Originally Posted by Defoler
This is why I hate the AMD PR team.
Instead of concentrating on their products, their performance, their value, the concentrate on making it a "good vs evil" war.
Make more use of your precious opengpu, showcase GPU performance, enhance the value of your price/performance point, and push more products out, more collaborations.
No, lets all push the "lets hate nvidia!" train, or lets "rebel against the common" like the common is such a bad thing.
Even if they hate nvidia, at least they can learn a thing or two from them. Nvidia have great spokesmen, and they are letting their performance speak for itself.
I don't see a good vs evil war in any of those pics or anything shared on twitter recently.
What I see is AMD advertising the "Radeon Rebellion" which is about price/performance. I don't see that as "Good vs. Evil". I think you might be overly sensitive to anything which could be perceived as critical towards nVIDIA even when it isn't.
AMD even went on the record stating that they had changed that old tactic as well. Now they're focussed primarily on price/performance as a means of increasing their market share.
“If you’re gonna have a competitor, make it a good one,” said Taylor in an interview with Ars at the VR World Congress expo in Bristol. “In the past we used to reference our competition, but now it’s just about us. I was so pleased at the positive approach [Nvidia] took when we suggested the VR Council. We also work with them in Khronos and on Vulkan. There’s no need for us to be antagonistic. They’re a worthy competitor, we’re doing some things we’re proud of that put us in a leadership position, and we’ll continue to compete with them to the benefit of everybody.”
The reason Polaris is a big deal, is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM [total addressable market] significantly," said Taylor. "I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop.
If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970, or above, it's 7.5 million units. But the issue is that if a publisher wants to sell a £40/$50 game, that's not a big enough market to justify that yet. We've got to prime the pumps, which means somebody has got to start writing cheques to big games publishers. Or we've got to increase the install TAM.
When we set out to design this GPU, we set a completely different goal than for the usual way the PC road maps go, those are driven by 'the benchmark score this year is X. Next year we need to target 20 percent better at this cost and this power.' We decided to do something exciting with this GPU. Let's spike it so we can accomplish something we hadn't accomplished before.
If you're gonna have a competitor, make it a good one, in the past we used to reference our competition, but now it's just about us. I was so pleased at the positive approach [Nvidia] took when we suggested the VR Council. We also work with them in Khronos and on Vulkan. There's no need for us to be antagonistic. They're a worthy competitor, we're doing some things we're proud of that put us in a leadership position, and we'll continue to compete with them to the benefit of everybody.
Are we afraid of our competitors? No, we're completely unafraid of our competitors, for the most part, because—in the case of Nvidia—they don't appear to care that much about VR. And in the case of the dollars spent on R&D, they seem to be very happy doing stuff in the car industry, and long may that continue—good luck to them. We're spending our dollars in the areas we're focused on.
Where is this "Good vs Evil" ??
AMD are focussed on bringing down the cost of GPUs (this will include Vega) in order to increase the install base. With an increase in install base then the PC can now become a cheap VR platform PC hardware wise (thus compensating for the VR headset costs). AMD want developers to code specifically for GCN thus by increasing their TAM (Total Addressable Market) they can achieve this goal without paying off developers (because despite what some people say... that is happening on the green side).
AMD, on the other hand, simply offers full support to devs (GPUOpen and developer-centric support) and marketing agreements. No big cheques are going to devs (they don't have the money).
As for the Radeon Pro Duo, that you and others have mocked, the goal is to target the content producers prior to the arrival of Vega (giving you a glimpse of Vega performance). Don't believe me?
VR content creation is a market and business in of itself," said Taylor. "Previously, if you look at the 3D industry, or any new and emerging technology, the content creation industry has always been necessary to support, but as a market by itself, not anywhere as big as consumption. Right now the content creation industry is as big as the consumption industry and that's why I go to quite a lot of effort to talk about VRaaS [virtual reality as a service].
The other thing that's important to note is, right now, all the focus is on consumers," continued Taylor. "Where are the games? But the VRaaS market will keep VR going, even if consumers are disappointed. There are so many applications for VR that will sustain an industry while it develops itself...The interesting thing is to compare games to Hollywood, where no one is waiting for anyone—everyone is jumping straight in. We have an office in Hollywood, a team in Hollywood. Believe it or not, Nvidia doesn't have anyone within 200 miles of Hollywood—not a single soul.
We now make better drivers that Nvidia. Now when could anybody at AMD have the courage to stand up and say that?
We sat back and looked at some of the things that were said [by developers], much of which I quite frankly attribute to GameWorks in terms of issues in the past—horrible programme, but let's not go down that road,
We want to have a more robust and stronger engagement with the development community. More interestingly, the VR development community is much larger, and much wider than just games development. There's a university and academia support to VR. There are new companies making VRX [VR visual effects] content. There's the VRaaS stuff. We're investing heavily in that, and we're recruiting in that area, and we're going to do more.
Whether you're making fast single-threaded performance, or faster multicore performance, whether you're building a faster GPU, none of it is anything more than just plastic and sand unless you have great content,
Today's AMD understands that. I have two leaders that understand we have to deliver great content to the ecosystem. It's simple really, but the focus is there.
So AMD is targeting the content producers, the consumers (price/performance), the growing VR industry and soon the high-performance market. So by creating content producing products, increasing the TAM and supporting the growing VR market... AMD hopes to cut into nVIDIA's marketshare (and it is working).
AMD Desktop GPU Share Q4 2015: 26.2% Discrete GPU Share Q1 2016: 29.4% (+3.2) Discrete GPU Share Q2 2016: 34.2% (+4.2)
Nvidia Desktop GPU Share Q4 2015: 73.8% Discrete GPU Share Q1 2016: 70.6% (-3.2) Discrete GPU Share Q2 2016: 65.8% (-4.2)
None of that is "Good vs. Evil" and compared to the stuff Taylor used to say (and AMD PR in general) things are rather tame nowadays. The ultimate goal is to have GPUOpen as a standard. This would be a good thing for ALL gamer's as GPUOpen code can be optimized for both AMD and nVIDIA architectures. This allows everyone to use newer nifty features rather than the current "tied selling approach" followed by the green team.Edited by Mahigan - 9/4/16 at 6:17pm