Why is it that Nvidia holds value more over AMD?

[tigersty1e]

a better question to ask is:

why are nvidia cards more expensive than amd cards for the same performance?

its not that they hold more value. its that they were originally more expensive to start out. this trend only lasts 1-3 years.

you'll notice that cards from both camps become equal in price to performance once you evaluate cards older than ~3 years because that market segment evaluates the price based on performance more.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I showed the slide mostly to put the "ATI would be better than AMD" point to rest.

You reposted AMD spin.

Kind of like taking the word of a house from it's own mouth.

 

[SiliconWars]

You reposted AMD spin.

Kind of like taking the word of a house from it's own mouth.

I didn't know that houses had mouths.

Regardless, that isn't AMD "spin". Do you really believe that a company like AMD would just drop the ATI branding without first doing a lot of checks on what the brand strengths were?

Do you actually believe that ATI was ever a stronger brand than AMD? If so, I have a bridge in London to sell for cheap that you might be interested in.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I dunno, you ask that question when they spent 5.2 billion on the company...

Your presumption is that AMD makes good, well thought out decisions whereas history says otherwise.

 

[SiliconWars]

I dunno, you ask that question when they spent 5.2 billion on the company...

Cheap for the market leader as a future play - only now is it starting to show with the console wins. Nvidia has spent a lot of money on companies that haven't brought in anything like the initial outlay either. Ageia, Icera cost a small fortune - Tegra continues to lose the company money every year.

At least ATI has something to show, what has Nvidia got from their aquisitions?

Your presumption is that AMD makes good, well thought out decisions whereas history says otherwise.

I wonder what that makes Nvidia then, competing against AMD with Intel's help and still struggling to beat them more often than not. They must be a truly awful company to fail so hard.

 

[blackened23]

I didn't know that houses had mouths.

Regardless, that isn't AMD "spin". Do you really believe that a company like AMD would just drop the ATI branding without first doing a lot of checks on what the brand strengths were?

Do you actually believe that ATI was ever a stronger brand than AMD? If so, I have a bridge in London to sell for cheap that you might be interested in.

The good news is that AMD still makes relatively good GPUs IMO. CPUs? Terrible (IMO). I think the 79xx were great cards, although they had some issues at launch that took way too long to fix - way too long. I think the 9xxx series will be good as well, although we'll see where they end up.

That said, ATI is now forever tied to the fact that Hector Ruiz completely destroyed that company and ran it into the ground with catastrophic and downright stupid business decisions. AMD should be in a way better position than they are, but they aren't due to past incompetance. Unfortunately you need money to make money in the silicon business (more so with CPUs) and Mr. Ruiz apparently didn't realize this. Or he was too busy stuffing his pockets while embezzling funds. Maybe they can pull out of this, but it's just unfortunate. Their CPUs have suffered as a result, and I don't think there is ever any hope of AMD catching up to intel in either mobile or desktop. However, I still like AMD GPUs. I just hope they don't run that business unit with yet more stupid business decisions as Mr. Ruiz had done - and that isn't a certain outcome. Stupidity at AMD knows no bounds.

I don't know about ATI vs AMD branding. When ATI was the branding, ATI was not tied to incompetent management. You can make a strong argument that ATI may have been a better brand.

Again, I like AMD graphics cards. I just really don't like the fact that ATI is tied to AMD management and their MIS management of the business. I guess what i'm saying is, I would love it if ATI were still ATI.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I wonder what that makes Nvidia then, competing against AMD with Intel's help and still struggling to beat them more often than not. They must be a truly awful company to fail so hard.

There is no reason to make it personal.

AMD/ATI hasn't competed with Nvidia's big die since G80, that's eight years straight and counting.

Probably another factor in why Nvidia holds more value over AMD.

Invariably better driver support, and more features have to weigh in on this too.


Sure seems more plausible than the other sides argument, which can be summed up as "Everyone else is stupid". Certainly doesn't make it true though, just another option in a discussion where people seem to think they can argue until they're blue in the face to make their opinion a fact.

 

[SiliconWars]

There is no reason to make it personal.

Not making it personal, I'm just pointing out that if AMD is so bad, why is Nvidia toiling so badly against them at certain points? Surely Nvidia - with all their expertise, money and brand strength - should be doing an awful lot better than what they are?

