NVIDIA Grabs Market Share, AMD Loses Ground, and Intel Disappears in Latest dGPU Update

[RandallFlagg]

AMD hasn't been on the right track with their GPUs, ever.

Last time they were clearly and indisputably on top was ~2003-2007 as ATI.

The 9800 XT / Pro were king of the hill, destroyed Nvidia's newest gen.

Nvidia didn't recover until the GTX 8000 series. But from then on, the best ATI / AMD could do was occasionally match Nvidia or undercut them on price.

Look at the scores here. The 9600 pro beating a 5700 Ultra would be like a 9060 XT beating a 5070 Ti today, and the 9700 Pro whipping a 5950 Ultra would be like a 9070 beating a 5090.

Old article linked from image:



They are way, way far removed from that time.

A few years later, this happened:

 

[Outback Bronze]

Nvidia didn't recover until the GTX 8000 series. But from then on, the best ATI / AMD could do was occasionally match Nvidia or undercut them on price.

Not entirely true. The HD 5870 kicked ass and even the release of a GTX 480 6 months later couldn't cut the cheese as it was a power hog compared to the efficiency of Evergreen

What's interesting though is that it didn't translate into ATi/AMD sales. As you can see below it got close to NVidia in 9/09 but didn't overthrow them. It had been 3 years since AMD had purchased ATi.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ati-radeon-hd-5870/ It dominated for 6 months. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-fermi/

Was the problem drivers back then or AMD's decision to buy ATi as to why they couldn't overtake NVidia? The HD 5870 was an extremely good product!

 

[Tomorrow]

NVidia have led the way with Cuda, Gsync, RTX, DLSS, PT and MFG to name a few. AMD just seems to be following NVidia's lead.

I listed some AMD first features below as the last quote. Just for context. Nvidia's marketing is very good and most people can name several features Nvidia introduced, but AMD has been unable to promote their initiatives so much so that people would actually remember them.

AI upscaling five years after Nvidia for example. New hardware required.

The requirement for new hardware was there five years ago for Nvidia too. They did not just magically add AI upscaling to 10 series.
And their first attempt with DLSS in 20 series was absolute joke. Yet few remember the "vaseline filter" today.
DLSS finally became good with 30 series in 2020.

The use or lack of AI does not necessarily determine the quality of the feature. Take AMD's FG for example. To this day (until Redstone drops) it's not AI based and yet reviewers have claimed it very good. Or the opposite example i gave above with DLSS 1 using AI and being an abomination.

Even if this is true it doesn't excuse their scam after scam after scam. They renamed their GPUs to look more like nVidia. They released these GPUs horribly late. They released these GPUs with fake MSRPs and abysmal availability.

And Nvidia renamed their GPU's to sort around the classes. The 5060 is actually 5050. 5070 is actually 5060 and so on. Only the 90 class is worthy of it's name. Pot=Kettle. Nvidia released theirs absurdly early for no reason. Because of this they had the same abysmal availability and fake MSRP's that were way worse than AMD's +200 on price. I remember 5070 Ti costing 1100€ and this was considered low for a 750 card. 5080's were going for 1800€ and 5090's were 4000+ unobtanium.

And I dare to remind you they hyped RDNA4 up as if they're about to flood the market with insane value products.

I guess they weren't ready for such high demand for their cards. Partially because Nvidia was MIA at the time despite having it's cards launched early.
AMD did have big supply for their launch, but it evaporated quickly because of the demand.

They couldn't have released anything more cursed than that.

Well that's an exaggeration. You dont really mean to say this was somehow AMD's worst handled launch do you?
Because i can remember several that were way worse.

AMD hasn't been on the right track with their GPUs, ever.
Last time they were clearly and indisputably on top was ~2003-2007 as ATI.
The 9800 XT / Pro were king of the hill, destroyed Nvidia's newest gen.

Nvidia didn't recover until the GTX 8000 series. But from then on, the best ATI / AMD could do was occasionally match Nvidia or undercut them on price.

Like post before says AMD was clearly on top in the HD 5000 vs GTX 480 situation. 480 launched late and was hot. In terms of Dual-GPU cards AMD already had 5970 that not GTX 480 or even GTX 580 beat. It took GTX 680 to finally beat it. GTX 480 did beat 5870 but only by 14% and with big compromises. Again it took GTX 580 to fix it.

