So what else can AMD do different than Nvidia? I seen so many complaints when AMD didn't have the same features, now it's complaints that AMD is just copying Nvidia when they improve on features.
IMO, game graphical quality had already hit a peak well before the marketing team at Nvidia decided to sell RT as the next best thing ever, to continually sell consumers another new GPU because their old one won't run the latest title with RT on. And now we have games forcing RT, but after 6 years of having RT hardware you still need upscaling as a crutch to run said games unless you have deep enough pockets to buy the flagship card. AMD has tried cutting prices on their cards, or selling at a loss which doesn't work. Or making features hardware agnostic which didn't work either.
I'm not so sure financially they can their gaming revenue which includes both consoles and Handhelds was pretty dismal the last few quarters and even in their best quarters is pretty low with their CPU division the star of the show it's the reverse of the early 2010s when Bulldozer was horrible and the 7000/200 series did pretty well at least well enough to keep them in the 30-40% DGPU marketshare.
If they can do RDNA4 but slightly better each generation going forward offer new features like FSR4 every generation with large increases in quality in a half decade they will likely get back to their 30-40% marketshare they had in 2014 assuming Nvidia stays on it's current trajectory and doesn't have a change of heart and start releasing actually good products.
Amd doesn't need to convince red Kool-aid drinkers to buy their gpus they need to convert Nvidia owners by making good enough products for them to be ok switching, slightly worse at a discount isn't going to cut it. They did it with people who only bought Intel cpus me included the last Intel PC I bought to be used as a primary pc was 7 years ago I've felt no reason to go back even though Intel also needs to do better to compete or else we will still be stuck with 500 usd 8 cores for another half decade.
I've actually purchased more AMD hardware than any other hardware maker over the last 10 years just only 2 gpus vs 10 Nvidia ones and those two were just to test drivers/features becuase I recommend their gpus from time to time and there's nothing worse than recommending somthing and people have issues with it.
A couple amd fanboys were so vocal that FSR2 was better on amd cards that I bought a 6700XT to test it as well, it's not.
It took them multiple generations of bad decisions to get to where they are now and even in 2025 when Nvidia left them a football field sized door to come out with much more compelling products they kinda just copied their game plan instead.
Just to be clear when I say no competition I mean the whole stack, time to market, sales, si/laptop relationships, all round performance vs your competiton, consistently each generation.
Even if AMD became the King of the diy market they'd still be getting murdered.
9000 series, only competes with half the stack all models shipped after their Nvidia competiton with the top two cards getting delayed so amd could come up with a better fake msrp, prices a lot closer to competing cards due to fake msrps in some regions for me last I checkd it was $799 for the 9070XT vs $825 for the 5070ti. Similar downsides to Blackwell which is they're not much better than ADA especially the super cards.
7000 series, The 7800XT not a bad card but came 5 months after the 4070 12G, 7900XT 900 usd msrp at launch made it a laughing stock, not learning their lesson with the 7900XT and releasing 7700XT at a dumb msrp, you can't act like a market leader when you are so far behind.
6000 series, I'll give them a mulligan but if all cards were MSRP Nvidia would have destroyed them in sales they probably did anyways.
5000 series, major driver issues came late after turning was overshadowed by the super series cards
500 series, a refresh that only competed with low end products not a bad generation though
400 series, same as 500 series just not a refresh
Vega, late and not very impressive
Fury, late and not very impressive.
Both were interesting from a technology perspective but they just weren't very good vs older products on the market at launch.
That's just my observation though there are more reasons Nvidia has no competition but very inconsistent and late to market competitors is the primary one. When you're that far behind you can't even offer similar products they need to be better if all AMD did was release Intel like cpu's they wouldn't have turned things around people who buy Intel would still be buying intel some still are but I have my doubts if Intel can't turn things around that will last much longer, just like we need AMD to give Nvidia real competition we need Intel to do the same because we all win if all 3 companies are releasing good products.
Can AMD compete in the DGPU market I think so look at how much they tuned around general RT/upscaling IQ in one generation and even though it's not financially viable it would have been awesome to see a larger version of it in the 500mm2 range to give 6900XT/6950XTX owners a real upgrade who are likely some of the most devote amd fans instead they are buying overpriced 9070XT a win is a win I guess...
