Q1 2013 discrete GPU market share?

[ICDP]

They had past impressive quarters, too.

Irrelevant for the reasons already pointed out. It was simply unsustainable for AMD to keep prices on their GPUs so low because the market share gains were not enough to counteract the low profit margins. For AMD to achieve good marketshare they had to sell at ridiculously low prices. Again, why sell at such low margins when it only gains ~5%-10% marketshare if they are lucky because Nvidia didn't compete.

 

[RussianSensation]

link?
i was under impression that it was nvidia's optimus that ate amd's market share

I don't have it on me. It was discussed already on the forums with links before. This isn't new information. AMD said they didn't have money to market HD7000M series and they gave up many design wins for strategic reasons since they had no funds to pursue many small customers. NV did. The fastest way to lose a fight is to not show up. AMD never showed up with HD7000M. Out of 300+ design wins that Kepler got, many were surely because of efficiency + Optimus, etc. However, many of those designs NV got automatically since AMD simply didn't bid for them. Why do you think the notebook GPU market share collapsed during HD7000M series so much? Optimus was superior than Enduro for 3-4 years now and yet HD7000M is more competitive than any previous series was. So why has the market share collapsed so dramatically all of a sudden? AMD simply gave up a ton of HD7000M design bids since they couldn't afford them. Easy win for NV. That's what happens when the company has no funds.

9 years is a long time. Obviously, market share fluctuates in such a time frame. Remember your statement here?

Of course I remember. Contrary to your statement, AMD's desktop dGPU market share has barely fluctuated in 9 years which is my whole point. AMD's desktop GPU market share has been around 40% for nearly 9 years outside of very few outliers. Therefore the statement that AMD is bleeding market share in the GPU sector is only true of notebook parts. The desktop dGPU segment has been steady over the last 9 years, more or less, yet now AMD went back to ATI/NV's $500-550 historical price levels. That means for next round HD8970 will be $499-549 or more. No more $299-369 flagship AMD cards at launch for a long time. Blame NV users who never bought HD6950 and flashed it to HD6970 to get a card for $299 with 90% of the performance of a $499 GTX580...

Total income of the Graphics business was 16 million last quarter -- how much did workstation, which has bigger margins, a record revenue quarter, contribute here from an income point-of-view?

I am really surprised by some of the questions you ask - such as breakdown and contribution of NV's professional segments, how it is reported, and AMD's contribution to their bottom line from various GPU segments. First of all, whatever publicly available information is disclosed, it is there in Google search / Investor relations on AMD/NV websites / Market Watch and other such financial sources for everyone. You are free to research this yourself. Everyone else on our forums who may have access to paid Equity Research Reports via there employer/paid for as investors will not disclose this data those details since those ER docs cost a lot of $ and it would not be allowed by employees of ER departments.

The financial details you ask are so detailed, that only people who are covering tech companies and specifically NV and AMD would know them. Otherwise, we would need to research those answers which is something you can do imo if it interests you that much as it takes hours to dig up some of this info.

It's not rocket science, AMD could not sustain such low prices for their GPUs because even with 50% market share they were not making a sustainable profit.

Double standard:

1) It is OK for NV to raise prices because (insert: AMD is no competition, there are apparently millions of PC gamers who will pay $700-1000 for flagship GPUs and NV has been "generous" to give us $499-649 flagships for the last 10 years, etc.)

2) It is NOT OK for AMD to "raise" prices (even though AMD just went back to ATI/NV historical pricing level of $549). NV blew that price level out of the water with $1000 GTX690/Titan and NV fans said it's reasonable since if you want the best you pay for it. Ironic since HD7970 was at least 20% faster than GTX580 and 40-50% faster when OC as early as Jan 2012 for $100 more!! Yet now the Titan is $600 more than HD7970GE for the same 40-50% more performance when max OCed.

