stars. Even though the card has the same power requirements, fewer people complain about black screens and freezing. It's not the hardware changing. It's the driver support changing.

Nvidia's not perfect either. They had terrible support when Vista came out. TF2 was about 40% faster in XP than Vista because Nvidia's drivers were crap. I think they also had some stability problems.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
That's a valid criticism. All I can really say in response is that AMD's angry customers seem a lot more vocal. If we ignore all of the negative reviews due to DOA or heat issues, we start to see patterns emerging for the R9 290.
Keep in mind a lot of these can be caused by the manufacturer. I'm not trying to claim AMD is 100% responsible for 100% of every problem. Regardless of whose fault it is, there seem to be a lot of quality issues with AMD video cards.
product 1
-black screens (meaning it's a power issue)
-black screens
-freezing under no load conditions
-black screens

product 2
-black screens and freezing
-black screens and BSOD (I get these sometimes. They say Memory_Management when it happens).
-freezes and locks in Counter-Strike, which is a mod for Half-Life 1.
-unstable, freezes, crashes
-BSOD, crashes in games or watching youtube
-constant crashing regardless of driver version
-constant crashing even under no load
-constant crashing



The new drivers might have fixed the issue. My fingers are crossed. The things I've tried that I know for a fact do not work are:
-Underclocking my CPU to 1ghz just to rule it out.
-Underclocking my ram to rule it out.
-Moving the video card to a different PCIe slot.
-Underclocking the video card.
-Disabling video acceleration in CCC.
-Disabling everything else in CCC.
-Running driver uninstall utility in safe mode.
-Disabling DXVA hardware decoding
-Forcing constant voltage in MSI Afterburner.
-Forcing the fan to run at 100% all the time to keep the temperature as low as possible.

They might have fixed the problem with the newest driver, but I'm still left asking why it took this long to fix that problem. That means there was a several month period where customers were buying partially defective products. I don't think AMD realizes how much money a decision like that costs. Once credibility is ruined, it takes a lot of time and money to rebuild it.
It's interesting to note that AMD cards on Newegg have a very wide range of average ratings. Some cards will have absolutely horrible ratings. Those are the cards that hit the market first. Those were the early adopters who didn't have complete driver support in the early days, so they had all kinds of problems with crashing and freezing. The cards with the same hardware that were released later tend to have better ratings. You can tell which ones are released later by looking at which games they are bundled with. A company like XFX will bundle recent games with the card. As new games come out, they end the old card+game serial number and start a new serial number to represent the same card but with a different game. Look at the 290 cards that come with recent games. Those are the ones with 4/5 stars. Even though the card has the same power requirements, fewer people complain about black screens and freezing. It's not the hardware changing. It's the driver support changing.

Nvidia's not perfect either. They had terrible support when Vista came out. TF2 was about 40% faster in XP than Vista because Nvidia's drivers were crap. I think they also had some stability problems.
Biggest problem is that Red team only looks at performance not the stability and Reliability which is key for consumer trust which AMD cannot win and that is why Nvidia has brand value and market.
 

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,835
2,441
136
Dead Rising 3 is not.This is all over the place when outside or driving a car or hit by a zombie on R9 290X and this is why scared to buy AMD gpu.

Coming to Shadow of mordor yes AMD perform better on benchmark but did anyone try it on gaming but i have tried it and it same experience as Dead Rising 3.

Ugh DR3. Basing your buying decision on one game, a console port that the devs have admitted they don't care to optimize it for pc is... foolish.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
Ugh DR3. Basing your buying decision on one game, a console port that the devs have admitted they don't care to optimize it for pc is... foolish.
Than why it is running on Nvidia better? It is always stable with 60fps on GTX 780 Ti whereas on R9 290X it is drops to 30 to 40fps.
 

DarkKnightDude

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
981
44
91
Than why it is running on Nvidia better? It is always stable with 60fps on GTX 780 Ti whereas on R9 290X it is drops to 30 to 40fps.

Because Dead Rising 3 is such an amazingly optimized and well ported game and seen as a bennchmark by all gamers.. ;)
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
So anyone that doesnt share your unpopular view to boycott nvidia is dumb? Intetesting

Also, for the record, your opinion is just that. It doesnt make u smarter than everyone. Just because you have issues understanding, i guess your lashing out.

