Originally Posted by Paradaz
I appreciate that the post above is caveated by alluding to that it's your opinion however, there are a few factual areas that don't necessarily go hand in hand...


Much of your facts are correct. But, in some cases, your interpretation of my opinion is not exactly what I meant. That's the problem with written words. We each interpret differently the same texts.

Consoles have been around a long time. But, developers continued to develop on Intel/Nvidia hardware and move it to the console. That is happening less often -- was my meaning.

No, AMD is not assured of 50 percent market share (they did have 50 for a time in GPUs -- did not last long). Rather, the point is: AMD products will be technically competitive -- objective folks will have to flip a coin to select the best overall product. That will NOT give them 50 percent market share, however. If AMD improves market share by 10 percentage points, that will be a HUGE increase for them -- going from 30% to 40% in some facet would be 33 percent more business for them (a huge increase for them). Meanwhile, the competitors have big operations that have inertia and big fixed costs. If they lose 10 percentage points of part or all of their business, that could be a real blow -- going down hill is not fun for management.

Yes, as I underlined, if you want the BEST today (April 22, 2017) for "today's and yesterday's games" -- buy Intel/Nvidia. However, I believe the choice will not be so obvious in a year (or so) for new high-end games -- particularly if one is objective and realizes 10 percent more FPS means little to the "unaided eye", and CPUs and GPUs do more than FPS these days.

And so on. I'm sure if we sat across the table and discussed what each of us mean in detail, we'd have a lot of agreement. Thing is a few hundred words are not enough to clearly outline all the factors in play -- such that we won't have misunderstandings.

And, this is the AMD thread -- so, rose tint is what you get smile

That said, we do try to be "relatively objective" when predicting the AMD future (Bulldozer was a bomb, AMD GPUs have been quite good -- but, Nvidia always gives more FPS at the top end because they MUST as part of their marketing and brand recognition strategy, regardless of cost). All along we've been saying "we'll see" if any of the rumors are near true. Now we are seeing. Actually, Ryzen came out much better than I expected. Moreover, I thought it would be a couple years before we saw 16 cores for the gaming desktop -- now they are rumoring Fall 2017. Much better than this Fan expected smile

And, yes, the first months of a new product can be "frustrating" (again all applications, games, and components are designed for Intel first, so issues are expected with AMD). If fighting through the issues is no fun for a person, they should wait about 6+ months for the "second version" (the one with the fixes already fixed). A year from now, the problems will be year old news smile

Just my opinions -- actually my glasses have an amber tint, literally smile


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro