Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where have all the nVidia chipsets gone? Oh SNAP

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
a c 171 Î Nvidia
June 19, 2009 6:39:38 PM

X58 and maybe the P55.
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2009 9:51:03 PM

Not a bad article. Although the author touched on the real reasons behind it, he didn't really want to elaborate.

It's pretty apparent that either AMD or Nvidia are going bust. Nvidia made what looked to be the sensible decision 18-12 months ago, which was all but abandoning AMD and hopefully {from nv's pov} taking down ATI when they finally capitulated. That would have left Nvidia in total control of the discrete gpu market and in a very good position to threaten Intel on igp's.

It would have worked had Phenom II been as bad as Phenom, and if r700 was as mediocre as r600. But neither was, in fact both have breathed new life into AMD.

Now Nvidia are seeing just how hard intel "compete". They had a willing partner in AMD and they blew it - and make no mistake - AMD are now out to finish off Nvidia because that is their best hope vs the almighty intel too.

With Nvidia gone, AMD would clean up on graphics and start to really pressure Intel in the gaming/enthusiast sector using Nvidia's old nforce-only sli trick. Take that $3bn a year from Nvidia and put it into AMD's hands and there might even be a chance.

They are both out to kill each other off, no question about it. That is why we have enjoyed incredible gpu prices for the last year - For every $1 AMD lose on graphics, Nvidia are probably losing $5.
Related resources
June 19, 2009 10:11:53 PM

I didn't read the article but the one thing that most don't realize is that nvidia has been releasing poor IGP's and chipsets for quite some time. The big money is in the OEM market and with all the returns and lawsuits against Nvidia chipsets the OEM's are shying away from them. Not to mention that Nvidia hasn't really released a completely new chipset since the 680i which was about 3 years ago and had a list of problems all it's own. Nvidia has been living on borrowed time and unless they do something radical with VIA or something, are done. When I think of things like Nvidia releasing the same card under a different name(s) or their 3D Vision thing, I think gimmick. It's simply something to keep them in the news and keep the mis/under- informed buying their products. They do have the single fastest video card available at this time and that's their biggest goal. In their minds, if they remain at that point then there are those that will follow them anywhere simply because "they're the best".

It's been talked about for some time but I don't think the whole CP/GPU thing has gotten the press it deserves. If you look at the way the industry is headed it's more about parallel processing and video processing than crunching numbers sequentially. In a few years (I believe) the GPU will become the CPU as serial processing becomes less prominent. Although AMD took on a great burden and almost killed themselves buying ATI, it was the best thing they could have done.
June 19, 2009 10:25:54 PM

Major_Spittle said:
larabee


It might be great but where is it? Intel has a lot of experience making shitty IGP's. They have the money but do they have the ability to make a good IGP? Or maybe they'll just do what they have always done and spend what they should have on R&D, on marketing.
June 19, 2009 10:31:09 PM

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
June 19, 2009 10:43:01 PM

That whole article hinges on the idea that Nvidia really cares whether or not they have any market share anymore in the AMD chipset crowd. It's pretty apparent that AMD has really dropped the ball in that whole making quality processors thing they used to be known for. They have virtually no credit anymore with the enthusiast crowd. They've become so far behind Intel in almost every way that without some sort of regulation there's absolutely no way they will ever actually catch up. It's a sinking ship. Nvidia wanted off. Who can blame them?
June 19, 2009 10:50:36 PM

Major_Spittle said:
I find your lack of faith disturbing.


I have faith in Intel and I know they will release a product (as well as marketing for said product) just good enough to sway, know nothing, purchasers in their direction. They have done an incredible job the last few years with the C2D and up. I'm just not convinced that they can do the same at the outset in the GPU market. I think it will take a couple generations for them to get the picture that consumers want performance, not a name.
June 19, 2009 10:58:03 PM

Nvidia's days are numbered. Nvidia is trying to jump ship with Nvidia before the big squeeze.

Intel owns IGP and now they want discrete graphics. To gain market share quickly Intel is bringing x86 to graphics. Intel is doing the same thing in the mobil cpu market. Intel is making themselves and Microsoft big winners in all technology.

