READ this- all the hype

Hmmmm dont mean to go off on a rant? it saddens me, from the few post i have read here in the last 30 mins all i see is a bunch of unloyal nvidia fans. in the quest for more and more speed when is enough enough? i say never, to a point however, sometimes to much of a thing can be just as bad. the expectations of we consumers has reached a point that soon no manufacter will be able to atain our wants, then what? in truth, it really angers me when i buy a $200.00/$400.00 video card and 3/6 months later it's old and out dated. what everyone should truely be addressing is SCALAIBILITY not "video card bick lighters". listen up ati and nvida this one is for both of you, learn from AMD---> SCALABILITY. why in this present economy whould i want to replace a video card that just one year ago was top dog, with another top dog that now, is in turn out dated with in 6 mos?

lets review what's really going on here between ati and nvidia. a while back a much loved (or hated in some cases i suppose) company went under called 3dfx, bought up by? nvidia. how long ago was that? over 3 years or so ago. since then nvidia has been building the best looking and fastest video cards for the consumer market, here i will insert a comment from

" Lesson to be learned : 3Dfx thought that gamers were more interested in frames per second than quality 3D acceleration effects. Conversely, graphics chip companies like Nvidia felt that fps wasn't as important as allowing gamers to see graphics in as much quality as they desired. Who was right? Well, let's put it this way; the 3Dfx company was sold out to Nvidia."

seems funny to this reader that in appearance f/p/s is all many of you care to care about? 8 mos ago gforce4 was still king and eveyone was happy. then came the radeon 9000() series, and well, seem'd the grass is greener on the ati side of the fence for some of you. well i will stick to my guns and have a good laugh when nvida comes charging back on the sceen and all the 9000()series ati people will wish they'd of waited. take for example the amd/intel processor war. who is back on top now? intel. and the way it appears with the advent of hyper threading, its gonna stay that way for a while. not to mention the present amd processor has reached its end of SCALABILITY (but a 5 year run? wow). oh and btw i run an athlon xp2500 barton and love it.

after being involved in this crazy world of pc marketing as a consumer for the past 8 years one thing i've come to learn is you cant win all the time.

on a final note, i do send praise to ati for FINALLY making a decent graphics chip, must of really sucked being on the bottom for so long. remember, when your on top someones always gunning for ya. live it up while ya can ati, nvidia will be back very soon and then what? guess i went off on a rant :)
39 answers Last reply
More about read this hype
  1. *ducks*

    <b>If it aint broke, then hell, you aint looking at it in the right frame of mind!</b>
  2. hey come back to the real world buddy lol;)

    My computer NEVER cras...DOH!.
  3. you know darn well i speak the truth and after all thats what fourms are for :)
  4. lol yea but thats human nature.. always asking for more. If there wasnt any windows after 95 then we'd all still be running fine on out pentium I and K6-2s. It's like a vicious circle Newer games demand more hardware so there is the need for new crap.
    and hey btw I think youre right my mx runs even ut2003 at very playable rates but seeing all the People rant about the eye candy in the games makes me want more :D. And like Doom III everybody here is discussing about how it tuns on the r9700s and 4600s OH MY GOD if it doesnt run on my mx then Carmack can go kiss my ugly behind but i'm not upgradin till i beat the hell out of my new system like i did to my previous sys. It had a 2mb pci card so it couldnt run any new games so the hell with it i wont play!

    My computer NEVER cras...DOH!.
  5. maybe i wasnt as clear as i should have been. scalability would solve that problem (new games ect.) i mean do you realize that the average gpu contains more transistors than the average cpu. and ill bet a 1 gig duron will run any normal app/game thats out at present. it's seems strange to me that more people don't demand more longivity from their products. lets say you buy a new graphics card each year at an average of $300.00 over 5 years, man thats a new pc. i'd rather buy a new processor say every other year and just pay for an "upgrade" to my video card (swap out the gpu). i know many people that play and do the same things i do with my hot rod machine and they simply cant afford the "trick" parts. for me its a hobby, for others not. so i guess from your point of view you make lots of scence. that dont mean i gots ta like it. :)
  6. [Reply Rant]

    Isn't the answer obvious? Here's how it works.

    nVidia designs GPU. GPU is three generations ahead of current technology. nVidia sells production (3 generations removed from R&D) GPUs to board designers. Millions of consumer shell out billions of dollars for boards with said GPUs. nVidia mkes hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Six months later, nVidia releases next generation GPU to board manufacturers. Millions of consumer shell out billions of dollars for said GPUs. nVidia makes hundreds of millions of dollars. A few hundred thousand of those consumers ALSO bought the previous generation of GPU six months prior.

