https://videocardz.com/71776/amd-is -trying-to-sell-radeon-r

And they'll still sell out their stock.

Poor AMD

>>61830056
Why would anyone buy this shit when they can get a gtx 1080 for the same price?

>>61830081
They mine crypto

Should have sold them at $1000 considering the 70+ mining rate

>>61830056
use the fucking search function before posting.
Gaymers really

File: 1512136845622.jpg (85KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 630x472px

>>61830056
I look forward to the fall of AMD

File: 1425674861581.png (361KB, 858x725px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 858x725px

>sell 64s for a higher price
>56s fucking skyrocket even more above the initial advertised
WHAT THE FUCK AMD

>>61830173
AMD is going bankrupt this year for sure.


t. 2008-2017

>>61830071
>And they'll still sell out their stock.
in this case this is very bad because ONLY miners will buy the vegas now so in a normal gaming market their share will drop pretty hard and after the mining boom no one will care about amd graphic cards
inb4 in a year 99% steam users will have an nvidia card

>>61830297
And who cares? Money is money.

>>61830311
>what is market segmentation?

>>61830311
yeah who cares that nobody will make any effort to optimize any software for radeons because only miners use them and after the mining is over a rx580 will be slower in games than a gtx1050 and amd will eat shit

>>61830327
Totally. Especially Bethesda.

>>61830297
As opposed to the 95% now? Who cares, AMD couldn't sell gaming GPUs even when they were better on all fronts.

1070 level performance at 600 dollars what a steal.

>>61830343
>Who cares
everyone who likes competition
just look at what intel did after ryzen, 4 core i3s and 6 core i5s

>>61830363
But everyone in cucksumer GPU market hates competition.
You wanted to suck jackeman's cock, now enjoy it.

>>61830297
there is no such thing as gaming market share
jpr when they annc the market share they have already said that they care about sales and shipping of chip nothing more nothing less

who the fuck buys the card isnt important never was

>>61830363
anon is right.
Gaymens don't want competition, they want to buy nvdia GPU cheaper.

>>61830590
the only way for this to change is for amd to push for a total acceptance of vulkan and dx12...
well vulkan at most since it restricts the usage of 3rd party api's and you have to use compute units for different effects and this will result into a massive power draw bump for nvidia

>>61830343
>AMD couldn't sell gaming GPUs even when they were better on all fronts
This is a very stupid things to say, AMD's market share was quite a bit higher when they actually made good graphics cards, so people clearly did care and did buy more AMD than today. The steep decline started when GTX 900 Maxwell cards came out, despite the 3.5GB 970 debacle.

AMD hasn't made a great graphics card since the 7950/7970. The 290s were pretty decent but the high TDP and the abysmal stock coolers made for a shit launch and a very bad reputation, despite custom models being good. The 390s were literally fucking nothing, just rebrands of the 290s as a pathetic response to NVIDIA's significant improvements in efficiency with GTX 900 Maxwell, then Fury X also disappointed and was general inferior to the 980 Ti. Pascal rolled around and NVIDIA made another large efficiency/performance jump and now, well over a year later AMD, still doesn't have a response on the market to the 1070, 1080 or 1080 Ti.

People would buy more AMD if AMD actually made cards as good as those of their older generations. 470/480/570/580 are decent, but they don't particularly impress in any way and I'm sure the lack of a prestigious, powerful flagship product also hurts in terms of marketing and mindshare.

>>61830635
I want another 9700pro era. Such good times.

>>61830635
ATi marketshare during R700, Terascale and up to GCN1 which were all superior products generally outside of a few edge case SKU, Nvidia was still around 60% market.
That's several generations back to back of superiority and people still bought more Nvidia cards.


People don't want AMD cards, they want cheaper Nvidia cards.
AMD might as well sell their overpriced mining cards to people who can actually buy them.

>>61830297
>no one will buy AMD graphics card is pricing will be right and high performance
kek, keep thinking that.

Guess what consumers think about this AMD strategy to milk miners?
>oh noes... miners did it again... I can't afford to buy this GPU because of these fuarking miners...

>this is very bad
Wat, are you butthurt because you can't afford a new AMD GPU now? keep whining

>>61830635
R9 290 TDP really wasn't that high. It's only high compared to Pascal.
Nano was also super efficient for the time.