The plan is in motion now. Larabee will hit the market early 2010. Intel is unstoppable and resistance if futile. Nvidia knows it, watch them squirm. Nvidia has no x86 license but is trying to develop x86 cpu/gpus. Things that make you go, hmmmmm.
June 19, 2009 11:10:00 PM

Major_Spittle said:
Nvidia's days are numbered. Nvidia is trying to jump ship with Nvidia before the big squeeze.

Intel owns IGP and now they want discrete graphics. To gain market share quickly Intel is bringing x86 to graphics. Intel is doing the same thing in the mobil cpu market. Intel is making themselves and Microsoft big winners in all technology.

The plan is in motion now. Larabee will hit the market early 2010. Intel is unstoppable and resistance if futile. Nvidia knows it, watch them squirm. Nvidia has no x86 license but is trying to develop x86 cpu/gpus. Things that make you go, hmmmmm.


There has been talk of Nvidia and VIA (who has an X86 license) getting together but most people will need a lot of convincing to plunk down money for a product from VIA. You are correct, and if Intel really puts their minds (and wallets) into a discrete GPU no one really has a chance. My bet is on that they'll treat it as they have the IGP market and end up with an "also ran". I think it will take a couple generations for them to get the picture and a few years from now they'll release something that will be revolutionary, just as the C2D was a couple years ago.
June 19, 2009 11:16:10 PM

ausch30 said:
I have faith in Intel and I know they will release a product (as well as marketing for said product) just good enough to sway, know nothing, purchasers in their direction. They have done an incredible job the last few years with the C2D and up. I'm just not convinced that they can do the same at the outset in the GPU market. I think it will take a couple generations for them to get the picture that consumers want performance, not a name.


Intel has already created a GPU faster than anything Nvidia has. Also intel makes tons of tiny dual core hyperthreaded cached 45nm processors already. Soon they will be making 32nm versions.

Intel started the larrabee project years ago. Soon you will see the power of this FULLY FUNCTIONAL discrete graphics card. muh-huuu-huuu-ahhh. :o 

btw: did you see what Intel did in the solid state drive department? They never made those before. Kinda makes you go, hmmmm.

June 19, 2009 11:29:20 PM

Major_Spittle said:
Intel has already created a GPU faster than anything Nvidia has. Also intel makes tons of tiny dual core hyperthreaded cached 45nm processors already. Soon they will be making 32nm versions.

Intel started the larrabee project years ago. Soon you will see the power of this FULLY FUNCTIONAL discrete graphics card. muh-huuu-huuu-ahhh. :o 

btw: did you see what Intel did in the solid state drive department? They never made those before. Kinda makes you go, hmmmm.



Intel is good. I have an Intel chipset (which I love) and an Intel CPU which I have equal affection for. I guess in the back of my mind I want them to flounder a little and I want AMD/ATI to prosper so we can all benefit from better products for less money. I still remember the days, rather the 2 1/2 years, of the 8800GTX being $550 simply because there was nothing to compete. Just as now Intel has no reason to release more i7 CPU's or reduce the price of their X58 chipsets because there is nothing comparable (the cheapest i7-X58 combo is ~$500!!! For a CPU and chipset?). Competition benefits us all. Nvidia is on the way out, I just hope AMD/ATI is up to the task.
June 19, 2009 11:36:35 PM

Sorry, AMD/ATI isn't up to the task.

At least Intel has put CPU prices at the lowest levels ever and continues to keep them there.

The difference between CPUs/GPUs in computers will become very blurred and adventually go away in teh next decade. Computer components and computer prices will continually decline. Someday the whole computer will consist of a disposable PCB with chips on it.
June 19, 2009 11:41:32 PM

Major_Spittle said:
Sorry, AMD/ATI isn't up to the task.


I hope that's just a fanboy statement and I hope you're wrong. I have faith in AMD/ATI simply because they had the foresight to bring ATI into the fold. Only time will tell.

The only reason Nvidia still has a following is due to fanboys dreaming of the nForce4 days. A lot of people currently are looking to build new systems and the reason they worship Nvidia is due to their experience with that chipset and the Athlon64 CPU. I'm all about the best product at the best price when I'm clicking add to my cart. I don't think any product is as good as it could be or should be because everyone is watching the bottom line a little too much.
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2009 11:59:14 PM

Major_Spittle said:
Sorry, AMD/ATI isn't up to the task.