AMD/ATI hasn't competed with Nvidia's big die since G80, that's eight years straight and counting.

Even more reason to mix it up this time. You have to realise that being predicatable is a surefire way to get beaten every time.

Probably another factor in why Nvidia holds more value over AMD.

At the top end, yes. I mentioned that. Halo effect counts for a lot in terms of perception if not always in raw, hard cash.

Invariably better driver support, and more features have to weigh in on this too.

Features, definitely no. Drivers? Both are bad in different ways, at least at the consumer level. I'm not going to pretend AMD's pro stuff is better - it's clearly not.

 

[SiliconWars]

The good news is that AMD still makes relatively good GPUs IMO. CPUs? Terrible (IMO). I think the 79xx were great cards, although they had some issues at launch that took way too long to fix - way too long. I think the 9xxx series will be good as well, although we'll see where they end up.

That said, ATI is now forever tied to the fact that Hector Ruiz completely destroyed that company and ran it into the ground with catastrophic and downright stupid business decisions. AMD should be in a way better position than they are, but they aren't due to past incompetance. Unfortunately you need money to make money in the silicon business (more so with CPUs) and Mr. Ruiz apparently didn't realize this. Or he was too busy stuffing his pockets while embezzling funds. Maybe they can pull out of this, but it's just unfortunate. Their CPUs have suffered as a result, and I don't think there is ever any hope of AMD catching up to intel in either mobile or desktop. However, I still like AMD GPUs. I just hope they don't run that business unit with yet more stupid business decisions as Mr. Ruiz had done - and that isn't a certain outcome. Stupidity at AMD knows no bounds.

I don't know about ATI vs AMD branding. When ATI was the branding, ATI was not tied to incompetent management. You can make a strong argument that ATI may have been a better brand.

Again, I like AMD graphics cards. I just really don't like the fact that ATI is tied to AMD management and their MIS management of the business. I guess what i'm saying is, I would love it if ATI were still ATI.

There is a money cost to keeping a brand, and that doubtlessly played a part in the decision. But you know, AMD was the market leader in graphics when the decision was made to drop ATI. I miss ATI as well, but even in simple consolidation terms it was something that had to happen, and AMD got the timing right.

It's too easy to look back when times aren't so good and say "that was the wrong decision". Nobody was saying it back then when AMD had almost 2/3rd's market share and the 5-series was dominating Nvidia.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Not making it personal, I'm just pointing out that if AMD is so bad, why is Nvidia toiling so badly against them at certain points? Surely Nvidia - with all their expertise, money and brand strength - should be doing an awful lot better than what they are?

They are doing a lot better, in the context of this discussion as a company :thumbsup:

Even more reason to mix it up this time. You have to realise that being predicatable is a surefire way to get beaten every time.

Mix what up?

At the top end, yes. I mentioned that. Halo effect counts for a lot in terms of perception if not always in raw, hard cash.

Enough cash that everyone wants it. Seems weird that companies like AMD/NVidia/Intel all want $1000 consumer grade products if they have no value.

Features, definitely no. Drivers? Both are bad in different ways, at least at the consumer level. I'm not going to pretend AMD's pro stuff is better - it's clearly not.

Exactly what features does AMD have specifically for their cards? I've owned mine for over 6 months now and I'm not aware of any special features offered by AMD.

 

[blackened23]

The wrong decision was Hector Ruiz paying higher than double the market value for ATI. AMD is still paying the repercussions of that.

The theme here is that AMD has a history of incompetent management that has destroyed much of their business. That may have implications for their graphics division in the future which is saddled with not having enough money to put where it counts (eg R+D and software development, in terms of software nvidia does FAR better than AMD). Fortunately AMD's GPU side is still doing well and I still like AMD's GPUs - I still recommend their GPUs a lot. But I would still prefer it if ATI were still ATI, separate of AMD's management. Hopefully their new team will do better in that respect......

Things are getting better. Much better. AMD is trying to work on the software side - the best hardware is useless without good software to accompany it. They are still slower than nvidia, and I hope that changes. They NEED that to change.

 

[SiliconWars]

They are doing a lot better, in the context of this discussion as a company :thumbsup:

The word you missed was "currently"

Mix what up?

Die sizes/ultimate performance. You said they haven't tried to compete with G80 in years, so what better time than now to change that?

