Guys um... is he right? does buying nvidia actually harm the market and in the end the users...

guys um... is he right? does buying nvidia actually harm the market and in the end the users? I'm literally feeling guilty I bought nvidia right now

No competitor means no need to work hard for strong enhancement.

The only reason I have to get a GPU at all is to run Tensorflow. But Tensorflow rely on CUDA which is nvidia exclusive.

>image.png

No he's not right. AMD is shit and they've fucked their users with shit drivers, bad service, and lies too many times. That, along with their poor strategic decisions, is the reason they're struggling financially. You're trying to make an argument that we should buy AMD out of the charity of our hearts. That's bullshit. There will always be another competitor and technology is always evolving. In another 20 years, GPUs might not even be needed.

>In another 20 years, GPUs might not even be needed.

Yeah, computer graphics are old fashioned. *boots up i3*

>There will always be another competitor

That's wishful thinking at best and criminal stupidity at worst.
You can't magically conjure up competitors out of thin air. The amount of research and money that AMD/Ati and nVidia invested into GPUs is enormous. Just look at Intel. All the jewbucks of the world and their graphics still suck for games and professional use. And that's not even taking into account the patents that both AMD and nVidia posses and without which you just can't make a modern high-performance GPU. That's why Intel made that licensing deal with AMD, btw.

tl;dr you are a moron and should feel bad

bold claims, not a single piece of evidence
don't take trolls seriously

Holy shit, you're a stupid faggot.

well

video cards arent *that* expensive yet... you're mostly paying to have the cutting edge tech

once nvidia starts charging a lot more for a casual card then I'd start worrying about a monopoly.

as long as there -is- a competitor the price/performance will still be the only thing that matters

You should buy latest AMD GPU, APU and Intel CPU. Then market will have slightly better chances to survive. If you really want to help - buy at least 10 of each product.

cpu's are way outdated from a design standpoint, just look at the amount of operations per second a $300 cpu can execute as opposed to even a $100 gpu, it's pathetic, but they are helped along by a software market that demands single core performance above all else. Once software becomes sufficiently parallelized we'll start using CPU's with thousands of weaker cores that are altogether hundreds of times faster and the only thing setting them apart from GPU's will be possessing the relevant instructions to fill the role of CPU. At that point, GPU's will probably either be phased out completely.

>you are a moron
>jewbucks

Are you 12?

That's a super narrow-minded short-term view you have there. You really think there are no other companies to compete with NVIDIA? Intel attempted to make an integrated GPU to capture the mainstream market, and they succeeded.

If AMDs patents are as important as you say, then other companies will be chomping at the bit to buy them out once their stock prices erode a little more. Do you really think Apple or Samsung or even Microsoft (if they see a way to get lower pricing for their XBOX graphics chips) couldn't build a competitive GPU?

I agree that we shouldn't be doing charity but AMD is legitimate alternative if you're going midrange today. the 480 is arguably better than the 1060. if you're a smart consumer, why wouldn't you get the best alternative?

What a load of hogwash.

> using inferior products is better because reasons
Nope, buying the best value for your money is what you should be doing. If that's AMD or Nvidia or Intel is up to you to decide.

exactly

> staff to fix 3rd party software issues
AMD should develop good stable drivers, not fix bug in someone other people's software.

Right now they are doing the Wrong Thing against GNU/Linux users. Their radeonsi driver for older cards can do x264 video decoding (vdpau) and other neat things. This is now removed from their AMDGPU driver for newer cards and if you want that or OpenCL or anything not very basic then you'll have to download their binary blob "PRO" driver - which is only for Ubuntu 16.04 and RHEL 7.2 and guess what, if you don't use one of those two then you're shit out of luck.

AMDs GNU/Linux support used to be a reason to pick them over Nvidia. Now there's no choice but to submit to their binary blobs and the choice is obvious since Nvidia's actually work on more than two outdated distros nobody uses.

Look beyond x86/x86-64. Mobile chips are catching up fast both on the CPU and GPU sides of things. There's already potentially very viable alternatives but nobody's scaled them up and slammed massive heatsinks and fans no'em.

Well I don't have the money to buy a new GPU at the moment (currently running GTX 570 liquid-cooled). Personally I wouldn't buy AMD because I've had so many first-hand bad experiences with them in the past.

>being anally annihilated by seeing "jewbucks"
>on Sup Forums of all places

I'd really like to know what companies you consider ready to compete with nVidia at any moment now. Because it's not that simple. You need certain knowhow and experience, and shitload of money - but I already wrote about that.

The patents are very important. Without them, you'll have nVidia lawyers knocking on your door and they'll throw everything they have at you.
nVidia doesn't really care about ARM manufacturers because they are not a direct competitor and they will never be. The costs of entering such market are prohibitive.

Mobile chips are a completely different market with different expectations from the chips.
Also, scaling up doesn't work that way. If you don't design your architecture from the ground up for a certain performance level, just slapping more of the same shit on a board is only going to cause headaches.

Wouldn't that rely on the programmers optimizing their programs for such parallel processing? Am I wrong in believing that's what AMD was banking on with their last generation of CPUs? Higher core count, lower per core performance? Or am I just stupid?

>You're trying to make an argument that we should buy AMD out of the charity of our hearts

This. If you buy a knowingly inferior product with your precious savings to "help" people in the future you're a cuck. All at the same time amd ceo pays herself a several million bonus.

I'll be honest. I'm not buying into the 4k gaming meme yet. Not till things come down in price a ways. I've always seen the ~$300 range for GPU to be a good investment. There will always be exceptions, some randomly excellent thing that people found at a lower price with a few minor tweaks to make it shine nicely. I remember when an Intell Dule core chip at 3.0GHz was going for $200+ while it's under clocked brother at 1.8 GHz was going for around $80. Adjust a few things in the bios and boom. Same performance as the other.

Look at how graphics processing is done, that scales infinitely with core count. Software can reach that point, too.

b-but think of all those poor hindi children in amd sweatshops user

It can, but getting programmers to write that for your every day users, OS , Internet browsers etc. That's gonna be the hard part.