[pastullo]

Looks extremely overpriced due to lots of investor hoping to get similar gains as the one from NVIDIA stocks.

Without starting a flame war, i personally think AMD is lagging way behind NVIDIA, which lately has been releasing incredible products. They have been expanding in both the gaming market as well as gained a strong foothold in emerging B2B markets such as the automotive industry and virtual reality.

Sure both AMD and NVIDIA will keep growing but now they really feel overpriced.

[webaholic]

I don't think AMD is that far behind Nvidia. They Fury series is on par with the latest Nvidia products if they use the Vulkan API.

The upcoming Polaris is supposed to be using HBM2 which should give it a boost.

[jdietrich]

AMD are in a death spiral.

In the gaming market, AMD have completely lost the high-end and are barely managing to keep a foothold in the mid-range. The RX480 is just barely competitive with the GTX 1060 in gaming, performing worse in DX11 and edging a marginal (~5%) lead in DX12 and Vulkan. The R9 Fury has been all but abandoned by card partners, because it's barely faster the GTX 1060 or the RX 480 while costing 50% more.

None of that really matters, because AMD are absolutely nowhere in the GPGPU market. The market for consumer video cards doesn't have much room to grow, but there's exponential growth potential for GPGPU compute in server and embedded applications. Nvidia are selling rackloads of premium-priced cards to data centers and increasing quantities of chips to the automotive industry. They're in a virtuous circle of economies of scale, with the video and GPGPU markets supporting each other.

AMD have gained some market share in terms of unit volume, but they're in deep trouble when it comes to margins. Nvidia can afford a price war in the mid-range, because they've got a monopoly on the high-end. Nvidia could do to Radeon what Intel did to Opteron.

I like AMD. I particularly like AMD's support for open standards (Freesync, Vulkan etc), but I think that this is a desperation move. Polaris has been a massive disappointment, at least in comparison with Pascal. Unless Zen turns out to be spectacular, AMD are in deep trouble.

[chc]

AMD is lagging on CPUs for sure, but most of their GPU offerings seem pretty competitive. There are a couple of segments where they're behind, but more where they're even or ahead, so I don't see how you'd figure they're way behind overall.

[EpicEng]

Care to give some examples? As someone who has been building gaming rigs for some time, this flies in the face of ally experience. NVIDIA always has the best performing GPU each generation, has better drivers, and better support for most AAA games. Where is AMD winning?

[chc]

From what I've seen, the entire RX lineup appears to be as good or better than Nvidia's offerings at the same price points.

Also, "support for AAA games" isn't really a graphics card feature, per se. AAA development studios choose what hardware they want to support, and many choose to target Nvidia technologies (e.g. HairWorks).

[EpicEng]

>Also, "support for AAA games" isn't really a graphics card feature, per se. AAA development studios choose what hardware they want to support, and many choose to target Nvidia technologies (e.g. HairWorks).

Yes, but who cares? If NVIDIA beats AMD for the games I want to play, the why completely irrelevant. Games run better on NVIDIA. I buy games and want them to run as well as possible. Sold.

[chc]

The topic under discussion is whether "AMD is lagging way behind NVIDIA." If some games run better on Nvidia not because AMD is lagging, but because those developers are choosing to make them run better on Nvidia cards, the why is very relevant to the topic at hand. What isn't relevant is which brand of video card you choose to buy.

[dragonwriter]

Even if only on relationships with gaming studios (or game engine builders, which are overlapping but not identical groups), AMD is lagging in a market-critical area for GPUs if games don't run as well on AMD GPUs.

[maxsilver]

> Where is AMD winning?

GPU Performance per dollar.

NVIDIA has the best high-end GPUs each generation, and NVIDIA is often more power efficient, but AMD is often competitive or slightly ahead in GPU performance per dollar, particularly in the low/mid-range end of the market.

[tracker1]

AMD has been competitive on the low-mid range CPUs, and very competitive on power utilization (mobile devices).

I agree on the drivers though, Nvidia drivers have always worked much better, I've avoided the past 2 generations of AMD graphics because of this. They may have gotten better.

Just upgraded to a GTX 1080 a few months ago when I went back to single monitor (40" 4k) from two 27's... works very well, just needs a little more oomph in gaming at 4k though, next gen should be great at 4k though. I don't really game much, so it's been great for me.

I'm not sure what will come out of AMD, but think they are ahead of intel for integrated cpu/gpu though.

[m-p-3]

You should take a look at the AMD Crimson drivers, better than what Nvidia offers IMO.

[jdietrich]

They aren't really winning anywhere. The RX480 and GTX 1060 are fairly closely matched in terms of price and performance. AMD have basically nothing to compete with the 1070 and above.

AMD APUs are a good value option at the very bottom of the market, but the margins on a $25 Sempron can't be good.

[m-p-3]

I don't agree regarding drivers, especially in the last months. AMD drivers are quite solid since Crimson.