• Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Now if only they could compete with Nvidia on a performance level, it might give Nvidia the kick in the ass it needs to not be so anti consumer

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I think NVidia is already getting a kick in the ass.

      The first GPU I bought was a GTX 1060 with 6GB. A legendary card I kept using until just last year November.

      What did I upgrade to?

      Why Intel of course. The A770 is cheaper than a AMD of the same performance range, and has a weird quirk where it actually does better at 1440p than similar cards. Very likely the spacious VRAM, which is also nice to have for the 3D work I do.

      I didn’t upgrade past the 1060 earlier because the 20 series wasn’t that big enough of a leap, and the 30 series is where a lot of Nvidia’s bullshit started.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        And for the industrial market $ per performance is all that matters because in large deployments there is no issue with just parallelizing as many GPUs as you want. Even if an intel GPU for a 10th of the price has a 5th of the performance, then you just slap together 5 of them and get the same processing power for half the price.

    • yonder
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Both Intel and AMD are trying to eat into Nvidia’s market share, and are arguably failing at that currently. Even though both AMD and Intel have cards that are better than Nvidia’s in specific cases, Nvidia keeps their market share, most likely due in part to CUDA and DLSS being locked to Nvidia.