• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD GPU Sales Not That Far Behind NVIDIA's in Revenue Terms

fevgatos said:
So nvidia cards don't get the job done? WTF are you talking about? Especially for productivity, the cuda cores are hands down way better than amd's cards for 99.9% of workloads. So, ill ask again, wtf are you talking about? You are the one voting against competition by buying a card that has less performance but more meaningless specs.
Click to expand...
Oh, you're still here. I thought you needed to spend 14 hours a day doing nothing but playing video games. Did you watch the video in the first post? Nope! "99.9%" - that doesn't sound like a biased Nvidia fan boy "I did zero research and make blind claims!" statement in the least. Take your fan boy bloated egotism and go play some games at 400 FPS because that is all that matters.


nvidia_fps.jpg
 
JAB Creations said:
Oh, you're still here. I thought you needed to spend 14 hours a day doing nothing but playing video games. Did you watch the video in the first post? Nope! "99.9%" - that doesn't sound like a biased Nvidia fan boy "I did zero research and make blind claims!" statement in the least. Take your fan boy bloated egotism and go play some games at 400 FPS because that is all that matters.
Click to expand...
Inflamatory language will not be useful. Take it easy dude. You can convey the same message in a more pleasant fashion. It takes some effort.
 
JAB Creations said:
Oh, you're still here. I thought you needed to spend 14 hours a day doing nothing but playing video games. Did you watch the video in the first post? Nope! "99.9%" - that doesn't sound like a biased Nvidia fan boy "I did zero research and make blind claims!" statement in the least. Take your fan boy bloated egotism and go play some games at 400 FPS because that is all that matters.


View attachment 285576
Click to expand...
I hope I had 14 hours of free time to play games my man :)
 
Tek-Check said:
My Flight Simulator used ~15GB of VRAM in 2021 already.
Click to expand...
TBF MS Flight Simulator caches as much data as possible. Most testing shows that this only has an effect on performance at 4K. At lower resolutions it’s just extra buffer.
Tek-Check said:
No. They genuinely did not sell cards to ordinary folks. Miners have moved to ASICs. GPUs are not as profitable for them anymore. There has been a multi-million GPU flood on secondary market last year and people bought tones of GPUs, e.g used 3090 for $750 on ebay.

Official Nvidia documents show that they have more than $5 billion in inventory in stock, which suggests a huge amount of unsold GPUs that they do not want to release on the market in bigger numbers and lower price. Which means that people showed a middle finger to high prices of cards and did not buy them.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand this argument… @mrnagant was arguing that sales are dropping because mining sales dropped. This seems consistent with your logic here — sales have been dropping quarter to quarter since last year. IMO it has less to do with prices and more to do with demand — the 30 and 60 series saw record sales regardless of price, partially because of miners and partially because people had extra money and nothing to spend it on. The pandemic was the greatest upgrade season on record as far as I’ve read.
 
Tek-Check said:
Perhaps. I remember there was an outcry against low memory capacity on 3080. They gradually patched the card with additional 1GB in each new edition. And now they offer 16GB on the same class 4080, which is much better and makes me more hopeful that 5090 might be a card for me if VRAM further evolves and prices are lower.
Click to expand...
Not so much an outcry, as a knee-jerk reaction.

I mean, look here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/hogwarts-legacy-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html
Claim to use over 10GB VRAM at 4k, 3080 sees no performance hit because of that.
 
claes said:
TBF MS Flight Simulator caches as much data as possible. Most testing shows that this only has an effect on performance at 4K. At lower resolutions it’s just extra buffer.
Click to expand...
Yes, correct. I play on 4K OLED only. With 7900XTX, VRAM usage can go up to 20.5 GB in some dense urban settings with additional 3D packages of buildings from the marketplace, such as Paris and London.
bug said:
Claim to use over 10GB VRAM at 4k, 3080 sees no performance hit because of that.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say. 3080 is on average 5-7% faster than 6800XT in 4K play. In this game they are neck-to-neck. The game claims ~12GB of VRAM in 4K. Perhaps those 2GB missing hits the performance of 3080 for a few percentages, but there might be other reasons, of course.
bug said:
Not so much an outcry, as a knee-jerk reaction.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but this deterred me from Nvidia's high-end cards for at least two generations. I still have a low-power Ampere card on a small HTPC system.
 
Tek-Check said:
It's hard to say. 3080 is on average 5-7% faster than 6800XT in 4K play. In this game they are neck-to-neck. The game claims ~12GB of VRAM in 4K. Perhaps those 2GB missing hits the performance of 3080 for a few percentages, but there might be other reasons, of course.

Possibly, but this deterred me from Nvidia's high-end cards for at least two generations. I still have a low-power Ampere card on a small HTPC system.
Click to expand...
Neah, if you run out of VRAM performance tanks, it doesn't take a 5-7% hit. You're looking at 20%, easily.

If I may offer a piece of advice (which I probably shouldn't), buy based on real-world benchmarks, not based on spec sheets.
 
bug said:
If I may offer a piece of advice (which I probably shouldn't), buy based on real-world benchmarks, not based on spec sheets.
Click to expand...
I did buy both 6800XT and 7900XTX based on several real-life reviews, availability and price. More VRAM was just a cherry on the top of cake. I never buy products blindly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bug
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top