At least Intel has put CPU prices at the lowest levels ever and continues to keep them there.

The difference between CPUs/GPUs in computers will become very blurred and adventually go away in teh next decade. Computer components and computer prices will continually decline. Someday the whole computer will consist of a disposable PCB with chips on it.


You're only as good as your weakest component. You know what that makes intel's fused cpu/gpu? ***, that's what.
June 19, 2009 11:59:59 PM

Quote:
I'm all about the best product at the best price when I'm clicking add to my cart.

As do I. The stuffs on my "list" is constantly changing with the market. Sticking with one brand/product for a long time just means being weak-minded.

Back to the topic of this thread. Personally I think nVidia should stick to making more IGP chipsets for AMD processors, plus their goal of GPGPU domination with CUDA. The real fight in the graphics sector to come is between OpenCL (largely backed by Intel & AMD) and CUDA. 3D gaming performance will become a tag-along thing working on top of GPGPU.
June 20, 2009 12:05:11 AM

What? I don't know anyone that worships Nvidia because of a nForce 4 or because of an Athlon64. However, I do know an awful lot of people that like to use the Nvidia GPU to fold, game, and run reliably. When is the last time ATi pumped out a card that wasn't an absolute power hog, had reliable drivers, and didn't have issues with temperature beastly temps? I can't remember. The drivers DO get ironed out eventually. Regardless, who are the reliable ATi vendors again? What sort of service do they offer? If you want to get into semantics of why Nvidia has a following its because their vendors are better, their cards are better, they're better for the tweaking crowd and they support a lot of game development. Sli has almost always been a better solution than Crossfire (remember the dongle?), I could go on and on. I used to be a huge ATi fanboy, but they've done a lot to lose my support in the last three years. I'm glad it looks like they might be competitive again somehow, but if they don't get their act together Nvidia will probably swallow them up in the next generation or two.

On another note, AMD can't compete with Intel anymore and it's obvious they're not even really trying at this point. When is the last time you saw an AMD processor and went "oh, that looks good". Compared to a Core 2 system there's no reason to even try to go Phenom much less when you compare a Phenom to an i7. What exactly is AMD doing to compete other than applauding when Intel has the EU trying to rape them? All this media speculation about how AMD in returning to the game, or how they're getting better means nothing unless it's actually backed up by something other than hype. There's absolutely no compelling reason to go AMD over Intel unless you're one of those nerds that likes to whine about competition and how it'll benefit you in the long run. Until there is an actual compelling reason for a consumer to choose AMD they might as well just sit in the corner and pray they don't get crushed. It's not competition for Intel if there are no good products in the line and AMD hasn't been a viable competitor for almost three years.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 12:13:09 AM

Quote:
When is the last time ATi pumped out a card that wasn't an absolute power hog, had reliable drivers, and didn't have issues with temperature beastly temps? I can't remember.


How was Mars btw? I heard it was nice during the spring. Oh btw, while you were gone ATI released the 4770 and it craps on anything Nvidia can do at the price point.
June 20, 2009 12:31:45 AM

wasteoftime said:


On another note, AMD can't compete with Intel anymore and it's obvious they're not even really trying at this point. When is the last time you saw an AMD processor and went "oh, that looks good". Compared to a Core 2 system there's no reason to even try to go Phenom much less when you compare a Phenom to an i7.


How about the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition for the same price as the E8500. I have to admit that there really isn't any compelling reason to pick the E8500 over the X4 940, you are absolutely incorrect. The i7 is in a class of it's own and the price shows that. A competing product from AMD would bring it down to more realistic costs. Explain to me exactly why competition is a bad thing.

How about this, an outstanding upper mid-range setup, with upgrade ability, for $179.99 after rebate.

With all due respect jaydeejohn, I apologize for getting off subject.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 2:12:19 AM

honestly, even with NV gone, i would still want AMD/ATI around, really, i don't get the fan-boys that say "no more AMD", if it wasn't for them around either Intel would jack their prices or be separated into different companies (monopoly)
June 20, 2009 2:26:33 AM

How was Mars btw? I heard it was nice during the spring. Oh btw, while you were gone ATI released the 4770 and it craps on anything Nvidia can do at the price point.

