AMD To Chase Market Share Over High End With First Polaris Offerings

[vpoko]

So why people thinking there is advantage to amd in the mid range due to their console business? What the relation of console with pc market? And it is not easy for AMD to regain the market share on laptop. It all depends on how much R&D they willing to pour into product development. It is not as simple as selling their gpu to those laptop maker. Amd for their part also have to spend R&D integrating their gpu into those laptop design. This is the main reason why amd almost none existent in discrete gpu laptop market depite they were dominating the segment back in 2010. Back in 2012 Rory Read decided not deal with OEM business unless OEM want to sell AMD product in large volume.

Supplying the console market doesn't give AMD an advantage in any other product line, including the high-volume PC GPU market, but it helps give them the sales volume that a high-volume, lower-margin business needs. It's an advantage when creating their P&L, they have a pretty certain revenue stream and can focus on finding efficiencies to improve their profit.

 

[renz496]

Well actually when AMD first unveil polaris early on january all we know polaris will be the code name for amd gpu. And they also mention polaris will be 2016 gpu. Vega will be 2017 gpu. For many that tells us that polaris will cover from high end to low end. Vega was expected to be the ultra high end part that will be competing with nvidia big gun (1080ti). Hence many expect polaris will compete with nvidia offering from top to bottom this year with both dug it out their big chip next year (GP100 vs Vega). The expectation is for polaris to compete head to head with nvidia GP104 in term of performance.

Personally i want to know if amd will be able to rival nvidia power efficiency or not (just for educational purpose).

There's now been rumors of Vega being moved to this year thanks to things going better than expected with HBM2. We'll see. What is certain, is that we will see a 480 in the next couple of days.

never heard of that. if anything it might be possible we won't be seeing HBM2 based card for consumer until next year. heck even nvidia big chip was rumored to used GDDR5X for the consumer card instead of HBM2. the only rumor i heard Vega was push towards this year instead of next year was because AMD have no GPU that can compete with nvidia GP104 this year if Vega launching next year.

 

[Aspiring techie]

Right now, AMD doesn't need glory, it needs $$$!!

 

[Aspiring techie]

Well actually when AMD first unveil polaris early on january all we know polaris will be the code name for amd gpu. And they also mention polaris will be 2016 gpu. Vega will be 2017 gpu. For many that tells us that polaris will cover from high end to low end. Vega was expected to be the ultra high end part that will be competing with nvidia big gun (1080ti). Hence many expect polaris will compete with nvidia offering from top to bottom this year with both dug it out their big chip next year (GP100 vs Vega). The expectation is for polaris to compete head to head with nvidia GP104 in term of performance.

Personally i want to know if amd will be able to rival nvidia power efficiency or not (just for educational purpose).

So you're saying that Polaris will be like the 3xx series (without the crappy rebranding) and Vega will be like the Fiji series. Very interesting.

 

[renz496]

hard to say actually. too many speculation. but AMD probably did not expect nvidia to be very aggressive with GP104. because when nvidia reveal their biggest chip (GP100; 610mm2) the chip only have 10 TFlops in SP performance. Fiji already around 8.6 Tflops for SP performance. so maybe AMD expect GF104 to have much less than that. and before the hype begin many actually expect 1080 will be similar to 980 vs 780Ti where 1080 probably only 10% faster than 980Ti or so. but that change when nvidia finally reveal 1080 and 1070. now even the cut down GP104 was about as fast as 980Ti. GP104 SP was rated around 9 TFlop only slightly lower than GP100 SP performance. an overclocked 1080 probably will end up faster than stock GP100 performance. seeing GP104 are so close with GP100 in SP performance this further reinforce the speculation about GP100 will not coming to geforce product at all. but the role will be filled by the rumored GP102.

and there is also the interview with Roy Taylor. he said that pascal (most likely he referring to nvidia 1080/1070) are high end product while AMD is targeting the mainstream market with polaris to increase VR minimum performance at much lower price point that $350. the thing is if AMD have something that comparable to nvidia performance they will also price them at much more comparable price.

 

[Bloob]

So why people thinking there is advantage to amd in the mid range due to their console business? What the relation of console with pc market? And it is not easy for AMD to regain the market share on laptop. It all depends on how much R&D they willing to pour into product development. It is not as simple as selling their gpu to those laptop maker. Amd for their part also have to spend R&D integrating their gpu into those laptop design. This is the main reason why amd almost none existent in discrete gpu laptop market depite they were dominating the segment back in 2010. Back in 2012 Rory Read decided not deal with OEM business unless OEM want to sell AMD product in large volume.

