3 ms·
There are two senses of 'competitive' in play here: the sense in which a market can be 'competitive' or not by featuring alternatives that are comparable and wh
by pxc 3y ago
There are two senses of 'competitive' in play here: the sense in which a market can be 'competitive' or not by featuring alternatives that are comparable and whose successors leapfrog one another in various virtues over time, and the sense in which a product can be 'competitive' within a market by being more or less at least as good as whatever else is out there.
NVIDIA is definitely not 'competitive' in the sense of participating in a competitive market, or in the sense of being characterized by furious striving for rapid and continuous improvement. Many of their newer cards are barely 'competitive' with their own cards from a generation or two ago.
It's extremely clear to me what people mean when they say that NVIDIA or their GPUs are not meaningfully 'competitive'. I don't think it's that hard to see, actually.
- tomnipotent 3y ago> Many of their newer cards are barely 'competitive' The 4060 is the only card this generation that's a flop, and I wouldn't consider one in four being "many". > I don't think it's that hard to see, actually. It is if you're not looking or trying to be disingenuous. Every generation has introduced new features and had noticeable impacts on the consumer products in its category (games). DLSS alone has been a game-changer, pun intended.