The 4770? What are you even talking about? Is that the competitive segment that everyone wants to control? How long do you think they've controlled that segment and how long do you think they can?


On paper the Phenom II 940 looks ok. Compare it to the Q8500 or Q9400 (a little bit higher price) and see what kind of contest it is then. Never mind the fact that you picked a processor (the e8500) that already outperforms the 940. Throw in overclocking and Intel still wipes the floor with AMD. I don't blame you for being an AMD apologist, but come to the table with something real.
June 20, 2009 2:29:15 AM

IMHO Nvidia>ATI

Better drivers equals better performance

The new 185.XX drivers and the newer 186.XX drivers give cards a considerable boost in performance

Gave me a 7-10 FPS increase in Crysis with my 9600 GT and a 5-7 increase in my 260 GTX

My brother got an ATI 4850 and played oblivion... dissapointment 30-40 FPS

Took it back to the store and got the competing 9800 GTX+ and ran 60 FPS+

If nvidia goes into the 'hole' i will be dissapointed

Uber :D 
June 20, 2009 8:11:40 AM

OK, what people are forgetting is that as soon as AMD does igp on chip, Intel automaticcally loses a good share of the igp market to begin with. Theyre already at their max in that market, unless the marketshare changes in cpu sales. So, to me, once AMD does their igp on chip, Intel loses.

nVidia should go back and embrace the AMD sales. Unless theyre losing money on them, I see no reason not to. Intels position is, cut them out, nVidias position is, cut them out, while AMD seems to want to just do business, and let the people/product decide sales. All these other comments about which is best has been going on since forever, or didnt anyone read that necro thread from 2002 here on Toms recently, about AMDs doom. The author states that some people love nVidia and Intel, and that may turn into a scenario thats also hard to come by.
nVidia has to redecide which path is its best most profitable future is, and quit jumping ship cause of competition. Sounds like a bunch of kids not getting their way to me.
As for LRB, and its impact, we may not know even how good itll be for another 2 generations of gpus to come yet, and speculation is already running wild with just the next gen coming up, so I wouldnt consider LRB at all at this point.
People have to realize also, that once LRB does hit the market, and DX11 and OCL land, those "favored games become less and less, as more devs will have more options for optimization.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 10:55:34 AM

Quote:
The 4770? What are you even talking about? Is that the competitive segment that everyone wants to control? How long do you think they've controlled that segment and how long do you think they can?


Yes it is. Where do you think the real $$'s are made on gpus? ATI are in full command of every pricepoint up to $100, which tbh is all that really counts in terms of cash. Seeing as Nvidia have nothing new coming out at the mainstream sector, I fully expect this to continue for the forseeable future. It won't be long before the 4870 costs the same as the gts250, giving ATI yet another commanding lead at the price points that actually count.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 11:22:23 AM

I know what AMD are saying Jaydee but they aren't stupid. If Nvidia go under then AMD take almost complete control of desktop gpu's. All those people with Nvidia cards aren't going to quit playing games just because they are forced to buy AMD.

We're talking $2-3bn cash every year going into AMD's pockets, you can be sure they want Nvidia gone regardless of what they are claiming.
June 20, 2009 12:59:50 PM

Whoa JennyH. You have to look at the LENGTH of time they've been in control of that market. It hasn't been for very long and if the past is any indication it won't be for very long. ATi itself got lucky with the 48xx series of cards (the 4850 when it was released was closer to a "mainstream" part. They had not had that kind of product (you know, one that would actually sell) in a very long time. The sub $100 bracket is not the cash cow you think it is. The mainstream segment around the $200 mark is ideal for the consumer graphics card market and it's the segment that both ATi and Nvidia want to dominate. In truth this is the first time in years ATi has even been competitive. With AMD bleeding money like it is it's unlikely they'll have the R&D to keep up with both Nvidia and Intel.

