PC gaming is still alive, Nvidia post record revenue

[tviceman]

Would love to see an OC Nano vs OC 980 benchmark that's recent to verify your claims.

Because Nano's avg clocks are 850mhz.

With +50% power limit alone it hangs at 1ghz.

Nobody has done a +vcore OC comparison, despite TPU showing Fiji is capable of getting 1.2ghz and with 560 memory, together giving it good scaling.

Again, Nano is $480, factory OC GTX 980 is $497 with AAA game, $20 MIR, and faster out of the box. And you were saying Nano is a better buy????? Anyways, Does anyone here have Nano? I'd love to do a bench off.

EDIT:
Looks like Nano gains 10% in real world performance. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...orm_factor_overclocking_review/5#.VsU7CfIrIUE
GTX 980 gains over 20% http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html

Again, I'd love to do a bench off on here with someone who has a Fury or, preferably, Nano.

 

[raghu78]

Ofcourse, no doubts about that one.

It's the same for game studios. They spend big bucks on marketing. Fallout 4 was something ridiculous like $100M for marketing!

Same for movies (Deadpool anyone?), pretty much any business.

That's actually AMD's failing, they have marketed themselves for years as the cheaper brand, something you go for if you can't afford better stuff. It's true for their CPUs for many generations now, but their GPUs are (at least we can agree on something?), very competitive. Yet that brand image hurts their GPU division.

Back to NV, their brand is very strong so in the next-gen, I expect them to continue with impressive margins, profits, revenue and marketshare, regardless of how AMD's GPUs turn out.

I disagree with you here. AMD has not marketed themselves as the cheaper brand unless they were forced to. The only times AMD aggressively pursued price/perf was HD 4870 and HD 4850 launch. They did that to gain back market share lost in the previous generation which Nvidia dominated with 8800 GTX/8800 GT. AMD have priced their products as much as they felt the market would pay for it. AMD were not averse to charging USD 1000 for their Athlon FX when they were on top. Its a matter of performance leadership. Similarly HD 7970 launched at USD 550 but it was beaten by GTX 680 and matched by GTX 670 (at launch). AMD had to cut prices to remain competitive. Similarly Nvidia had to cut prices on GTX 780 once R9 290 launched but the loud reference cooler and the bitcoin mining rush led to reseller gouging.

Its very simple. Neither AMD nor Nvidia or even Intel can escape the rules of competition. If you have a faster product which runs at lesser power and cooler than the competition's offering there is no way you are going to be forced to sell it for much lesser than the competition except in unusual cases like the aftermath of a failed generation and significant loss of market share. Today AMD stands in the worst market share position ever in ATI/AMD's entire history. So they may pursue aggressive price/perf to get back to historical market share levels. But what will actually save them in the long run is leadership products or extremely competitive products in perf, perf/watt, perf/$.

There is no such things as guaranteed success in the tech business. So even though Nvidia may seem invincible like they did in the 8800 GTX / 8800 GT days it only takes a new generation of renewed competition to change things. AMD's problems in the past 4-5 years stem from a sick CPU business (due to a disaster called Bulldozer) hurting the sales, increasing losses and reducing R&D budget and finally affecting the GPU division's ability to deliver competitive products too. Thats why I think AMD needs Zen more than Polaris to succeed. Eventually AMD cannot survive if Zen does not succeed.

 

[crisium]

Lying about performance but not specs is worse than lying about specs when the delivered performance is excellent.

You don't get to determine that opinion as fact.

Fury X reviews were up before you could buy, and it was quite clear they were not an overclockers dream. If you bought them after the reviews and expected 1250MHz that was your fault.

970 reviews were up before you could buy, and they said 256-bit, 64 ROPs, 4GB. If you bought them after reviews and expected this configuration it is Nvidia's fault.

