I know Intel is dipping its toe into the GPU market, but let’s be real, AMD and nVidia are the only options and have been for the last 20+ years. The manufacturers/assemblers of the complete graphics cards are varied and widespread, but the core tech comes from two companies only.
Why is this the case? Or am I mistaken and am just brainwashed by marketing, and there are in fact other viable options for GPUs?
Cheers!
lol “not being able to run games” have you heard of a little thing called the steam deck?
Or indeed the PS5 which runs AMD chips.
And runs the few games it does have pretty poorly, all things considered.
This is nonsense and, frankly, sounds like guerrilla marketing for nvidia.
All things considered, I can play any game I want on the steam deck, which has an old SoC by today’s standards. A newer AMD gpu can run anything at max settings on a linux machine.
So again, either you are grossly misinformed or working for nvidia to sew gentle doubt. Either way, stop it.
Do you not play many games? Good luck playing CP2077 with PT or heck even MSFS2020 at good (read: max) settings on 1440p.
The deck is great but I can’t even run NMS on high settings on it.
Runs it better than any PC costing a similar amount.
You can barely get an entry level GPU for that.
I have a steam deck. It’s a portable, it’s really cool for what it is but as a main gaming system it can’t exactly compete visually nor performance wise with being able to run Path Tracing in CP2077 for instance, which I’d say is borderline required to enjoy the game’s visuals.
It’s like comparing the PS3 and the PSP or the N64 and the Gameboy Color. Both are cool, one doesn’t replace the other nor does it have to.
the point was about “not being able to game on amd”
yeah duh mobile chips are less performant, but still forza horizon 4–5 runs better on my steam deck than on my desktop pc with a 2080rtx in linux
Why would I game on shit settings when I can game on good settings for the same/less money?
At the same resolution?