Nvidia could hardly have left a wider open goal for AMD, but AMD have clearly abandoned any ambition they had to grow their marketshare in the discrete GPU market and are content to be the "me too" brand with 15% or so.
Perhaps what they really care about is the APU sector, and honestly I am not sure they're wrong to do so. If they decide to really go for it and release APUs with 16+ GPU cores backed by v-cache, then they can essentially corner the low to mid-low end of the gaming market from Nvidia with "good enough" graphics performance, and from Intel because those Intel CPUs will need a discrete GPU, and the price for that will start at the $400-$500+ mid-end.
Being able to pack a solution like that into the increasingly popular miniPC format will be a compelling value proposition for a lot of people.
Unfortunately as the 3060/3060 Ti vs 6650 XT/6700 XT has proven, plenty of people will buy a more expensive Nvidia card even if AMD has a cheaper better alternative. I'm not even sure how AMD can recapture market share at this point short of a miracle-performance card with some killer platform-exclusive feature(s). But the current RDNA3 performance and prices certainly aren't the solution...
Most gamers don't know what rasterisation is. They don't know that the RX has better rasterisation performance than the RTX and they don't care.
What they do know is that NVIDIA keeps coming up with new features people want, and AMD comes up with not quite as good alternatives years later.
* NVIDIA came up with G-Sync, and AMD released not quite as good Freesync years later.
* NVIDIA introduced raytracing, and AMD introduced cards worse at ray tracing years later.
* NVIDIA came up with DLSS, and the best AMD could come up with was a sharpening filter (FSR) until years later they introduced FSR2, which is basically just garden variety TAA.
AMD are seen as the also-ran because they act like the also-ran. They don't make any effort to be ahead of the curve, to come up with things NVIDIA doesn't have that people actually want.
Intel's cards are a disaster but even they were more ambitious than AMD has ever been in graphics. XeSS as a first generation challenge to DLSS is an extremely strong effort. Intel's RT performance smokes AMD. They even came up with features like smooth sync that is such a brilliant idea I can't believe nobody has done it before. These were all on their first generation!
AMD need to get off their ass and actually compete. If they're not going to push the envelope, their cards need to be dramatically reduced in price. Intel is coming and they're not fucking around.
The amount of stupid people I've seen going for 3000 series cards over 6000 series cards because "dlss" is too high. Dlss seems like a crutch when the competition is beating you by 50% (see 6650 xt vs 3050).
It's especially crazy for 1080p as DLSS and FSR both end up looking pretty bad at 1080p. Plus on those cards you should have no problem running higher settings at 1080p >= 60fps.
Yeah fsr on 1080p looks okay if it's quality mode but I'd prefer native if possible.
Still better than what lowering image quality used to look like though. More akin to the old crt experience.
8 Comments
INITMalcanis@reddit
LordAlfredo@reddit
Elon_Kums@reddit
JonWood007@reddit
LordAlfredo@reddit
JonWood007@reddit
Devatator_@reddit
JonWood007@reddit