321–330 of 444 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that did that was TVs.
CPU's are cheaper adjusted for inflation before even considering performance. Ram and SSDs are much much cheaper than they were 5 years ago.
I miss the small graphics company that used to care about gamers :(
When was that? Surely it must have been at least a decade before the GTX 970 "4GB" but maybe after all the driver cheating in the late 90s and early 2000s. I no longer buy nvidia hardware but I do enjoy stock price getting higher. I just wish I had the sense to buy more, a lot more, stock when it was much cheaper. How does a chicken shit like me make big money :(
That’s a product designed and manufactured by AMD, eight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nvidia is dragging the entire gaming industry forward with ray/path tracing and AI-based resolution and frame scaling. Everyone else (I.e., AMD) is following Nvidia’s lead. In what way has Nvidia “forgotten” gamers with the rise of their datacenter business?
Raw performance isn't increasing much, price/performance under the 700$ has barely increased both now and in 2000 series.
So raw performance has stagnated and gains have been concentrated in things like DLSS 2.5 that let you get native quality at a 30% speedup or better than native DLAA at 0% speedup, or FSR2 Quality level quality at 50-70% speedup. Cause that gets you more performance out of a small increase of transistors/cost.
I interned at NVIDIA in 2009 on the kernel mode driver team. Was super fun there in terms of the project work and the people. If the code still exists, I created the main class that schedules work out to the GPU on Windows. That level of programming gave such rewarding moments in between difficult debugging sessions. When I wanted to test a new kernel driver build I needed to walk into some massive room with all of t…
Which is still better than a 10% layoff, anyway!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't they just hire all of nvidia's developers and pay them 5x as much? Lol... Intel is famously stingy when it comes to salaries.
You have no idea. There are a lot of senior engineers at NVDA making 7 figures total comp annually. How many are there at Intel?
Principals usually broke into the three digit range from what I hear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raptor Lake uses the "Intel 7" node which is actually 10nm, not 7 nm. It does have roughly the same density as TSMC's 7nm node.
In reality it literally is as simple as “intel says it’s 7nm so it’s 7nm”, but density is what determines the node number, insofar as anything determines it beyond marketing. So, if intel 7 is a 10nm class node then so is tsmc N7. But the whole industry cooked their node names a decade ago and intel is allowed to do the same terminology. To do anything otherwise would be a needless marketing disadvantage. If someone’…
i.e. This would mean Intel will be getting a four-node-scale jump in performance (10nm->7nm->5nm->3nm->1.8nm) from where they are with Raptor Lake by 2025 if they can stay on track.
I don't have any insight into this but I would hope Pat Geslinger is righting the salary, perks and incentive structure as a matter of priority to stop the shedding of talent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because single thread perf of CPUs hasn't progressed and ~500fps is where CPUs cap out on that game still to this day. GPUs are doing fine.
For anyone that doesn't understand why this matters, the CPU still needs to prepare the full scene before sending it over to the GPU for polygons to get rasterized and shaders to get calculated. Most of the time the CPU does all of the physics as well. So even if GPU render time goes to 0ms, 2ms spent by the CPU per frame means 500fps is the best you'll get without a better CPU or better code. And I suspect game devs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is what having a monopoly looks like ! As someone who has been in the AI/ML space for over a decade, and even had an AMD/Radeon card for more than half of that, I can't help but feel that this is partially AMD's own fault. For many, many years it seemed to me that AMD just didn't take AI/ML seriously whereas, for all it's faults, NVIDIA seemed to catch on very early that ML presented a tremendous potential mar…
Until very recently, AMD was struggling for survival. Rather than making the big bet on AI, they went for the sure thing by banking on revolutionary CPU tech. I'm sure if they were in a better financial position 5 years ago, they would have gone bigger on AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That theory is still valid, the issue is that the competition can't or won't even try to make a better product or a cheaper one. The rule only applies if there exist competing products in the first place. If there was any, the prices would go down as we have seen a billion times.
This is the point. This is a textbook situation that would be perfect for a competitor to come in and undercut. However not only is that not happening, nobody is even trying. Making the “theory” pretty worthless if it’s not even applicable in cases that would naturally produce this market entrant. The reality is that private equity does not actually want to compete with large global brands.
A lot of companies are trying. It's just that nvidia is really good and significantly ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not that it's much better, but wouldn't it be a duopoly considering that AMD is also a big player? Not sure AMD would be considered a big player, what would be the percentage threshold for that? According to the Steam Hardware (& Software) Survey ( https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... ), ~75% of computers with Steam running has a NVIDIA GPU, while ~15% has a AMD GPU. AMD is the closest to…
> ~75% of computers with Steam running has a NVIDIA GPU, while ~15% has a AMD GPU. and thats the consumer market, which lets say is 30% of the B2B enterprise market, which is probably even higher % nvidia