Enter here for a chance to win a custom MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries themed PC powered by Intel!
Pretty much. I have been an avid believer in certain brands for GPUs for quite a while. Typically I stick with Sapphire for AMD and EVGA for nVidia or Asus for both as they tend to make higher quality products. They do tend to cost more though for their top tier parts but as said you get what you pay for in most everything.What the title of this post should be is “Powercolor GPUs are RMA’d at twice the rate of all other brands.” Loads of comments here are anecdotally blaming AMD’s drivers, but looking at the figures in the Google doc it’s specifically Powercolor (and XFX) having <Mod Edit> awful RMA rates which is letting the AMD figures down.
Over the same amount of sales, Powercolor cards have more than twice the RMA rates of Sapphire cards (5.8% vs. 2.6%). 227 of all 321 returned RX 5700 cards and 430 of all 1050 returned RX 5700XT cards are Powercolor branded. If you subtract all Powercolor sales and RMAs from the figures the overall average return rate for AMD cards drops to 3.7%.
Once you start looking at the less-cheapskate brands like MSI, Gigabyte and Sapphire the RMA rates are roughly the same as Nvidia’s. You get what you pay for.
This is posted in the original thread on reddit. I wish it talked about this above... it's extremely misleading. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/i2avjc View: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/i2avjc/new_mindfactory_data_shows_amds_5700_series_cards/
Wasn't PowerColor the OEM manufacturer for AMD? I don't know who it is now, but if it is still them, that's not a good look.If you remove PowerColor from AMD's results and average you will get a 2.1% RMA rate which is almost dead on to Nvidia's 2.4%. This tells me PowerColor cards are the culprit not AMD. If anyone spends 10 minutes with this data its obvious. Why anyone reads this data and doesn't call out PowerColor is beyond me. Frankly AMD needs to get a new
I agree with you. AMD drivers are fine wine. My Radeon 7950 aged better than my GTX 1080. nVidia spends more time optimizing for the latest gen cards and leaves the old cards in the dust. Just look at the comparision between 7950 and GTX 680. GTX 680 used to beat the heck out of 7950, now its opposite. Same with Pascal and Turing. When Turing was realsed, GTX1080 and 2070 almost performed similar, but now the difference has increased to a whole newer level. Some argue, nvidia got time to oprimize turing acrh, my argument is that nvidia just left behind pascal. And a very similar (or worse) thing is going to happen to Turing when Ampere will be out as Turing was at best experimental. Good luck Turing owners.Without knowing whether RMA issues stem from hardware or software, it's hard to decide if a product line is truly bad, or simply the support infrastructure for that product line is to blame for the current and recently historical hiccups, and end users are just unaware where the problem lies. In the case of the 2080 Ti, I believe the physical hardware is the culprit and as such, the product as a whole is definitely problematic. Granted, if the support never improves, the customer is pretty much SOL, but it's reasonably clear that AMD has better long term software support for their customers than NVIDIA, as AMD has brought new features, and performance where possible to aging graphics cards, while NVIDIA has brought the opposite in terms of worse support, leading to reasonably young, but otherwise aging cards to experience a lack of increased game performance, merely to encourage future sales of newer hardware. Even if AMD cards have a higher, and by the numbers, only slightly, RMA rate, I'm still against NVIDIA's less than equitable behavior the last few years, and will hedge my bets and continue to support AMD. I suspect we'll get more from both parties when AMD is back in a comfortable position to put the pressure on NVIDIA.
Whenever someone invokes the AMD fine wine theory, it's always the 7950/7970 generation. There's two reasons for that, one that applies to every new AMD architecture, and one that applies to that series in particular, and neither is praise worthy.I agree with you. AMD drivers are fine wine. My Radeon 7950 aged better than my GTX 1080.
They are one of them but not the only one. AMD needs to have a hart to hart with PowerColor.Wasn't PowerColor the OEM manufacturer for AMD? I don't know who it is now, but if it is still them, that's not a good look.
No, not an official AIB. I mean they built the reference designs for AMD. I think Sapphire has done it for AMD as well. Like I said, I don't know who does it now.
Considering Nvidia's graphics card sales worldwide seem to outpace AMD's by a larger margin than that, I would say AMD's cards appear to be quite well received there. As for those total sales numbers though, you are comparing apples to oranges, as a lot of those Nvidia cards don't currently have any direct competition from AMD. They include 8,890 2080 Tis, 8,320 2080 SUPERs, and 1,620 2080s, all cards that AMD doesn't provide any direct competition against, and for anyone wanting a card faster than a 5700 XT, they had no real choice but to go with Nvidia. Those 30,030 2070 SUPERs are a bit above AMD's current product range too, so if we look at only the price levels where both AMD and Nividia are directly competing, then AMD's sales actually appear to be higher than Nvidia's at that retailer. 12,780 2060 SUPERs vs 29,340 5700 XTs, and 7,760 2060s vs 8,910 5700s.In total, the data set covers 44,100 AMD cards sold and an impressive 76,280 Nvidia GPU, so it is clear that German buyers prefer Nvidia GPUs.
Thats a good point! Thanks.Whenever someone invokes the AMD fine wine theory, it's always the 7950/7970 generation. There's two reasons for that, one that applies to every new AMD architecture, and one that applies to that series in particular, and neither is praise worthy.
The reason that applies to all new architectures is that AMD's release drivers are always hot garbage. It takes them about a year to get them sort of sorted out. That's not really what the fine wine cliche is describing. It's not something that sucks in the beginning then gets usable down the line. It's for things that start from a good base and just get better with age.
The other reason that the 7000 series aged so well is because it was based on GCN1. GCN was basically AMD's Skylake. The architecture that just wouldn't die. GCN4 cards which were largely the same architecture were released as late as the end of 2018. So optimizations for the RX 590 released in November of 2018 applied to the 7950 that was released in January of 2012. AMD followed up GCN4 with GCN5 (Vega) which utilized HBM and unsurprisingly crapped the bed with the early driver releases.
No other generation since the 7000 series has aged as well and none are likely to ever do so again. If you're planning to buy an RDNA2 card at the end of the year and are hoping AMD is still using the same basic architecture in seven years so you will continue to see improvements like 7000 series, that's just stupid. If that actually happens, it would probably mean we were down to two serious contenders in the graphics card market, Nvidia and Intel.