It always annoyed me when apologist websites defended it essentially saying that the performance was all that matters, and it's good. But there is an aging difference between 224-bit, 56 ROPs, and 3.5GB. When two GPUs of the same family, but only differ in Shaders, the lead will not grow over time, it will continue to vary the same based on Shader intensity. ROPs, Bandwidth, and VRAM are indicators of aging. It's partly why I think the Fury X will never catch the 980 Ti (has 2/3), and a consumer could have used to knowledge to reconsider and instead purchase the 980 or 290 series. If you don't consider these that's fine, but some people do.

 

[desprado]

I disagree with you here. AMD has not marketed themselves as the cheaper brand unless they were forced to. The only times AMD aggressively pursued price/perf was HD 4870 and HD 4850 launch. They did that to gain back market share lost in the previous generation which Nvidia dominated with 8800 GTX/8800 GT. AMD have priced their products as much as they felt the market would pay for it. AMD were not averse to charging USD 1000 for their Athlon FX when they were on top. Its a matter of performance leadership. Similarly HD 7970 launched at USD 550 but it was beaten by GTX 680 and matched by GTX 670 (at launch). AMD had to cut prices to remain competitive. Similarly Nvidia had to cut prices on GTX 780 once R9 290 launched but the loud reference cooler and the bitcoin mining rush led to reseller gouging.

Its very simple. Neither AMD nor Nvidia or even Intel can escape the rules of competition. If you have a faster product which runs at lesser power and cooler than the competition's offering there is no way you are going to be forced to sell it for much lesser than the competition except in unusual cases like the aftermath of a failed generation and significant loss of market share. Today AMD stands in the worst market share position ever in ATI/AMD's entire history. So they may pursue aggressive price/perf to get back to historical market share levels. But what will actually save them in the long run is leadership products or extremely competitive products in perf, perf/watt, perf/$.

There is no such things as guaranteed success in the tech business. So even though Nvidia may seem invincible like they did in the 8800 GTX / 8800 GT days it only takes a new generation of renewed competition to change things. AMD's problems in the past 4-5 years stem from a sick CPU business (due to a disaster called Bulldozer) hurting the sales, increasing losses and reducing R&D budget and finally affecting the GPU division's ability to deliver competitive products too. Thats why I think AMD needs Zen more than Polaris to succeed. Eventually AMD cannot survive if Zen does not succeed.

This.......

 

[desprado]

You don't get to determine that opinion as fact.

Fury X reviews were up before you could buy, and it was quite clear they were not an overclockers dream. If you bought them after the reviews and expected 1250MHz that was your fault.

970 reviews were up before you could buy, and they said 256-bit, 64 ROPs, 4GB. If you bought them after reviews and expected this configuration it is Nvidia's fault.

It always annoyed me when apologist websites defended it essentially saying that the performance was all that matters, and it's good. But there is an aging difference between 224-bit, 56 ROPs, and 3.5GB. When two GPUs of the same family, but only differ in Shaders, the lead will not grow over time, it will continue to vary the same based on Shader intensity. ROPs, Bandwidth, and VRAM are indicators of aging. It's partly why I think the Fury X will never catch the 980 Ti (has 2/3), and a consumer could have used to knowledge to reconsider and instead purchase the 980 or 290 series. If you don't consider these that's fine, but some people do.

Yes performance does not matter at time ,however, lying about performance is worst and that is the reason Fury X did not contribute at level of AMD's revenue.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You don't get to determine that opinion as fact.

Fury X reviews were up before you could buy, and it was quite clear they were not an overclockers dream. If you bought them after the reviews and expected 1250MHz that was your fault.

970 reviews were up before you could buy, and they said 256-bit, 64 ROPs, 4GB. If you bought them after reviews and expected this configuration it is Nvidia's fault.

