I think they underestimate the marketing value of a halo product.
That, or it's just spin to account for the fact that they don't have one.
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
8552 readers
993 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They don't have one that can properly compete with nvidia, which means it's a waste of resources to even target that area and instead focus on one where they can.
I'm not sure I understand why they don't.
I thought bringing chiplets to GPUs, meant they'd be able just add as many CUs and cash dies as they needed to get on top. Even if it's $3.5k and 1000W, they should be able to. They could sell 100K units as some limited edition special thing, and pull mind share away from nVidia by having the undisputed top card.
But they don't. Which is why I think they undervalue having a halo product. They don't think it'll push units further down the product stack. I think they're clearly wrong about that. People buy cards that fit their budgets. But they buy brands they know to be the best.
It's well outlined in the article too. AMD is far behind in regards to raytracing and upscaling, both enthusiast level relevant technologies. AMD already struggles to compete with nvidia in sales and this is just the final nail in the coffin if they simply cannot offer a competitive product that's actually going to get bought by enthusiasts.
If we look at the Steam hardware survey, we see that an RTX 4090 is at .96% shares, a 7900 XTX is not even reaching half of that with .40%. And this discrepancy is just going to grow more and more due to AMD being behind on those things. So until they can improve (if they even can), there's no point in wasting their already lower resources on a market they cannot compete in.
The one issue I see here is that Intel is very much pushing into the budget and at least lower midrange market at the moment too, which could mean AMD loses shares to Intel as well.
What the fuck, I love my 7900XTX - why AMD?
You built a competitive card for $800, why focus away from the top end?
Hi, someone on the other end of the spectrum here.
The most exciting time in gaming in the past 10 years for me was when AMD announced the RX480. They were excited about a $200USD GPU, targeting 1080p gaming.
I ended up buying an RX570 a some time later on a sale. Great card!
Years later I started looking around for an upgrade. Each time I looked it was as if mid range had ceased to exist at a reasonable price point. For examplw last year in my region the RTX 3050 was 3x the price I paid for my RX570, and wasn't that much cheaper than an Xbox series S.
I think it's great you love your 7800XTX, and I hope they continue to make good high end cards. But I also hope they remember my area of the market exists, and after 8 years of engineering improvements since the RX480 I want them to release a pair of cards targeting 1080p and 1440p gaming at a killer price.
You know that's totally fair
They should have done this in the last generation. Better late than never I guess.