There are two senses of 'competitive' in play here: the sense in which a market can be 'competitive' or not by featuring alternatives that are comparable and whose successors leapfrog one another in various virtues over time, and the sense in which a product can be 'competitive' within a market by being more or less at least as good as whatever else is out there.

NVIDIA is definitely not 'competitive' in the sense of participating in a competitive market, or in the sense of being characterized by furious striving for rapid and continuous improvement. Many of their newer cards are barely 'competitive' with their own cards from a generation or two ago.

It's extremely clear to me what people mean when they say that NVIDIA or their GPUs are not meaningfully 'competitive'. I don't think it's that hard to see, actually.

> Many of their newer cards are barely 'competitive'

The 4060 is the only card this generation that's a flop, and I wouldn't consider one in four being "many".

> I don't think it's that hard to see, actually.

It is if you're not looking or trying to be disingenuous. Every generation has introduced new features and had noticeable impacts on the consumer products in its category (games). DLSS alone has been a game-changer, pun intended.

AMD Radeon RX 7600 review: Another water-treading midrange GPU for $269

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/review-amds-269-rx-7...

“AMD fails again: RX 7600 review”

https://youtu.be/Yhoj2kfk-x0

> the best GPU available at any price

That’s… very debatable. Don’t get me wrong, they’re definitely competitive at all levels but AMD absolutely is too & very arguably is better in some cases.

Not really. Market also says otherwise.

Market says nothing of the sort! AMD is extremely popular still.

Plus while cards like the Nvidia RTX 4090 rank very highly they cost 60+% more than the extremely comparable AMD RX 7900 XTX.

That’s definitely not “best at any price”.

When you say AMD is extremely popular still, yet Nvidia has what like 82-84% market share.. what are we actually talking about here in the context of "market talks"?

> Nvidia has what like 82-84% market share

That's the PC consumer market. Every Xbox and PlayStation shipped in the past decade has had an AMD GPU.

Yes, and that's a great ArtX doing and legacy tracing roots to SGI and Nintendo64 cooperation which ATI bought (into). However, it's not at all relevant since consumers aren't buying those for AMD GPUs, they are specialized (to consoles), and they're buying it for the brand of consoles themselves not because they have AMD GPU in it. Same parallel could then be drawn for intel's integrated GPUs. We're talking discrete GPU cards where market directly picks and chooses and it chose Nvidia that it's not even a contest anymore it seems. Even HPC area is done for almost.

The market however IS buying those. The market has spoken, remember?

That's not how it works. But I'll bite since you seem to follow a religion here - you can follow market talks from other end, revenue. It tells the same story, eerily so in fact.

> It tells the same story, eerily so in fact.

NVIDIA had $11bln in 2022 revenues from graphics vs. AMD's $6bln.

Nvidia has 7b per quarter, AMD 5b (out of which 1.7 are all GPUs including consoles)

Place one and three of the Top500 are AMD powered, Nvidias' highest is position four.

https://top500.org/lists/top500/2023/06/

Right, at the moment and that game changes all the time. However, we're talking share here where 5 out of top 10 are Nvidia (which also changes, yes - and not in favor of AMD but those "other" systems which are mostly under sanctions and can't buy Nvidia at scale). Top five accelerators / co-processors in TOP500 are Nvida per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500 . If you ask Nvidia they'll tell you 64-68% of TOP500 are Nvidia, but they count interconnect as well, not just GPU. Truth is somewhere down, probably within 1/3-1/2 area. It's really not hard to see AMD is putting up a fight, but against a giant. Nvidia outclassed AMD's sales in b2b as well as towards consumers by a big margin which is reflected both in revenue and ultimately market cap. Reason why that's so, since both are fabless, lies primarily within R&D Nvidia did execute on rather well - but that's just like my opinion, man. Everything else are facts.

One: that number is wildly inaccurate and only considers one tiny slice of the GPU market.

Two; iOS has a minority share of the market too. Less than a third of it. Guess you’d also call Apple unsuccessful in the mobile space?

No. No you would not. So, clearly market share of one segment is not the be-all end-all you are claiming.

Not how that works, friend. Neither data nor debate. You can't hoist talk to another sphere and continue, but even if we do there's a way back. Let's dove.in, shall we? Data is accurate, reported by numerous providers. If you don't trust any of data providers you can always compare revenue size of two companies where AMD accounts for CPUs and those deaps with console manufacturers as well and still doesn't come close, in fact percentage relative still holds. Consoles are B2B deals, people don't buy consoles because AMD. Same for mobile or apple (to a degree, because apple sells apple), as well as integrated Intel GPUs. Where consumers and businesses have a direct pick and choose - they did, and it's Nvidia for the better part, 80%+ part.

Are we discussing gaming or AI? When it comes to AI solutions, AMD isn't even close.

By having no competition and no reason to aggressively innovate.