It always annoyed me when apologist websites defended it essentially saying that the performance was all that matters, and it's good. But there is an aging difference between 224-bit, 56 ROPs, and 3.5GB. When two GPUs of the same family, but only differ in Shaders, the lead will not grow over time, it will continue to vary the same based on Shader intensity. ROPs, Bandwidth, and VRAM are indicators of aging. It's partly why I think the Fury X will never catch the 980 Ti (has 2/3), and a consumer could have used to knowledge to reconsider and instead purchase the 980 or 290 series. If you don't consider these that's fine, but some people do.

Most people don't know what the fudge a ROP is or what memory bus width means.

Joe Doe, the average gamer, wants a GPU so he can play the video game that he's excited for, nothing more, nothing else. Only a small fraction of the GPU buying population gives two craps about any of the nitty gritty that people talk about here.

 

[Silverforce11]

The 970's performance was the same before and after this information came to light.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/gu...guide#rise-of-the-tomb-raider-texture-quality

Those with 4GB GPUs are recommended to use High as VRAM stuttering can be observed on Very High

1080p vram stutter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gki0dV2kcqM

Even indoor scenes get vram stutters at 1080p (Very High textures)
https://youtu.be/Vu0MWxQtAfU?t=8m19s

Same exactly level on the R290X with real 4GB vram (Very High textures), no such stutters.
https://youtu.be/rZPvArNpPhY?t=2m5s

I mean the 970 in SLI can handle 1440p quite well, but in SOM, you run Ultra Textures, it gets vram stutter.

Now we are getting next-gen games where it suffers even at 1080p.

But you keep on defending the indefensible please. It shows character.

 

[desprado]

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/gu...guide#rise-of-the-tomb-raider-texture-quality



1080p vram stutter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gki0dV2kcqM

Even indoor scenes get vram stutters at 1080p (Very High textures)
https://youtu.be/Vu0MWxQtAfU?t=8m19s

Same exactly level on the R290X with real 4GB vram (Very High textures), no such stutters.
https://youtu.be/rZPvArNpPhY?t=2m5s

I mean the 970 in SLI can handle 1440p quite well, but in SOM, you run Ultra Textures, it gets vram stutter.

Now we are getting next-gen games where it suffers even at 1080p.

But you keep on defending the indefensible please. It shows character.

Yes it will because of ports and even DX12 will not change that.

 

[crisium]

Yes performance does not matter at time ,however, lying about performance is worst and that is the reason Fury X did not contribute at level of AMD's revenue.

Huh? Fury X doesn't contribute much to AMD revenue because it's worse than the 980 Ti. If people are so idiotic as to buy a card purely based on a press release, wouldn't they have been fooled by the single statement of "overclockers dream" and consequently shouldn't it be contributing to AMD's revenue?

Almost no one bought a Fury X after the reviews expecting an overclockers dream, it was quite clear and left little room for interpretation except for those few idealists trying to find the direction of AMD HQ to kneel and pray for a voltage unlock miracle.

Everyone bought the 970 expecting it to have the same bandwidth, memory, and ROPs as the 980 (and same ROPs, leess bandwidth and memory disadvantage to 290 series). Those enthusiasts that are smart enough to appreciate the difference deserved to know.

 

[Silverforce11]

Looks like Nano gains 10% in real world performance. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...orm_factor_overclocking_review/5#.VsU7CfIrIUE
GTX 980 gains over 20% http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...orm_factor_overclocking_review/3#.VsVA1fl96Uk

That's just base OC, no +vcore. There's vcore mod support for awhile now but sites aren't testing it.

Fury X on TPU with vcore hits 1.2ghz. Even modest +25mV should give Nano capability to run at 1.1 or 1.15, rather than 1.05 in that [H] review.

 

[desprado]

Huh? Fury X doesn't contribute much to AMD revenue because it's worse than the 980 Ti. If people are so idiotic as to buy a card purely based on a press release, wouldn't they have been fooled by the single statement of "overclockers dream" and consequently shouldn't it be contributing to AMD's revenue?

