AMD takes aim at Nvidia's controversial GeForce Partner Program

[NightAntilli]

I'll be awaiting your source links...

Ah yes. When people are out of arguments they start asking for sources that will ultimately will be nitpicked and argued that it doesn't prove anything. Want a source? Look at your own behavior and attitude towards AMD products in this thread...

History speaks volumes, and you can freely look up the information yourself. The 5870 was 30% faster than the GTX 285 and it was faster for 6 months till the 480 came out. The 5870 was also the first card to have angle independent AF.

The 7970 was faster than the 580 by 40% and was ahead for several months till the 680 launched. The 7970 was also an overclocking monster capable of 30%+ OCs and extending its advantage over the 580 (even OCD versions) to in excess of 60%.

The R9 290X was a Titan killer offering the same performance for about half the cost. It was matched by the 780Ti but that launched after the 290X and was more expensive.

It has only really been the 9xx and 10xx series that nVidia has pulled a gap on AMD. The last time this happened was the 2900 and 3870 series, by AMD who followed it up with the amazing 4870 series which wiped the floor with everything nVidia had. Even though that had bargain pricing, NV still outsold AMD.

Even when NV had an objectively worse product in multiple generations, they were out selling AMD because of the mind share the brand has. You can deny it, but that is how things went. The idea that AMD was always inferior is just that, an idea. It was mostly not based on reality.

 

[Nocturne]

There is a small part of me that wishes there were more graphics card options than just AMD and NVIDIA to choose from. Maybe companies wouldn't feel pressured into signing up to these Partner Programmes

The same though can be said on the CPU front, AMD was garbage until Ryzen since the hayday where they were at the top.

 

[m3tavision]

You would think all those technologies that flash by at the end of the video meant AMD is sitting back collecting cash from them...

Sadly those technologies are either also used by NVIDIA (HBM), hardly used (Vulkan) or inferior (Freesync).

AND needs to do better and stop whining like their fanboys and price/performance advocates. Just sayin.

BTW, FreeSync is far superior to G-Sync. (AnandTech Jan 2017 https://www.anandtech.com/show/1096...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming

 

[hahahanoobs]

Techspot seems to contradict your opinion

https://www.techspot.com/article/1454-gsync-vs-freesync/

Are there worse FreeSync monitors? Yes. Are there monitors as good? Yes and they came in cheaper to boot. What exactly do you have against freedom of choice? We get it, you love high end monitors that cost allot of money. That's no reason for cheaper options to not exists.

You complain about the same thing in every FreeSync article on TechSpot.



First we are talking about the GPP here and AMD's response. Second, Nvidia lying about the GTX 970 kind of proves Kotters point. Nvidia was sued and lost for the GTX 970 3.5GB issue for a reason, it lied to it's customers. Something of which you don't seem to care.



The fact that you just assume everyone who's against your opinion is an "AMD guys" says enough. I own a 1080 Ti in my main rig. People don't require an AMD card to make a moral decision.



AMD hasn't had catalyst drivers since 2015 and they haven't had ATI branded cards for even longer. If you are going to comment on the state on the company, at least make sure it's within the reference frame of the last few years.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_4000_series

The Radeon 4000 series beat Nvidia Fermi in every metric. Small die size, more performance, and more power efficient. Fermi still sold more, despite being notoriously hot. You could buy a 4850 and get GTX 280 performance. The 4850 was $200 at launch while the GTX 280 was $500 at the same time. People buying Nvidia at that time weren't following logic, they were following brand. If you look at the comments of many articles at the time, enthusiasts were still mad at Nvidia for it's endless rebrand of the 8800, of which it rebranded 4 times.

Since I work and don't sit in the comments all day, I'll address the first and last reply.

First, you only need to look at a Freesync monitors VRR window to see it's inferior to G Sync no matter the price.
Apple charges a premium so I guess you hate successful companies. That's sad.

Second, did you really go back to the 8800GT to compare against an entire range of rebranded AMD cards? The last three gens in a row?! Dayum!

Do more research please!