As far as taking complete control of desktop GPUs, AMD can't possibly take any sort of hit in its pricepoints. They already had to take one with the 4890 and it seems they can't release a competitive part lately without taking some sort of hit from Nvidia. You say this "domination" will continue for the forseeable future, but you're not taking into account the length of time it usually takes these companies to release new parts and how Nvidia usually comes back strong when it appears that ATi is catching up. Also, ATi's partners are horrible for the most part. There's no way they'll stay competitive on the long term with their current vendors and the customer service they offer. Not to mention the availability of some of their cards (you're forgetting the 4770 actually has to be available for people to buy it, and didn't they have to take a monetary hit on that one too?).
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 1:57:53 PM

wasteoftime said:
Never mind the fact that you picked a processor (the e8500) that already outperforms the 940.

Application dependent of course. You can't expect the E8500 to stand up against the 940 when encoding video.

UberGenocide said:
Gave me a 7-10 FPS increase in Crysis with my 9600 GT and a 5-7 increase in my 260 GTX

I'm still running 180.84. Looks like it might be worth upgrading for once :D 

wasteoftime said:
Also, ATi's partners are horrible for the most part. There's no way they'll stay competitive on the long term with their current vendors and the customer service they offer.


In what countries? Are we assuming that the USA is the whole world here? I've never bought a video card based on the vendor's customer service, only the price. Because here in Australia they're all pretty much the same. No lifetime warranties, no step-up rubbish, just buy and hope it works. Most of the time warranties are handled horribly by the retailer anyway, which is probably the only difference separating some vendors from others as some handle RMAs directly.

JDJ, you might want to change the thread title to "Yet another AMD vs NVIDIA vs Intel fanfest" :lol: 
June 20, 2009 2:04:07 PM

randomizer said:




In what countries? Are we assuming that the USA is the whole world here?


You mean we're not ;) 
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 2:10:27 PM

/facepalm :na: 
June 20, 2009 2:21:16 PM

Oh, the new drivers are awesome. Seriously. Application dependent is true, but even then Intel has been offering up relatively cheap quad cores in addition to the E8500.

I don't want you to think I'm a fan. I built almost exclusively with ATi video cards for nearly 10 years. The only exception was a 7600GT I bought because the price was perfect at the time and I was in a bind needing a video card. I quit buying ATi after my HD2900XT and 3870X2. They were just not very good parts. I considered a 4870X2 but with the microstutter, temperature, and reliability issues I decided against it. My Nvidia offers physics calculations, better drivers, more tweakability, and folds like a beast. I miss when ATi used to truly offer parts that were compelling and didn't have the awful lifespan they seem to now (both reliability and performance wise).

Also, I think it's important to note that my Core 2 system was my absolute first Intel build. Up to that point there was no reason to buy Intel over AMD. My 3700+ was a beast. It's still running in my wife's rig years later, and the performance is more than adequate even in modern games. The issue for me is that now it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy an AMD part. I'm looking at a new build and wanted to go AM3 or AM2+. I figured it would be a neat upgrade and get me some true quad core action (for the folding). Of course, with any build I make there's the dawning realization for just a few dollars more (especially for an AM3 system) I can build an i7. Look at the prices for the mobos now. It's literally within 100 to 200 bucks for a whole system in the price difference if you go i7 (at least if you use DDR3 in your AMD build, even then you can narrow the gap with a really good deal). AMD doesn't even have a horse in the race to compete with i7. It's not like there's a real alternative at that performance point, the i7 is in a league of its own.

Sorry about the vendor argument not working for people in other countries. It was a small part of my feelings as a whole. It truly it does hurt their business regardless of where the cards are sold. Customers that have good things to say about a vendor normally have good things to say about the card. You can't beat that kind of word of mouth and reputation. The loss of sales those issues can cause are enough to hurt a company, and AMD/ATi are not in any position to be hurt at all.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 2:38:38 PM

i7 is getting cheaper, but here it would still cost me $900 to get 6GB of DDR3, a "cheap" X58 board ($280 or so) and a 920 ($390-400). On the other hand, I'd be looking at $450-550 (haven't checked prices for a while) for an AM3 rig. Were I heavily into video encoding then the price difference would be a drop in the bucket against the extra productivity from 8 threads, but for most applications the bang-for-buck just isn't there for i7. In the end it really depends what you want to do and what the prices are where you live. I have seen no reason to pay for an upgrade to my 2006 E6600 rig yet because the cost can't be justified for my uses.