Enough cash that everyone wants it. Seems weird that companies like AMD/NVidia/Intel all want $1000 consumer grade products if they have no value.

So...the halo effect?

Exactly what features does AMD have specifically for their cards? I've owned mine for over 6 months now and I'm not aware of any special features offered by AMD.

Must have been some other reason why you bought them then.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The word you missed was "currently"

Historically would be a better word.

Die sizes/ultimate performance. You said they haven't tried to compete with G80 in years, so what better time than now to change that?

No I said they haven't competed with the big die chips, ATI/AMD hasn't had the top GPU on a node for almost a decade.

So...the halo effect?

File it under the possible reasons besides "Everyone who buys Nvidia is stupid" section effect.

Must have been some other reason why you bought them then.

Litecoins was the biggest reason, I didn't enjoy doing it and will probably never do it again. $310 isn't a lot of money to me but I was drawn in by the possiblity of something for nothing, but it's not nothing, it's heat, noise, wear and tear, and time. All of which I value more now in hindsight than $310.

Truth is I'd really like to unload the second card, but I have a hard time swallowing the massive value depreciation AMD created with their latest price cuts.


Edit: As I said before, I'm not trying to bag on AMD just stating it how I see it. And as I said before I would buy AMD again, but they have to offer more for less otherwise I see no reason not to pick Nvidia over AMD.

 

[ams23]

@ SiliconWars: NVIDIA is way ahead of AMD in discrete desktop graphics card market share, discrete notebook graphics card market share, professional graphics card market share. NVIDIA is also way ahead of AMD in HPC computing (with Tesla), Cloud computing (with GRID), and Ultra Mobile computing (with Tegra Logan, Parker, and beyond). To top it all off, NVIDIA is way ahead of AMD with respect to corporate gross margins and cash balance in excess of debt obligations. The reality is that the energy efficiency breakthroughs made with Kepler.M in Tegra Logan will filter through NVIDIA's entire lineup in the future.

 

[BoFox]

Litecoins was the biggest reason, I didn't enjoy doing it and will probably never do it again. $310 isn't a lot of money to me but I was drawn in by the possiblity of something for nothing, but it's not nothing, it's heat, noise, wear and tear, and time. All of which I value more now in hindsight than $310.

Truth is I'd really like to unload the second card, but I have a hard time swallowing the massive value depreciation AMD created with their latest price cuts.

No biggie, a couple $$ ain't the end of the world dude. Go ahead and swallow that horse pill - I know you can do it! :biggrin:

But, you never know - the value of LTC might skyrocket to $40 per coin before you know it. Once the birthing pain of this cybercurrency in its infancy resides, all paradise (not hell) breaks loose!

Problem is, getting one girlfriend to sponsor half of the 780, and the other gf the other half of the $ for the 780... much harder than simply getting one to buy one 7950, and the other gf another 7950 for you! Hahahahaha... just messing with you man!!!


About the topic, during recent April-May, many Radeon cards had more value than the equally performing Nvidia cards. The 5870's and 6950/6970s were selling for close to $200 on Ebay - sometimes even more. Several 7970s were going for up to $500 a pop - even one year old cards!!

Now, we're seeing a massive dump of these cards on the 2nd-hand market as mining is far, far from profitable at the current rates. This has to contribute to the value depreciation of the retail cards as well, if AMD wants to maintain a healthy sales figure.

 

[Elfear]

No I said they haven't competed with the big die chips, ATI/AMD hasn't had the top GPU on a node for almost a decade.

Me thinks that's a bit of an exaggeration.

2004 - X800XT PE
2005 - X850XT
2006 - X1900XT/XTX
2009 - 5870 (top dog on 40nm for almost 8 months)
2012 - 7970/7970Ghz (top dog on 28nm for 11 months)

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Me thinks that's a bit of an exaggeration.

2006 - X1900XT/XTX
2009 - 5870 (top dog on 40nm for almost 8 months)
2012 - 7970/7970Ghz (top dog on 28nm for 11 months)

Nothing exaggerated :thumbsup:

G80 was 90nm same as X1900XT.

5870 wasn't in the picking order against GF100/110.

7970 competed with GK104, when GK110 arrived on 28nm it wasn't even close.


Perhaps the 9970 will change nearly a decade of the same trend, perhaps not.