Your post is mostly made up and full of it.
Personally, i know many people who bought 8800gt, 8600gt, etc. I know
of several still in use today. My brother has two 8800gt gpus, both still in use daily. I know a guy with 8500 gt sli in his athlon 6400 x2 rig. I just recently met a lady when a took my son to a birthday party, she was playing Sims2 with an 8600 gt on an emachine.
There are countless used 8800 gt cards on ebay and all over the net. What your claiming, there shouldnt be a single one.

We have heard your opinion on nvidia a million times. Every time you try to pass off purely made up stuff as fact. It is all your opinion, which the largest majority of all people who still buy PCs simply do not share.

You call my post made up and provided no rebuttal to my arguments at all, instead of making up facts yourself such as me boycotting NV. I haven't boycotted NV at all for life, I simply chose to spend $0 with AMD. You call that bias, I call that financial savvy. 4890, 6950, GTX470s, many 7970s, all paid for by mining, with thousands of dollars left over to buy anything I want.

Free GPU upgrades from 2008 + 5 figures from mining vs. Spending $ on every NV upgrade and $0. Ya, I call that being smarter than the average gamer. If I wanted to I could now buy every flagship NV gen for 30 years and not spend any of my actual $. Can an Nv user do that? There are thousands of miners who made far more than me, far more.

1) Bumpgate is a historical fact. So dreadful that it affects original PS3. Go look up YouTube on RSX GPU solder fix and it's clearly explained that cheap NV solder caused failures by people who understand what causes the failure. On Apple forums there is a thread about failed 2011 MacBook Pro laptops with AMD GPUs but there is no major failure associated with other 2011 AMD laptops, suggesting it was poor Apple chassis design and cooling system. However, in contrast, Bumpgate affected every GPU made during those NV geneations because the flawed solder is in all of them. Yet now you can read on Apple forums of some users never wanting to buy an AMD powered Apple and these same people are oblivious to Bumpgate.

"The defective parts appear to consist of the entire line-up of Nvidia parts on 65nm and 55nm processes, no exceptions. The question is not whether or not these parts are defective, it is simply the failure rates of each line, with field reports on specific parts hitting up to 40% early life failures. This is obviously not acceptable."
https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-defective/

It doesn't mean that all GF8 will fail in 5 years but all are defective and can fail any time. Those people you mentioned with Athlon X2 and so on running GF8 are obviously not heavy modern gamers. Witg light gaming such cards would last longer. Doesn't mean that Bumpgate didn't affect thousands of failed cards. When was the last time so many AMD/ATI cards failed? Never.

2) I also said with NV you often get crippled with VRAM cards. All facts:

GTX 570-580 1.28-1.5GB of VRAM vs. HD6950-6970 2GB, with 3GB 570/580 costing $100 more!
GTX670/680 2GB vs. 7950/7970 3GB, with 670-680 4GB costing $100 more!
GTX780 3GB/780Ti vs. 290/290X with 4GB.

This wouldn't be a problem if Nv cards cost less, but no they cost substantially more in all of those cases and each of those NV cards has ran into VRAM bottlenecks, essentially making high rez gaming on 500 and 600 series worthless with AA.

3) You also said I made up facts about NV rip-off prices:

$650 280 and $400 260, embarrassed by a $300 4870.
$650 780 and $1000 Titan, embarrassed by a $400 290.
$450 770 4GB vs. 300 280X. Ridiculous.

The 970 is crazy hyped but it barely undercut a 290 by $70. In historical terms to how AMD undercut NV, 970 is frankly a joke. 680 only undercut 7970 by $50 for 2.5 months and then the faster 7970Ghz undercut 680 4GB by $100. 7970Ghz still cost less than the now worthless 680 2GB.

These prices were typical for months:

- 770 4GB SLI was $200-300 more expensive than 280X CF.
- 6950s unlocked for $450-500 vs. $650-700 for 570 SLI or $1000 for 580 SLI.
- 7970Ghz SLI for $600-800 vs. 680 2-4GB for $800-1100. To make matters worse, an overclocked 7950 for $280 was as fast as a $450-550 max overclocked 680 2GB-4GB. I remember this clearly as OCN users with 7950s were posting benchmarks and going crazy over the value proposition.
- Of course 290s and 290Xs now massively undercutting 970/980SLI, with 290X CF actually providing a smoother high rez gaming experience.

