• ea_man@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In the GPU market AMD is both lazy and stupid: they just try to undercut NVIDIA a bit, they should understand that they don’t have a product as good as RTX and focus to provide decent low price GPUs with a lot of RAM in the 200-400$ range.

    If someone has 500 to spend they could as well spend 650 and buy NVIDIA, those on a budget on the other hand would buy AMD if they had proposed a 12-16gb good rastering option on the cheap.

    • XenonJFt@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yea why not try to bring the same investment to the market where that company with 10x the market cap and only focuses on GPUs and AI chips can just lower pricing to stay competitive.not like AMD has console,handheld, consumer or Server chips to put RnD budget alongside radeon?

      Also people would buy overpay to nvidia is what makes nvidia jack up to insanity that works towards amd undercutting.and also why gpu prices will increase all the time if behaviour is kept.look at 7800xt.it triple destroyed nvidias mid lineup to adjust prices pre and after launch.buying for the undercutter makes both companies to be more competitive at pricing. Which happened at that case.

    • auradragon1@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      they should understand that they don’t have a product as good as RTX and focus to provide decent low price GPUs with a lot of RAM in the 200-400$ range.

      It’s easy to explain from a business point of view. The reason AMD doesn’t want to compete in the $200-$400 range is because there is barely any profit there. GPUs are huge dies with a lot of memory. They’re significantly more expensive than CPUs to manufacture per unit. Therefore, AMD would rather spend all of the TSMC wafers on Epyc chips than $200-$400 GPUs.

      Take for example, Navi 32 (7800XT), has 28 billion transistors and sells for $500. That $500 has to include expensive GPDDR RAM, a board, capacitors, and a heatsink.

      Conversely, a 64 core Zen2 Epyc has 40 billion transistors and sold for $5000+. No GPDDR RAM needed. No heatsink fan. No board. No capacitors. Just the chip. $5000.

      So you tell me what AMD should prioritize making.

      Lastly, if AMD starts a price war at the $200 - $400 range, Nvidia will respond with something $250 - $450 but slightly faster. Nvidia isn’t just going to let AMD take that market without any resistance.

      • ea_man@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s easy to explain from a business point of view.

        Yeah but ain’t the customer part of the market model?

        Coz there are ZERO chance in hell that I can spend 800 for a GPU, even if I get that it makes more sense for the manufacturer.

        So you tell me what AMD should prioritize making.

        The GPU that me and 90% of the people can buy, a ~250-300$ GPU, pretty please with 12-15GB of RAM as it is cheap.