Discussion is it just me or do AMD Gpus just not feel interesting anymore

[jordanbuilds1]

ive had this feeling for a while and I want to know what your opinions are on this topic.

 

[rgd1101]

you find gpu interesting?

 

[punkncat]

I would say in the face of NVIDIA pricing and another disappointing release that it pushed me more into AMD court than away. I have an RX 7800 XT that has been really good so far. So, I would say I find AMD more interesting in light of this view. In addition, I have become a recent convert of FSR in relation to an older card and finding out what a valuable tool it can be for NVIDIA or AMD cards.

 

[beyondlogic]

I find the copy cat nature of amd to be boring if I'm honest and lack of innovation on there GPU side.

I took more interest in there CPU side mainly apus.

It's a shame there GPU side hasn't really evolved much I feel that there hardware is greatly under tapped due to not pouring enough resources into the very dated hair texture methods. And needs a feature that's exclusively there own idea and not something Nvidia can copy something built round there tech that can be used in consoles and in pc hardware that can scale.

As much as I love free sync etc I feel that amd needs to get some exclusive feature set to set it apart. So that there not solely relying on being just fastest in raster.

And true stable drivers.

Amd users need to also stop giving amd free pass on buggy software as well. If I bought a car and the dealer told me It would be running like fine wine in 3 years id be mad as hell.

 

[Math Geek]

it's just you. no really, it's just you....

 

[Aeacus]

I wouldn't use "interesting" regarding any GPU. Best word i'd use, would be "intriguing" and that too, only for Intel Arc GPUs.

But when it comes to Radeon vs Nvidia, both have their pros/cons and it depends on user which one to prefer.

For gaming use, Nvidia is best. Top-notch performance, solid drivers. Downside is higher cost compared to Radeon.
Radeon GPUs do well in workstation use (and did well in cryptocurrency mining too). Downsides are higher power consumption and running hotter than same spec Nvidia GPU. But Radeon is cheaper than Nvidia.

So, for small budget people, Radeon GPUs have actually good value. Given that one then pays more for beefier PSU and spends more on PC's cooling. While also putting up with the driver issues (e.g stutters).
Nvidia is solid bet for anyone who is willing to pay top dollar for solid performance.

Personally, i prefer Nvidia. But i've used ATI and Radeon HD GPUs before too.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Definitely you

Amd vs Nvidia .. upto 40x0 pound for pound prices : raster is as good or better on AMD, “features” ray tracing DLSS etc are better on Nvidia.

I prefer to use raster so the features are moot. Heat on my 7900xt.. 70°C, power 320W and it’s silent. Drivers are stable, no crashes in the year I’ve had the card listed in my sig. don’t believe that Nvidia are perfect, my 3070 was running on outdated drivers for a year because there was a dual monitor bug in the later drivers, it wouldn’t run at idle when the card was not loaded, clocks were flat out

You pay your money you take your choice..

 

[Gururu]

Right now they dont have a lot of steam. If the 9070 pops with 5 star reviews for value and performance I will be VERY interested.

 

[bgunner]

The software/tech from AMD has become stale and they have not introduced anything "New" in terms of advancing display/visual tech in quite a while. So I feel AMD is just playing the catch up to the leader game and has not focused enough on pushing "New" ideas into the GPU sector.

If you view the last 15 or more years of GPU tech you will see that Nvidia has worked with more software developers to push the visual tech in the way they wanted to the point AMD has had to play catch up to a tech that Nvidia has pioneered putting AMD behind. Because of Nvidia pioneering the tech they have such a large head start this forces any other company, AMD and Intel, to start years behind them keeping the little GUY's at the bottom.

In these regards Nvidia has a monopoly keeping them in the lead an insuring their dominance in the sector. What tech has pushed AMD and now Intel to play catch up? Answer: Ray Tracing is the most recent, then you have G-sync that took AMD a year to release Free-sync which ended up being an Open Source way of implementing the tech. There are more but these are some of the most recent tech disadvantages that Nvidia has forced on to the rest of the sector to implement. While these are good improvements, this forces other company's to be a few years behind in research and development of the tech insuring Nvidia dominance.

The last big visual tech that AMD released and started pioneering was the TressFX hair technology. Nvidia GPU's had issues running this because at that time AMD was pioneering the tech so Nvidia was behind in R&D and didn't have the full understanding of how to implement it. This was in 2013 and AMD has not pushed any boundaries since.

These are the reasons I do not find AMD interesting right now as a Company but I do like their GPU's for performance to dollars spent.

 

[jordanbuilds1]

you find gpu interesting?

i didnt mean in that sense intresting, i ment in the sense of features and marketing and such, both of which i personally think amds flagships have been lacking for a while.