 

[hahahanoobs]

Ah yes. When people are out of arguments they start asking for sources that will ultimately will be nitpicked and argued that it doesn't prove anything. Want a source? Look at your own behavior and attitude towards AMD products in this thread...

History speaks volumes, and you can freely look up the information yourself. The 5870 was 30% faster than the GTX 285 and it was faster for 6 months till the 480 came out. The 5870 was also the first card to have angle independent AF.

The 7970 was faster than the 580 by 40% and was ahead for several months till the 680 launched. The 7970 was also an overclocking monster capable of 30%+ OCs and extending its advantage over the 580 (even OCD versions) to in excess of 60%.

The R9 290X was a Titan killer offering the same performance for about half the cost. It was matched by the 780Ti but that launched after the 290X and was more expensive.

It has only really been the 9xx and 10xx series that nVidia has pulled a gap on AMD. The last time this happened was the 2900 and 3870 series, by AMD who followed it up with the amazing 4870 series which wiped the floor with everything nVidia had. Even though that had bargain pricing, NV still outsold AMD.

Even when NV had an objectively worse product in multiple generations, they were out selling AMD because of the mind share the brand has. You can deny it, but that is how things went. The idea that AMD was always inferior is just that, an idea. It was mostly not based on reality.

No, I ask for source links when I read a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. If you had any knowledge of how a BUSINESS works, you'd save yourself A LOT of useless keystrokes.

The funny part is, of you had produced credible source links to back up your claims like I asked, you would have shut me up. But instead you keep reading from the AMD fanboy handbook.

 

[hahahanoobs]

BTW, FreeSync is far superior to G-Sync. (AnandTech Jan 2017 https://www.anandtech.com/show/1096...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming)

Lol@improving HDR gaming.
With the pathetic VRR windows FreeSync monitors STILL have, you HAVE to buy the highest end AMD card to get your money's worth.

AMD has alternatives, they just aren't as good as what's out. You lot keep saying we need AMD to compete. Well I'm still waiting. But keep making excuses for them so I can keep laughing and chopping you lot down to the base!

 

[Evernessince]

Since I work and don't sit in the comments all day, I'll address the first and last reply.

First, you only need to look at a Freesync monitors VRR window to see it's inferior to G Sync no matter the price.
Apple charges a premium so I guess you hate successful companies. That's sad.

Second, did you really go back to the 8800GT to compare against an entire range of rebranded AMD cards? The last three gens in a row?! Dayum!

Do more research please!

Yeah you're right, FreeSync technically has a wider refresh window. G-Sync can only go as low as 30 FPS, once you dip below that LFC kicks in. The spec for FreeSync can go as low as 2 FPS. There are already a handful of korean panels that can do 25 - 144 Hz with FreeSync.

If you are going to try and cherry pick an single point when you fail to argue on the whole, at least make sure you can argue that single point.

 

[NightAntilli]

No, I ask for source links when I read a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. If you had any knowledge of how a BUSINESS works, you'd save yourself A LOT of useless keystrokes.

The funny part is, of you had produced credible source links to back up your claims like I asked, you would have shut me up. But instead you keep reading from the AMD fanboy handbook.

Ah yes... "Credible". Determined by who? Whatever I post, I'm gonna get "That's not a reliable source", so, I don't bother.

Let me throw you a bone anyway;
"For now, the Radeon HD 4870 and 4850 are both solid values and cards we would absolutely recommend to readers looking for hardware at the $200 and $300 price points. The fact of the matter is that by NVIDIA's standards, the 4870 should be priced at $400 and the 4850 should be around $250. You can either look at it as AMD giving you a bargain or NVIDIA charging too much, either way it's healthy competition in the graphics industry once again."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/23

Now go look at the sales of the HD4870 vs the nVidia equivalents.

Or;
"Unless NVIDIA does something totally off the wall like discontinuing GTX 780 entirely, then they have to bring prices down in response to the launch of 290X. 290X is simply too disruptive to GTX 780, and even GTX 770 is going to feel the pinch between that and 280X."
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/20

How well did the 290X do again...?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Ah yes... "Credible". Determined by who? Whatever I post, I'm gonna get "That's not a reliable source", so, I don't bother.