    Now, tell me you aren't really wondering why the industry works the way it does??? The product cycle generates billions of dollars anually into the coffers of graphics card manufacturers.

    Now, assume neither NVIDIA nor ATI is real eager to reduce their revenues. (Especially ATI, who has lost money for several years running...) Assume, also, that the board manufacturers like Xtasy, Sapphire, ASUS, and MSI are also perfectly content with the revenues they make off grahics cards. If they were to change to your system, I'll wager the graphics mainboards would run, ohh...$300 or so, and the GPU upgrade chips would still run, ohhhh, $500 or so. In other words, they're still gonna make what they make--dollars-wise.

    Don't think that I disagree with your sentiment, though. I have reached a point where I refuse to upgrade until new graphics cards are at least double the speed of my current graphics card. I refuse to spend big money for a 15-20% boost in speed. The problem is, the PC industry is all about planned obsolecence. Without it, PC's would cost about $5000 each and buying a new graphics card would be a seven or eight hundred dollar investment.

    Therein lies the reason why competition is SOOOOOOO important. It also shows why the two-party-system (giant corporation A vs. giant corporation B) is not really competition. When you have the A vs B (nVidia vs. ATI) system, the two companies play off one another, hedging their bets, trying to stay within 10-20% of each other, always afraid to really open the accelerator for fear the other guy has something better in the wings. Why do you think ATI's new R350 VPU is nothing more than a ramped up R300 with some hardware features enabled through drivers? That technology was already there, but they CHOSE not to enable it on the R300. Why do you think Intel had several Northwood cores previous to the 3.06 HT that had hyperthreading on the core, but it just wasn't enabled?

    It's all about strategic positioning, and not biting the hand that feeds. That's why true competition is the only answer, and it's also why I get so bent out of shape at fanboys who have "loyalties." We are consumers. We should buy the best value. Period. Doing so forces companies to give us better and better value. If SiS could hit the market with a GPU that blows away 9800 PRO, people will buy it. Three companies in real competition makes it virtually impossible for the strategic manipulating of the marketplace we continually see. We should root for this. We don't though. We choose sides as if these companies are somehow more than greedy, manipulative money-changers. We really are encouraging the process by not only feeding the machine, but by becoming a cog within it. Let's see how long ATI can hold onto their lead over nVidia. If they can extend their lead for one or two more years and put nVidia out of the GFX business, you will see product refreshes from ATI with nothing more than a 10-20% increase and a handful of new features. You will see ATI engaging in blatantly anti-competitive behavior, like building exclusive optimizations onto their boards and applying pressure on developers to implement those optimizations in order to "get the most" out of their product. Just like nVidia does.

    God it would be nice if SiS or Matrox or Trident or someone could jump into the fray with a real, bonafide contender. Xabre sucks. Parhelia is only good for 2D. What else is out there? Someone needs to step up and BE A MAN in the graphics arena.

    And BTW, I really WANT a 9800 PRO-256!

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  7. Well, said, Twitch. Nice reply rant.
  8. ---------------------------------
    Alpha 03 wrote:
    " Lesson to be learned : 3Dfx thought that gamers were more interested in frames per second than quality 3D acceleration effects. Conversely, graphics chip companies like Nvidia felt that fps wasn't as important as allowing gamers to see graphics in as much quality as they desired. Who was right? Well, let's put it this way; the 3Dfx company was sold out to Nvidia."

    Not sure if I can agree with that point. As I recall, 3dFX was the driving force behind Antialiassing and image quality, while Nvidia was going for rediculously high framerates.
    Didn't Nvidia only implement AA on the Geforce because of 3dFX's success? I could be remembering this wrong though, feel free to correct me. :)

    - Cleeve
  9. Quote:
    nvidia will be back very soon

    It really sounds to me like you are giving nVidia hope like a sage foreseeing the future.
    Well dude, go read both THG and Anandtech's reviews of the FX5600 Ultra and FX5200Ultra and come back telling me once again "Wait and see"...

    nVidia disappointed much more with the FX5600 Ultra's humiliating results, and are constantly losing trust in all of us, with any hope for any card we could buy from them. Once again, ATi will be the best purchase in the next 6 months, for sure. Any kind of <b>moron</b>, and I do outline MORON that still refuses to buy ATi in the mainstream and goes for the FX5600 Ultra, I swear, deserves to be beaten till he cries about being born. Then he can live on regretting his purchase.

