>Bitcoin miners flocked to AMD because the SHA-256 algorithm utilizes a 32-bit right rotate operation that AMD cards could execute in one clock cycle, while NVidia cards took ~3 cycles to do so.
That would have made the difference even larger, but even at 1:1 instruction timing AMD would have had a large price advantage so long as we're talking about the last 2 generations of cards or so. If the price/performance optimum lies further back than that, it may well have fallen at a point in time when AMD / NVidia were closer to price/performance parity.
To clarify, by "performance" I mean "performance for my needs" which means "double precision float performance."
> Also, what's wrong with NVidia's GPGPU capabilities?
The price per double-precision FLOP was off by a factor of four at the consumer level last time I went shopping and the number of DFLOPS available at the consumer level was capped lower. It seemed like a move to force penny-pinching CUDA-dependent academics to upgrade to teslas.
> The last time I had to write GPU code, I found that CUDA was much more mature - and much more pleasant to write than the equivalent OpenCL.
It still is, but the gap has closed for many use cases (including mine). I'm not saying that CUDA isn't/wasn't a reasonable choice, especially a few years back, just that we are now paying the hidden price that comes from allowing a monopoly to develop.