Supplying the console market doesn't give AMD an advantage in any other product line, including the high-volume PC GPU market, but it helps give them the sales volume that a high-volume, lower-margin business needs. It's an advantage when creating their P&L, they have a pretty certain revenue stream and can focus on finding efficiencies to improve their profit.

Console market dominance can (and to some extent already does) lead to developers optimizing their games for AMD hardware. The console market is, after all, the priority to most publishers thanks to larger gamer base.

 

[gggplaya]

The worry is that Nvidia being the undisputed king of the high-end means people will associate them with quality, and buyers of lower-end cards will buy Nvidia ones even if AMD outperforms them in that segment.

I don't agree with this. I think people have 3 things in mind when buying a video card.
1. Budget,
2. How many FPS will i get with my games.
3. How the cards stack against the competition at given Budget aka VALUE.

AMD doesn't want to compete in the $400+ high end because frankly, most people that play video games can't afford to spend that kind of cash. The bread and butter is in the $250 range. If they can play all the latest titles at over 60fps+, this demographic is going to expand, and considering XBONE and PS4 now use an x86 architecture and gaming engines such as Unreal and Crytek now allow for crossplatform development, we're going to see a resurgence in PC gaming with the $150 to $300 graphics cards segment mushrooming bigger. AMD is smart to target that demographic and not the higher end.

AMD also has freesync going for them, which adds more value to the equation.

At the end of the day, i think alot of people are going to read alot of reviews online, and if AMD can maintain the same or more performance as an Nvidia card(which i think they can do with polaris) at any given price point a potential buyer will want, then they'll steal some nvidia marketshare.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@gggplaya consider the R9 380. It fell into your "bread and butter" price range, it gave good fps at 1080p high settings (and majority of gamers are still at 1080p or lower) and outperformed the GTX 960 on average while costing about the same. And yet, from what I remember from the Steam hardware survey results, the GTX 960 outsold the entire R9 3xx series combined. For better or worse, there is obviously more to making a successful graphics card than purely price and performance.

Edit: Hmm, oddly enough there aren't any values for any of the AMD Rx 300 series cards in the Steam survey results. I was thinking of the results for the R9 200 series.

 

[RedJaron]

Precisely. The majority of PC gamers simply aren't tech heads that read every review. I'm the one in my family and circle of friends that almost everyone comes to asking for computer building and upgrading help. I imagine it's much the same with many people. So if your "upgrade expert" has a 970 or 980, you're likely going to want that. But when you go shopping and see them outside your price range, are you likely to grab a compting product that you don't know, or are you going to get the next model down from what your buddy has?

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

AMD is transparent. Their focus is open Source development, and genuine hardware innovation, the opposite of NV. Freesync, for example, is the open standard for adaptive sync technology. Very much unlike nVidia's gsync in that it costs far less and doesn't use proprietary software developed only to further NV's goal of monopoly. NV has time and again proven how ruthless, devious, and manipulative they are. They abuse their own customers perhaps like very few other silicon corporations do, and rather than rightfully face sanction or boycott, their consumer base rewards them for it.

Imagine how it'd be if nVidia had to compete fairly, transparently. No proprietary software or PR hype to give unfair advantage; only adherence to strictly open source, universal guidelines, designed to encourage true hardware innovation through merit for all participating parties, for the good of all. This is what corps like nVidia prevent from taking place. If a business model is broken, it needs to be fixed. Continually subsidizing the very thing ensuring the broken model stays that way only guarantees one's complicity in making sure all won't have a real choice in the near future. Monopolies mean severely restricted choice and never knowing how good it might have otherwise been if fair competition was practiced and maintained from the start. The ultimate loser is the consumer.

 

[vpoko]

The worry is that Nvidia being the undisputed king of the high-end means people will associate them with quality, and buyers of lower-end cards will buy Nvidia ones even if AMD outperforms them in that segment.

I don't agree with this. I think people have 3 things in mind when buying a video card.
1. Budget,
2. How many FPS will i get with my games.
3. How the cards stack against the competition at given Budget aka VALUE.