On another note, AM2+ and AM3 have a good amount of life left in them. LGA775 will continue to have the current processors exist for a while yet, but Intel isn't going to be pushing out new 775 processors left, right and centre any more.
June 20, 2009 3:44:38 PM

wasteoftime said:
How was Mars btw? I heard it was nice during the spring. Oh btw, while you were gone ATI released the 4770 and it craps on anything Nvidia can do at the price point.

The 4770? What are you even talking about? Is that the competitive segment that everyone wants to control? How long do you think they've controlled that segment and how long do you think they can?


On paper the Phenom II 940 looks ok. Compare it to the Q8500 or Q9400 (a little bit higher price) and see what kind of contest it is then. Never mind the fact that you picked a processor (the e8500) that already outperforms the 940. Throw in overclocking and Intel still wipes the floor with AMD. I don't blame you for being an AMD apologist, but come to the table with something real.


You sir, are an idiot.

Show me the benchmarks where the Q8500 gets even CLOSE to the 940. The 9400 is roughly on par with the 940.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass before YOU come to the table.
June 20, 2009 4:17:40 PM

Bring Back the Cyrix Dx II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rawr, Power.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 4:38:14 PM

Quote:
Whoa JennyH. You have to look at the LENGTH of time they've been in control of that market. It hasn't been for very long and if the past is any indication it won't be for very long. ATi itself got lucky with the 48xx series of cards (the 4850 when it was released was closer to a "mainstream" part. They had not had that kind of product (you know, one that would actually sell) in a very long time. The sub $100 bracket is not the cash cow you think it is. The mainstream segment around the $200 mark is ideal for the consumer graphics card market and it's the segment that both ATi and Nvidia want to dominate. In truth this is the first time in years ATi has even been competitive. With AMD bleeding money like it is it's unlikely they'll have the R&D to keep up with both Nvidia and Intel.


So how come AMD have a dx11 part and Nvidia don't? How come ATI made cash last quarter (albeit $1m only) while Nvidia lost $220m? AMD are miles ahead of Nvidia on hardware, the only reason Nvidia can even compete is by having parts which make them leak cash just to stay in the game. That isn't 'competitive', Nvidia are getting a hiding and everyone else seems to understand that.

Do you know that the g200 has 50% more transistors than the r700? How does 50% more transisters end up at what, 5% more performance? It's because the Radeon's are far more advanced gpu's, that's why. Nvidia are just a little company who found themselves making more cash than they deserved to make. JHH was bragging about increasing their share of the market last quarter - how can they increase market share and go from making almost $400m a quarter to losing $200m? That one is easy, AMD are pricing them out of the market with products which are more than good enough while costing less.
June 20, 2009 4:46:26 PM

The 9400 outclasses the 940. It's a better part, lower temps, solid performer overall. The Q8400 (sorry about mixing the number up before) is a part that might not perform better stock but overclocks better (the Q8400 is still about equivalent without the OC and I'm talking relatively). The price drop AMD had to make in order to make the 940 price competitive shouldn't be ignored either.

Make no mistake, AMD will be lucky to have another two years left at the rate they're bleeding cash and with the overall slow down of the computer industry. They have little to no capacity to R&D on the level that Intel does. Show me what they're doing to ACTUALLY be competitive and I'll be impressed. The Phenom line is simply not where that's at. There are better products to be had on the Intel side (especially if you include motherboards). I'm not hating on AMD. I really and truly wish they were more competitive. I shouldn't have to buy a Phenom and OC the hell out of it to get good performance. This is especially true when I can buy an Intel dual core and OC that instead.



Hey man, my 486DX2-66 was a beast. A BEAST!
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 5:20:22 PM

Sheesh, sometimes I feel I would be glad if AMD did go bust, and you Nvidia and Intel apologists realised what it meant to pay the price that both companies feel their goods are worth.

Most of you would be using pc's that are half the performance if it wasn't for AMD. Most of the people who own gtx260's would probably have 8800gt's instead - you can thank AMD for that because if it wasn't for their agressive pricing strategy Nvidia would still be claiming $300 for the 260, and neither the 275 or 295 would even exist. They would be the next new 'dx11' part in all probability.
June 20, 2009 6:05:25 PM

Hmmm.