Almost no one bought a Fury X after the reviews expecting an overclockers dream, it was quite clear and left little room for interpretation except for those few idealists trying to find the direction of AMD HQ to kneel and pray for a voltage unlock miracle.

Everyone bought the 970 expecting it to have the same bandwidth, memory, and ROPs as the 980 (and same ROPs, leess bandwidth and memory disadvantage to 290 series). Those enthusiasts that are smart enough to appreciate the difference deserved to know.

Go check benchmarks. Tell me any game that Fury X is winning or even close to GTX 980 Ti custom version which are at near price of Fury X.

 

[crisium]

Go check benchmarks. Tell me any game that Fury X is winning or even close to GTX 980 Ti custom version which are at near price of Fury X.

What? I don't think you comprehended a word I said. "Fury X doesn't contribute much to AMD revenue because it's worse than the 980 Ti". I agree with you. I'm discussing degrees of lies.

 

[desprado]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...orm_factor_overclocking_review/3#.VsVA1fl96Uk

That's just base OC, no +vcore. There's vcore mod support for awhile now but sites aren't testing it.

Fury X on TPU with vcore hits 1.2ghz. Even modest +25mV should give Nano capability to run at 1.1 or 1.15, rather than 1.05 in that [H] review.

That is not Nvidia or review site problem. AMD need to invest and come out with better solution to counter their overclokcers dream statement.

 

[desprado]

What? I don't think you comprehended a word I said. "Fury X doesn't contribute much to AMD revenue because it's worse than the 980 Ti". I agree with you. I'm discussing degrees of lies.

Yes i did. Overclockers and World fastest card statement broke backbone of Fury X sales. Reason because people hoped that it will be a Ti and Titan X killer and Lisa Promised that it will be and when it released even people like AMD_Roy could not defend those claims.

I've had enough of your parading. I will show you the door.

-Rvenger

 

[crisium]

Yes i did. Overclockers and World fastest card statement broke backbone of Fury X sales. Reason because people hoped that it will be a Ti and Titan X killer and Lisa Promised that it will be and when it released even people like AMD_Roy could not defend those claims.

Ok? Again, seems like it's not a bad lie because people saw through it on day 1 launch. It took months of many sales to enthusiasts to realize what the 970 really was, by then too late. These enthusiasts could have appreciated the full information to properly make their decision, just like they made when they decided to skip on the Fury X partly because it did not overclock well. We deserve better from both companies, but one is worse.

 

[tviceman]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...orm_factor_overclocking_review/3#.VsVA1fl96Uk

That's just base OC, no +vcore. There's vcore mod support for awhile now but sites aren't testing it.

Fury X on TPU with vcore hits 1.2ghz. Even modest +25mV should give Nano capability to run at 1.1 or 1.15, rather than 1.05 in that [H] review.

Its great that there is a community creating custom bios mods for video cards. I used one with my GTX 780. However, if you want to start comparing cards with a bios mod vs. the competition without and use such comparisons to justify your rational for recommendations, GTFO. You aren't just shifting goal posts, you are selectively removing them when on offense and putting them back on defense.

OC Nano is slower than OC 980 just as I said, and 980's can be had for the same or less after incentives.

About that bench off.

 

[railven]

damn, that grudge simply because of a missing port

Don't remind me. AMD can't even get their flagship on par with their rival, but they want to charge the same amount out the gate. Fools!

 

[Head1985]

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/gu...guide#rise-of-the-tomb-raider-texture-quality



1080p vram stutter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gki0dV2kcqM

Even indoor scenes get vram stutters at 1080p (Very High textures)
https://youtu.be/Vu0MWxQtAfU?t=8m19s

Same exactly level on the R290X with real 4GB vram (Very High textures), no such stutters.
https://youtu.be/rZPvArNpPhY?t=2m5s

I mean the 970 in SLI can handle 1440p quite well, but in SOM, you run Ultra Textures, it gets vram stutter.