There are plenty more examples for lower end and mid-range cards. Every generation with NV you are forced to spend $100-300 more. Repeat every 2 years and in 10 years it's a lot of $ that could have been spent on games.

You view my posts as critical of NV, but it's only common sense since I never advocate wasting $ for brand name. We have deals of after-market 290 going for $200-250, which means a gamer can put together a 290 CF setup for $400-500 vs. $600-700 for 970 SLI. There are countless other things to talk about like GeForce 5's horrible trilinear texture filtering IQ, non-existent DX9 performance and NV's inferior AA all the way up to GeForce 7 as well as GeForce 7's hopelessness in DX9-10 shader intensive titles. All of those forgiven and forgotten by NV users.

What about the constant focus on reference AMD after-market cards and ignorance of cool and quiet after-market versions? It is all marketing and perception. To reiterate, I never said to boycott NV but ignoring Bitcoin as most NV users did was dumb. They object to the idea of buying AMD so much that they missed on thousands of profits that they could have now used for NV cards. How often do you see NV cheerleaders hoping AMD stomps NV and forces major price drops on NV, so that they could purchase their next NV card for less?

For me I want the next NV or AMD card to smoke the last AMD or Nv card so more performance becomes more affordable regardless of the brand.
 
Last edited:

rtsurfer

Senior member
Oct 14, 2013
733
15
76

Half of those early complaints could have been avoided if AMD hadn't launched the card with that stupid cooler as some of the problems could have been due to overheating/thermal throttling.

Also AMD has some kind of a different Memory Controller than Nvidia I believe, on Nvidia when usually something is wrong on the memory, you get artifacts, AMD gives you a BlackScreen 99% of the time, rarely artifacts.
Whatever they need to fix it that's it.

I agree though, when I buy a new product, I expect it to work at least at the advertised stock speeds. AMD cannot use the public as Beta testers, like how people had to suffer with Frametimes with Tahiti and then it was fixed in Hawaii. People are not always willing to give them one more chance.

Also I hope the new driver fixes your issue, if not then please make a new thread in here in VC&G and people will help you out. I have never had that issue but have seen quite a few threads here, and some people were able to fix it.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Than why it is running on Nvidia better? It is always stable with 60fps on GTX 780 Ti whereas on R9 290X it is drops to 30 to 40fps.

Funny how in professional reviews 290/290X stomp all over 780/780Ti in Dead Rising 3 with and without AA, unless you play at 1280x800:
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/dead-rising-3-test-gpu.html

Even if we for a second assume that your post is correct in some spots of the game, you failed to mention the GPU limited sections where 780Ti can't even break 50, while 290X is at 60. You realize in DR3 GPU demanding areas, 280X is nearly as fast as a 780Ti? At 2560x1600 a 280X is 67% faster than NV Kepler crippled 680! You didn't talk about that either. Why?

This is the same story as you keep spinning how AMD cards performed poorly with an i3 in COD:AW and you projected that all AMD cards perform worse than NV in that game. That's not how it works. Most of us play with high IQ and some AA on overclocked i5/7s, so we are almost always going to be GPU limited.

Furthermore, your setup cost $2100 USD during the time when after-market 290s cost $1200 for 3. Today, 780Ti Tri-SLI cannot beat triple-after market 290s in games. Also, at high Rez gaming triple 780Tis will be more VRAM limited. How is NV's SLI performance in Watch Dogs? Still terrible right. If I am asked to spend $900 more, I expect faster peformance in popular games. 780Tis can't gaurantee that over 290s. That's what I am talking about when NV asked for a huge premium. Now they basically threw 780Ti under the bus too. Performance in games like DAI is attrpcious for what used to be a $700 card.

How much $ has a user who bought 290s would lose in resale vs. 780Tis? You always talk about NV in the context that $ doesn't matter and cost of ownership is irrelevant. Soon those 780Tis will be worth $1000 for all 3, or a loss of value of $1100 in slightly more than 1 year. Late spring 2014, one could easily have bought Tri-290s for $1050 and could be sold right now for $550-600 easy.
 