OK, opinions are valid, ONLY if theyre yours.

I find, most people that dont cross the fence become complacent, and then get fired up about their side. Not using ATI , assuming MS is exclusive to ATI and other things are wrong. MS treats all cards the same, sorry to tell you.

Skipping a generation and then running it down without its true knowledge of actually using it, and then form an opinion?

I know nVidia people dont like this, its obvious. Intel people wont either, by the way Intels handled it on their side, and the accusations made and felt. But exactly how does running down ATI,AMD help? Anyone can bang their chest and proclaim this is best, or that is best etc, but it does lil to understand what a conundrum nVidia has put itself in. And how Intel helped put them there.
June 20, 2009 6:10:15 PM

To me, both companies are very similar. Ever hear of 2 people that just cant get along? Most likely, theyre the same type of person.

@jennyh, I realise what an opportunity itd be for ATI to control the gpu market, but its obvious they dont work that way, while both Intel and nVidia do, and thus the reason for the article to begin with.
June 20, 2009 6:29:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hmmm.

OK, opinions are valid, ONLY if theyre yours.



That's why I stepped out of the argument. You know the old saying "opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one".

I do agree that Nvidia almost seemed betrayed and vindictive when AMD bought ATI and it does seem that it will only hurt them in the long run. ATI hasn't really released any enthusiast chipsets but their 780g and 790g chipsets are very good and continue the same kind of tradition that their AIW video cards started. Although the HTPC market is still not quite there, and who knows if it will ever be, ATI has very good products available to fill that niche as well as several other categories. Intel has been trying to muscle out Nvidia for some time and only time will tell if it will work.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2009 6:41:17 PM

AMD/ATI are currently forced to compete on price, not performance, yet my understanding is they have the more expensive components. Normally, lower profit per part does not bode well for future new product development and investment.

That has been the concern over AMD/ATI for some time now.

Having said that, nVidia *is* in a difficult spot vs Intel, not AMD/ATI alone.

But the diminishment of any of these three companies isn't good for *any* of us. Think Apple price performance ratios. I'm historically an Intel/nVidia guy, BUT I am grateful for every AMD/ATI purchase.

It lowers my costs and drives industry performance.
June 20, 2009 6:51:02 PM

While I somewhat agree with the cpu pov, the gpu pov, I simply dont. As jennyh pointed out, having your halo gpu with 50% more transistors, and silicon, showing only 10% perf isnt "better" by any stretch, and the ATI product is selling low for marketshare, and because it can, and still be profitable, which, again, nVidia with their oversized gpus, cant. So, its a squeeze play brought on by ATI. This was all planned, and so were several models by a certain person whom has been the main componant behind AMDs resurgence.

Its just a shame that people dont recognize the situation nVidia is in. Anylists saying theyre a company in transition, and forced into that by their own decisions and Intels decisions as well, meanwhile getting squeeezed by ATI, their competition.

Where they didnt have as much competition, they opted out, and their influence is waining
June 20, 2009 7:07:14 PM

As I see it, Nvidia's problem is that their history has been based on throwing more and more transistors at graphics performance, whereas ATI's current GPUs seem to get substantially more useful work per transistor. Nvidia can't make their chips much larger due to cost and power constraints, so that means the only route forward is a substantial redesign to improve efficiency.

Nvidia can still produce the fastest discrete GPUs, but with ATI selling viable competitors at what must be a substantially lower cost, they've got to be suffering (not to mention their problems with defective chips recently). The IGP market has low profit margins, but can bring in a substantial amount of revenue... losing that would be a substantial hit to their bottom line.

In addition, there are plenty of people in the IT industry who will be glad to see Nvidia go down, so they can't expect too many favors if they're in trouble.
June 20, 2009 7:47:50 PM

Really many people here sayed that Amd can't compete with Intel.

While Intel Cpu's perform better (and cost Intel less) Amd cpu's are priced in a way that they can totally compete to a similar priced Intel component.