    This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/11/03 04:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  10. Hey,

    Look I have a bit of a fundamental problem with the recent ATI cards. Granted ATI have the technological lead over Nvidia at present. However I find ATI's manufacturing tactics a little more than suspect.

    They seem to be letting extremely dubious, previously unheard of, manufacturers loose on their reference design. Sapphire Graphics (Russian??), Connect 3d (.....manufacturing outsourced to China), etc. What are the long term reliability of these products??? Nvidia on the other hand has some more reputable manufacturers on board, asus, gainward etc. I'm afraid the whole thing is typical of the pc industry at present, price-performance always wins over quality. I for one wouldn't mind paying a bit more for a quality product. I think because of this attitude we're left with a market with very few innovators (what ever happened to Matrox, S3, etc); it's why we're stuck with ATI and Nvidia.

    Before anyone mentions Hercules, the original company ceased to be many years ago; the current outfit seem just to be a faceless part of Gainward throwing out crappy product.

    ...........then again maybe I'm just paranoid...........
  11. I especially liked Twitch's post, but let me add something. If you get angry becuase your video card is outdated and obsolete after 3-6 months, then I'm sorry--the problem is not the industry, it's you. You've caught the upgrade fever. You feed on other posters' responses and hypes. You're impressionable. Now, I'm not trying to be mean, but take a good look at what video card you have. Geforce 3? Radeon 8500? Those ae still good cards that will play most any game on today's market without any problems. Heck, you'll still be ok with a Geforce4 MX-440. The point is, you don't need to get wrapped around the axle because you don't have a 9700pro. Don't get bummed because other people are pre-ordering 9800s. Don't get bummed because you don't have the best. You don't need the best. If you allow yourself to get angry because new technology comes out every few months, then you you need to step back and chill.

    Call me Caine.
  12. Roger that. Imagine if we upgraded the vehicles we drive each time a faste/better model was availible.

    The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it. <A HREF="" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
  13. Your point is excellent too. I have a GeForce 3 Ti500, and despite the fact that it's starting to show its age just a little bit, it still works in everything. Why would I shell out hard-earned cash for a Radeon 9800 PRO?

    Because I want one. I want one, but I will NOT preorder one for $399.99 just so I can say I had it first. Beyond that murmer of protest, I really will have no choice but to shell out way more money than I really want to--IF I want to satisfy my greedy urge for a high-end system by the time Doom 3 is released. Now, I know cards will come out in H2 '03 or H1 '04 that will blow my high-end system away. Will I complain?

    Well, maybe a little, but I won't be serious about it. Because I know how it works.

    I do think if there was a third legitimate competitor, graphics cards would improve even faster. Of course, that would piss SOME people off even more! Hehe!

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  14. ATi is now having a lot of nVidia's top suppliers. They have VisionTek WHICH WAS nVidia's TOP brand name, and yes it was reputable as you indicated for nVidia brands. They also have Hercules. They were close to getting MSI. They got Tyan, a renowned multiprocessor mainboard manufacturer. Believe me, they got a lot of known companies and are going for more if possible (MSI?). And since when is quality of any concern?
    Don't you know that the majority of the PBA (Powered by ATi, as in the brands other than ATi) cards ARE THE reference cards? In other words, manus only fit them with different HSF IF they desired (catering enthusiasts), and they customize their card outputs and inputs as well as make drivers for it, and give software suites. In other words, the majority of PBA cards are ATi cards, and since most of us would go for ATi's reference drivers on their website, then in other words you are simply paying for the extras of a PBA company at a nice price, and are getting the ATi quality.
    Now are you also going to charge on ATi's quality? I hope not, otherwise you'll have a lot coming at you!

    I for one wouldn't mind paying a bit more for a quality product.