Last edited:

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
Funny how in professional reviews 290/290X stomp all over 780/780Ti in Dead Rising 3 with and without AA, unless you play at 1280x800:
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/dead-rising-3-test-gpu.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Colorful/iGame_GTX_970/15.html

another review which confirms AMD cards at the top in Dead Rising 3. he picked the wrong game to tell how AMD cards perform poorly.

NV asked for a huge premium. Now they basically threw 780Ti under the bus too. Performance in games like DAI is attrpcious for what used to be a $700 card.

nvidia is asking the user to upgrade from a 780 ti to a 980 with this performance gimping trick. but many people have realised that the best time to buy a $500+ GPU is when both companies have their competing products out and are waiting for R9 390X vs GM200.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
Funny how in professional reviews 290/290X stomp all over 780/780Ti in Dead Rising 3 with and without AA, unless you play at 1280x800:
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/dead-rising-3-test-gpu.html

Even if we for a second assume that your post is correct in some spots of the game, you failed to mention the GPU limited sections where 780Ti can't even break 50, while 290X is at 60. You realize in DR3 GPU demanding areas, 280X is nearly as fast as a 780Ti? At 2560x1600 a 280X is 67% faster than NV Kepler crippled 680! You didn't talk about that either. Why?

This is the same story as you keep spinning how AMD cards performed poorly with an i3 in COD:AW and you projected that all AMD cards perform worse than NV in that game. That's not how it works. Most of us play with high IQ and some AA on overclocked i5/7s, so we are almost always going to be GPU limited.

Furthermore, your setup cost $2100 USD during the time when after-market 290s cost $1200 for 3. Today, 780Ti Tri-SLI cannot beat triple-after market 290s in games. Also, at high Rez gaming triple 780Tis will be more VRAM limited. How is NV's SLI performance in Watch Dogs? Still terrible right. If I am asked to spend $900 more, I expect faster peformance in popular games. 780Tis can't gaurantee that over 290s. That's what I am talking about when NV asked for a huge premium. Now they basically threw 780Ti under the bus too. Performance in games like DAI is attrpcious for what used to be a $700 card.

How much $ has a user who bought 290s would lose in resale vs. 780Tis? You always talk about NV in the context that $ doesn't matter and cost of ownership is irrelevant. Soon those 780Tis will be worth $1000 for all 3, or a loss of value of $1100 in slightly more than 1 year. Late spring 2014, one could easily have bought Tri-290s for $1050 and could be sold right now for $550-600 easy.

Did u bother to see CPU usage of Gtx 780 Ti and R9 290X than u will know what i am saying.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/502x432q90/r/911/0fUQ2u.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/502x432q90/r/674/HpkgsS.jpg

I am not talking about benchmark.When go out side than fps start drooping to 50fps than 40 or 30fps but not with GTX 780 Ti and even a fool will understanding what i am trying to say.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
People forget this is Discrete GPU market share, it also contains entry/low cost dGPUs. NVIDIA sells more of those entry/low cost dGPUs than AMD but AMD sells APUs at those segments. So overall GPU market share is equal between the two in Q3 2014.

That doesnt mean AMD is doing great, they need to do better both in APUs and in dGPUs. I would also like to see how the market share at higher than $100 dGPUs is in 2014.
 

TeleBee

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2014
9
0
0
So many Nvidia haters drowning in tears.

Warning issued for trolling.
-- stahlhart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
I am not talking about benchmark.When go out side than fps start drooping to 50fps than 40 or 30fps but not with GTX 780 Ti and even a fool will understanding what i am trying to say.

We have a review site that disagrees with your own results. If you want to counter that, offer up proof rather than rhetoric.

You base AMD's poor drivers on COD and DR3, I have already counter your point that COD is a NV sponsored title, just as FC3 and FC4 were. NV forbids developers on their program to allow code to AMD during development for optimizations, this is a well known fact.

