• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PC gaming is still alive, Nvidia post record revenue

Status
Not open for further replies.
ShintaiDK

ShintaiDK

Lifer
The sky isn't falling yet:
http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/n...esults-for-the-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-2016

Record quarterly revenue of $1.40 billion, up 12 percent from a year earlier Record full-year revenue of $5.01 billion, up 7 percent from fiscal 2015 Growth across all market platforms - Gaming, Professional Visualization, Datacenter, Automotive Sharply growing customer engagements in deep learning
Click to expand...


Outlook for the next quarter is also rosy (+109M$ YoY).
Revenue is expected to be $1.26 billion, plus or minus two percent.
Click to expand...
 
Head1985 said:
More overpriced cards=every time NV have some record revenue :\
Good for NV bad for US.
Click to expand...

very bad for us. The lesser company is dominating. If AMD is gone even console gaming will get screwed honestly. Unless another company is in.
 
Record margins I'm sure.

And yes, the segment is creeping up. Soon it will be normal for mid-range to be $500.

Here's hoping Polaris delivers and priced reasonably. Competition is only good for us gamers.
 
Silverforce11 said:
Record margins I'm sure.

And yes, the segment is creeping up. Soon it will be normal for mid-range to be $500.

Here's hoping Polaris delivers and priced reasonably. Competition is only good for us gamers.
Click to expand...

We already have mid-range for 500.They are here very long time since GTX680.
GTX680/980 cost 500/550USD.it will be low-end like GTX960 cards those will soon cost 500USD and GTX680 like cards will move to 650USD and nv sheeps will buy it.
 
Last edited:
Arachnotronic said:
But according to you and others, AMD already have better products?
Click to expand...

I can't blame sheep for buying the 960 over the 380X. They are simple creatures.

The 3.5GB 970 is NV's best selling GPU. Again, when the competition had Tri-X cool & quiet R290 for $200, R290X for sub $300.

We are told perf/w is key, that one should buy a slower or much more expensive card just because it has better perf/w.

Polaris aims to deliver winning perf/w. If it ends up with better perf/w than Pascal... I guess those sheeps would buy Polaris then, right? (Probably not)

Either way, I don't care about the market. I just want AMD to deliver an excellent product so I have a good reason to avoid buying NV and supporting their dirty practices.
 
96Firebird said:
Are you unaware of the 290(X)'s price at the time of the 970's debut?

And calling consumers sheep shows your maturity level...
Click to expand...

For much of last year, those were the prices on custom R290/X.

970 still sold record volume.

And the 960 vs 380, same price, 960 slower.

The 380X 4GB vs 960 4GB, the 960 is lots slower, similar price.

So, despite AMD having better GPUs, NV still outsold them heaps. So the market clearly favors NV's brand. Which lead me to saying I hope Polaris delivers and bring some competition back, it's a more healthy situation to have competitors rather than a monopoly. Gamers would agree to that for sure.

ps. We still get the 960 recommended here over the 380X for gaming builds, so yes, I can call them sheep because they defy logic.
 
Nvidia dominating and AMD losing money while having better parts for the price is a very bad thing for everyone. Remember that 980 TI wouldn't have come out without the Fury X being released. Nvidia loved the massive profits / perf of the Titan X and 980. Intel bowed out of the race with Larrabee and no one is in a position to rival Nvidia if AMD fails. That means we'd end up with the same thing we have now processor side (minus competition from ARM) where you get barely any performance increase per year.

https://youtu.be/xhuC8Tf9i3I?t=655

You can see what the lack of competition has done to cpu gains.
 
96Firebird said:
AMD needs to learn to shake things up on launch, not 6 months down the line with inevitable price cuts. When people search for reviews, launch reviews are probably the first to be read.
Click to expand...

what would that do for the 970 launch a year later? When the 970 launched i had a chance to buy a 290x vaporx for under $300 but all the reviews fooled me (plus the lies about the specs).

Turns out the 290x is actually faster. From synthetics I was seeing stock 290x as fast as the 1500MHz OC 970.

Personally I think nvidia is gaming benchmarks at launch of cards and games. They also avoided tainting the 970 with correct specs.
 
Head1985 said:
More overpriced cards=every time NV have some record revenue :\
Good for NV bad for US.
Click to expand...

it's not only Nvidia
4870 $299
5870 $379
6970 $369
7970 $549
290X $549
Fury X $649

edit I think it's worth adding
4850 $199
5850 $259
6950 $299
7950 $449
290 $399
Fury $549

this is over simplistic, but, AMD clearly tried to push for higher prices,

biggest trouble I think recently was Nvidia managing to generate a lot of excitement with Maxwell cards and AMD failing, starting earlier with the 290 coolers and availability, taking to long to release the 300 series, not being aggressive enough with pricing (Nvidia actually was with the 970 launch price, everyone expected it to be a lot more expensive!) and so on...
 
Last edited:
Yeah - I'm sure NVIDIA users are happy that they are doing well - but an 80/20 market split really isn't good for anyone. Having mid-range and high performance parts slowly creeping up in price every generation really isn't good for PC Gaming or anyone looking for a new GPU. I hope this new generation of 14nm GPU's bring's about some marketshare gains for AMD - but I won't hold my breath when GPU's like the 960 still sell in record numbers.
 
96Firebird said:
AMD needs to learn to shake things up on launch, not 6 months down the line with inevitable price cuts. When people search for reviews, launch reviews are probably the first to be read.
Click to expand...

The 290 dropped in price a month after the 970 launched. The issue was the reviews were never redone so price/perf was always in favor of the 970 until the 390 launched and people finally looked at the price/perf again.
 
If AMD cards had the quick driver support that Nvidia cards often had, they would be tough to pass up, but broken drivers, coupled with getting to the party late on drivers for new title releases kills them in my eyes. I will gladly buy a 960 over a 380 due to the track record with software support, even if it cost me 20% in FPS. I know that sounds very fan boy, but I have had AMD as recently as a 290 on release day, and suffered from driver issues , that the GTX cards were not experiencing. Fix the drivers, and I'm a buyer..
 
At current North American prices, AMD offers superior performance in every desktop GPU bracket except maybe the sub-$120 bracket and highest performance bracket (980 Ti).

You wouldn't know it though, with all the boneheaded recommendations of practically obsolete out of the box GTX 960 2GB cards.

Now on the other hand in the mobile space I like the nV offerings better. The GTX 960m is a decent value for a laptop capable of light gaming. And 970m/980m/980 kill AMD's offerings.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend buying a laptop with a 970m/980m/980 right now unless you absolutely couldn't wait, what with Polaris and Pascal just around the corner in a quarter or two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top