In summary: $100 more over GTX580 for 40-50% more performance from HD7970 OC was considered "bad value/rip-off" by NV users but $600 more for a similar performance increase from Titan OC over HD7970GE is justifiable because Titan is "fastest card on the market". NV loyalist "logic." :whiste:

You have just demonstrated the problem AMD face. You say you are glad you waited but were happy to have no DX11 features at all for the 7-8 months it took for Fermi to be released. Why should AMD waste money trying to entice people like yourself (who is fairly open minded) let alone the real die hard Nvidia fans? It was a lost cause and the fact that Nvidia had no viable competition compared to the very attractively priced HD 5870 for so long yet AMD only achieved a 10% market share swing speaks volumes.

NV also has no viable competition for HD7850-7870 for 6 months and sold outdated, power inefficient, worse performaning, VRAM lacking GTX570/580 cards and NV users still waited 6+ months to buy GTX660-660Ti. Same story every generation. AMD realized there is no point on focusing on NV loyalists which is a huge amount of NV users. So how do you make $ and maintain market share? Beat NV to market and charge early adopter premiums and then lower prices over time to HD4870-6970 $299-369 prices. That's exactly what they have done this generation and it has paid off.

Irrelevant for the reasons already pointed out. For AMD to achieve good marketshare they had to sell at ridiculously low prices. Again, why sell at such low margins when it only gains ~5%-10% marketshare if they are lucky and Nvidia don't compete.

You made a good point about market share that people who didn't go to business school do not grasp - it's not % market share that matters but % market share profits/dollars. Apple might have less than 10% of the global smartphone unit shipments but probably has 80% of the total profits. AMD's goal now should be squarely on market share $$$ not % because the company needs cash flow to survive. High % market share with very low profits per market share percentage point is worthless in the long-term since this is hardly sustainable for a company with very high R&D expenditures & huge long-term debt which brings with it a costly interest expense which hits your cash flow every quarter. You can price your $500 videocard product at $10 and get 99% market share. The % market share helps to drive brand awareness in this instance and bargaining power for shelf space / promotions with retailers/wholesalers but unless you are Exxon Mobil and have billions of dollars in cash reserves to eliminate your competition this way, this type of strategy will simply bankrupt you. AMD tried for 3 consecutive generations with price/performance and that strategy failed to convert NV users. Time to move on and try a new strategy which is game bundles + beating competitor to market.

 

[sontin]

Double standard:

1) It is OK for NV to raise prices because (insert: AMD is no competition blah blah blah)

Hm, which is the competition to Titan and maybe a GTX780?

2) It is NOT OK for AMD to "raise" prices (even though AMD just went back to ATI/NV historical pricing level of $549). NV blew that price level out of the water with $1000 GTX690/Titan and NV fans said it's reasonable since if you want the best you pay for it. Ironic since HD7970 was at least 20% faster than GTX580 and 40-50% faster when OC as early as Jan 2012 for $100 more!! Yet now the Titan is $600 more than HD7970GE for the same 40-50% more performance when max OCed. So $100 more over GTX580 for 40-50% more performance from HD7970 OC was crazy rip-off but $600 more for a similar increase from Titan OC over HD7970GE is justifiable. Interesting. :whiste:

GTX680 cost $499 last year. Is there something i'm not seeing why you still ignore the fact that AMD is the reason nVidia can sell the successor of the GTX560TI for the price of the GTX580?

NV also has no viable competition for HD7850-7870 for 6 months and sold outdated, power inefficient, worse performaning, VRAM lacking GTX570/580 cards and NV users still waited 6+ months to buy GTX660-660Ti.

And people who bought AMD 6 months earlier paid much more and get no free games. Hm, who did the better deal 8 months ago?

AMD realized there is no point on focusing on NV loyalists which is a huge amount of NV users. So how do you make $ and maintain market share? Beat NV to market and charge early adopter premiums and then lower prices over time to HD4870-6970 $299-369 prices. That's exactly what they have done this generation and it has paid off.

You are right. That worked really great for everyone this round. :biggrin:

 

[SirPauly]

And you defend or justify Titan's price tag yourself....

As I did with the HD 7970.

Imho,

AMD had a window of opportunity or a competitive advantage and desired to raise prices by 50 percent to receive more revenue, improve margins and improve income. If it was priced lower, they may of not met demand -- good for AMD and good for consumers based on consumers received the fastest GPU and the latest-and-greatest.