What did AMD introduce?

EyeFinity for multi monitor setups in 2009. Nvidia later followed with Surround in 2010 but it was not as good.
Mantle in 2013. Eventually morphed into Vulkan and lit fire under MS's ass to release DX12.
HBM in 2015. Yes it did not work out, but at least they tried something new with consumer GPU's. Nvidia only used HBM for workstation cards.
Radeon Chill in 2017 to dynamically adjust framerate based on user input. Nvidia later introduced something similar, but only for laptops.
SAM (ReBAR) for faster VRAM access. Nvidia again followed later with 30 series, but on whitelist basis for games.
DisplayPort 2.1 support in 2022. Arguably they dropped the ball this year by not moving to UHBR20 like Nvidia did.

 

[Vayra86]

AMD hasn't been on the right track with their GPUs, ever.

Last time they were clearly and indisputably on top was ~2003-2007 as ATI.

The 9800 XT / Pro were king of the hill, destroyed Nvidia's newest gen.

Nvidia didn't recover until the GTX 8000 series. But from then on, the best ATI / AMD could do was occasionally match Nvidia or undercut them on price.

Look at the scores here. The 9600 pro beating a 5700 Ultra would be like a 9060 XT beating a 5070 Ti today, and the 9700 Pro whipping a 5950 Ultra would be like a 9070 beating a 5090.

Old article linked from image:

View attachment 403212

They are way, way far removed from that time.

A few years later, this happened:

View attachment 403213

There was a lot more back and forth material over the last twenty odd years...

HD7950-7970 was another great push forward and took Nvidia to its 780ti and a Kepler refresh. They had to pull all the stops to keep pace with that.
Then Maxwell happened and it was over for AMD. I think that is the exact time they lost their pace. Then Raja happened, Polaris, Vega... relevant technologies came later to market like delta compression which was crucial at the time and led to Hawaii XT fighting a cheap and efficient 970. Pascal sealed the deal: AMD was still struggling at Vega performance at that point, while GPUs got released that were nearly twice as efficient now.

AMD's GPU history strikes me as inconsistent. They have always sucked hard at iterative improvements, gradually moving from one arch to the next without having to scrap everything they've produced before. Like drivers. Nvidia made baby steps gen-to-gen, but because they were so consistent at it and kept releasing, they could also smoothly transition from one featureset to the next.

 

[jallenlabs]

Hardware has never been able to keep up with software. Remember “But can it run Crysis?”?


So this is your real issue. Yet, AMD is doing the same.


If your first video card was a HD 7000 I can promise you I have tons more experience than you.

Funny you don’t think Crossfire was “a marketing scheme to get consumers to purchase two cards”. (Thanks for the additional example of AMD being late to the game - it took them seven years to come up with a SLI competitor. It also required a specialized motherboard and a very expensive master graphics card.)

Oh, and btw SLI was invented by 3Dfx for the Voodoo 2 card in 1998. Nothing to do with Nvidia besides Nvidia buying the technology from 3Dfx when they went bankrupt.

Glad you have tons more experience than me. I was concerned about that.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Like post before says AMD was clearly on top in the HD 5000 vs GTX 480 situation. 480 launched late and was hot. In terms of Dual-GPU cards AMD already had 5970 that not GTX 480 or even GTX 580 beat. It took GTX 680 to finally beat it. GTX 480 did beat 5870 but only by 14% and with big compromises. Again it took GTX 580 to fix it.

Unless then subject was tessellated DirectX 11 games, in which case even the GTX 470 would outperform the HD 5970, due to craptastic CF scaling. Evergreen was power efficient for its time. It was not a remarkably powerful GPU, the HD 5800/5900 series were a solid step below Fermi in the performance front.

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 580: Fermi Refined

www.anandtech.com

 

[RandallFlagg]

Not entirely true. The HD 5870 kicked ass and even the release of a GTX 480 6 months later couldn't cut the cheese as it was a power hog compared to the efficiency of Evergreen

What's interesting though is that it didn't translate into ATi/AMD sales. As you can see below it got close to NVidia in 9/09 but didn't overthrow them. It had been 3 years since AMD had purchased ATi.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ati-radeon-hd-5870/ It dominated for 6 months. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-fermi/

Was the problem drivers back then or AMD's decision to buy ATi as to why they couldn't overtake NVidia? The HD 5870 was an extremely good product!

