AMD

>better performance/price ration
ration food analogy aside, Sandy Bridge of 2011 is still way superior to AMD's present offering. Jaguar couldn't even beat the mobile version of Ivy Bridge of 2012, never mind the Kaby Lake/Skylake chips.

>8800GTX
When?

AMD is the king of APU and GPU development.

Nvidia is actually really scared of AMD so they try to fuck with them in many other areas to gain marketshare, they are no better than Intel before they got caught in a huge antitrust scandal with PCs.

Not really, although the cell could also process graphics, which helped.

>Zen will be good

I got a déjà vu of Bulldozer, "It will be good guys, look at our PowerPoint slides, it will be awesome"

>not really
PS3 may have only had something around 7800GT, but the low level API access really made it impossible to touch on a price basis. PCucks paid $600 to have the 8800GTX on launch against the PS3.

Now? The PS4 Pro isn't even able to match against the budget RX 480. It's nowhere close to the GTX 1080 or Pascal Titan X.

>dat doom texture issue

why do people even give away money to jewvidia?

shit like this is always happening, and not even counting the multiple nvidia drivers that killed cards.

>Nvidia is actually really scared of AMD

Oh yeah, Nvidia is totally shitting their pants thinking about how much money they keep raking in every quarter while AMD bleeds money.
1070, 1080 and Titan X still have no competition and won't have until 2017 probably, Nvidia must be so scared right now...

Cuz there is no viable alternative.

I get a bad feeling that Nvidia will screw AMD over by pricing the 6GB 1060 at $200 during christmas holiday season. It will force AMD to respond.

AMD need the RX 480 to get back lost ground.

AMD recovered market share so it's already going pretty good for them. it's only going to get worse for nvidia once vega comes out and all the high end PC owners make the switch over to AMD.
in fact the 35% market share that AMD now has was probably caused by the 970 issue and mid end owners going back to AMD.
what a perfect time when freesync is more affordable than gsync. it's going to be a great year for AMD in 2017.

Is vega really gonna be that good? Any leaked info yet?

>CPU bottlenecks at 1080P
>Sony & MS claims new consoles can do 4K

TOPPEST LELKEK, AYYMDPOORFAGS

Looks like Nvidia has been cheating for FPS benchmark.

Topkek

AYYMD didn't recover any marketshare when all the cards are being bought up by miners, denying gamers any cards

Everyone is buying superior Nvidia GPUs for highest DX12 performance with Feature Level 12_1 support, AYYMD cards don't even support DX12 since they don't even support Feature Level 12_1

>PS3 was able to crush 8800GTX even if it was based on the previous generation.
you're a retard, the 8800GTX had 3x the pixel fillrate of the PS3 GPU and could run any game on PS3 at native 1080p with higher visual quality settings.

Get hyped bros.
>Vega 10
>16GB HBM2
>10 TFLOPs

CPU bottlenecks have nothing to do with resolution, they limit your framerate.

In before Sonygger
>Muh exclusives
>Muh price
defense

Nvidia always does this shit, like when Crysis released Nvidia cards rendered the reflections at half the normal framerate because they thought people wouldn't notice

Oh trust me, I'm as sonygger as they come but i owned an 8800GTX when the PS3 came out and it produced better looking games than the PS3 entire time I owned it. Unfortunately it died in early 2010 but I suspect if it had made it to 2015 it would still have run shit like GTA V better than the PS3 did.

Can this really beat 1080?

Only consumers are dumb enough to buy into the Nvidia scam but even still, there's a community of the tech-literate that know better. Nvidia is kept in high market shares by uneducated dudebros who know nothing about hardware or how either of these companies operate, but just buyinthe the green one with the doritos ads on it because they pay developers put "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" in PC games.

lol the ps3 was more like a 7600

They tried with the ps3. Ended up costing Sony a fortune. They had to sell the ps3 at a loss. Thats why there was so many slim versions to try and bring down the cost. But the cell processor was just to ahead of its time. And Nvidia was expensive as fuck.

All consoles (except Nintendo, which makes a profit) are always sold at a loss. Moot point

Isn't this a fairly recent trend? 8th generation consoles and before made a profit.

>it's only going to get worse for nvidia once vega comes out and all the high end PC owners make the switch over to AMD.

OH i remember hearing shits like theses not long ago

PS2 was likely sold for a profit from day 1 but a small one, Xbox was sold for a loss because Intel and Nvidia, PS3 and 360 were sold for a loss for at least half the generation, PS4 and Xbone were sold for either a very very small profit or a small loss at launch.

Every since Dreamcast era, someone made the discovery that the money from gaming was made on games so they needed to get the consoles into the living rooms at almost any cost, so they started selling them for slightly less than it was costing them to make and ship.

They are actually great when paired with a low level API hence they can run games at great graphics for a lot less hardware (netbook APU) for a lot less time since Devs are only optimizing and debugging for one spec and worry less about driver overhead.

>ps3 was able to crush 8800gtx
RETARD ALERT
my geforce 8800 was paired with a 3.2 ghz dual core CPU and 8 gigs of ram,

typical sonygger. Not surprising.