Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cumpiler69 | Hacker News Reader

That' crazy. Why doesn't this happen in the GPU space? Is there some silent agreement between AMD and Nvidia to not compete down in cost and just push each other's prices up?

View on HN

Supply and demand. Intel isn't happy with how many of these CPUs it's been able to sell, while Nvidia cannot produce enough GPUs to meet demand.

I was talking about AMD's GPUs. These aren't as performant or in high demand as Nvidia. Not by a long shot.

Nvidia has 9x(!) the discrete GPU marketshare as AMD. Nine times! AMD cutting prices would help them increase that.

AMD cutting prices won't affect the biggest thing: CUDA is the software basis of machine learning, and creates an effective hardware manufacturer monopoly. You have to buy Nvidia, to get a good CUDA experience.

You're talking about a market where the ASP for AMD is like 450 bucks and NV has 10x the market share at a 50-60% higher ASP. Then you look at Intel Arc, which has an ASP somewhere in the 200 bucks range. I don't think these market shares are primarily dictated by economics and the commodified properties of GPUs (compute power etc.), but rather different things, like software.

In any case, AMD is clearly focusing on data center applications and is starting to enjoy some inroads there.

AMD would rather use their fab capacity to sell $20,000 MI300X's than $450 GPU's.

Exactly.

Streaming multiprocessors. That's the reason. Nvidia has an extremely complex SM architecture that CUDA is based off of and AMD/Apple focus on simpler ones because they thought it was more power efficient (oops, it's less power efficient: https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks)

This is such a surface-level factor in the discussion that I don't even know why you'd be offering your advice on Nvidia if you can't tell why people own their hardware in the first place. We've been having this GPGPU discussion for like 12 years at this point... people insisting on their opinions without understanding what Nvidia does is how we got in this mess in the first place.

Intel is selling their dedicated ARC GPUs on razor thin margins to try to compete. I have one friend who got one for a Plex server which let's him support multiple transcoding streams with ease. Another friend just replaced their broken rtx2080 with one since it was cheap and they don't feel a need for cutting edge graphics.

If both are selling ~all the GPU's they can manufacture, at high prices - then no incriminating communication (let alone an agreement) is needed for both to keep raking in the profits.

Maybe is related to all the people buying GPUs for AI?

AMD stopped competing with Nvidia in pricing a decade ago.

Even when they had a better product (more than a decade ago), Nvidia was still outselling AMD, think of the Nvidia Fermi and Tesla, and at higher margin.

Since then they are just like "what's the point?" and AMD stopped bothering.

Entirely possible given that the CEO of AMD is the niece of the Nvidia CEO

>niece

They are first cousins (once removed).

Removed from what?

It means the child of a first cousin. I'm a native speaker of English and I find the phrase confusing also.

> Removed means a different generation. When cousins are in different generations than each other, we say they're removed. "Removed" is like “grand” and “great,” but with cousins.

https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/Understanding-Kinsh...

Wait what? Over here a 24gb RX 7900 XTX costs 900€ while the RTX 4090 starts at 2500€.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com