It was the 390X and Fury X that had silly power consumption. And frankly my non-reference 7970 (albeit at 1200Mhz) draws a lot of power. Like 330watts from the rails.

>>61830056
AMD GPUs are always more expensive in Europe.

>>61830697
What Europe are you living in? Certainly not in Eastern Europe.

>>61830714
Most of the time I could find 1060 cheaper than RX 480 and it was before mining.

>>61830728
That didn't answer my question.

>>61830635
Oi come the fuck on.
Gaymen don't want competition.
They want cheaper NVIDIA cards.
It's that simple.

>>61830735
I'm from Baltics.

>>61830056
This means Vega performance increased bigly.

>>61830728
If you're in the EU, you sucked at searching retailers.

>>61830761
They fixed that bandwith regression (according to Pajeet himself that is).

>>61830173
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

>>61830678
I had a 9800 Pro, it was the first actually good graphics card I ever had.

>>61830679
NVIDIA did have a market lead, but that doesn't change the fact that people bought more AMD cards when AMD cards were actually good. The latest and current drop in their market share is due to having largely inferior and unimpressive products for a few generations.
>AMD might as well sell their overpriced mining cards to people who can actually buy them.
I'm not so sure, mining could very well die down again and at that point AMD would be left with even less market share and even more people going to NVIDIA as the "default" gaming choice. It sounds terrible as a long-term plan.

>>61830686
290/290X weren't *actually* that bad but the pretty high TDP combined with the fucking terrible reference cards (bad, loud coolers) got them a very bad reputation, which the actually good custom cards never overcame entirely.

I like to remind everyone that AMDrones said that DX12/Vulkan will save AMD GPUs. Also they said that because consoles use AMD, every future game will be optimized for them.

Lol.

>>61830806
People bought more AMD cards only because Thermi was half a year later than Evergreen. After that it was all NVIDIA.

>>61830858
No, people bought more AMD than they do today even during the HD6000 (which were meh) and H7000 (which were good) times, way after Fermi. The real decline only started with Maxwell v2/GTX 900 which was legitimately better than AMD's old rebrands (other than the 3.5 970).

AMD barely has anything worth buying nowadays, in terms of graphics cards. Why buy a rebranded 570/580? Why buy even a 470/480? They're not cheap enough and they're not fast enough to seriously BTFO a 1060 6GB, which is what AMD would really need in order to fight back effectively against the somewhat shitty reputation they've acquired and against NVIDIA's other shit, like Gameworks and better outreach to game devs. Their still somewhat disappointing performance in DX11 also doesn't help since most games don't actually use DX12 or Vulkan.

>>61830912
>seriously BTFO a 1060 6GB
Define "seriosly".

>>61830297
Mining boom

Implying mining is going to die.

>>61830858
People bought more Fermi than GCN despite GCN completely BTFOing it out new, let alone after driver updates.

GCN had more market share because people kept them way, way, way longer and there was a huge used market for them, but less of them were sold new and less were manufactured.

>>61830912
Some of AMD's highest sales were of RX470s and RX480s, though they lost a lot of market share with the 300 series and stock of Fury was awful.

>>61830853
And it turned out to be true. The 6 year old 7970 is still good today. Is this bait to have this pointed out, knowing that simply stating this like I just did would get less attention, or are you actually retarded?

>>61830945
>Fermi
You mean Kekler?

>>61830948
No, 7970 came out when Fermi was out and forced 30% price cuts from Nvidia, and even after those price cuts they still weren't remotely competitive yet people bought them anyway. Kepler came out after.
The GHz edition refresh came out shortly to continue to BTFO Kepler.

About a year later the R9 290 came out. But the 300 series did not compete well with Maxwell which followed, until driver updates and still then mostly just at 1440p.

>>61830936
What, you want me to pull a number out of my ass for you? Just look at any benchmark which averages results over multiple games and you'll see that 480/580 come within a few % of each other. Outliers aside, the cards will basically provide the same gaming experience.

I mean it's good that AMD actually has something which competes on an even footing and may even be slightly cheaper (before the mining insanity), but merely being equivalent won't get them a massive swing in market share after 390 rebrands and Fury disappointment, especially when they completely dumped the high-end and enthusiast segments.