Now we are getting next-gen games where it suffers even at 1080p.

But you keep on defending the indefensible please. It shows character.

Nope..That dude dont uses win 10 or i dont know.i have GTX970 and new tomb raider run in 1080 at max setting with zero problem.i even tested GTX670 2GB with max setting and again no problem(but 670 manage only 35fps vs 50-70fps on gtx 970 1500/8000)

i have 6700k 4.5Ghz
16GB DDR4 3000mhz CL14 1T
And win 10

Win 10 have new memory management.

 

[desprado]

Don't remind me. AMD can't even get their flagship on par with their rival, but they want to charge the same amount out the gate. Fools!

What people do not understand if Nvidia charging same price as AMD and same level of performance from Nvidia then they do not count or forget to include other features like less DX11 overhead, better Day 1 drivers for new games, Shadowplay, better performance per watt, Gameworks games which are now 90% of AAA titles, PhysX, better overclocking. These features which lacks in AMD. AMD is forced to reduce there price and they market like they have done a favor to their fans.

 

[Silverforce11]

Its great that there is a community creating custom bios mods for video cards. I used one with my GTX 780. However, if you want to start comparing cards with a bios mod vs. the competition without and use such comparisons to justify your rational for recommendations, GTFO. You aren't just shifting goal posts, you are selectively removing them when on offense and putting them back on defense.

OC Nano is slower than OC 980 just as I said, and 980's can be had for the same or less after incentives.

About that bench off.

We're not talking about custom bios.

We're talking about afterburner vcore support for Fiji. -_-

 

[desprado]

We're not talking about custom bios.

We're talking about afterburner vcore support for Fiji. -_-

That is why i said small features and community services counts a lot to drives the sales not like trolling and blaming other companies for the failures in twitter.

 

[littleg]

What people do not understand if Nvidia charging same price as AMD and same level of performance from Nvidia then they do not count or forget to include other features like less DX11 overhead, better Day 1 drivers for new games, Shadowplay, better performance per watt, Gameworks games which are now 90% of AAA titles, PhysX, better overclocking. These features which lacks in AMD. AMD is forced to reduce there price and they market like they have done a favor to their fans.

Your posts really come across like a sales pitch.

 

[IEC]

Its great that there is a community creating custom bios mods for video cards. I used one with my GTX 780. However, if you want to start comparing cards with a bios mod vs. the competition without and use such comparisons to justify your rational for recommendations, GTFO. You aren't just shifting goal posts, you are selectively removing them when on offense and putting them back on defense.

OC Nano is slower than OC 980 just as I said, and 980's can be had for the same or less after incentives.

About that bench off.

Fury/X are supported in MSI Afterburner for +vcore now. No custom BIOS needed...

 

[desprado]

Fury/X are supported in MSI Afterburner for +vcore now. No custom BIOS needed...

Yes still it is useless when it come to overclock. AMD has overclocked to match with GTX 980 Ti that is why it got delayed.

 

[Silverforce11]

The difference in case some of you haven't understood between Joe Macri "Overclocker's dream" and NV's release of specs to the press, is Joe's words are tested by the press, review sites verify it OC poorly from day 1. Whereas NV was busy telling all the press sites their 970 has 4GB vram, 256 bit bus and the full ROPs.

People who bought Fury X certainly didn't do it because it was an overclocker's dream. But many folks who bought the 970 certain did so because of its 4GB vram and identical 980 specs on bandwidth and ROPs.

We're seeing that lie affect performance now at 1080p in single GPU.

It affected performance THEN at 1440p with SLI 970s.

Sure you can say SLI is less usage scenario, but to say it has no affect due to its gimped 3.5 + 0.5GB vram segment is a damn lie. Stop propagating the lie and stop defending such behaviors of blatant false advertisement.

Ask yourself why are you defending such bad business practices? Are you really such a sheep?


Name calling will not be tolerated. You know better. Bye

-Rvenger