AMD doesn't want to compete in the $400+ high end because frankly, most people that play video games can't afford to spend that kind of cash. The bread and butter is in the $250 range. If they can play all the latest titles at over 60fps+, this demographic is going to expand, and considering XBONE and PS4 now use an x86 architecture and gaming engines such as Unreal and Crytek now allow for crossplatform development, we're going to see a resurgence in PC gaming with the $150 to $300 graphics cards segment mushrooming bigger. AMD is smart to target that demographic and not the higher end.

AMD also has freesync going for them, which adds more value to the equation.

At the end of the day, i think alot of people are going to read alot of reviews online, and if AMD can maintain the same or more performance as an Nvidia card(which i think they can do with polaris) at any given price point a potential buyer will want, then they'll steal some nvidia marketshare.

I hope people will be that sophisticated when it comes to buying a card (you know, check the benchmarks, read the reviews, understand one's own requirements), but I'm in the US, so I'm not counting on it. People buy much higher ticket items than video cards without doing their due diligence.

 

[gggplaya]

@gggplaya consider the R9 380. It fell into your "bread and butter" price range, it gave good fps at 1080p high settings (and majority of gamers are still at 1080p or lower) and outperformed the GTX 960 on average while costing about the same. And yet, from what I remember from the Steam hardware survey results, the GTX 960 outsold the entire R9 3xx series combined. For better or worse, there is obviously more to making a successful graphics card than purely price and performance.

Edit: Hmm, oddly enough there aren't any values for any of the AMD Rx 300 series cards in the Steam survey results. I was thinking of the results for the R9 200 series.

Nvidia had a large 6-10 month leap over AMD in releasing the GTX 960/970/980 series. AMD lost alot of market share when those cards were released, going from 38% market share in q1/2015 all the way down to 18%. That's a huge 20% loss until the slashed prices and the R9 380 was released in june/july of 2015. By then it was nearly too late. Tax season is a good time for graphics cards sales, they missed the boat. They were able to gain back about 8% by christmas Q4/2015 and gain back another 3% in Q1 of 2016. Now they're at about 30% marketshare. The 380 is selling well, but i think alot of people are holding out for polaris.

The new Radeon 480 was just announced for $200, i think it'll sell very well considering alot of people don't want to drop the coin on a new nvidia 1070 and 1080 graphics cards for $380+. Nvidia better hit back with something or deeply discount the 970 or something, i think they'll lose alot of market share to the 480. The 970 is selling right now for $320 and the 480 performance should be in between the 970 and 980.

I'm using a GTX 970 right now and it play all the mainstream titles at max everything at 60+fps. So the radeon 480 will be a good sweetspot card for people who want good performance without breaking the bank.

 

[gggplaya]

The worry is that Nvidia being the undisputed king of the high-end means people will associate them with quality, and buyers of lower-end cards will buy Nvidia ones even if AMD outperforms them in that segment.

I don't agree with this. I think people have 3 things in mind when buying a video card.
1. Budget,
2. How many FPS will i get with my games.
3. How the cards stack against the competition at given Budget aka VALUE.

AMD doesn't want to compete in the $400+ high end because frankly, most people that play video games can't afford to spend that kind of cash. The bread and butter is in the $250 range. If they can play all the latest titles at over 60fps+, this demographic is going to expand, and considering XBONE and PS4 now use an x86 architecture and gaming engines such as Unreal and Crytek now allow for crossplatform development, we're going to see a resurgence in PC gaming with the $150 to $300 graphics cards segment mushrooming bigger. AMD is smart to target that demographic and not the higher end.

AMD also has freesync going for them, which adds more value to the equation.

At the end of the day, i think alot of people are going to read alot of reviews online, and if AMD can maintain the same or more performance as an Nvidia card(which i think they can do with polaris) at any given price point a potential buyer will want, then they'll steal some nvidia marketshare.

I hope people will be that sophisticated when it comes to buying a card (you know, check the benchmarks, read the reviews, understand one's own requirements), but I'm in the US, so I'm not counting on it. People buy much higher ticket items than video cards without doing their due diligence.

They are, i used to work at best buy during college. Most people that bought computer parts already knew what they wanted and which one was better before they came in. Alot of people read reviews or google nvidia XXX vs AMD XXX before deciding which to buy. Wifi routers and things like that which everyone uses was kind of a mixed bag, but things like graphics cards, most people knew what they wanted.

 

[InvalidError]

Most people that bought computer parts already knew what they wanted and which one was better before they came in.

