Why are AMD graphics cards so much cheaper?

Question

Marketing

Hello!

FOREWORD:
I've been using NVIDIA graphics cards all my life.
GT 210, GTX 650 TI, GTX 1050 TI. AMD has never been used. Unless my PS4 has an AMD APU. When I bought a PS4, I put my GTX 1050 TI in another PC, now I'm sitting on an old video card.

CHALLENGE:
Needed another video card in the lower or mid-range price segment. I started looking at options. I noticed with great surprise that the RX 5500 XT costs the same as the GTX 1050 TI. Moreover, the RX 5500 XT is about 2 times more powerful in terms of power.

Power:

• RX 5500 XT (4GB) (5.196 TFLOPS) - $214
  
• GTX 1050 TI (4GB) (2.138 TFLOPS) $185
  

I also looked at the used market, found that the RX 480 8GB costs about the same as the GTX 1060 3 GB. Despite the fact that in the RX 480 there is more power and much more video memory.

Power:

• RX 480 (8GB) (5.834 TFLOPS) - $114
  
• GTX 1060 (3GB) (3.935 TFLOPS) 100$
  

The price difference is negligible, but the performance difference is huge.

QUESTION:
What is the reason for such a difference in price? Why do AMD cards, which I gave in the example, cost the same as NVIDIA cards, while being about 2 times better in terms of power?

PS. I only know that AMD is hotter in terms of temperatures. I saw it in tests.

I have some suggestions, maybe AMD does not have CUDA cores that speed up installation, maybe AMD is worse suited for streaming games, or there is a problem with the drivers. Or because of high temperatures, the time between failures occurs faster there.

Guys, who is in the subject, please tell me.

Answer 1

Some software works only on CUDA, does not want to know about opencl. But it all depends on the software.
AMD's hardware video encoder is very sad, worse than NVENC Pascal, and it cannot be compared with NVENC HEVC Turing at all. HEVC, however, do not stream. The fact remains that the AMD hardware video encoder has long been outdated and some bugs regularly pop up in it, such as audio-video desync or black screens instead of recording (see reddit).
The last point follows from the last point: NVIDIA has more people in one driver development department than in the entire Radeon. Therefore, bugs in AMD drivers sometimes hang uncorrected for years. Since the 5600\5700 release, people have been complaining that their video card driver is crashing or the system is completely hanging - only at the beginning of last month, AMD began to do something about it.
Therefore, personally, I can only recommend an AMD video card to an enthusiast who is able to try to solve problems with a video card on his own, or to a person with a very limited budget. Well, or under mac\hacintosh.
Graphics card temperatures are generally not a problem. Perhaps AMD will be a little louder. But this primarily depends on how the vendor worked on the video card model. You can also find a younger NVIDIA loud - with one fan, a turbine.

Answer 2

Here is the answer:

someone prefers 5 clients for $2, someone prefers 2 clients for $5.

turnover and quality, respectively.
Bottom line: amds are less durable, but cheaper. nvidia: better compatibility with professional software (+below: power consumption, noise level, temperature).

Answer 3

Humble yourself. If your framework shows 1000 parrots on CUDA and 600 on opencl, then the choice is obvious.
There was a really funny period when they were mining on red ones and they were faster in specific algorithms.
But in general, this is for special cases.
Now the blues are really trying to get into this market, so it's more fun.
Well, the ubiquitous Google is moving its GPU killer