My understanding is that Nvidia can't produce enough GPU to saturate their pro market, the demand is huge as we speak and only increasing for now (looking at yo

My understanding is that Nvidia can't produce enough GPU to saturate their pro market, the demand is huge as we speak and only increasing for now (looking at you, ML). So AMD (or rather, their RTG division specifically) would be remiss not to align their price/perf with Nvidia to maximize profit. A reason why they'll probably stay 'cheaper' to some extent for some time (perhaps long) is that they don't compete against CUDA, Nvidia's silver bullet. And don't just think “muh fancy library”, think hordes of engineers that Nvidia has the financial muscle to deploy in the field, 'lending' them to customers who need ad hoc driver work, custom implementations, general help, and what-have-you. CUDA is a war machine, because that's how Nvidia operates its strategy. It's how they owned the video game market back then, and I'm pretty sure they do the same with CUDA / ML / compute (why wouldn't they). I thought that OpenCL would eventually be to CUDA what Vulkan is becoming to DirectX (btw: thank you, Linux); but it seems to me that OpenCL is going the way of the dodo? (still very little support in all ML/compute software I encounter, anecdotally). AMD can sell a ton of GPU at good price, and they should, but they're lagging behind because optimized software libraries support (CUDA, the whole commercial hammer it represents) is where it's at. Fortunately or not for them, Intel's graphics efforts seem to be... hype, more than a truly organized effort (insiders leaks speak of a terrible, terrible political / manegerial / organization situation at Intel's). It's fortunate for AMD's graphics market share, but it's unfortunate in that Intel would be a major support for OpenCL (last I checked, at least) and Intel's rise on that market could have taken AMD's hardware along with it in a tsunami of competition for CUDA. But that's not happening soon, apparently.