@mrbojangles25 said:
I'm kind of curious why they even need to take "the crown" to begin with.
Isn't "good enough" exactly that? Good enough?
If they profitable and showing growth, then what's the big deal?
Good question. Let me explain. Before I can get a Radeon HD 4870, which was my first ATI/AMD GPU. I can get close 70-75% performance of nVIDIA for half the price. With my last AMD GPU, R9 390X I can get close to GTX 980 with less money and the same image quality.
Now, after jumping to 4K I don't really have another alternative option with respect to getting the performance AND image quality. Before AMD could get away with being "good enough" because image quality wasn't a factor as it was as good if not better than nVIDIA in mage quality.
Now, with Ray Tracing and max 4K Game settings we really need something like DLSS to play games with Ray Tracing and AMD's FSR 3 lags behind of DLSS with respect to performance and image quality. If AMD matched the picture quality, with FSR 3 I would more than willing to save the $500 bucks and go with 7900 XTX vs RTX 4090. But that isn't the case.
I agree with you to a certain extent that as long as they are profitable and showing growth, it's fine. But I think as nVidia is winning generation after generation and especially with their features such as frame generation and DLSS, and other features like Shadowplay it's hurting AMD's growth even though AMD may be competitive in the mid-end like with HD 7800 XT.
Back in the 4850/4870 not getting the performance crown, AMD still grew. Market share jumped to 40% now AMD has like 17% which is half then what they were 15 years ago. And still the same after 8 years. Consecutive generations of getting the performance is hurting their image I would argue, especially with the feature set that nVidia is offering.
Lastly, "winning the crown" has a psychological affect on consumers. They perceive that it's the "better" brand even if that may not be 100% true which equals to better sales and market share. We saw that with the 9700/9800 generation 20 years ago. ATI started to change their perception of playing second fiddle to NVIDIA. In the next generation after the 9700/9800 with the X800 XT PE vs the GeForce 6800 Ultra which was released in 2004 close to 20 years ago is when we had a lot of PC gamers finally switch to ATI. In fact that's whey AMD crossed the 50% threshold mark and actually took over the market share and became the #1 GPU maker in the world.
Also, shouldn't AMD offer something to Gamers like me who made the jump to 4K and want's to play every new game maxed out at 4K? I know I may be in the niche from going from mid-end so it may not matter to AMD. But as someone who supported AMD for nearly 10 years, shouldn't AMD provide something for someone like me?
Now, it's more than ever needed for AMD. NVIDIA is running away with almost 80% market share for the reasons above and many more. Look what happened to AMD once they started to take away the "performance crown" from intel with Ryzen. A lot of gamers switched to AMD. Which brought significant influx of cash to AMD.
Log in to comment