The key is I also said this:

28nm HD 7970/7950 offers a more evolutionary and incremental price performance considering the node and arch are more substantial and significant. AMD offers more of a percentage MSRP gain than percentage performance gain. Was personally attacked and such strong defense of premiums it was insane. It was like the sweet spot strategy never existed for the many years and go premiums.

With Titan:

nvidia had a window of opportunity or competitive advantage as well. If it was priced lower they may of not meet demand -- a product to showcase GeForce gaming and compute leadership -- more importantly not to cannibalize sales for current and future kepler derivatives -- protect current and future margins. Good for nVidia and their customers that desire the best and to have the latest-and-greatest!

The key is I also said this:

Titan is another example of the more evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch. A monolith 40nm gamer that desired to wait for the 28nm monolith was rewarded with a 100 percent increase in price and a 2+ years of waiting.

In both cases, it shows when a company has a window of opportunity, their predator fangs show as they devour value for premiums. Understandable considering they're rare with strong competitors and they do have all the risk over-all.

The reasons I choose nVidia since 2008 are simple: Pro-active with gaming tools and features, flexibility of these tools, quality of the pixel while moving, tools and features that improve immersion and gaming experience potential so I can find the right balance for my subjective needs, tastes, tolerances and thresholds.

 

[RussianSensation]

However, my constructive nit-pick was 28nm offered a more evolutionary and incremental price/performance on a substantial and significant node and arch -- such strong defense for premiums -- as if the years of AMD's sweet spot, smaller die strategy never existed.

You are making stuff up. Who strongly defended AMD raising prices on our forums exactly? It's more like many of us realized why AMD did it - because NV users apparently do not care for price/performance, unlocking, voltage overclocking, game bundles, etc. This generation, we know for sure that NV users on average care less for what have generally been considered enthusiast features since they forgave gimped overclocking and didn't recognize that a $299 HD7950 OC >>> $450 GTX680 OC. That means NV users are less likely to care for OCing and price/performance. Many of us suspected this but this generation cemented this. Also, GeForce Experience catering to the NV userbase shows that most people buying NV cards don't even understand basic in-game settings that NV had to go out of their way to hand-hold their userbase. It sounds like many people buying NV cards just go by brand perception/word of mouth. It is no wonder they wouldn't even consider overclocking, unlocking, bitcoin mining, etc. as these are too advanced for them. Since NV has been winning the marketing game for 10+ years now, it's no wonder AMD hasn't made a dent in desktop dGPU market share despite such insane values as unlockable X800GTO2, HD6950 2GB, and massively overclockable HD7950.

HD7000 products today offer superior performance and price/performance simultaneously, excepting GTX650Ti/GTX650Ti Boost.

It's pretty unbelievable when a $299 HD7950 OC can trade blows and beat a $450 GTX680 OC. That's like X800XL OC beating 6800U or HD5850 OC beating GTX480 OC. NV users don't care.

 

[ICDP]

Hm, which is the competition to Titan and maybe a GTX780?

You missed his point, re-read it in context.

GTX680 cost $499 last year. Is there something i'm not seeing why you still ignore the fact that AMD is the reason nVidia can sell the successor of the GTX560TI for the price of the GTX580?

Non-sequitor. AMD priced the 7970 at much better price/perf compared to Nvidia's overpriced GTX 580 3GB. We could argue in circles over this, the salient point is that both AMD and Nvidia are profit organisations and will price products at what they believe will sell.

And people who bought AMD 6 months earlier paid much more and get no free games. Hm, who did the better deal 8 months ago?

Another non-sequitor, early adopters always pay a premium. Titan will eventually drop in price, will you level the same accusastion at Nvidia when that happens?

You are right. That worked really great for everyone this round. :biggrin:

It paid off for AMD and AMD are a faceless corporation, as are Nvidia. AMD learned the hard way that Nvidia loyalists will not purchase their cards even when they offer great performance and prices with no competition from Nvidia.

