3 ms·
Because gaming GPUs are not really profitable to AMD. As a reference, between 2008 and 2011 when ATI/AMD had the biggest technological lead over Nvidia's disas
by epolanski 4y ago
Because gaming GPUs are not really profitable to AMD.
As a reference, between 2008 and 2011 when ATI/AMD had the biggest technological lead over Nvidia's disaster architectures, even then when AMD was at near 50% market share it merely posted 19M of profits across 3 financial years! In the same time frame, despite terrible performances, Fermi architecture already going into the 400w consumption range, even then Nvidia posted billions of profits across the same time frame.
AMD has simply stopped competing with Nvidia on prices, it's nonsense to them.
Nowadays both Nvidia and AMD sell more GPUs to datacenters and super computers, where net margins are also twice as high than they do to gamers.
Essentially both AMD and Nvidia are abandoning the gaming aspect of their hardware, stopped competing price-wise, instead they prefer both to sit on higher margins in the gaming market and focus on GPGPU aspect for business, research, automotive, AI, etc, etc, where the real money and growth is.
The fact that this hardware is also able to crunch rendering calculations is more and more of a side effect.
- hoseja 4y agoWe need games that utilize local neural nets.
- mepian 4y agoIt seems that DLSS/XeSS is the only feasible application of local neural nets to games right now, everything else is too compute-hungry.
- pdpi 4y agoAMD has notably cornered the console market with the Xbox One and Series X|S, PS4 and PS5. With the Steam Deck and now the Asus ROG Ally, they're starting to get themselves a position in the handheld market too.
- themitigating 4y agoIs OEM integration profitable though? I would imagine Microsoft and Sony squeezed the best deal and maybe it will bring profit in later years when the research debt is paid
- soganess 4y agoJudging by their conservative clocks and odd configurations (ex steam deck is a 4-core) these are some of the lower bind parts that would otherwise not be high-value final products on the open PC market. Perhaps even "defective" (ex failed PCIe lanes) in some way that makes them useless. I always figured this was a "use the whole pig" situation.
- epolanski 4y agoSure, but those aren't a company-defining revenues or where huge growth is.
- prettyStandard 4y agoThis isn't entirely make sense to me, I thought AMD was very far behind on GPGPU. Do these supercomputer and data center projects use things like ROCm and OpenCL, and solve the software issues on their side? Does AMD compete on price there?
- epolanski 4y agoThe world's fastest supercomputer, Frontier at Oak Ridge, and the third fastest Lumi, in Finland are both exclusively made with AMD hardware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_(supercomputer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_(supercomputer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUMI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUMI There's lots of demands for AMD hardware in datacenters and supercomputers.
- prettyStandard 4y agoI didn't say it wasn't true I was just trying to say it didn't make sense to me. If you're trying to build a giant supercomputer it seems like you would pick something where the software works. But maybe they are using ROCm. It seems like that only works for the higher end stuff. Maybe they're planning on running stuff that's already been built on OpenCL, and AMD is competing on the price for the publicity.