has shot itself in the foot. After spending years exclusively dominating the graphic card market, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker has fallen prey to predatory pricing, stagnation, and, quite frankly, the same shenanigans that 's dominance in the CPU market. Nvidia hurt Intel There's a new competitor in town, and while it has yet to completely usurp Nvidia's lead in the GPU market, it has already started chipping away at its market share. Yes, we're talking about (who else!?), which is likely going to be the next GPU of choice for nearly a quarter of HackerNoon readers that participated in a poll asking which graphic card they were going to buy in the future. AMD To be sure, Nvidia still commands respect, with nearly a third of users choosing to go team green when they buy their next GPU. However, opting for team red was virtually unheard of half a decade ago, even when AMD the long-awaited RX Vega GPUs to compete with Nvidia's wildly popular 10-series cards. announced For the most part, and had dominated the and markets from the early 2000s up until the late 2010s, relegating AMD to a niche given how poorly its chips performed. It didn't really help that AMD was slow to launch new products, and when it did, they would suffer from and , leaving it curiously absent from both the CPU and GPU markets for years on end. Intel Nvidia CPU GPU high power consumption bad thermals Perhaps the only thing that kept AMD afloat during those years were the custom-made chipsets it manufactured for consoles, in particular the Playstation and Xbox, which ultimately ended up becoming a for the Nasdaq-listed firm. But other than that, AMD really hadn't launched any products that had consumers' heads turning. significant source of revenue All of this changed with the 2017 launch of the Ryzen series processors that were based on a new architecture called Zen. Though as its Intel counterpart in gaming, the flagship product from that launch — the Ryzen 7 1800X — came at a spitting distance of Intel's then leader, the i7-8700k, in productivity tasks at a much, much lower price. not necessarily as powerful Meanwhile, less powerful variants of the Ryzen 7 had a similar story to tell: they were cheaper, performed nearly as well as their Intel counterparts in productivity, and notably, came with so budget-conscious consumers didn't have to spend extra. Consumers entering the Ryzen ecosystem also knew that every subsequent processor launch would continue to be based on the , meaning they could simply swap out their older processors for newer ones without . good heatsinks AM4 chipset necessarily changing motherboards Tech enthusiasts hailed the launch of the Ryzen 7 processors due to their potential for in the CPU market, which they did. Every subsequent processor launched since the original Ryzen 7 series has shown , while Intel's processors continue to provide . In fact, a HackerNoon editor was so impressed with the latest AMD processor launch (The Ryzen 9 7900X) that they decided to do the unthinkable: migrate to team red, citing not only the better performance, but, the better economics of being a part of the AMD ecosystem. breaking Intel's monopoly improvements in leaps and bounds incremental benefits over their predecessors AMD has also made gains in the GPU market, starting from the launch of Vega 64, which, while against Nvidia's 10 series products, couldn't necessarily compete with it because of how great the 10 series cards were in terms of both price performance. Vega 64 was also plagued by at launch, though AMD was quick to address those issues as they came along. reviewing modestly and driver issues But Nvidia got smug with the launch of the successor to the 10 series, perhaps hoping that consumers and tech enthusiasts would fall for its marketing and a promise for better-looking games with the ray-tracing feature. Sadly for Nvidia, , noting at the time that the 20 series cards were only incrementally better than their predecessors and the ray-tracing feature that Nvidia was charging a premium for was yet to be available across major video game titles. We personally termed the release as a 'meme launch,' signifying that anyone with a bit of time and research could figure out that the card was simply meant to make money and didn't really offer anything beyond a promise of a technology that had yet to reach fruition. Not to mention, it wasn't even at said technology (ray tracing). reviewers panned the release that great Meanwhile, AMD still hadn't hit the mark, with the RX 5000 series cards that were supposed to compete with Nvidia's 20-series products in power consumption, thermals, and drivers. As the 30-series launch came along and Nvidia seemed to have course corrected, AMD too did not disappoint, with the RX 6000 series from reviewers for its performance, price, and . facing issues getting praise availability Which brings us to the present: the Nvidia 4-series. And oh my god, it looks like history is repeating itself. This is yet another 'meme release' panned by reviewers for price, performance, and (not to mention ). Meanwhile, AMD's upcoming RX 7000 series cards are already touted to be than what Nvidia has put out. power consumption the issue that shall not be named cheaper and better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2_xTUshy94?embedable=true All of this to say: we get it. Nvidia, just like Intel, has become a fat, lazy dragon content with its dominance from the glory days. In contrast, AMD has consistently targeted consumers that were long forgotten by the titans: the budget gamers, who, by all accounts, make up an . By positioning itself as the to market behemoths, AMD has been able to claw away at its competition, all the while investing money in R&D so it too could produce products that could compete with some of the best tech out there for cheaper. overwhelming majority of PC users less expensive alternative Surprisingly, a very small portion of HackerNoon readers might also opt for an Intel graphic card. While not exactly known for their graphical prowess, Intel's integrated GPUs have long been a mainstay of laptops, particularly at the lower price point. Reviewers have hailed the launch of Intel's Arc series desktop GPUs for the same reasons as they did for AMD's processors: , even if team blue's new product is . With Intel's entry into the desktop GPU market, we can now only hope for a gold trifecta in which no single company calls the shots, and all three competitors keep their peers in check with performance and pricing. Only time will tell. competition subpar at best To wrap things up, while we know what team HackerNoon readers are leaning toward if they want to purchase a graphic card, we also know (based on the poll results) that a good chunk of readers are unlikely to buy a new graphic card anytime soon. It could be the price, the availability, or the fact that they probably don't care about a graphic card and are likely not consumers who have a need for a dedicated GPU. , they follow a simple principle: they don't upgrade unless what they currently have is no longer giving them the performance they seek. Or To participate in Hackernoon’s current poll, head down to the following . link

This story contains new, firsthand information uncovered by the writer.

AnandTech

Intel

Keep

NVIDIA

PlayStation

Super

YouTube

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

Join to Learn About Storytelling for Startups

HackerNoon Mobile

Nearly 25% of HackerNoon Readers to Opt for AMD GPUs Next

Too Long; Didn't Read

Companies Mentioned

@sheharyarkhan

Credibility

RELATED STORIES