I could use your typical logic and blame Nvidia loyalists for current pricing because they refuse to purchase and AMD cards even when they offer far better price/perf, but that would be a non-sequitor.

 

[SirPauly]

You are making stuff up. Who strongly defended AMD raising prices on our forums exactly? It's more like many of us realized why AMD did it - because NV users apparently do not care for price/performance, unlocking, voltage overclocking, game bundles, etc. This generation, we know for sure that NV users on average care less for what have generally been considered enthusiast features since they forgave gimped overclocking and didn't recognize that a $299 HD7950 OC >>> $450 GTX680 OC. That means NV users are less likely to care for OCing and price/performance. Many of us suspected this but this generation cemented this. Also, GeForce Experience catering to the NV userbase shows that most people buying NV cards don't even understand basic in-game settings that NV had to go out of their way to hand-hold their userbase. It sounds like many people buying NV cards just go by brand perception/word of mouth. It is no wonder they wouldn't even consider overclocking, unlocking, bitcoin mining, etc. as these are too advanced for them. Since NV has been winning the marketing game for 10+ years now, it's no wonder AMD hasn't made a dent in desktop dGPU market share despite such insane values as unlockable X800GTO2, HD6950 2GB, and massively overclockable HD7950.

HD7000 products today offer superior performance and price/performance simultaneously, excepting GTX650Ti/GTX650Ti Boost.

It's pretty unbelievable when a $299 HD7950 OC can trade blows and beat a $450 GTX680 OC. That's like X800XL OC beating 6800U or HD5850 OC beating GTX480 OC. NV users don't care.

It gets old -- you can over-clock a nVidia GPU.

 

[sontin]

You missed his point, re-read it in context.

What? He said it is double standard to say that nVidia had a right to increase the prices because there is no competition.
So i asked him where is the competition? We are 3 months after the Titan launch and AMD has nothing new to offer. So...

Non-sequitor. AMD priced the 7970 at much better price/perf compared to Nvidia's overpriced GTX 580 3GB. We could argue in circles over this, the salient point is that both AMD and Nvidia are profit organisations and will price products at what they believe will sell.

AMD used nVidia outdated 40nm generation for the pricing of their new 28nm products. How idiotic is that? Not even that they released a product which was only 20-25% faster than a one year old 40nm product and everyone on this planet knew that nVidia will release new products on 28nm, too.

Another non-sequitor, early adopters always pay a premium. Titan will eventually drop in price, will you level the same accusastion at Nvidia when that happens?

He is using today prices for praising AMD's great products while ignoring that the launch prices were overpriced like hell.
6 months after the $349 7870 people could buy a $400 7970 with three top games for free and a 20% off coupon for Medal of Honor. So people who waited for nVidia had a much bigger market to choose from.

It paid off for AMD and AMD are a faceless corporation, as are Nvidia. AMD learned the hard way that Nvidia loyalists will not purchase their cards even when they offer great performance and prices with no competition from Nvidia.

"Nvidia loyalists" had a GTX580. There was no reason to upgrade to a 7970.

I could use your typical logic and blame Nvidia loyalists for current pricing because they refuse to purchase and AMD cards even when they offer far better price/perf, but that would be a non-sequitor.

"price/perf"? You mean like 5% more for the same price. Yes that is a reason to go with AMD instead of nVidia.

 

[ICDP]

It gets old -- you can over-clock a nVidia GPU.

Those are overclocked results on the right hand chart. Though obviously you play the silicone lottery and can't generalise on overclocking results.

My own experience is that a HD7950 overclocked to a conservative 1050 is equal to a stock GTX680 (boosting to ~1100 core). From there both cards have around another 10%-20% OC overhead available depending on card quality. Essentially a 7950 will trade blows with a GTX680 when both are overclocked to max, but the 7950 costs far less money.

 

[ICDP]

What? He said it is double standard to say that nVidia had a right to increase the prices because there is no competition.
So i asked him where is the competition? We are 3 months after the Titan launch and AMD has nothing new to offer. So....

Still missing his point I see. He is pointing out that when AMD do the same thing they get grief, you are proving his point below. Ironic post from you follows.