Most people who don't know what they want for GPUs and other internal components wouldn't dare open their PC to install them.

 

[vpoko]

Most people that bought computer parts already knew what they wanted and which one was better before they came in.

Most people who don't know what they want for GPUs and other internal components wouldn't dare open their PC to install them.

Right, but what percentage of discrete GPU's are bought aftermarket vs. being included with a system? Certainly mobiles are in the included category, but I'm not sure how it breaks down for PC's.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Most people that bought computer parts already knew what they wanted and which one was better before they came in.

Eh, the power supply industry says otherwise.

 

[Outlander_04]

Can nvidia sell a $200 gpu that competes?
Probably not if a gtx 1070 is only about 10% more powerful than the RX480 and costs more than twice as much.
Monitors are a critical part of the scene as well. That $200 RX480 will max out any game at 1080p so why would anyone pay $440 for the nvidia card unless they also have a 1440p or 4k screen?

 

[TJ Hooker]

Can nvidia sell a $200 gpu that competes?
Probably not if a gtx 1070 is only about 10% more powerful than the RX480 and costs more than twice as much.
Monitors are a critical part of the scene as well. That $200 RX480 will max out any game at 1080p so why would anyone pay $440 for the nvidia card unless they also have a 1440p or 4k screen?

What makes you think the 1070 is only 10% more powerful?

 

[hannibal]

Can nvidia sell a $200 gpu that competes?
Probably not if a gtx 1070 is only about 10% more powerful than the RX480 and costs more than twice as much.
Monitors are a critical part of the scene as well. That $200 RX480 will max out any game at 1080p so why would anyone pay $440 for the nvidia card unless they also have a 1440p or 4k screen?

What makes you think the 1070 is only 10% more powerful?

It is much faster. 1070 is near TitanX. The 480 is suposed to be near 390, so near 980. But it is almost half the price! So very different products. 1060 or 1050 will be the competitor, when they come out.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@hannibal that's exactly what I thought. Although if it's close to the 390, that would put performance closer to a 970 than a 980.

Honestly, releasing a card that performs around the same level as the 1070 for half the price wouldn't make any sense. AMD would just be leaving money on the table, as they could obviously charge more and still undercut Nvidia.

 

[Outlander_04]

Can nvidia sell a $200 gpu that competes?
Probably not if a gtx 1070 is only about 10% more powerful than the RX480 and costs more than twice as much.
Monitors are a critical part of the scene as well. That $200 RX480 will max out any game at 1080p so why would anyone pay $440 for the nvidia card unless they also have a 1440p or 4k screen?

What makes you think the 1070 is only 10% more powerful?

It is much faster. 1070 is near TitanX. The 480 is suposed to be near 390, so near 980. But it is almost half the price! So very different products. 1060 or 1050 will be the competitor, when they come out.

The 170 is 5.7 TFLOPS of compute power
The RX 480 is announced as 5 plus TFLOPS
That makes the total compute power of the two cards about 10% different .
With the price gouging nvidia is doing with the "founders edition" cards [ an obvious sign they are having manufacturing issues and availability is limited ] the AMD card looks like exceptional value.
And yes I know the TFLOPS of compute power does not directly translate to FPS. But I would bet that in DX 12 that AMD cards can use the extra compute power they have. You can already see that with current AMD cards and how much better they perform in DX12

 

[hannibal]

Yes, most probably AMD has a little edge in Dx12. But that compute power is essential if you go for data mining and things like that. The gaming speed should the between 390 and 390X if AMD has been giving right information and I think that they have when comparing to their own models. I always use a lot of salt when company compare to another company product, but inside house comparison has been quite accurate in both companies.
All in all good cards for the price indeed!

 

[TJ Hooker]

The 170 is 5.7 TFLOPS of compute power
The RX 480 is announced as 5 plus TFLOPS
That makes the total compute power of the two cards about 10% different. And yes I know the TFLOPS of compute power does not directly translate to FPS. But I would bet that in DX 12 that AMD cards can use the extra compute power they have. You can already see that with current AMD cards and how much better they perform in DX12

The R9 390X has 5.9 TFLOPS of computer, and yet is handily beat by the GTX 1070 in Ashes of the Singularity, a DX12 game that's pretty much been a showcase for AMDs Async Compute abilities. Comparing compute power simply isn't a worthwhile method of predicting gaming performance.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-3.html