Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia and ATI have competition coming...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 14, 2003 2:53:03 PM

Check this out...S3 hops into the mix. Great for price competition. Maybe someday high end graphics cards will be affordable for everyone.

http://theinquirer.org/?article=8303



Insert_ending_here,
TKS
March 14, 2003 3:17:15 PM

They sure talk a good game, but are they ever going to deliver any actual products?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by RAIN_KING_UK on 03/14/03 12:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 14, 2003 4:35:59 PM

Watch out for SIS also. They have some pretty nice cards in the pipeline.

Call me Caine.
Related resources
March 14, 2003 5:10:24 PM

Really? What? Do tell!



<-----Insert witty sig line here.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
March 14, 2003 7:26:16 PM

I think he's refering to the Xabre II, and from what I've seen of the specs, it's not 'NICE' it's simply adequate, and way below the high end of ATI and Nvidia, more along the lines of Nv and Ati's X600 series (5600 & 9600).

The XabreII needs a MUCH faster VPU to take advantage of 256bit DDRII.

- 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
March 15, 2003 12:56:10 AM

Their previous Xabre cards have sacrificed a LOT of image quality for speed. Yet they still couldn't keep up. People say ATI has better image quality than nVidia, which is true, but you have to closely look at specific parts of an image to see it. With Xabre, it's pretty obvious, even to the untrained eye.


<-----Insert witty sig line here.
March 15, 2003 1:06:27 AM

If you wonder why certain members here don't get real excited by the Xabre II hype, here's the conclusion from a review of the Xabre 600 at [H]ardOCP:

Quote:
All of that being said, I really cannot recommend this card to anyone that would read this website; it is not for us. Performance is below that of an 8500LE and image quality is horrible. However, this video card DOES have a market for some people, believe it or not. Casual gamers who do not play a lot of current generation games or do not have wads of cash to spend may find a home for one of these cards. Business users at the office who don’t want to be caught gaming much might want to purchase one of these.

Pretty sad considering the card shipped for them to test was overclocked beyond the retail specs and came with 2.8 ns RAM as opposed to the 3.3 slated to come on retail cards. In other words, they cheated outrageously and the card still sucked!

They also said, "The Xabre 600 comes chock full of meaningless marketing buzz words that do not help its performance or image quality one bit."

So, forgive me if I'm not all hot-and-bothered by the Xabre II hype. Although I will say I hope it's awesome! It would be great to see a three-way battle for graphics supremacy.

<-----Insert witty sig line here.
March 15, 2003 4:52:49 PM

i think that its just wishful thinking on SIS's part... remember matrox?
March 16, 2003 1:52:47 AM

I'd have to agree with you there...matrox was a big arse balloon full of..uh..crap? it couldn't be hot air because when you are cold hot air is nice. The matrox card sux all the time so I'd have to go with crap for my comparison. But alas, it did provide a bit of a buzz and god knows that it can drive down prices of cards we actually DO want.

Bottom line is, if the stock market can be affected by something as small as the 'worry' of war and have oil prices drive up to over 40 dollars a gallon (even though there is no shortage) then the reverse should be true as well. If there's a good buzz on this card it may drive some prices down on the good cards. I'll keep my fingers crossed. But really, how much better can I get than an ATI 9700 Pro?

Insert_ending_here,
TKS
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2003 3:55:20 AM

I'm hoping the Delta Chrome fails miserably. If it were any other company than VIA, I'd be rooting for them. Isn't Trident still working on a new card? Matrox made a run for it not too long ago and failed, maybe they're up for another attempt? And SiS, well, given their miserable history in the graphics industry, I'd love to see them suceed, but definately won't be buying their first sucessfull product.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 16, 2003 6:30:14 AM

Do you have something against VIA? Because that´s quite a dumb statement.

Quote:
Matrox made a run for it not too long ago and failed, maybe they're up for another attempt?

Parhelia2 even made it to tape-out, but Matrox canned the chip.

<font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
March 16, 2003 4:03:16 PM

Suffice to say i hope this will bring prices down during the summer so the AIW9700 comes within my reach ;) 

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2003 6:32:07 PM

I have a lot against VIA. While I could probably go on a 1000 line rant, I don't feel like taking the time, so here's an abreviated list, starting with the oldest:

1.) MVP3 incompatable with my TNT2-Ultra. This issue took over 2 years to solve, with VIA issuing various BIOS microcode updates and driver revisions. The same board couldn't share any IRQs for any of my cards, forcing me to manually configure every IRQ for every slot.
2.)KT133, announced as supporting 133MHz bus, didn't, so VIA changed the written spec, but I already owned a board. Tired of my SB AWE64, put in an Aureal Vortex 2, never worked right due to VIA PCI latency issue.
3.)Upgraded to KT266 and SB Live. Drive data kept corrupting. Eventually found to be another problem with the PCI latency bug, this is a widely known issue with the 686B southbridge.

My biggest problem with VIA over the above issues is that they denied those problems existed, forcing me to think I was doing something wrong! The issues became well known AFTER I owned the parts, yet VIA continued to deny they existed when caught red handed. Now on to more recent things:

Loaded 98SE on an Apollo Pro 133 board, everything worked OK, tried loading VIA 4-in-1 drivers, resulting in system unrecoverable. Reformated drive, tried again, different version of 4-in-1, system unrecoverable again. Gave up on 4-in-1's on that system and sold it with Windows 98 default drivers.

Decided to go with Abit's SiS 735 board for the AMD system. Abit dropped the board when VIA threatened to short supply chipsets to any manufacturer who also carried the SiS 735. In America we call this extortion.