View attachment 403218

Yes, but that only lasted 6 months. You're actually talking about beating Nvidia to market with a new product though, not a generational edge.

5870 was released in Sep 2009. The Nvidia 200 series was released in June 2008, almost a year and a half earlier. It actually shows on your chart that for about 2 quarters, ATI made market gains vs Nvidia.

Then Nvidia released the 480 in March 2010 and it was again over. This also shows on the chart.

By comparison, the only time ATI beat Nvidia in market share was momentum from their 9000 series, which carried into the X800. That was the only time period where ATI maintained a generational lead over Nvidia, not just beating them to the punch on a new product, and it caused Nvidia to go from ~65% market share to ~40%.

The 5970 here was a dual GPU card, and cost nearly 2X more. The 480's competitor here would be the 5870 - same gen cards.

 

[Tomorrow]

Unless then subject was tessellated DirectX 11 games, in which case even the GTX 470 would outperform the HD 5970, due to craptastic CF scaling. Evergreen was power efficient for its time. It was not a remarkably powerful GPU, the HD 5800/5900 series were a solid step below Fermi in the performance front.

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 580: Fermi Refined

www.anandtech.com

Fermi beat Evergreen on some specific circumstances, but at what cost? It was late, it was hot, it was power hungry and it was loud.
GTX 580 was Fermi 2.0 - a bugifx for what 400 should have been.

Yes, but that only lasted 6 months. You're actually talking about beating Nvidia to market with a new product though, not a generational edge.

Doesn't matter. It was ahead for half a year. Historically it has been rare for one generation to stay ahead for years. Either that has to be very well executed launch or the other side needs to be stumbling around in the dark.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Fermi beat Evergreen on some specific circumstances, but at what cost? It was late, it was hot, it was power hungry and it was loud.
GTX 580 was Fermi 2.0 - a bugifx for what 400 should have been.

Doesn't matter. It was ahead for half a year. Historically it has been rare for one generation to stay ahead for years. Either that has to be very well executed launch or the other side needs to be stumbling around in the dark.

Yeah, I had both the HD 5970 and a 3-way SLI 480 setup back then, eventually got my hands on a couple of 580's too. Ah, the golden days when GPUs were cheap.

The thing imo, Fermi won out, big time. It was reliably updated until 2018, and it consistently outperformed the Cypress, Barts and Cayman parts. Multi-GPU was also handled much better. I'm hoping UDNA is another GCN moment for AMD, they really need it

 

[Outback Bronze]

Yes, but that only lasted 6 months. You're actually talking about beating Nvidia to market with a new product though, not a generational edge.

Yeah, all true, but I was just pointing out that you said "AMD hasn't been on the right track with their GPUs, ever" but just showed proof where AMD did produce a much faster card than the GTX 285. Even the 5850 beat it, from after going back to the 97/800/X800 glory days and probably the closest AMD has been to Nvidia's market share for some time.

I honestly believe the GTX480 released from Nvidia after 6 months of defeat wasn't an earth-shattering accomplishment and one could argue the 5870 was still on top as a more refined card.

I thought AMD did quite well with the "Tahiti" and "Hawaii" release but once again like I pointed out with "Evergreen" it didn't translate to AMD moving towards overthrowing Nvidia's market lead.

Then from here on in, yes, it's been all nvidia leading the way. We really do need AMD to bring some stiff competition because I'm honestly not happy paying over 2000 US for their top dog.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Doesn't matter. It was ahead for half a year. Historically it has been rare for one generation to stay ahead for years. Either that has to be very well executed launch or the other side needs to be stumbling around in the dark.

Disagree with what you guys are saying. It takes 6 months or more to even get all the models released within a gen. Nobody is going to go back and compare an RTX 2000 series card to Vega, they'll compare it to the 5000 series which was released ~9 months later.

You will always be able to draw such a comparison to come to whatever conclusion you like if you do that.

What you are doing here is basically this. Nvidia's plain jane mid ranger destroying AMDs flagship on release :

The correct comparison looks like this:

 

[Visible Noise]

Are we really arguing over 2%?