AMD used nVidia outdated 40nm generation for the pricing of their new 28nm products. How idiotic is that? Not even that they released a product which was only 20-25% faster than a one year old 40nm product and everyone on this planet knew that nVidia will release new products on 28nm, too..

See what I mean? Defending Titan in your 1st paragraph and attacking 7970 in the next. you have helped prove RussianSensation's point. I'm sure he will thank you later.

He is using today prices for praising AMD's great products while ignoring that the launch prices were overpriced like hell.
6 months after the $349 7870 people could buy a $400 7970 with three top games for free and a 20% off coupon for Medal of Honor. So people who waited for nVidia had a much bigger market to choose from..

AMD priced 7xx0 range high because Nvidia offered no competition at the time (are you seeing a pattern yet?). The market is dynamic not static and everyone knows that waiting 5-6 months will = better deal than the early adopters got. Even those who waited until now to purchase a GTX 6x0 card got a better deal than those who purchased on release.

"Nvidia loyalists" had a GTX580. There was no reason to upgrade to a 7970.

You missed the point entirely again, let me make it easier for you. AMD saw no benefit from releasing their top end GPU at $370 because the last time AMD did this (HD 5870) most Nvidia loyalsits still wouldn't purchase a ~35% faster GPU for an excellent price. Why would AMD repeat a losing strategy? They learned from experience that the small amount of market share gained with this strategy does not offset the lost profit.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Alber Einstein.

"price/perf"? You mean like 5% more for the same price. Yes that is a reason to go with AMD instead of nVidia.

Hmmm, you missed the point yet again.

 

[sontin]

Still missing his point I see.

Sure. Why do we need competition when we have AMD. :|

See what I mean, arguing in circles. The point is AMD released at a time when Nvidia had no real competitor and priced accordingly.

No, it was not "priced accordingly" last year. It was a 28nm product, offering only 20-25% more performance for a 10% higher price over a one year old 40nm product. It was overpriced. And it allowed nVidia to release a faster card for even a lower price...

Once again AMD priced 78x0 trange because Nvidia had no competition. Prices need to be taken in the context of the market on date of release. Right now AMD HD 7xx0 GPUs are priced to compete in todays market. The market is dynamic, not static.

With the GTX670 for $399 the 7870 for $349 was unsellable. That was 1 1/2 months later...

You missed the point entirely again, let me make it easier for you. AMD saw no benefit from releasing their top end and uncontested GPU at $370 because the small amount of market share gained would not offset the lost profit. The last time AMD did this (HD 5870) most Nvidia loyalsits still wouldn't purchase a GPU ~35% faster for an excellent price. Why would AMD repeat a losing strategy?

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Alber Einstein.

The last time AMD did it AMD fought with supply issuses of the 40nm process.

Price perf of the 7970 matched or beat the GTX580, and it was 1st to market by a few months. That is all that AMD need for them to bump prices. We see the same thing with Nvidia with Titan. It's simple business economics.

By this logic a GT640 should cost more than $500 because it's much faster than a 180nm GF2 Ultra...

 

[SirPauly]

Those are overclocked results on the right hand chart. Though obviously you play the silicone lottery and can't generalise on overclocking results.

My own experience is that a HD7950 overclocked to a conservative 1050 is equal to a stock GTX680 (boosting to ~1100 core). From there both cards have around another 10%-20% OC overhead available depending on card quality. Essentially a 7950 will trade blows with a GTX680 when both are overclocked to max, but the 7950 costs far less money.

If one desires to play the lottery!

 

[SirPauly]

What I don't understand is how GeForce Experience is an insult to nVidia customers! It's another example of their pro-active thinking for their customers that may not be as savy with settings or not as knowledgeable

Lower end GPU's -- OEMS with discrete desktop and mobile users -- new to GeForce or PC gaming over-all to name some examples. It may help customers receive a better experience.

 

[Jaydip]

What I don't understand is how GeForce Experience is an insult to nVidia customers! It's another example of their pro-active thinking for their customers that may not be as savy with settings or not as knowledgeable

Lower end GPU's -- OEMS with discrete desktop and mobile users -- new to GeForce or PC gaming over-all to name some examples. It may help customers receive a better experience.

