Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre
It's pretty clear-cut what he's trying to say, miners buying 10 cards each is 10 less gamers who can get their hands on one.
Personally, i don't think mining has much to do with it.. Nvidia are just the superior brand these days, plain and simple. AMD cards still have a massive stigma when it comes to heat and drivers/problems, releasing cards like the Fury X and 480 that get within +-10% of the competition is nowhere near good enough, in order to get people to feel comfortable switching from Nvidia (it's never easy getting consumers to change brands in anything) AMD have to release cards that dominate them, and they'll have to do it more than once..
The 480 and Fury X are by no means bad hardware, they're just not good enough to eat into Nvidias marketshare, i hope AMD step up with Vega or it's going to suck for all of us..
$1999 Titans incoming..
I agree with this.
Steam isn't the best way to extrapolate information, when you do, you have to make and state certain assumption and back that up with other information.
Combined with the steam results, and another piece of information, there is enough evidence to suggest mining has had a profound effect on prices for AMD cards and responsible for their great sales recently.
As gorillasceptre has said, AMD cards are not high performing enough to sell well to the point where they sell for more than Nvidia cards. AMD cards sell when when they are either the superior value to Nvidia cards or offer outright superior performance(not just a couple games, but across the board) while being priced the same or less. When they sell for the same cost and Nvidia's cards perform better, AMD will lose marketshare. The gtx 6xx series showed this and the 5xx series showed this as well. Heck even the lousy gtx 4xx series when it became available was good enough to stop Nvidia from losing marketshare. The brand advantage is huge.
There are instances where this isn't true but this relates to the mining market. And this is what we are likely seeing with Polaris and Pascal. Lets use the 290x vs gtx 780 ti as a reference case, there are starting similarities with polaris vs pascal. At the time, nvidia cards were the better performing cards. AMD cards sold well, and they sold at above their MSRP. None of this extra markup goes to AMD and goes to sellers. What this does is it assist Nvidia into selling their cards a full MSRP.
As we can tell from Nvidia's growing and exceeding financial expectations during quarterly reports, they were also having record revenue and sales number. What this means is AMD wasn't particularly taking sales away from Nvidia in the gaming market. AMD with mining just expanded into a new market, which didn't put any pressure on Nvidia cards. In fact, the high street price from mining aided Nvidia sell more cards. This lead to a temporary short term gain for AMD and both a short term and a long term gain for Nvidia.
Why is it temporary? It's because the mining market has a built in expiry date for videocards. The increasing difficulty and the eventual addition of asics make it eventually unprofitable for people to mine with videocards. What this means is these cards eventually become useless for miners.
These cards eventually get sold on the used market and add a huge over supply of cheap AMD cards. You see a big drop in AMD sales as a result and AMD is forced to sell their cards at a low price. This doesn't effect Nvidia too much because they already have banner quarters and captured a huge portion of the gaming market prior to AMD cards starting selling at their MSRP. Also because people are more likely to brand loyal to Nvidia, they will either wait for Nvidia's next card if they didn't buy a gtx 1060 or rx480. And even if they feel sales are affected, Nvidia cards are cheaper to make and they can follow AMD pricing if they choose to. Back to AMD, long term it's bad for AMD.
The problem is that because it a used card and miners already made their money, they will sell for lower prices than even the lowest retail. Used cards don't count towards AMD's revenue, and depending on what goes wrong with the card(amd may be partially responsible for a failing GPU chip), AMD may be responsible for some of the RMA cost. Also used pricing can actually go below AMD's cost and this creates a situation where there isn't a good financial outcome regardless of what AMD picks.
Thus overall, mining is good for AMD in the short term but bad for them in the long term. The potential for this situation can be disastrous for AMD with Polaris.
Hawaii is a much more competitive product vs gk100 than Polaris. It was a much better value and the price to performance was killer, particularly with the r9 290. AMD's chip was also potentially and likely cheaper to make which gave Hawaii more flexibility with pricing. The higher MSRP in this range also gave more flexibility to AMD when the eventual price drops do happen.
Polaris doesn't offer the pricing flexibility and the gtx 1060 cheaper BOM will allow Nvidia to counter AMD no matter what they decide to do.