You didn't even address my counter to you, what about if gamers play BF4 MP and CIV BE with Mantle and due to that, assume NV drivers are awful? Doesn't seem very logical. Nor would the massive stutter fest in Alien Isolation on NV during certain scenes. Or the massive stutters in Watch Dog with Ultra Textures at beyond 1080p.

When NV performs crap in games, it's not their drivers. When AMD performs crap in NV games, its apparently due to bad AMD drivers. Is that it?

There's bias and there's just blatant ignorance.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Intel strangled AMD, NV is just dogpiling on now. If you ask me, AMD is in a world of pain like OP said. They HAVE to pull a Maxwell-like card or be left in the dust in efficiency. Mantle won't save them; they need a better architecture, period.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
We have a review site that disagrees with your own results. If you want to counter that, offer up proof rather than rhetoric.

You base AMD's poor drivers on COD and DR3, I have already counter your point that COD is a NV sponsored title, just as FC3 and FC4 were. NV forbids developers on their program to allow code to AMD during development for optimizations, this is a well known fact.

You didn't even address my counter to you, what about if gamers play BF4 MP and CIV BE with Mantle and due to that, assume NV drivers are awful? Doesn't seem very logical. Nor would the massive stutter fest in Alien Isolation on NV during certain scenes. Or the massive stutters in Watch Dog with Ultra Textures at beyond 1080p.

When NV performs crap in games, it's not their drivers. When AMD performs crap in NV games, its apparently due to bad AMD drivers. Is that it?

There's bias and there's just blatant ignorance.
Again i am posting what i am seeing.I have both card and i have used fair games in both.Soon i will post Screenshot than u can judge.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
This is what I see from the graph:

1 - when AMD has a clear performance advantage, they get ~40% of the market.
2 - When NV has an advantage (performance and/or power efficiency) the sky is the limit for market share

This tells me that many NV buyers will simply not purchase AMD. There IS a population of folks who just buy the best (maybe 10-20%?) and the rest are die-hard AMD buyers. Maybe look like this:

60% Nvidia die-hards
20% 'switch hitters'
20% AMD die-hards

I see a lot of recent resistance at the 60% market share where AMD cannot exceed 40% of the market, regardless of performance or efficiency advantages.

Myself - I fall in the switch buyers. I went from the 5870 to the 670, but probably would have gotten a 7970 if I had purchased a few months after the 670 release (7970 price cuts and so forth). I grabbed the 970 because I could get a cheap water block for it (old 670 block) vs. anything else. :D

This is a very accurate view of the past history and current situation.

As AMD has learnt through their own good times from the 4800 to 5800 series, it doesn't matter if they destroy the competition on performance or efficiency, or even that they were 9 months early with the next generation and the competition finally arrived in the aborted 480 that used nearly TWICE as much power for 10% extra performance.

It simply doesn't matter for ~60% of the market out there, they will buy NV regardless.

It didn't even matter that NV GPUs killed millions of laptops prematurely, I mean its got a green NV logo, it must be good, right?

What AMD needs is to get that performance goal and do it with good efficiency and they will capture 40% of the market. The other 60%, they can safely ignore.

Edit: I would also go as far as saying that 20% die hard AMD fans is a very generous number. I certainly don't know of any AMD fans IRL. The only reason I know people buy AMD GPUs is due to simply the superior offer at the price.
 
Last edited:

TeleBee

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2014
9
0
0
When NV performs crap in games, it's not their drivers. When AMD performs crap in NV games, its apparently due to bad AMD drivers. Is that it?

When AMD is doing good everyone is happy. When Nvidia is doing good everyone is stupid because thay are buying Nv GPU.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
That's a valid criticism. All I can really say in response is that AMD's angry customers seem a lot more vocal. If we ignore all of the negative reviews due to DOA or heat issues, we start to see patterns emerging for the R9 290.
Keep in mind a lot of these can be caused by the manufacturer. I'm not trying to claim AMD is 100% responsible for 100% of every problem. Regardless of whose fault it is, there seem to be a lot of quality issues with AMD video cards.
product 1
-black screens (meaning it's a power issue)
-black screens
-freezing under no load conditions
-black screens

product 2
-black screens and freezing
-black screens and BSOD (I get these sometimes. They say Memory_Management when it happens).
-freezes and locks in Counter-Strike, which is a mod for Half-Life 1.
-unstable, freezes, crashes
-BSOD, crashes in games or watching youtube
-constant crashing regardless of driver version
-constant crashing even under no load
-constant crashing