I agree Pauly

 

[SirPauly]

. AMD learned the hard way that Nvidia loyalists will not purchase their cards even when they offer great performance and prices with no competition from Nvidia.

They garnered a dramatic shift in desktop discrete, did over-take nvidia in over-all discrete share, had some nice quarters! Wasn't so hard to take. Garnered so much momentum that it disrupted the market.

 

[raghu78]

If one desires to play the lottery!

if one is looking for the best value for money the HD 7950 is the card to get. at the same clocks HD 7970 is 5% faster than HD 7950. the newer HD 7950 boost cards come with 1.25v and the average overclock is 1100 - 1150 mhz.

 

[SirPauly]

Similar to the 6950, 5850, 4850 and 3850 -- AMD does and had impressive performance/price offerings -- strong competition -- compelling choices to consider. This is not new!

My constructive nit-pick about AMD was not being proactive enough and more-so reactive -- but the investments of Gaming Evolved does get noticed based on AMD is really trying to improve Radeon gaming experiences --working and investing harder than ever -- bundles are a great way to create value but more importantly, accelerates the awareness for their hard work and investments in actual content gamers may enjoy now with a Radeon purchase.

Curious what AMD may do with Gaming Evolved with console wins and PC gaming as well.

It is foolish to ignore AMD as a choice based on their immense talents. I never ignored nVidia when I gamed on ATI hardware mainly from 2001 to 2007. It's foolish to ignore both of them to me.

 

[ICDP]

If one desires to play the lottery!

That works both ways but I have yet to find a HD 7950 (out of 5 tested) that would NOT reach 1000MHz+ core clock at stock volts and an average of 1100-1200 with voltage tweaks.

7950 is $150 cheaper than a GTX680 and will trade blows with it when OC potential of both cards are taken into consideration. This is why I cut my losses on my HD 7970 and GTX680, they simply weren't any faster than a HD7950 that cost considerably less money.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34696294&postcount=55

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34697037&postcount=63

 

[ICDP]

Similar to the 6950, 5850, 4850 and 3850 -- AMD does and had impressive performance/price offerings -- strong competition -- compelling choices to consider. This is not new!

My constructive nit-pick about AMD was not being proactive enough and more-so reactive -- but the investments of Gaming Evolved does get noticed based on AMD is really trying to improve Radeon gaming experiences --working and investing harder than ever -- bundles are a great way to create value but more importantly, accelerates the awareness for their hard work and investments in actual content gamers may enjoy now with a Radeon purchase.

Curious what AMD may do with Gaming Evolved with console wins and PC gaming as well.

It is foolish to ignore AMD as a choice based on their immense talents. I never ignored nVidia when I gamed on ATI hardware mainly from 2001 to 2007. It's foolish to ignore both of them to me.

Agreed 100%.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I couldn't stand playing FC3 with my 7950, it was way too stuttery it made me sick playing it.

 

[ICDP]

I couldn't stand playing FC3 with my 7950, it was way too stuttery it made me sick playing it.

Yeah FC3 had some serious stutter problems. It affected my GTX680 as well but not as bad as the 7950. At some point it must have been fixed in a patch because it is much better now.

oops, going off topic. Sorry

 

[RussianSensation]

28nm HD 7970/7950 offers a more evolutionary and incremental price performance considering the nodeand arch are more substantial and significant. AMD offers more of a percentage MSRP gain than percentage performance gain.

You are off once again. The math proves your statement is false.

HD7970 OC vs. HD6970.

HD7970 @ 1180mhz is on average 72% faster than HD6970 at 1200P and 79% faster at 1600P.

HD6970 = $369
HD7970 = $549 (+49%)

HD7970 @ 1180mhz is on average 49% faster than GTX580 at 1200P and 59% faster than GTX580 at 1600P.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/28.html

For overclockers, HD7970 delivered a lot more performance for each % increase in price compared to either HD6970 or GTX580 - exact opposite of what you are saying.

