[Dalewyn]

That is at best a weak argument because guess what: AMD is competition and also sell at prices outrageous enough that there is no downward pressure.

If anything, I would take Nvidia, AMD, and maybe Intel to court for price fixing their GPUs.

[_nist]

I'm not sure what world you live in, but Nvidia sells their cards at 1.5 - 2 times the price than AMD's on average and AMD has had strong Linux support for years.

[MR4D]

Do they though?

Another narrative is that AMD undercuts Nvidia prices because their product isn’t as good.

Worse, Intel then undercuts AMD pricing for video cards because theirs aren’t even as good as AMD’s.

When you get to antitrust, things like this are important. I may agree with you, but an Nvidia lawyer will take this tact and run with it.

[_nist]

When AMD can run 95% of games as good as any NVIDIA card and you factor in that most games have virtually no ray tracing support or any other fancy feature that NVIDIA offers, coupled with the known low performance/cost gains in their own graphics family, and their lack of ability to support demand despite being a trillion dollar company, I'd say that there isn't much of a leg to stand on.

[MR4D]

You could replace those brands with Times and Rolex. Still wouldn’t be antitrust.

[_nist]

It would be anti-trust if they were deliberately shrinking supply to hike up prices on their cards. For example, I know I have the best card in the industry, so I'm going to force the supply low so I can charge effectively whatever I want.

[hot_gril]

Nvidia and AMD (previously ATI) have had a similar relationship for a long time, before ML was a use case. Nvidia has always been the more expensive option afaik. Kinda like Intel vs AMD.

[_nist]

It wasn't in the 2000's back when ATI and NVIDIA cards had comparable prices. Sometimes ATI cost a little more because they were better, but they were never crazy different from NVIDIA. And there were never supply problems.