Originally Posted by Defoler
It find the whole extremely inaccurate.
The GF110 was 100% revenue? Do you have numbers to back it up?
More than 100% revenue making a High End
GPU the same with midrange when they were tagged as such.
You do realise that you don't buy a card directly from nvidia? A card is taking at least 2-4 hands depends on where you buy, and each hand is taking its own cut. Selling a card for 500$ does not mean the manufacturer is getting 500$. You should at some point learn how business works. If it cost to manufacture a 500$ card about 200$, than the manufacturer is getting maybe 300$, maybe, huge maybe. Most likely much less.
So those card which dont have anything difference between reference card and the other brands should be more because they are handled by a 3rd party instead making an improved PCB/VRM/mostfet which certainly adds costs.
Also, are AMD selling cards for charity? Do you know how much they are making for the rebrand of the 200 into 300?
I dont know how much they get from their card it should be less than the GTX 970 whicha cutdown midrange GPU.R9 290x from 550usd went down to 450usd in the 8GB mode (290x) to Sub 400usd with the r9 390x. and still it was 150-100usd cheaper than the GM204 GPU while offering similar or better performance (1440,4k,Multiples displays,DX12)
Kepler was never meant to be future proof. No card is. And GCN isn't all that future proof. It gets updated just like any other architecture. It also has its own limits (aka DX11 low performance across the board). They stick to one architecture, and it did not go very well for them for the last 4 years.
R9 290X(2013) with a slighly OC is matching the new architecture from nvidia on 2014-2015, while getting playable framerate on high resolution, getting better Multi engine support than Nvidia card which are supposed to improve most of the features from Kepler,and still it didnt for the new API from Microsoft (DX12)
Unlike AMD, nvidia put only a few titan z cards, and they sold them all, and that was it. They were not mass produced and price of small batch is high. AMD on the other hand did mass produce the 295x2 to a certain amount, and they cut its price by almost a half after what? 3 months? Nvidia just showed they can do it
R9 295X2 for 50% lower price and later Powercolor decided to reduce price on their 290x2 still was cheaper and better than ANY of the Nvidia offering how is selling a worse card for more is a good thing?
later it was already shadowed by a single GPU card in many games. let alone shabby CFX support.
what? R9 290x2,R9 390X2,R9 295x2 all remains relevant to date beating the best Nvidia offering the Titan X while being cheaper
Also the Devil 13 is not made by AMD, and unlike the 295x2, they were few made and fewer sold (you can still grab one for 670$, 130$ off the release price).
Devil13 290x2 is the only version which improved PCB,power delivery and VRM cooling given AMD didnt allow modifying r9 295x2 all. and it dropped a 53% its price when the slower High end Maxwell GPU was released and the r9 290x2/295x2 was faster.
And who cares AMD wanted to "show case" the HBM.
Many investors who has stocks from AMD and effects new technology which later becomes standard because it is open.
They put the cards at a high price saying "best card ever!!!!" and it turned into a failed attempt again (not a total fail, but still a harsh one), and they had to reduce price and say "yes, best card ever, in 2 years, when more DX12 games come out". That is not how you sell a card.
if you talk about the R9 290x it has been their best GPU up to date while beating Kepler,matching GM204 on DX11 and beating GM204 on DX12.
They did not "show case" it anyway. It was their run at high end because they couldn't make it any other way. If they could, you would see HBM being delayed or just tested until HBM2 was ready.
it wasnt only showcased also the Proof of Concept was taken into market and used effectively to recover a small part of their investment of R&D during 5/7years
Also reducing power? The Fury X was one of the biggest power hungry single GPU cards AMD have put in the last few years,
the power consumption of the card is merely 275w under load
it increased SP by 45% and also improved the bandwidth while keeping the power draw of the r9 290x with less compute performance.
It required closed loop to keep it under check. It terms of performance/power, it was really bad at it even compared to the titans and the 980 TI. So
why would you care about power consumption on a enthusiast level card? by then you needed 2x card to match a proper performance in demanding games at high resolution
they put HBM to reduce power on GDDR5 and still took so much power?
that same memory allowed to match the 980 with same power levels in a smaller form factor
And do you think the 980 TI or 1080 had R&D of zero?
Pascal shares Maxwell pipeline where are the improvements from R&D in DX12 M.E?
why all those setences are against AMD ?
R9 290x remains relevant 3 years later, and in your opinion it is bad
R9 290x matched a newer architecture while being cheaper, it is bad
Dual AMD GPUs being cheaper and faster than any single card offering for a long time andit is bad
AMD researched HBM and released the first card with this memory, and in your opinion it is bad
AMD Reduced power consumption (comparing with GDDR5) while improving Bandwidth and getting a small form factor and adds bettter cooling , and in your opinion it is bad
never criticizing the nvidia bad practices, Nvidia criplling/stop improving driver of 1000-700-650usd GPUs which performed quite similar to the new architecture mid range gpus at release, selling midrange gpus at +100% what they used to be, and high end GPUs almost 25% more, showing marketing slides with misinformation, making 3rd API to cripple whatever isnt their latest gpu architecture.Edited by PontiacGTX - 6/6/16 at 10:21am