You are saying 49-59% increase over 1.5GB GTX580 for a $100 price increase and 72-79% over HD6970 for a $180 increase is "evolutionary"? No offense, but how can you say that? The Titan is asking $590-600 more for a 45% increase over HD7970GE! HD7970 OC is trading blows with HD6990 and you call that "evolutionary"?

vs.

Titan max OC is about 45% faster than HD7970GE stock and I am being generous as Computerbase has it at 36-38%.

HD7970GE = $410
Titan = $1000 (+144%)

Therefore, AMD by far delivered the most value increase this generation since even at $550, HD7970 OC remained the fastest single GPU on average from January 2012 to the day the Titan was released in the hands of enthusiasts/overclockers.

You continue to talk about HD7970 being priced 50% higher than HD6970 but keep missing the point that it was just $100 higher than GTX580. If you are going keep talking about how HD7970 was crazy overpriced, why didn't say a word about GTX580 being the biggest rip-off for 1 year when HD6950 @ $299 unlocked gave 90% of the performance for $200 less? You realize GTX580 cost $499 and it was just 15% faster than HD6950 unlocked for a 67% price premium? You constantly keep bringing up HD7970's launch price but always ignore that it remained the fastest single GPU for enthusiasts until the Titan launched. Did you forget what happened to GTX280/480/580? Those cards couldn't even retain performance leadership for more than a year and their prices plummeted.

1) GTX280 lost $400 of value in less than 12 months since HD4890 was $259.
2) GTX480 lost $300 of value in less than 18 months since it was going on Newegg for $175-225.
3) GTX580 lost $250 of value in less than 18 months since HD7850 OC delivered similar performance for $250.

NV still has nothing faster than HD7970 OC besides a $1000 GTX690/Titan 1.5 years later and HD7970 still sells for $390 in retail. That's better than GTX280/480/580 ever did in performance or resale value. I am not defending HD7970's price but you are slamming it so hard but said nothing of the sort for GTX280/480/580/Titan. All those cards are far worse offenders than 7970 - and none of them can make even $1 bitcoin mining.

What I don't understand is how GeForce Experience is an insult to nVidia customers!

Because JHH said in the interview that the reason they have been working on GeForce Experience is because based on their focus group testing / NV customer feedback, 80% of their customers didn't know how to tweak graphical settings or understood what in-game GPU settings mean / how they impact performance. This was during GTX690 launch unveil I believe.

If one desires to play the lottery!

And that's the difference between yesterday's PC enthusiasts and today's PC gamers. Today's PC gamers call themselves "PC enthusiasts" based on how much $ they drop on hardware for e-peen. Yesterday's PC enthusiasts/gamers called themselves "PC enthusiasts" based on how much $ they saved to get the most possible performance closest to $1000 CPU and $600 GPU. Back in the days if you bought a Celeron 300A, XP1700+ and did a pin mod or overclocked the crap out of XP2500+/X2 3800+ to get as close as possible to $1000 CPUs, people called you a real PC enthusiast. Same thing if you did a 9500Pro / X800GTO2 unlock, or bought Albatron GeForce 4 Ti 4200 and overclocked it past Ti 4600 in performance. Today, the term is slowly becoming used to define someone who dropped $3K on 3970X and 2 Titans. Big deal. It takes 0 skills to buy $3000-5000 of PC parts. Show me how you can build a $1,500 PC that gives 80% of the performance of a $3,000 one and I'll be impressed.

 

[Enigmoid]

I don't have it on me. It was discussed already on the forums with links before. This isn't new information. AMD said they didn't have money to market HD7000M series and they gave up many design wins for strategic reasons since they had no funds to pursue many small customers. NV did. The fastest way to lose a fight is to not show up. AMD never showed up with HD7000M. Out of 300+ design wins that Kepler got, many were surely because of efficiency + Optimus, etc. However, many of those designs NV got automatically since AMD simply didn't bid for them. Why do you think the notebook GPU market share collapsed during HD7000M series so much? Optimus was superior than Enduro for 3-4 years now and yet HD7000M is more competitive than any previous series was. So why has the market share collapsed so dramatically all of a sudden? AMD simply gave up a ton of HD7000M design bids since they couldn't afford them. Easy win for NV. That's what happens when the company has no funds.

