3 ms·

>I have no idea why the sibling comment would be dead. Taking this statement in good faith: 1. 20% is a huge fraction that shows a commercially viable alterna

>I have no idea why the sibling comment would be dead. Taking this statement in good faith: 1. 20% is a huge fraction that shows a commercially viable alternative. Pricing shifts can shift that quickly to AMD being the preferred option for use cases, just like AMD was as the inferior but cheap CPU ca. 2015, and as Intel is in that space now. 2. Computing demand is incredibly elastic based on market conditions. For every game-changing application of parallel computing, there's a bitcoin mining rig in a place with subsidized electricity. Price hikes kill many applications at the margin, reducing the demand that needs to be met at higher prices. 3. There are well-funded new entrants to various segments of parallel computing at all times, and juggernauts in adjacent spaces will move in if encumbants leave huge spaces. Intel were the only serious CPUs, then the only serious laptop CPUs, and now they're competitive bjt bargain parts. Remember when Apple didn't make their own chips? And in another space, Qualcomm are going to lose their flagship reputation to Mediatek soon if they don't stop turning out trash Android SoCs in the next generation or two.

BoorishBears 4y ago
> Pricing shifts can shift that quickly to AMD being the preferred option for use cases, just like AMD was as the inferior but cheap CPU ca. 2015, and as Intel is in that space now. No. They can't. It's hard for me to take your comment seriously when you're: - Painting the Intel to AMD shift as quick - Painting it as a pricing thing when it took AMD moving mountains from Bulldozer to Zen - Painting 20% as a huge fraction when the discussion is about "colluding to drive prices up", as if the 80% needs the 20% to define prices... > Computing demand is incredibly elastic based on market conditions. For every game-changing application of parallel computing, there's a bitcoin mining rig in a place with subsidized electricity. Price hikes kill many applications at the margin, reducing the demand that needs to be met at higher prices. This is a long form way of saying: You can't raise prices to infinity because people don't have infinite checkbooks. Ok? That has literally no bearing on their ability to hike prices substantially unless you're under the impression that AMD being so far behind doesn't increase their margin. If you're not aware the biggest killer of margin in modern times has consistently been... competition: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/01/13/margin/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/01/13/margin/ NVIDIA isn't a mom and pop shop throwing darts at a price board, they'll ruthlessly optimize their prices taking in mind that their main competition holds a "huge" 20% at what's shaping up to be a pivotal moment for gpgpu... > 3. There are well-funded new entrants to various segments of parallel computing at all times, and juggernauts in adjacent spaces will move in if encumbants leave huge spaces. Intel were the only serious CPUs, then the only serious laptop CPUs, and now they're competitive bjt bargain parts. Remember when Apple didn't make their own chips? And in another space, Qualcomm are going to lose their flagship reputation to Mediatek soon if they don't stop turning out trash Android SoCs in the next generation or two. This again, is a very long statement... with no bearing on anything anyone actually said. Did you forget the sibling comment? > Is there really a player other than Nvidia? AMD has <20% market share. Nvidia doesn’t really have a competitor for standalone cards, especially in GPGPU. This isn't about "AMD is dead", this is about "NVIDIA does not need to collude with AMD to massively hike prices right now". That's not even something anyone should have to tell you, it's so painfully self-evident that I'd question how familiar with the space anyone trying to say otherwise actually is...

BoorishBears 4y ago

> Pricing shifts can shift that quickly to AMD being the preferred option for use cases, just like AMD was as the inferior but cheap CPU ca. 2015, and as Intel is in that space now. No. They can't. It's hard for me to take your comment seriously when you're: - Painting the Intel to AMD shift as quick - Painting it as a pricing thing when it took AMD moving mountains from Bulldozer to Zen - Painting 20% as a huge fraction when the discussion is about "colluding to drive prices up", as if the 80% needs the 20% to define prices... > Computing demand is incredibly elastic based on market conditions. For every game-changing application of parallel computing, there's a bitcoin mining rig in a place with subsidized electricity. Price hikes kill many applications at the margin, reducing the demand that needs to be met at higher prices. This is a long form way of saying: You can't raise prices to infinity because people don't have infinite checkbooks. Ok? That has literally no bearing on their ability to hike prices substantially unless you're under the impression that AMD being so far behind doesn't increase their margin. If you're not aware the biggest killer of margin in modern times has consistently been... competition: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/01/13/margin/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/01/13/margin/ NVIDIA isn't a mom and pop shop throwing darts at a price board, they'll ruthlessly optimize their prices taking in mind that their main competition holds a "huge" 20% at what's shaping up to be a pivotal moment for gpgpu... > 3. There are well-funded new entrants to various segments of parallel computing at all times, and juggernauts in adjacent spaces will move in if encumbants leave huge spaces. Intel were the only serious CPUs, then the only serious laptop CPUs, and now they're competitive bjt bargain parts. Remember when Apple didn't make their own chips? And in another space, Qualcomm are going to lose their flagship reputation to Mediatek soon if they don't stop turning out trash Android SoCs in the next generation or two. This again, is a very long statement... with no bearing on anything anyone actually said. Did you forget the sibling comment? > Is there really a player other than Nvidia? AMD has <20% market share. Nvidia doesn’t really have a competitor for standalone cards, especially in GPGPU. This isn't about "AMD is dead", this is about "NVIDIA does not need to collude with AMD to massively hike prices right now". That's not even something anyone should have to tell you, it's so painfully self-evident that I'd question how familiar with the space anyone trying to say otherwise actually is...