    Forgive me for sounding harsh, but if you are so moronic that you would even buy an FX5600 Ultra, simply because it's quality, then, go read my reply in the official FX5600 review thread here, which is by Spitfire I believe. I have voiced a serious statement that is pretty harsh but IMO, any nVidiot deserves that. So I hope your position on ATi changes, because quality is now nearly as good as nVidia's and the millions are switching, and few are returning cards from ATi. I think you're only acting too insecure if you only think nVidia has the quality tag.

    Good luck dude.

    EDIT: After looking around, I just remembered, my harsh statement was actually in this thread lol...
    This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/11/03 10:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  15. to cleeve......... are you dense, thick, crowed together, stupid? you quoted me as saying something i didnt say. that quote you posted was the quote of another website read the artical. and the purpose of my post wasnt about who is better, but, rather how WE consumers are being riped off, sheesh. i'm no genius but most readers get my point why didnt you. get off the band wagon son and realize whats going on.

    (old person by trait)
  16. lol ne corridor are you a cave man or do you just play games that were made in 1990?

    (old person by trait)
  17. If you don't want a Sapphire or 3DConnect board, buy an ATI card. Just try and find an nVidia-brand-name graphics card out there. Aren't any, are there? That's one of the reasons nVidia's 2D quality tends to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. It all depends on the use of quality components--and where are the little places certain manufacturers skimp to save money. ATI has never been accused of using cheap components.

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  18. Yes, I am a cave man, and no, my games date back to 1991, mister. Jones In The Fast Lane is still one of my favorite games!

    Call me Caine.
  19. to twitch: i am so glad you got the jist of my post im not saying i too dont like the competition. what i am saying however, is that that it is unfair to corner a market (gaming) and then dictate what we as consumers will have to do to realize the true potential of the games released. (monoply) and no i do not have "upgrade fever" gf2 ultra here on a 2500 barton. i remember a time when ati couldnt tie their own shoe laces in the graphics world. and now because of a single chip set every ati owner (prob ex nvidia owner) is ready to kick the can and be happy. if you go to the nvidia site and read the news nvidia is going to present the fx line (except fx ultra) as a cost effective upgrade not a $400.00 temporary graphics eddition to suppliment the next era of ati gpu's, that truely, if truth be known is a copy of nvidia technology. its easy to be king for a day and run on the tail skirts of another but past history has shown that the masses are usally wrong. but then again that just my on a rant.

    (old person by trait)
  20. Hey Twitch, I didn't mean to come down hard on you like that. I was running a Geforce3 Ti200 last night and today, I'm running a softmodded 9500, so I kinda know how you feel. As for Doom 3, I don't mind running it with less eye candy--as long as it runs :p

    Call me Caine.
  21. Don't sweat it man. Everything you said was true! Maybe the gist of the whole thing is this: How far can you tolerate falling behind before you can't stand it anymore? Hell, my brother is running an Athlon 850 (yes the SLOT one) with a TNT2, and he loves it! The only games he plays are Motocross Madness 2 and Descent, and it's fine for him. He is totally disinterested in newer games. Says they're too complicated.

    So for him, upgrading once every ten years or so would probably be fine. On the other hand, I have an Athlon 1800+ with a GeForce 3 Ti500. For the last eighteen months or so, I have been perfectly content, but the success of the 9700 PRO and the upcoming processors from Intel have piqued my interest. When I'm ready to buy in May, the 9800 PRO will be in full production (theoretically) and that will be the card for me. I will throw down a painful amount of money and be good for the next eighteen months. Then I'll get the itch again.

    To me, the point of your post was: If you are an upgrade junky, that's your problem. Spend your money and don't complain. And you're right!

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  22. My dad's 64MB Geforce 2 Pro/Athlon 1200 manages to handle just about every game well, except NOLF2 because I insist on running it on medium detail (Geforce 3 recommended). THe system is eighteen months old, cost about $2000 CAD ($1300 US)originally and will be replaced with another machine in two months, so that machine becomes mine. If only it was more reliable. Oh well, I think the part that isn't reliable is one of the ones I wanted to replace anyway, for a several hundred I can pump that rig up to handle anything in the next year.
  23. yep you got it for the most part, with one exception: it would not be difficult for any graphics co. to implement the stratigy that amd took- scalabilty what i mean is why does any consumer need to replace his/her entire graphics card? what a company could do is to stream line the cards (a.k.a. look at a modern mobo) and allow us consumers to save a few bucks with an up-graded GPU and/or Memory. hmm can anyone say better games due to better coding? this would reduce cost to the consumer and slow down the market a little and let the cpu companies catch up to the graphics co. and show us what they really can do. as well it would allow the graphics card people to really make a quality next gen. product. this is just good business sence. if the pc market continues the way it is the only persons they will be able to cater to are ages 16-25, and well, we know what happens then. thanks for your comments everyone (most anyway) all i wanted to do was open your eyes to whats going on and a possible future. not f/p/s or "how fast" but the issue of quality and consumer fairness. thanx, A03

    (old person by trait)
  24. Alpha, write a Beta of this post.