I would respectfully disagree about the 7000m series being the most competitive for years. Excluding Optimus from a hardware standpoint the 6xxxm series competed far better with the 5xxm series from nvidia. Fermi had horrible performance per watt and at a similar tdp the competition for midrange was between the 540m and 6750/6770m (at which point the 6750m was significantly faster). Kepler/GCN is pretty much equal at the lower end in terms of power consumption.

 

[NIGELG]

You are off once again. The math proves your statement is false.

HD7970 OC vs. HD6970.

HD7970 @ 1180mhz is on average 72% faster than HD6970 at 1200P and 79% faster at 1600P.

HD6970 = $369
HD7970 = $549 (+49%)

HD7970 @ 1180mhz is on average 49% faster than GTX580 at 1200P and 59% faster than GTX580 at 1600P.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7970_X_Turbo/28.html

For overclockers, HD7970 delivered a lot more performance for each % increase in price compared to either HD6970 or GTX580 - exact opposite of what you are saying.

You are saying 49-59% increase over 1.5GB GTX580 for a $100 price increase and 72-79% over HD6970 for a $180 increase is "evolutionary"? No offense, but how can you say that? The Titan is asking $590-600 more for a 45% increase over HD7970GE! HD7970 OC is trading blows with HD6990 and you call that "evolutionary"?

vs.

Titan max OC is about 45% faster than HD7970GE stock and I am being generous as Computerbase has it at 36-38%.

HD7970GE = $410
Titan = $1000 (+144%)

Therefore, AMD by far delivered the most value increase this generation since even at $550, HD7970 OC remained the fastest single GPU on average from January 2012 to the day the Titan was released in the hands of enthusiasts/overclockers.

You continue to talk about HD7970 being priced 50% higher than HD6970 but keep missing the point that it was just $100 higher than GTX580. If you are going keep talking about how HD7970 was crazy overpriced, why didn't say a word about GTX580 being the biggest rip-off for 1 year when HD6950 @ $299 unlocked gave 90% of the performance for $200 less? You realize GTX580 cost $499 and it was just 15% faster than HD6950 unlocked for a 67% price premium? You constantly keep bringing up HD7970's launch price but always ignore that it remained the fastest single GPU for enthusiasts until the Titan launched. Did you forget what happened to GTX280/480/580? Those cards couldn't even retain performance leadership for more than a year and their prices plummeted.

1) GTX280 lost $400 of value in less than 12 months since HD4890 was $259.
2) GTX480 lost $300 of value in less than 18 months since it was going on Newegg for $175-225.
3) GTX580 lost $250 of value in less than 18 months since HD7850 OC delivered similar performance for $250.

NV still has nothing faster than HD7970 OC besides a $1000 GTX690/Titan 1.5 years later and HD7970 still sells for $390 in retail. That's better than GTX280/480/580 ever did in performance or resale value. I am not defending HD7970's price but you are slamming it so hard but said nothing of the sort for GTX280/480/580/Titan. All those cards are far worse offenders than 7970 - and none of them can make even $1 bitcoin mining.



Because JHH said in the interview that the reason they have been working on GeForce Experience is because based on their focus group testing / NV customer feedback, 80% of their customers didn't know how to tweak graphical settings or understood what in-game GPU settings mean / how they impact performance. This was during GTX690 launch unveil I believe.

Titan is priced at 1000 bucks to not ''Cannibalize'' sales of lower Nvidia cards.....LOL....Nonsense.

That is the justification by some for a 600 dollar difference to 7970 Ghz for 35 % more performance.

 

[RussianSensation]

It gets old -- you can over-clock a nVidia GPU.

In case you didn't notice, stock vs. stock, OC vs. OC in the charts. NV loses. $300 HD7950 OC + 3 AAA games >>> $450 GTX680 OC. Can you recall the last time a $300 ATi card could consistently trade blows and beat a $450 NV card in performance?