VIA stole P4 bus from Intel. I wouldn't have too much against them if this was standard industry practice, but the fact that SiS sells their P4 chipsets for LESS than VIA while offering better compatability, stability, and features, AND paying $6 a chipset royalties to Intel, means VIA is competing unfairly with SiS once again.

What we have here is a company that steals technology (more examples are available), uses "anti-competitive business practices" that are illegal in the U.S., and takes great pleasure in screwing the end user. They are #1 on my shitlist, Creative is #2.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2003 6:45:06 PM

Quote:
Do you have something against VIA? Because that´s quite a dumb statement.

Well, that's also quite a dumb statement if made before you had knowledge of whether or not my "something against VIA" was a legitimate reason to boycott them.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 16, 2003 7:43:03 PM

Right on, Crash! VIA sucks, always has sucked, and, barring a collective full-frontal lobotomy, always will suck. I really don't care anymore if they win benchmarks. What good is it for my board to be capable of running X% faster than a competitor's if I also spend hours and hours trying to decipher random instability issues? I have a VIA KT266A motherboard now, and I will say that after the initial 6 or 7 hours of trying to get it running, it has been pretty stable. But now that nVidia and SiS are hitting the core logic market HARD, I don't think I will ever feel compelled to buy VIA agian.

It would be a LOT different if VIA had screwed up in the past and then did everything possible to try to fix the problem. But they don't. They deny, deny, deny.

Hell, the VIA Latency Patch that fixes some of VIA's more idiotic problems WASN'T EVEN WRITTEN BY VIA! It was written by an enthusiast in Europe, (IIRC) and VIA only recently began to acknowledge the existence of this patch.

It almost makes you feel bad for AMD that VIA was the performance leader in Athlon chipsets for so long. Nothing on earth would have discouraged a potential AMD buyer faster than hearing of the nearly universal problems with VIA motherboards. AMD couldn't even think of stepping into the office environment with VIA. No IT Supervisor worth his salt would have willingly take on those kinds of instability issues in mission-critical environments.

nForce2 is the best thing ever to happen to AMD. I usually root for as many competitors as possible in a free-market, but I tend to think the market would be better without VIA.

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


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 03/16/03 04:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2003 8:39:10 PM

Yes, if VIA simply disappeared, SiS would take their place in some areas, nVidia in others, and ALi would be the next underdog to take up the challenge.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 16, 2003 10:30:46 PM

Twitch I respect you a lot for your usual unbiased views, and open minded criticism. But this IMO reeks of closed-mindedness. I understand that Crashman works with refurbished parts, often old, which makes his experience with VIA, being with their past crapworks. Had he worked in a new shop dealing with KT400As, he'd not be saying the same, I am sure.

I think that while yes, VIA is not a good performance competitor anymore, to just look at them as a "STILL UNSTABLE" chipset manufacturer, and repel any possibilities of them becoming better, is rather short of your kind. My KT266A, unlike yours, is stable, no problems there. Most KT333 owners have had no problems, and pretty much any future chipsets from them seem to be up there finally.

You are of course entitled to not wanting to buy from them, hey, we all are, since they no longer compete well. But if they did become leader again and you had shown such prejudice just because of past experience while they had finally put their feet straight, you'd be alienating ATi as well, lest becoming a hypocrite.

--
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 03/16/03 07:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 16, 2003 11:30:46 PM

Eden:

Any respect is mutual. That being said, I did place a condition there in my gripe: If VIA had done everything possible to fix their problems, it would be different. However, they have not shown the tendency to do so in the past. ATI, on the other hand, used to have many issues with their drivers--but they always did what they could to fix the problems, and I never heard ATI denying that a problem existed. There was that ONE time that ATI created the Quake-enhancing drivers for 8500, which I found disconcerting, but slap their hand and it's over. In fact, when you get down to it, EEEVERYBODY has occasional problems and once those problems become public, whichever company created the problem hustles to fix it as quickly as possible--all except VIA, that is. They are the only company I can think of who repeatedly denies that THEIR core logic could be flawed, even when there is NO other possible conclusion.

VIA has shown that their philosophy is to ALWAYS blame someone else for their screw-ups, thereby screwing the customer.

I also am well aware that VIA has fixed many of their stability issues. I run a KT266A, and other than problems during the initial setup, it has been stable. I said that. The thing is, what will VIA do the NEXT time they screw up?

If their past history is any indicator, they will point their collective finger at someone else while they quietly revise their chipset in an attempt to fix the problem.

I have owned six VIA motherboards. The first one was because I was ignorant. The second--and all the ones since then--have been because I've been using AMD processors. With the exception of #6, my Soyo Dragon Plus, all of the VIA boards I've owned have been nightmares. I was actually afraid to buy new components, because there was some kind of conflict virtually every time. So, yes, I am prejudiced. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me. Screw me seven times---?

If VIA does truly get their collective act together, this fact will be born-out in benchmarks and the reviews of various pundits. If VIA demonstrates they can consistently produce stable, higher-performing core logic, I will probably buy from them again. However, the way things are looking now, it won't be necessary to go with VIA.

<-----Insert witty sig line here.
March 17, 2003 11:26:59 AM

I apologize Crash, I´m just tired of hearing "VIA sucks"-preaching without anyone backing up their opinion, but it seems you have good reason to be pissed off at VIA.

Personally I´ve only used two of their chipsets, KT133 and KT333A, and I haven´t had any major problems.

<font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
!