    AMD has nearly reached the end of the 32 bit core (3200+ is just around the corner if the game developers conf. is a preview), but just in time for the Clawhammer and Opteron (formerly Sledgehammer) 64bit procs. AMD also is working with IBM to make the next gen. chips. Now he question of who is 'winning' the war depends on how you look at it, the cheaper $/power of AMD helped them increase their sales and market share this past year; and at who's expense? Intel.
    As for ATI, what are you talking about scalability for?
    Ati and Nvidia are coming out with similar cores, just chosing different methods to launch them. Ati is using an efficient processor on the value cores, whihc is a smart move to perfect the 0.13 cores. Nvidia bet it all on the 0.13 and they are being handed their hat in the performace ring. The true advance in the last year was not 0.13 process, not DDRII, but 256 bit memory, it seems to have made all the difference and allows an older process to still beat the new 'problematic' process of Nvidia.
    Now I think NVIDIA has a marketing and maybe sales winner in the 5200 core, because they can promote cheap DX9, which is a little bit better performer than the 9000/9200 (9100?, no comparison I've read yet). Now that will help Nvidia sales if they market them right.
    You obviously like NVIDIA, however the reality is that an imperfect new technology does not beat a perfected older technology, and you learn just as much from the failings of others, as if they were your own, the only difference being YOU didn't spend all the R&D money and a complete production cycle trying to perfect a virtually untested technology on your marquee card, only to receive lackluster results/reviews, and lose some credability in the process.
    I think NEITHER ATI nor NVIDIA will really be hurt in the long run, however people like SIS and MATROX are hurtin' a little more, and their future in the gaming market is in question, will the XABRE II bring something to the table, or are SIS and Matrox headed for the fate of Cyrix?

    ANYWHOO, while you might derride the FPS leader, it is also the QUALITY leader, so people are rightly jumping ship.
    The main thing is to buy the BEST you can, who cares about being 'UNLOYAL' unless you own their stocks then what have they done for YOU lately? Oh wait that's right MATROX sent me a gold-plated monitor cable, re-stocked my fridge, and contributed to my RRSP. :tongue: Simple buy, the best for you money, that runs the stuff you wanna run now and in the future. The quick turn-over of technology and card leaders/winners is GREAT. Nothig is better for the consumer, it only hurts people who try to use their 3dMark scores as some sort of stamp of superiority. Give me newest/fastest/best, not simply what ONE maker feels I need.
    I already have one 800lb deaf Gorilla in the OS market, I don't need one in the Graphics card market.

    PS I'm still waiting for a card that lets me play Tetris at 1600x1200x128bit with 8x AA 8X AF at 1000+FPS MMmmmm, It looks like a Lava Lamp DUDE!

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  25. Well, it sounds like you're suggesting that the GPU / Graphics Card model would work better if it was like the current CPU / Motherboard model. Perhaps where I'm getting confused is with your suggestion that processor scalability is somehow an AMD concept. If you're referring to the fact that AMD stays with a core design longer than Intel, I suppose you're technically correct, though I might add that a KT133 motherboard is not exactly the chipset of choice any more. Core logic is continually improved, just as processor speed is improved. Sure, I suppose you could run an Athlon XP 2700+ on a KT133 motherboard, but only at the expense of a substantial loss of performance. On most older motherboards, you would have to underclock the processor! So I think AMD's scalability is a bit overrated if you are thinking the graphics segment should work the same way--with replaceable GPUs. Also, I don't know if nVidia--or anyone else, for that matter--would want to implement that idea. Both ATI and nVidia are able to exert much more influence over board manufacturers under the current system, meaning they can insist on certain levels of quality. Have AMD motherboards historically been known for their quality and stability (until recently, that is?) And, like I said in my previous post, you would still end up having to spend the same amount of money.