 

[Broken Processor]

If you don't mind my asking, what was the AIB of your failed 6800XT? Also, just curious as to your comment of "decision making next generation", would that be AIB brand or Nvidia/AMD?

6800xt was a gigabyte aorus master, and for next generation card choice I couldn't say as they aren't released I have zero loyalty to any manufacturer I buy the most suitable at the time for my need's.

 

[wolf]

AMD hasn't been on the right track with their GPUs, ever.

Last time they were clearly and indisputably on top was ~2003-2007 as ATI.

The 9800 XT / Pro were king of the hill, destroyed Nvidia's newest gen.

Nvidia didn't recover until the GTX 8000 series. But from then on, the best ATI / AMD could do was occasionally match Nvidia or undercut them on price.

Look at the scores here. The 9600 pro beating a 5700 Ultra would be like a 9060 XT beating a 5070 Ti today, and the 9700 Pro whipping a 5950 Ultra would be like a 9070 beating a 5090.

Old article linked from image:

View attachment 403212

I just wanted to chime in on this one and say that what you're showing here is a particular game and not an average of games, and one that would seem to favour ATI at the time.

I don't doubt for a second R300 high end parts conclusively head an overall lead against the underperforming FX series, I've tested that myself, but a 9700Pro wasn't consistently beating an FX5950 Ultra across a large sample of games by this much.

I can think of a few other times (as has been mentioned already) where ATI/AMD either took the single GPU crown or at least was super competitive in the high end, like the 5870 and 7970.

 

[BillyRazOr]

Sadly marketshare says a different story, it keeps on dropping.

But im out of this discussion, it lacks any kind of rationality, have the last word.

Some people bringing personal preferences to the forum that they want to suggest everyone buying AMD for various reasons, we can't just jump to any involves for arguing because they would backfire us if we haven't enough sources as evidence. I don't want to argue people those who are AMD fanboys/all AMD hardware users because of their personal choices, but at least we can prove them wrong if they wasn't even have real facts and siding for loyalty brand.

I'm not either any brands of fanboy, both Nvidia, Intel and AMD are very great products, just bad on prices. I already heard and saw many users are too biased with AMD as loyalty, talking BS about how other brands are lying customers for decades, that's quite too obvious for doing dirty tricks or gimmicks to get more views and likes. Almost all Youtubers are promoting AMD because of Intel 13/14th instability issues, but it's already a year old news and need to stop roasting for it. (I'm not saying about which brand are always perfect, there's nothing would be perfect.)

Different countries have different market prices because of the custom taxes, they just ignored it and only focus on MSRP, this also wasn't good for PC communities. But I must say, we want competitions, just ignore fanboys as well. I hope all PC companies would doing better on future.

 

[Vayra86]

Disagree with what you guys are saying. It takes 6 months or more to even get all the models released within a gen. Nobody is going to go back and compare an RTX 2000 series card to Vega, they'll compare it to the 5000 series which was released ~9 months later.

You will always be able to draw such a comparison to come to whatever conclusion you like if you do that.

What you are doing here is basically this. Nvidia's plain jane mid ranger destroying AMDs flagship on release :

View attachment 403269

The correct comparison looks like this:

View attachment 403270

That's not really a compelling graph to show to make your point. The 5600XT is what, 5% faster than a Vega 64. Could have been entirely due to drivers for all we know. The 2060 or 2060S aren't really showing any kind of clear performance win either. You don't upgrade a Vega 64 to get a 2060S, basically, and if you do, it had better not cost much. These minor gaps aren't where its at.

One of the major issues AMD has is time to market. Yes it certainly does matter if they trail Nvidia by 6 months or pre-empt them by 6 months. Heck, Nvidia locked in RTX exactly in that way - pre-empting. It even matters in what order the cards get released. There is a massive peak in purchases on day one release, pre order etc.

Its also not just about the raw performance. We cannot dismiss the influence of price, featureset, availability (!!!), and trust/mindshare due to consistency in releases. AMD never manages to tick all those boxes.

 

[Visible Noise]

Glad you have tons more experience than me. I was concerned about that.