 

[Leadbox]

Nothing exaggerated :thumbsup:

G80 was 90nm same as X1900XT.

5870 wasn't in the picking order against GF100/110.

7970 competed with GK104, when GK110 arrived on 28nm it wasn't even close.


Perhaps the 9970 will change nearly a decade of the same trend, perhaps not.

Is your idea of competing limited to just being the fastest, period?
Are we all in a mad rush to get 780s or Titans now?
When I go pick up that 670 or 760, is it because the Titan is has no competition?
Having the single fastest gpu may have its advantages, but I doubt it's as significant as you make it out to be

 

[SirPauly]

a better question to ask is:

why are nvidia cards more expensive than amd cards for the same performance?

its not that they hold more value. its that they were originally more expensive to start out. this trend only lasts 1-3 years.

The HD 7970 was 549 and the HD 7950 was 449 -- -nVidia products were originally less expensive with many 6XX and 7XX sku's! nVidia holds their value, imho!

 

[ocre]

Is your idea of competing limited to just being the fastest, period?
Are we all in a mad rush to get 780s or Titans now?
When I go pick up that 670 or 760, is it because the Titan is has no competition?
Having the single fastest gpu may have its advantages, but I doubt it's as significant as you make it out to be

I think he is speaking about top performance out of a given node.

But what about if we throw in other metrics such as discrete market share?

I guess the situation really doesnt change much although with the 5870 amd did climb back up there for a couple months only to plummet down in short order.

I think if we are speaking specifically of competing, market share is the absolute best scale to use. You can have a better all around product but still fail once out in the market. This is because the competition knows how to compete and to be successful. It is achievements on many levels. Battles fought on many fronts. It doesnt end with a great piece of hardware. No, this is really only the very beginning.

Nvidia is doing well on many many metrics and many many scales.

 

[tigersty1e]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigersty1e

a better question to ask is:

why are nvidia cards more expensive than amd cards for the same performance?

its not that they hold more value. its that they were originally more expensive to start out. this trend only lasts 1-3 years.

The HD 7970 was 549 and the HD 7950 was 449 -- -nVidia products were originally less expensive with many 6XX and 7XX sku's! nVidia holds their value, imho!

the 7900 came out at those prices because there was no competition from nvidia. going back 8 years that was the first time amd made a bold expensive price move.

speaking purely on fps per price performance (and ignoring other factors such as drivers, features, etc) it is crystal clear that amd is the better buy. has been since the 4850/4870.

if you want to argue that nvidia is the better buy for other reasons is fine, but to say nvidia is the more cost efficient brand is so false that you need to rethink that.



Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[Rvenger]

The HD 7970 was 549 and the HD 7950 was 449 -- -nVidia products were originally less expensive with many 6XX and 7XX sku's! nVidia holds their value, imho!

I have a better chance of selling an AMD card than an Nvidia card. I can never sell my Nvidia cards without losing my @#$%. I had my 780 going for $525 shipped and nobody was even interested in it. Had to do a trade with a Radeon to sell it. Turned out good in the end though.

My point is they might hold their value but good luck selling it at that "value" it held.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have a better chance of selling an AMD card than an Nvidia card. I can never sell my Nvidia cards without losing my @#$%. I had my 780 going for $525 shipped and nobody was even interested in it. Had to do a trade with a Radeon to sell it. Turned out good in the end though.

My point is they might hold their value but good luck selling it at that "value" it held.

I would just pay an extra $100 or so for a new one.

 

[Teizo]

My old 6800 Ultra cost $499. Nvidia cards right now part per part have had more performance and as a result of some goof ups by AMD the last few years AMD's top cards did not line up with Nvidias...so Nvidia cards have risen $50 to $100 dollars more than they used to on the high end due to market positioning. Right around the x60 line you can get some good price/performance ratios.

Also, AMD gets throttled by Intel and by name association anything AMD is viewed 'budget' conscious.

So, if AMD could get back on a part per part performance basis....and resist the urge to jack prices up above the old price points...Nvidia will have to come down in price. People will pay a premium for performance, but mass sells to OEM's come down to profit maximization. Businesses always charge as much as they can get away with.

 

[Rvenger]

I would just pay an extra $100 or so for a new one.

$100 is a big price difference IMO, especially for a unit that had a 3 year serialized warranty.