    You also have to understand the logistics of what you're proposing. I don't know if it would really be practical in the final analysis. nVidia is not designed to distribute product to 25,000 seperate distributors. They distribute their chips in bulk to builders. The builders then assemble the cards using nVidia's reference design, and assume full liability for warranty claims, etc. As such, nVidia already makes ONLY GPUs. Instead of having to deal with Joe Retailer, though, nVidia gets all the benefits of letting someone else do that. When it comes time to overhaul a product line, nVidia spends a minimal amount of money advertising. Why? Because the board manufacturers do 80% of the marketing and all the distributing. If they did it your way, nVidia would have to revamp their distributorship channels, market their product themselves, and deal with a lot of overhead they can now circumvent. Why do you think ATI is making fewer and fewer complete cards themselves? They also see the benefits of being a chip manufacturer, rather than a board manufacturer. Have you noticed that nVidia has been profitable each of the last several years or so, while ATI has consistently been losing money? So which company's operational philosophy is more sound?

    So while there may be benefits to the consumer for doing what you suggest, there is no perceptible benefit to nVidia. If nVidia did suddenly have to absorb the additional overhead for building, marketing, and distributing their GPUs, the price would go up anyway.

    Look, I'm sure there is a reality wherein your idea would function. I'm not saying it's a dumb idea. However, it is contrary to current market reality.

    My original point still stands: What possible incentive would nVidia or ATI have for doing business that way? Even if it benefits the away product for free would also benefit the consumer, but it wouldn't keep the company that does it in business very long.

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 03/12/03 01:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  26. Want Longevity? I can sell you a 486SX if you want, how about $500, I'll spend it on a new XP2000+ system ($399). What about a PC XT?
    You can continue playing Temple of Apshi, SpaceQuest or Leisure Suit Larry for as long as there's electricty.
    Thank god the technology progresses, it's not like they rust out with cars, it's that we YEARN for all the features. Some of us have good jobs to pay for them too, it keeps others employed as well.
    Once we have a working, energy efficient Quantum computer, then I'll say we can stop. Until then Progress ho'.

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  27. Twitch, just one little quibble.

    The PC industry isn't about planned obselecence so much as forced innovation. The Auto industry is driven more by planned obsolesence, they could make a car that never rusted, had a tougher powertrain, etc. but then again they WOULD lose millions of consumers in just years. Whereas the thing that drives the PC busniness right now is that ONLY the most recent computers run THIS app. THIS well; so if you ain't got X technology you can't run it, watch it, do it, and by extension you are current, efficient or most important, COOL.
    Granted alot of the releases of new technology are maticulously scheduled as to not overlap too much, and too not 'expire' before recouping most of their R&D costs. However they will always be pushed by competitors and potential new entrants.
    Anywhoo, not really a criticism just something that always bothered me in Business (I'm an Econ. man) was that they used computers as planned obselencence when in fact obsolesence isn't so much planned as a by-product of planned technology domination. Yes it's nit picking but since this thread really questions, 'WHY newer, faster, etc.' Well the reason is simple, the market/demand exists for it.

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  28. Both NVIDIA and ATI have different groups of makers. Ever heard of FORSA (NVIDIA)? Ati USE to be the red-headed stepchild and had to pick the leftovers of oem card makers, but now people are defecting TO Ati. Also ATI only recently started making the majority of their GPU availible to OEMs, they were more RETAIL oriented before and Nvidia DOESN'T make a RETAIL product so you are stuck with someone else's take on Nvidia's GPU, so it's really not an even comparrison. You're really talking ancient history (graphics market-wise, not geologically).
    Where is MATROX? Where have YOU been? Triple-headed gaming is their technological innovation, less than a year old.
    The problem is that the NON-gaming GPU makers really are competing one or two product lines behind. The Parahellia is a GOOD DX8 card, but not GREAT, and definitely NOT in the league of the current DX9 cards. However the fact that they realeased a product put a chill into ATI and NVIDIA while it was only a paper release (the specs sounded good at the time), however the hard realease didn't really live up to the anticipation; where have I heard that before?

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  29. So youre' saying my NEOmagic 2.5 mb is ok? :tongue:

    I have Wildcat/Quadro/FireGL Envy!

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  30. Point well-taken. In fact, I was trying to point out the sound economic reasoning behind...well...the computer industry as a whole. You summed to up pretty well with your supply and demand reference.