The new drivers might have fixed the issue. My fingers are crossed. The things I've tried that I know for a fact do not work are:
-Underclocking my CPU to 1ghz just to rule it out.
-Underclocking my ram to rule it out.
-Moving the video card to a different PCIe slot.
-Underclocking the video card.
-Disabling video acceleration in CCC.
-Disabling everything else in CCC.
-Running driver uninstall utility in safe mode.
-Disabling DXVA hardware decoding
-Forcing constant voltage in MSI Afterburner.
-Forcing the fan to run at 100% all the time to keep the temperature as low as possible.

They might have fixed the problem with the newest driver, but I'm still left asking why it took this long to fix that problem. That means there was a several month period where customers were buying partially defective products. I don't think AMD realizes how much money a decision like that costs. Once credibility is ruined, it takes a lot of time and money to rebuild it.
It's interesting to note that AMD cards on Newegg have a very wide range of average ratings. Some cards will have absolutely horrible ratings. Those are the cards that hit the market first. Those were the early adopters who didn't have complete driver support in the early days, so they had all kinds of problems with crashing and freezing. The cards with the same hardware that were released later tend to have better ratings. You can tell which ones are released later by looking at which games they are bundled with. A company like XFX will bundle recent games with the card. As new games come out, they end the old card+game serial number and start a new serial number to represent the same card but with a different game. Look at the 290 cards that come with recent games. Those are the ones with 4/5 stars. Even though the card has the same power requirements, fewer people complain about black screens and freezing. It's not the hardware changing. It's the driver support changing.

Nvidia's not perfect either. They had terrible support when Vista came out. TF2 was about 40% faster in XP than Vista because Nvidia's drivers were crap. I think they also had some stability problems.

I still think of the sleep issue that is only partially fixed now. Its been there for how many years? And its a basic function that everyone use.
 

TeleBee

Junior Member
Dec 12, 2014
9
0
0
Here:

The XFX Radeon R9 290 Double Dissipation Edition can be found for $283.99. For that price, it represents a fair price compared to a number of the other 290 cards. What's more at that price it is at a substantial value compared to the ASUS 970 GTX STRIX DirectCU II that is priced at $349.99. The performance and gameplay experience was close, especially if you overclock the XFX R9 290. The fact it can be had for $60 less creates a desirable performing video card for those on a budget. The GTX 970 is faster overall, but not by a big delta.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...le_dissipation_edition_review/10#.VIq90yuUcV8

GTX 970 is $60 more expensive. But is $60 too much? If so then why games aren't overpriced. Battlefield and Call of Duty launch prices are 60$ and they are selling like hot cakes.

60$ for 1.5 GHz on air and lover power consumption.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
It is not alone about performance/price. The Asus GTX970 uses 100W less power which makes the card a much better fit for smaller cases. Temperatures and sound level is lower, too.
And to get the same performance they needed to overclock the 290. And then this card uses 200W more energy...

And what you save with the lower price will get eaten over time through the higher energy costs.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
The new drivers might have fixed the issue. My fingers are crossed. The things I've tried that I know for a fact do not work are:
-Underclocking my CPU to 1ghz just to rule it out.
-Underclocking my ram to rule it out.
-Moving the video card to a different PCIe slot.
-Underclocking the video card.
-Disabling video acceleration in CCC.
-Disabling everything else in CCC.
-Running driver uninstall utility in safe mode.
-Disabling DXVA hardware decoding
-Forcing constant voltage in MSI Afterburner.
-Forcing the fan to run at 100% all the time to keep the temperature as low as possible.

All my ATI/AMD cards have been stable and not had even 2% of your issues including the stuff i excluded from the quote.

1900xt CF
3870 quadfire
5970 quadfire
7950 trifire had the wake up issue on one of my 3 screens sometimes connect to a DP/DVI converter that a Alt,Crtl,Del would fix
290 trifire no issues, only manged to get a black screen through unstable overclocking of the CPU/Ram/GPU
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.