>>61830945
>Some of AMD's highest sales were of RX470s and RX480s
Yeah, but see above. They weren't good enough to make up for lost share and realistically couldn't have been in a single gen with missing market segments and as a followup to 470/480 AMD gave us more disappointment and rebrands. That's pretty shit, does anyone even care about 570/580?

>>61831126
>high-end and enthusiast segment
A niche beyond niche. Also halo Radeons NEVER sold well in the past 10 years.

>>61830056
>"""""""AMD is"""""""
>It's all no name 3rd party retailers price gouging due to minerfags

Kill yourself, housefires spamming faggot.

>>61831126
I'd like to remind you that that 480/580 that are pretty much the same as a 1060 but cheaper still sold 1 to 6 to a 1060.

Same performance, cheaper? Selling a lot less? I see a pattern here with pretty much Ati/AMD 2008 to 2012

>>61831126
RX480 and RX470 trended them up greatly. If 32 CU Vega had come out when RX580 did, that trend probably would have continued.

Some leaks came out, and the 11 CU Vega APU appears to be 2-5x the performance of the 8 CU A12-9800E iGPU. That suggests at least a 60% performance increase per CU.
Yeah, Vega 64 is disappointing compared to Fury, but it seems bottlenecked in other regards. Games don't need that much compute performance. A 32 CU Vega to replace Polaris could have driven more market share. The $90-$250 range is where the bulk of sales are.

>>61831197
Vega10 has a major memory bandwith bottleneck.
Also Vega's TMUs are 40% slower than Fiji's.
Can someone exblain me blease.

>>61831205
Shit's fucked, respin?
Or an architectural change to boost compute?

>>61831220
They had ALL the time in the world to do even the base layer respin.
This is beyond retarded, considering Pro Vega cards are actually competing or shitty silly on P6000.

Like what the fuck is that uarch.
No perf/clock and perf/watt gains from TBR and much better geometry throughtput?

>>61831153
>A niche beyond niche
Sure, yet the Steam survey somehow shows more 1080 owners than RX480 owners. I imagine those have to be insanely profitable, even if NVIDIA sells few of them compared to 1060s. Unless the survey is completely wrong, which I don't see how it could be, more people were willing to spend $600+ on 1080s than $200+ on RX480s.

>>61831159
That's why I said AMD needed something to BTFO a 1060, not to merely be equivalent. "Cheaper" is good but when the price is already fairly low the appeal isn't that amazing.

Does an average consumer buy from a "good brand" for ~$50 extra? Does an average consumer buy from a brand he has good personal experience with for an extra ~$50? $50 or something like that isn't much, it doesn't make much of a splash when your reputation and market share are already worse than the competition. They needed something which was visibly faster than a 1060 in terms of the gameplay experience since they're fighting from the inferior position which has inherent disadvantages beyond anything technical related to the actual product.

They already sold pretty well but nowhere near as 1060s, which surely benefit from a lot of good will for NVIDIA in the consumer base. That good will isn't necessarily erroneous either, NVIDIA *did* have better products than AMD for a while now, so simply catching up isn't good enough, they needed to surpass.

File: 77044804.jpg (7KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 125x125px

>AMD makes good GPU's
>people still buy novidio because of muh "the way you meant to be played TM"
>mining boom happens
>miners dont care about marketing memes and buy all relevant AMD cards because they are good
>AMD makes shitload of profit in short time compared to low profit in long time if their only audience were gaymurs
>retards think this is somehow bad for AMD (not really, they are just butthurt)
Im glad AMD GPU's finally got acknowledged.

>>61830056
THEY SAID THEY'LL ONLY BE SELLING BUNDLES AT FIRST, THE BUNDLES THAT ADD $100 TO THE PRICE

>eurocucks and chinks in charge of reading

>>61831623
> Im glad AMD GPU's finally got acknowledged.
They were "acknowledged" since Cypress and the Bitcoin boom.

>>61830311
Who cares? AMD is essentially selling out their future for short-term profits. Investors should be very wary.

>>61831773
http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/amd-stock-price-cryptocurrency-mining-wont-be-a-long-term-growth-driver-2017-7-1002206475

>>61831623
>>AMD makes good GPU's


stopped reading right there.

>>61830056
>realize cryptoshekels show no sign of slowing down
>raise prices, sell as much shit as possible
>vega literally and virtually prints money

>amd finished and bankrupt
Wut