Is this not a really bad thing overall for consumers

A lack of stiff competition will lead to Nvidia potentially getting sloppy and a lack of competition leads to less innovation potentially

What are AMD doing wrong that leads to Nvidia leading them so much

Both consoles use AMD GPU's so....?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/08/19/nvidia-increases-desktop-gpu-market-share-again-despite-multiple-amd-radeon-releases/

While Nvidia may have the most powerful cards, the AMDs seem to have more bang for the buck. I have never seen the need myself to have the ultimate video card, once frame rates are above 45 to 60 depending on the game, the games all look and feel the same. I just recently picked up a new video card and it was an AMD. I looked at both the Nvidias and AMDs, and it would have cost me significantly more to get more performance that I would not see to go with Nvidia.

Well, it's mostly bad for the users. I don't understand why people are so stubborn at using Nvidia cards although it's very well known that ATI are better. A matter of price maybe?

Don't like my room to feel like a sauna.

Pish. My R9 270X typically hovers around 60C on intense games. Fan cooled only. It's the crappy drivers that are the big problem for amd and the fact that most games seem to be made with nvidia in mind.

Which is kind of a circular thing. Nvidia "partners" with game devs, gets extra bonus optimization/embeds Gameworks, game performs worse is on AMD, more people buy Nvidia cards.... which makes more devs willing to partner with Nvidia. Downward spiral.

I have no idea why you'd say that "it's very well known" that AMD-based cards are better. It isn't, and they aren't. Their recent generations tend to have less stable drivers, use more power, and generate more heat. That's why I ended up spending (very) slightly more for an equivalent nVidia-based card the last time I bought a video card. That, and the last two AMD-based cards I've owned have caused me no end of headaches with multi-monitor setups and connections to TVs, which has made me a bit gun-shy about buying AMD-based cards lately. It's not a matter of price...nVidia hardware tends to be a bit more expensive (although, depending on the GPU the price difference is usually not huge).

Don't get me wrong...I think that AMD has done pretty well and their GPUs and reference designs are perfectly fine, but to say that by some absolute measure one company's designs are better than the other's and that there is some kind of consensus about this among users is certainly inaccurate.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/15

Anyway, I'd like to see AMD do better. Competition is good...both for innovation and pricing.

'S even worse for Linux users, though at least we have the option of the open source drivers, albeit at the cost of performance (though that might not be a problem for a media centre PC, a workstation, or a Facebooker or porm seeker, which kinda covers 90% of computer users, if we're honest ).

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but I actually feel like my room has been considerably cooler now that i have a Nvidia.

I also switched from a plasma to an LED..not sure if that has anything to do with it either.

I'm an nVidia user and agree with this statement! I think nVidia's success is due more to marketing than overly superior products, though I think they are I see their name linked with many games.

Whatever happened to mantle I heard it was supposed to kick ass and then nothing.

It's down to AMD to change the market share, they have to improve, i hope they do, otherwise Nvidia have no reason to cut prices etc.

AMD cards are good, but Nvidia beats them in both compatibility and reliability. When spending half a grand to a grand you want it to work. It takes more effort on the user end to find a good AMD card that does this.

Well, see, I just think that's absurd no matter what company you're going with. The super-high-end of GPUs is nuts, and the fact that (seemingly) so many people buy them just blows my mind.

(To me, $200 is spending a lot for a card. )

If AMD would step it up, I'd buy AMD next time. Both cards I've bought (660 TI and 970) were in the $300-350 range and at the time purchased both gave me what I wanted. AMD didn't have anything that offered real competition at that price point when I purchased each card.

AMD's biggest problem is their lack of combined efforts with developers. You have significantly more "Best Played on Nvidia" promos for games than you do AMD. You in turn get games that do in fact run better on Nvidia than AMD.

I had an Nvidia card. It crapped out on me (because the drivers were buggy and not working). Nvidia said they wouldn't update the drivers and told me I needed to buy the next series of card for support (this was ONE series behind their latest at the time). I told them to F themselves and went with AMD. For years I refused to mention Nvidia let alone support them. They screwed me, I was screwing them. My games were running well, and I was having fun. Then a couple cards later I had a failure. To be expected... so I requested an RMA. That process took too long so I grabbed a quick Nvidia card for sh*ts and giggles.

The games I was playing on my AMD card now ran 100x better on my Nvidia card (which wasn't that much of a step up). I was finally able to stream games I had struggled through before... and enjoy myself even more. Not to mention drivers were being updated more frequently and I had access to neat built in features like Shadowplay that worked well.

It seems like the last 2 years or so... Nvidia has continued to advance where AMD is slowly trudging along and not really making any advancements. That's been my opinion anyway and it pains me to say that. I ran an AMD CPU, a GPU, and refused to get on board with Nvidia and Intel products. Now I'm starting question that.

I know, I have a pc running linux mint with a 4850 and it's just pitiful. Windows XP on the other partition runs rings around it.

@Softnerd: Alright, some ati cards run hot.

@Divinus Fulmen: freaking hell, wish I had your budget to spend on a gpu.

It was given to Khronos Group (props to AMD for that, very generous and unexpected) and evolved into Vulkan (..which has a much better chance of taking off than Mantle did).

Which also evolved into DirectX 12. AMD said they also gave Mantle to Microsoft for DirectX 12's road map.

Mate, you sure you're not talking out of your [censored] (again)? Better provide solid sources.

Count me in that boat, too! Half a Grand?!? NO card is worth that, especially when looking at games. Now, if one is a professional and needs that high end card, sure. Gaming and personal use? I wish I had that kind of money to burn

What? I haven't upgraded in 5 years. (Thank you stagnate console hardware!)

Sorry, it just sounded like you were used to spending a small fortune on them.

I am still running an AMD HD 6850 that I got when I RMA'd my old 4970...... It runs my games just fine, doesn't give me any problems, has been trouble free for several years. It's a 1 gb card though, so, I am waiting to see how well it runs FO:4..... (which wants a minimum 2gb card? Seriously??)

Sad to say that is the case as games become 64-bit. But really 2GB - 4GB GPUs are pretty affordable these days.