I’m glad I could educate you on the computing history you missed and correct your false assumptions.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's not really a compelling graph to show to make your point. The 5600XT is what, 5% faster than a Vega 64. Could have been entirely due to drivers for all we know. The 2060 or 2060S aren't really showing any kind of clear performance win either. You don't upgrade a Vega 64 to get a 2060S, basically, and if you do, it had better not cost much. These minor gaps aren't where its at.

One of the major issues AMD has is time to market. Yes it certainly does matter if they trail Nvidia by 6 months or pre-empt them by 6 months. Heck, Nvidia locked in RTX exactly in that way - pre-empting. It even matters in what order the cards get released. There is a massive peak in purchases on day one release, pre order etc.

Its also not just about the raw performance. We cannot dismiss the influence of price, featureset, availability (!!!), and trust/mindshare due to consistency in releases. AMD never manages to tick all those boxes.

A midrange Nvidia card beating the *top* AMD card at the time of its release is not a compelling example of how comparing different generations is meaningless?

Ok, lets do a more apples to apples comparison.

Does this make it clearer?

 

[Dr. Dro]

A midrange Nvidia card beating the *top* AMD card at the time of its release is not a compelling example of how comparing different generations is meaningless?

Ok, lets do a more apples to apples comparison.

Does this make it clearer?

View attachment 403454

I mean, nothing really changed over time, I suppose. The 5090's gap compared to the 9070 XT is even larger than this. Even the pricing gap is relatively the same

That's not really a compelling graph to show to make your point. The 5600XT is what, 5% faster than a Vega 64. Could have been entirely due to drivers for all we know. The 2060 or 2060S aren't really showing any kind of clear performance win either. You don't upgrade a Vega 64 to get a 2060S, basically, and if you do, it had better not cost much. These minor gaps aren't where its at.

One of the major issues AMD has is time to market. Yes it certainly does matter if they trail Nvidia by 6 months or pre-empt them by 6 months. Heck, Nvidia locked in RTX exactly in that way - pre-empting. It even matters in what order the cards get released. There is a massive peak in purchases on day one release, pre order etc.

Its also not just about the raw performance. We cannot dismiss the influence of price, featureset, availability (!!!), and trust/mindshare due to consistency in releases. AMD never manages to tick all those boxes.

Biggest problem with earlier generation AMD GPUs IMHO is drivers and software compatibility, which is more of a concern now than ever before.

Vega and RDNA 1 are downlevel hardware and Vega is further hobbled by unmaintained software (9 months since the last driver update, for what is now an almost 3 year old branch, as it was frozen on 23.19 and is not the same as the RDNA version of 24.9.1), while Turing is comprehensively supported and even DLSS 4 compatible (sans frame gen, but still) - the 2060 was always the best investment here, sadly.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I mean, nothing really changed over time, I suppose. The 5090's gap compared to the 9070 XT is even larger than this. Even the pricing gap is relatively the same

I think people are picking up on the end of the conversation. My point was that comparing last gen from one vendor to current gen from the other vendor merely because they were separated by 6 months on release was nonsensical. People were doing that with the ATI 9800 XT vs argument.

The ATI 9800 was the best card of its time. Took Nvidia years to recover from that beat down, basically until the 8800 GTX. They've dominated every cycle since, and worth waiting for 3-6 months if they were late behind AMD.

I was just illustrating the ridiculous comparisons you get when you skip to the 2000 series just because AMD was late on the next cycle.

With that context, the correct direct competitor to the Vega 64 was the 1080.

AMD came out with the 5000 series 6 months later which IMO is what the 2000 series should be compared to. Not a win but it was way closer. But this has been AMDs GPU story for 15 years.

And yeah, a lot of people still run 2060s. Never hear much about anyone running a Vega.

 

[Squared]

And yeah, a lot of people still run 2060s. Never hear much about anyone running a Vega.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine had a Vega 64 and my brother still has a Vega 56. My anecdotal stats put it at about the popularity of any other AMD generation. (Except the RX 500 series, which seems to be everywhere among non-gamers.)

 

[Tomorrow]

Vega is further hobbled by unmaintained software (9 months since the last driver update, for what is now an almost 3 year old branch, as it was frozen on 23.19 and is not the same as the RDNA version of 24.9.1), while Turing is comprehensively supported and even DLSS 4 compatible (sans frame gen, but still) - the 2060 was always the best investment here, sadly.

https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/release-notes/RN-RAD-WIN-25-5-1-POLARIS-VEGA.html

https://www.amd.com/en/support/downloads/drivers.html/graphics/radeon-rx/radeon-rx-vega-series/radeon-rx-vega-64.html

25.5.1 for Vega/Polaris. Released on May 8th 2025.
How exactly do you claim it's unmaintained? Only about a month since the last release.
Turing may be still supported but dont expect much support for that either past standard security fixes.

When it comes to DLSS4 i say what i've said before: doing one thing right does not make up for doing several things wrong.
Of course it's good that it's supported there, but it's only the upscaler part and even that has larger performance hit vs newer cards (from DF testing).

 

[Vayra86]

A midrange Nvidia card beating the *top* AMD card at the time of its release is not a compelling example of how comparing different generations is meaningless?

Ok, lets do a more apples to apples comparison.

Does this make it clearer?

View attachment 403454

Of course it does
FTR I don't disagree with the general idea about AMD's GPU 'strategy'. But there have been multiple times where AMD was licking Nvidia's heels and even tackled them badly.

 

[Dr. Dro]

https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/release-notes/RN-RAD-WIN-25-5-1-POLARIS-VEGA.html

https://www.amd.com/en/support/downloads/drivers.html/graphics/radeon-rx/radeon-rx-vega-series/radeon-rx-vega-64.html

25.5.1 for Vega/Polaris. Released on May 8th 2025.
How exactly do you claim it's unmaintained? Only about a month since the last release.
Turing may be still supported but dont expect much support for that either past standard security fixes.

When it comes to DLSS4 i say what i've said before: doing one thing right does not make up for doing several things wrong.
Of course it's good that it's supported there, but it's only the upscaler part and even that has larger performance hit vs newer cards (from DF testing).

Missed that, and without surprise... it's got basically no fixes over the previous release and has received no new features whatsoever. Boring. I've known of those two fixes for some time but they were only for Vanguard (and it's basically what I have been running on my laptop), had no idea they made that public some time ago.

Then again, the hardware's hit its limits, it can't really do more than what it is already doing. It's still the same old 23.19 driver, codebase from mid 2023 or so. It is not the same 25.5.1 for RDNA cards.

You're mistaken about Turing, though. Nvidia still supports hardware much older than that in their mainline driver release. The GTX 900 series (Maxwell) from 2014 are still supported, and only recently they started warning customers that they intend to stop supporting these in a future release.

The RTX 20 series GPUs (Turing) remain under active development and support every new RTX feature released thus far. It is also explicitly compatible with DLSS 4 super resolution and ray reconstruction features, the only things missing from 20 and 30 series are frame generation support. Transformer model upscaling (preset K on the latest DLL), which is the star feature regardless, is fully supported even on the RTX 2060.

 

[JustBenching]

Missed that, and without surprise... it's got basically no fixes over the previous release and has received no new features whatsoever. Boring. I've known of those two fixes for some time but they were only for Vanguard (and it's basically what I have been running on my laptop), had no idea they made that public some time ago.

Then again, the hardware's hit its limits, it can't really do more than what it is already doing. It's still the same old 23.19 driver, codebase from mid 2023 or so. It is not the same 25.5.1 for RDNA cards.

View attachment 403519
You're mistaken about Turing, though. Nvidia still supports hardware much older than that in their mainline driver release. The GTX 900 series (Maxwell) from 2014 are still supported, and only recently they started warning customers that they intend to stop supporting these in a future release.

The RTX 20 series GPUs (Turing) remain under active development and support every new RTX feature released thus far. It is also explicitly compatible with DLSS 4 super resolution and ray reconstruction features, the only things missing from 20 and 30 series are frame generation support. Transformer model upscaling (preset K on the latest DLL), which is the star feature regardless, is fully supported even on the RTX 2060.

It goes in circles, we had the exact same discussion like 5 days ago, told him vega not on the maintenance line (basically it's fixing bugs that exist on the last driver) but nope, some people just don't give a damn about reality if it align with their brand of preference.

Mind you, Vega is still being sold new as a new product even to this day, something that isn't the case with Turing even though turing is still under full support. Go figure.