    I think the computer industry is somewhere in between supply/demand models and planned obsolescence, and it is precisely because there really is not a lot of competition between corporate giants. You can buy any of twenty different kinds of cars that perform very well, but how many processors can you buy? There are many makers of monitors, but how many makers of 3D graphics chips? Where there is less competition, you will always see these sorts of "incremental upgrades." The less competition, the slower the upgrades. Think of it like this:

    Let's say you designed a processor that was fully x86 compatible and would run on any AMD-compatible platform. It is exactly as fast as a Barton core, clock cycle-for-clock cycle. So, you somehow obtain the $3 billion or so in start-up capital to build a fab and make your new processor. And your very first prototypes run stably at 6.5 gigahertz! Some tweaking and modifying gets you to 7.0 gigahertz! Supercooling yields a whopping 8.0 gigahertz! There's your headroom!

    Now, you begin mass production on your new processor, preparing to shock the world with your awesome new product and make billions of dollars and claim market-share. Are you going to release your new processor as a Apeware 6.5 gigahertz?

    Not if you're smart! The first processor you release would run at 4.0 gigahertz! Think of the marketing! 60% faster than a P4 3.06! 65% faster than an Athlon 3000+!

    Now, you can ramp the same r&d investment over the next couple years or so, raking in the money and the market share while your R&D department carefully gives you a two or even three generation cushion for the year 2005 and beyond.

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  31. Ati copying NVIDIA's technology? What did NVIDIA invent in the field sofar other than the apartment grade computer heater?

    The 0.13 process came from the CPU makers, DDRII came from people like ATI who, just to enlighten you have DDRIII maped, and as for DX9, everyone is basically trailing Matrox in that respect, then ATI, and LAST to the table NVIDIA. Nvidia is probably THE largest R&D boy in the cramped room, however it's not like they are changing how we view physics, the way the people in the CPU, Mainboard and Memory fields are.
    Props to Nvidia for bringing the 0.13 process to the GPU first, however I think the problems they have had with it shadow those kudos.
    You claim that you do not favour one mfr. over another, yet your posts do nothing but try to prop up Nvidia at Ati's expense, even with indirect comments about 'riding coattails'. The Reality is that ALOT of Nvidias current technology came from the brains of former 3dfx workers, so Nvidia isn't immune to that. ALSO ATI hasn't just been king for a day, it's been about 8 months now, and the whole time everyone held their breath for the appearance of the FX which was to change the gaming world forever and crush all comers. Well to say that it didn't live up to that is an understatement. And while the MAtrox card may have been technologically more advanced, the Gf4s moped the floor with them, so what does that say about being the 'coolest' technology?

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  32. Yeah...and ATI is going to continue being king for at least a few more months. nVidia is going to have to do some serious hustling to regain their former stature. We will now see how far advnaced nVidia's R&D was, and if they truly are innovators in the 3D industry, like they once were.

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  33. Twitch, what you don't think IBM, Motorola, Crusoe-Transmeta and Sun (for how much longer} are good chip makers? :tongue:
    I see what your saying, but I'm not really sure if the number of competitors is as big a deal as the fierceness of that comeptition. Look at AMD vs Intel, and ATI vs Nvidia, both of those companies drive each other because they REALLY want to crush each other, yes there are 2nd class competitors, but who cares really? The fact that 20 people compete in the monitor market means nothing if the tubes and LCD are still all made by just 2 companies who really don't care about grinding each other down. Heck Phillips, Samsung and Hitachi have called a truce in LCD making. Otherwise we might see OLED desktop motniors by Q2 of '04.
    I really don't mind just the two main competitors in both of those markets, as they REALLY compete hard, I don't know of ANY other markets that are that competitive that involve mfr. processes and R&D.
    As for releasing APEWARE, funny you should say that as I'm typing on my 'APE-PAD' 390E, that's pretty much what I was saying however, the TRUELY revolutionary designs don't really come by that quick, and usually don't come from the chip makers. If it were ME and I were smart (now that assumes alot!) then my truely BEST strategy would be to licence the technology and it's use to the big boys (I don't need a plant or a staff) and then get royalties from all things that come from it. The thing would be thatthere is almost always someone else out there who is just about as smart and is thinking of a better mousetrap. Yes, marketing and slow release is common, but still the other guy's R&D makes sure that the delayed-release isn't as slow as other fields such as pharma. One problem is that without that 'excess profits' you don't necessarily recoup the R&D dollars or the money needed to go to the NEXT brilliant idea, or in my case, to buy the next SKI RESORT! :cool:
    I think you WILL se planned obsolesence once you see the quantum computers as then, you will truely have reached a 'only marginal gain' point where people will not need to upgrade. It will be very car-ind.-like.