Let me throw you a bone anyway;
"For now, the Radeon HD 4870 and 4850 are both solid values and cards we would absolutely recommend to readers looking for hardware at the $200 and $300 price points. The fact of the matter is that by NVIDIA's standards, the 4870 should be priced at $400 and the 4850 should be around $250. You can either look at it as AMD giving you a bargain or NVIDIA charging too much, either way it's healthy competition in the graphics industry once again."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/23

Now go look at the sales of the HD4870 vs the nVidia equivalents.

Or;
"Unless NVIDIA does something totally off the wall like discontinuing GTX 780 entirely, then they have to bring prices down in response to the launch of 290X. 290X is simply too disruptive to GTX 780, and even GTX 770 is going to feel the pinch between that and 280X."
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/20

How well did the 290X do again...?

GTX 970 forced that profit cutting drop in price for the 290X, followed by 20% market share jump giving Nvidia biggest lead ever. 4GB MEANS 4GB, right? lol
https://goo.gl/images/b7Yw8N


Now let's see how well Freesync on XB1 is doing shall we? Enjoy!

 

[NightAntilli]

GTX 970 forced that profit cutting drop in price for the 290X, followed by 20% market share jump giving Nvidia biggest lead ever. 4GB MEANS 4GB, right? lol
https://goo.gl/images/b7Yw8N

The GTX 970 came out a year later...

Now let's see how well Freesync on XB1 is doing shall we? Enjoy!

What you constantly fail to realize is that with FreeSync, the monitor is the limit, not the technology. And they are wrong by the way... Low framerate compensation has been supported in FreeSync on PC for a long time.

 

[m3tavision]

Lol@improving HDR gaming.
With the pathetic VRR windows FreeSync monitors STILL have, you HAVE to buy the highest end AMD card to get your money's worth.

AMD has alternatives, they just aren't as good as what's out. You lot keep saying we need AMD to compete. Well I'm still waiting. But keep making excuses for them so I can keep laughing and chopping you lot down to the base!

Your post is confusing.

We are talking about FreeSync2... if you have an old AMD card that doesn't use FS2, then sorry to hear that. It is better than anything NVidia has to offer. (I run both)

 

[hahahanoobs]

Your post is confusing.

We are talking about FreeSync2... if you have an old AMD card that doesn't use FS2, then sorry to hear that. It is better than anything NVidia has to offer. (I run both)

"Better" he says. "I run both."
Ok well I guess I have to just take your word for it. This has been a very informative discussion. You're examples were too convincing for me to come back with anything.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The GTX 970 came out a year later...

What you constantly fail to realize is that with FreeSync, the monitor is the limit, not the technology. And they are wrong by the way... Low framerate compensation has been supported in FreeSync on PC for a long time.

God help us all.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The GTX 970 came out a year later...

The 290X price drop was in response to the 970.

 

[NightAntilli]

The 290X price drop was in response to the 970.

Stop shifting the goal post. The R9 290x had no real competition for a year, and barely anyone bought it. End of story.

 

[MaikuTech]

We live in interesting times. Nvidia still dominating in the high end GPU market while showing anti-competitive behavior recently, AMD owning a huge market share of console gaming business while improving their CPUs and trying hard to get into that elite GPU status, reports that Intel is working on their own desktop GPU to perhaps make this a 3 horse race... So much churning in the industry at the moment.

But, I truly believe that Nvidia, if they are really smart, should be terrified of a marketplace where their anti-competitive program succeeds and AMD goes under.

I'm surprised no one has just came right out and say this but nvidia is just like intel.
They'll go through great lengths and limits to make a good product sell. :/
Even though it will never happen but nvidia should team up with intel and target amd/ati.

 

[hahahanoobs]

They should buy AMD to avoid it. Not that I'm counting on it, but I will be rubbing it in everyone's face when sh1t hits the fan. If all you look at is which product is the best at a specific point in time, that is your choice. I find it short-sighted, and I look at it differently.

And oh... I doubt barely anyone that buys AMD didn't think things true. Let me throw an analogy in here. If you're on the streets and you're hungry, you have multiple choices. Short version, you can either buy junk food, or you can buy super food. You can argue for both, but junk food has a big advantage. I mean;

1) Low Price
2) Amount of food you get
3) Sense of fullness after eating
4) Short wait times
5) Great taste
6) More choice available

Sounds great actually. In contrast, super food is;

1) More expensive
2) Doesn't give you a real sense of fullness
3) Long wait times due to its preparation length
4) Doesn't taste as great
5) Limited food choices available

If all you care about is that you are hungry right now and the hunger needs to go away, you're gonna choose junk food every time. After all, it's cheaper, you feel full afterwards, you can get it quickly, you can eat something different every day and it tastes awesome.
But if you care about your health at all, at some point, you cannot be eating junk food simply because of its in-the-moment advantages and pleasures. Super food has its place and is the smarter choice on the long term. You're still free to buy it though, and ignore the consequences for your own health. But the consequences will be there in the end, no matter how you slice it.

Now, don't confuse what I'm saying. AMD is a company. AMD is not "super". But, it is healthy for the industry that they are around and that they are competitive. For them to remain around, they need money too. They might not have the 'performance crown' very often, but even when they do they lose, and even when they are competitive at other tiers of performance, no one buys them.
If we look at what has been happening between the HD 4870 vs GTX 260, R9 290X vs Titan, the R9 390 vs GTX 970, the RX470 vs nothing, the RX 580 vs GTX 1060, and other examples in between, AMD was never getting the fair share that they deserved simply because of mind share. The consumer is fueling an unhealthy gaming industry, whether they want to see it or not. It's not as if AMD cards are completely useless, but they are treated as such by the masses.

Some of us cannot live with ourselves if we know we are buying something that will ultimately have negative consequences for not only ourselves, but a whole industry. If you do it for your own immediate satisfaction, you are part of the problem.

Now YOU think on that for bit.

I have thought about it. That's what makes common sense so great.

Let's begin shall we?

Low price:
AMD cards are (eventually) priced low enough for people to buy them since they are rarely ever the better product overall.

Problems include adequate DRIVERS, frame-times, power consumption, overclocking beyond 200MHz and software and technologies that go stale.

Drivers are almost always late and have HotFix affixed to every one of them, because AMD is constantly having to fix them. I had two 6950's and tried to play Crysis 2 and BFBC2, and they had so much stutter they were unplayable. My 7900GS's performed better when I had them.

Freesync. Only three cards in the entire 200 series I believe were supported, drivers were MONTHS late, and monitor selection and performance were trash. Crossfire drivers were also late. Today, it is still plagued by pathetic VRR windows, even with initial console support. DREADFUL! Yay let's praise AMD for allowimg monitor manufacturers to continue to give us 20Hz VRR windows so I have to upgrade or tweak my settings far earlier than if I went with a G Sync monitor! Any high refresh monitor is better than FreeSync and they're cheaper too!

nVIDIA cards offer the best experience for gamers more often than AMD. Fact.

Super foods:
AMD NEEDS to sell super foods! This talk about the need for attractive low price of AMD products and technologies makes me want to punch a baby everytime I hear it. AMD NEEDS $1000 CPU's and $800 GPU's to.... SURVIVE! Small margin high volume isn't going to save AMD. They've done it for YEARS already and where has it got them? $10 a share that's where. When Ryzen released it was $13 a share....

AMD NNEDS TO BECOME AN NVIDIA AND INTEL IF IT HAS ANY CHANCE TO SURVIVE.

Ryzen won't save AMD and neither will Navi if it doesn't make up an entire lineup of cards. Low and midrange rebrands are not the way to go.

I think AMD needs to offload the entire graphics division entirely. They simply bit off more than they could chew and it's time to be honest with themselves.

 

[NightAntilli]

Ah yes... The 'drivers' excuse. I'ma just drop this here. Not worth wasting time discussing.