The X3 720 is a really good gaming+alround cpu for so little money I don't really see a good option on the Intel side an that price point.

The 940 also is very cheap, it is a black edition and overclocks good. Maybe if you take certain Intel Cpu's and overclock them to the limit you get higher performance (for the same money) BUT at stock which is more important for the mainstream users the 940 beets the C2Q.

Amd has Two major problems (Cpu): It doesn't earn enough money per CPU (really big problem)

AND they can't compete in the high end segment.

The future for Amd doesn't look to good. Intel will be releasing the Core I5/3/7 (whatever) and take over some of Amd marketshare.

They only way for Amd to stay in the buisiness is to offer their Cpu's for a very low price. Sale numbers may be O.K but in the long run they will run out of money.

I Hope they will have a great comeback with a Super CPU but it doesn't really look that well for Amd (and all consumers)

June 20, 2009 10:34:22 PM

wasteoftime said:
What? I don't know anyone that worships Nvidia because of a nForce 4 or because of an Athlon64. However, I do know an awful lot of people that like to use the Nvidia GPU to fold, game, and run reliably. When is the last time ATi pumped out a card that wasn't an absolute power hog, had reliable drivers, and didn't have issues with temperature beastly temps? I can't remember. The drivers DO get ironed out eventually. Regardless, who are the reliable ATi vendors again? What sort of service do they offer? If you want to get into semantics of why Nvidia has a following its because their vendors are better, their cards are better, they're better for the tweaking crowd and they support a lot of game development. Sli has almost always been a better solution than Crossfire (remember the dongle?), I could go on and on. I used to be a huge ATi fanboy, but they've done a lot to lose my support in the last three years. I'm glad it looks like they might be competitive again somehow, but if they don't get their act together Nvidia will probably swallow them up in the next generation or two.

On another note, AMD can't compete with Intel anymore and it's obvious they're not even really trying at this point. When is the last time you saw an AMD processor and went "oh, that looks good". Compared to a Core 2 system there's no reason to even try to go Phenom much less when you compare a Phenom to an i7. What exactly is AMD doing to compete other than applauding when Intel has the EU trying to rape them? All this media speculation about how AMD in returning to the game, or how they're getting better means nothing unless it's actually backed up by something other than hype. There's absolutely no compelling reason to go AMD over Intel unless you're one of those nerds that likes to whine about competition and how it'll benefit you in the long run. Until there is an actual compelling reason for a consumer to choose AMD they might as well just sit in the corner and pray they don't get crushed. It's not competition for Intel if there are no good products in the line and AMD hasn't been a viable competitor for almost three years.


*cough cough cough*

Crikey, so much Intel-nV fanboyness there I almost suffocated. :ouch: 
June 21, 2009 12:10:40 AM

wasteoftime said:
The 9400 outclasses the 940. It's a better part, lower temps, solid performer overall. The Q8400 (sorry about mixing the number up before) is a part that might not perform better stock but overclocks better (the Q8400 is still about equivalent without the OC and I'm talking relatively). The price drop AMD had to make in order to make the 940 price competitive shouldn't be ignored either.

...


O really? Where are your benchmarks, because...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=10

says that the 940 trades blows with the 9550 and at worst equates to the 9400/9450.
a b à CPUs
June 21, 2009 12:35:08 AM

B-Unit said:
O really? Where are your benchmarks, because...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=10

says that the 940 trades blows with the 9550 and at worst equates to the 9400/9450.


Geez! Then maybe AMD ought to raise the price by $20 or so. Seems like the only thing that would change is they'd make more money.

Right?

June 21, 2009 12:40:27 AM

*SHRUG* I dont pretend to understand marketing or economics. I just have to assume that they didn't come out of the gate loosing money on every PII x4.
a b à CPUs
June 21, 2009 12:49:37 AM

B-Unit said:
*SHRUG* I dont pretend to understand marketing or economics. I just have to assume that they didn't come out of the gate loosing money on every PII x4.


Well, then you should at least consider that AMD doesn't see much significance in that benchmark you posted?

June 21, 2009 12:57:34 AM

I guess I dont follow you here. At $215 (on newegg anyhow) the 940 sits in a good place vs the 9400 and 9550 (both listed at $230)
!