    Anywhoo, just my two loonies worth.

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  34. Well, obviously the Apeware analogy was an exageration designed to make a point. Most of my points were designed to prove the following premise--competition is good--but sometimes I think it is not as "fierce" as you maintain. It is fierce in the sense that both companies are trying to win out and gain market share, but it doesn't always mean we are getting the most advanced product from those companies. For example, ATI left a few features dormant on R9700 PRO. Why? Because they could handily beat Ti4600 without those features enabled, and they knew they could enable those features later, ramp up VPU speed, and call it an R350. It's more powerful, certainly, but it really only serves the purpose of clearly distinguishing ATI as the performance king in all disciplines. It's not that much faster than a 9700 PRO. In other words, ATI was intentionally throttling back the 9700 PRO because they didn't want to go too far ahead. I mean, why would they? R300 had nVidia whooped. ATI probably prefers to see NV30, rather than if they had forced nVidia to abandon NV30 and go straight to NV35. Do you get what I'm saying? Leave yourself some headroom, it'll be there when you need it.

    I ackowledge that the strategy exists, and that it is, in reality, sound business practice. The competition is fierce, but highly controlled. And you are right--competition is the catalyst. In fact, you could probably make a case that nVidia is now trailing ATI because they got a little bit fat and lazy from having so little competition over the last few years.

    <-----Insert witty sig line here.
  35. Sorry to convey the wrong impression, I agree, they are holding back a BIT, but not ALOT. Leaving a few items dormant is different than delaying the release of a whole line or product for the same reasons. That's the thing. I agree they could do more, but compared to almost every other industry, these two are pretty fierce IMO. But then again, I've seen them all from OPEC to the Pharma. industry.
    Just think if the computer industry had the patent mess that the pharmas do we'd still be running 386s like we said before.
    The thing I like about this industry is that the technology leader doesn't produce as much physical product as many others, but patents more innovations, ideas, etc. than any other company on the planet. And that's IBM. GE is #2. IBM basically discovers the thing then they licence it to others. They profit and then a bunch of others make it into the best retail version of the technology. Minimum production risk to IBM, but maximum R&D risk.
    In the end we basically agree about the playing field, just differ on our take of the exact skew.

    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
  36. --------------------------
    By Alpha 03:
    to cleeve......... are you dense, thick, crowed together, stupid? you quoted me as saying something i didnt say. that quote you posted was the quote of another website read the artical. and the purpose of my post wasnt about who is better, but, rather how WE consumers are being riped off, sheesh. i'm no genius but most readers get my point why didnt you. get off the band wagon son and realize whats going on.

    Holy $hit, man. Take some kind of pill and relax.

    My point was, I didn't agree with the assertion. You obviously agreed with the assertion because you chose to reprint it.

    Good lord, do you tear into everybody who respectfully disagrees with you like that? God forbid I should have an opinion, you self righteous jacka$$.
  37. Ape, I was going to post something not quite as long as that, but pretty much the same opinion. I dont know entirely though, I read the first long one, then I saw a page still full of text. My eyes then glazed over and I fell on the floor twitching with the overload.

    Hopefully there isnt something hidden in there about loving boy bands or drinking 3 day old coffee. If nothing of the sort is in there, then I believe I agree completely. Maybe I will print it out and read it when I predict a rather lengthy stay in the bathroom.


    Ray Charles is my co-pilot
  38. cleave; the reason for the reply in such a manner was to inform you in the same maner, you used to wrongfully quote me as saying such. the quote i used was clearly posted as the quote and opinion of someone else and i gave that author the credit, not myself. the sole reason for that quote was to reflect on how and why nvidia is failing and why ati is gaining respect. if your going to quote someone do it correctly. im sorry if you feel abused.

    (old person by trait)
  39. ---------------------
    By Alpha 03:
    im sorry if you feel abused.

    Apology accepted.
    Kudos for admitting your mistake!

    - Cleeve
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics