I would say that the three things that nVidia invested in that I see failing is CUDA, PhysX, and those lame ass 3d glasses. Other then that the companies been doing fairly well except for their cards being HTPC friendly in that department ATI takes the cake but I think DX11 from ATI might be the big turn around that we have been waiting for, ATI made some decent ground with the 4k series but I think the 5k series will be a big turning point. At least I hope so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vergil_117 View Post
wuyanxu ATI releasing a DX11 card (if) at Win7's release wont really do much damage to NVIDIA since there is 0 DX11 games being released and most sane people don't go out and get a brand new $500 dollar card just cause its new (note sane).
Ah but having an early footing surely helps.
Look at the 8800GTX. It was the first DX10 card, and there were not many DX10 games at the time, in fact barely. But it won out. Why? Because it came out first, and because it did, the competition would have to work faster and rush their design...so what happened?
The 2900XT came to being.
IMO the cause of NVIDIA's victory at that time was just about good timing.
8800GTX series jumped right after the releasing of some new big Game titles, including The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion, which immediately required a lot of DirecX 9 horse power.
DirectX 9 was an important milestone because of its post processing technic which requires at least a quite high horse power. People can easily see the differences between Directx 8 and DirectX 9, but not between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10, or even DirectX 11.
It 's horsepower, not just DirectX version that gamers always need.
Back on topic, from that old time, NVIDIA has won gamers hearts.
Talking about a giant's death, while it is still very strong, is just a new creative way of thinking.
Graphic on CPU is still at the horizon.
High horse power will never mix with mainstream.
And, what I must say right now is: NVIDIA WILL BE THERE STRONG FOREVER!!!
I don't think NVidia need an x86 license. They have access to (licenses for) TransMeta's CPU tech, which used a VLIW CPU and on-the-fly recompilation to run x86 software. However TransMeta (Later bought out by Novafora) has since collapsed. It may be possible for nV to buy TransMeta's assets. Then they would have an interesting approach to the whole CPU issue - With TransMeta's "Code morphing" tech, it may be possible for them to take x86 code and convert it to run on CUDA or GPGPU. Then you'd have a modular CPU system. Want more processing power? Drop in more cards in SLI. 1-way, 2-way- 3-way or 4-way SLI, and potentially even more, giving vast speed improvements and scaling, as well as massive multi-threadedness. Then programs could be built as x86, and have "CUDA" modules to replace/supplement/augment the existing x86 codebase.
I bought an Nvidia 8800GTS with 640 ram upon their release a few years back. Over the time I've had this card, I've managed to overclock it with minimal problems. It plays all my games at 1920 x 1200, never locks up, never freezes, never crashes, never over heats. All in all it's been a great GPU.
I started buying Nvidia with the TNT2, then the Geforce 2, then the Geforce 4 Ti, which melted... :( then finally to the end of the AGP era, the Geforce 6600 GT. What an awesome card that was.
Unfortunately though, this article missed a big chunk of the Nvidia industry... I work in an industry where I see the majority of cards in use are Nvidia Quadro's. For every 20 quadro cards, I see an ATI FireGL card. For some reason, when ever anyone thinks Nvidia, they completely forget the CAD systems that usually employ an Nvidia Quadro, which at the end of the day is usually identical to the Geforce card, with exception to the firmware and the price mark up!!!
After reading the article, it does make me think of how hard it is to find out what nvidia card I'm buying when I'm buying. But their numbering scheme is easier to remember off the top of my head than ATI's.
But the article does give me some hope to the future of the computing world in general. Better phones, better OS' competition, better gadgets in general. I've been getting quite jaded lately of all the hype the gadget segments seem to market out, but don't innovate nor push for consumers needs. Catering to the "it should just work" without learning how to use it, just hurts more in the long run.
What a pathetic article. They don't compete where there's no profit. It's called business and lots of companies do it. This is just more sensationalist rubbish.
This is another bit-tech article without numbers or references to back itself up and for me is the last straw. I may check back over the years.
Originally Posted by unclebulgaria What a pathetic article. They don't compete where there's no profit. It's called business and lots of companies do it. This is just more sensationalist rubbish.
This is another bit-tech article without numbers or references to back itself up and for me is the last straw. I may check back over the years.
They're merely speculating. And if you don't realize that Nvidia has been well not too competitive this year, then there's something wrong. So far all they've made in the last 2 years is ION, the GT200 which proved to be too expensive, Tegra and more CUDA apps. Now I don't know about you, but if there are people still using the 8800GTX a card from 2 years ago, then you can figure out they Nvidia has stopped being aggressive and just took a back seat to all this.
And please tell me, how was buying out Ageia exactly a good move?
Originally Posted by trelin Makes me sad to say this since I've always had good luck with Nvidia products, but easily the two predominant thoughts that come to mind anymore when I hear the word Nvidia is "can of whoop-ass" followed closely by "rebranding".
Weak, Nvidia. Weak.
:D yeah that pretty much sums up nvidia since the g80
NVIDIA needs to deal with their reliability problems, stop rebadging cards, and stick with a proper naming scheme.
My first card was a 7600GT and it worked decently, but was rather weak, and drivers were an issue. My new HD4850 is flawless, and Catalyst drivers are magnificent.
Also Tim when are we going to get the article "Does AMD/ATI have a future?" I look forward with bated breath for that article. Of course you don't need to write one for Intel as they are unshakeable.
Originally Posted by trelin Makes me sad to say this since I've always had good luck with Nvidia products, but easily the two predominant thoughts that come to mind anymore when I hear the word Nvidia is "can of whoop-ass" followed closely by "rebranding".
Weak, Nvidia. Weak.
sir, might I interest you in a can of rebranded whoop-ass. :)
Originally Posted by tejas Also Tim when are we going to get the article "Does AMD/ATI have a future?" I look forward with bated breath for that article. Of course you don't need to write one for Intel as they are unshakeable.
They're doing fine, they hadn't had their legs knocked out from under them. a little beaten bruised the deathwatch is on nvidia, another year like this investors are going start leaving port. Worst case for AMD, Intel pushes then out of the CPU business but they still Chipset and Graphics Card business, and Global Foundries. Now Nvidia, they have been all but pushed out of the chipset market. It's in tatters, and they're trying to salvage it with Tegra, Ion, and whatever pity deals Intel gives them till Larrabee fully matures.
I am sorry but anyone who praises TWIMTBP as good thing is a short sighted fool.
you know what nvidia does to "support" games with this program? they force dev's to code in ways that favor older less efficient architecture in exchange for nvidia money. Instead of coding for ATI's more efficient model of 5 ops per cycle they code for the 3 nvidia does and 2/5 of the ati GPU computing power is left sitting on its arse, essentially TWIMTBP does nothing but slow down the industry and allow nvidia to stick to rehashing its inferior architecture into more and more monolithic dies - the apex of this thank god was the gt200 and maybe they will actually innovate for once since g80.
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG I am sorry but anyone who praises TWIMTBP as good thing is a short sighted fool.
you know what nvidia does to "support" games with this program? they force dev's to code in ways that favor older less efficient architecture in exchange for nvidia money. Instead of coding for ATI's more efficient model of 5 ops per cycle they code for the 3 nvidia does and 2/5 of the ati GPU computing power is left sitting on its arse, essentially TWIMTBP does nothing but slow down the industry and allow nvidia to stick to rehashing its inferior architecture into more and more monolithic dies - the apex of this thank god was the gt200 and maybe they will actually innovate for once since g80.
Hmm its called business.... If ATI don't like the state of affairs they can pay developers themselves to use their hardware. They are already doing it. The new FPS Wolfenstein is an AMD/ATI game as well as the upcoming Command and Conquer 4. I don't see you crying foul about that now.
Using your logic I suppose Intel should have been punished when Core 2 with is "old inferior FSB technology" was destroying Athlon X2 and Phenom I on all performance fronts, since the FSB is an old and inefficient technology that it still handing Phenom II its arse. Oh and yes Intel are also pretty aggressive with their game developer relations like Nvidia. I suppose that annoys you as well.
Funny how Nvidia's "old" technology is still as powerful as ATI's "so called more efficient technology". Maybe ATI should get off its behind and be more proactive with devs to expose their Teraflops of power in games and keep their 800 VLIW ALUs always fed with data.
Simply TWIMTBP shows that Nvidia actually gives a damn about their customers and their gaming experience. ATI are following suit and starting to support games again as well. Have a look at AMD Game website and go to the Wolfenstein website and see that it is an AMD Game.
so paying developers to use 3 ops per shader isnt wrong? when if nvidia hadn't been there the game would have been coded to use 5 because thats the highest standard (look at grid for an example of that) - you can see it in the games where ATI absolutely destroys NV, those games have been written for ati hardware, and its not that the nvidia hardware does any worse than ususal, it just doesnt have an unspoken advantage.
Tell me this, would it be OK if: the maker of louisville slugger bats for major league gets payed by the Yankees to put lead in the bats of the Redsox so that they cant hit the fastest pitches?
its exactly the friggen same, I dont give a dman about business really, the TWIMTBP tactic is
a) detrimental to the advancement of GPU technology and performance
b) a downright dirty lying cheating tactic with no other motive than to line nvidia's pockets and let them be the lazy GPU maker they have always been (although ATI is doing a good job of taking advantage of their lethargy)
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG so paying developers to use 3 ops per shader isnt wrong? when if nvidia hadn't been there the game would have been coded to use 5 because thats the highest standard (look at grid for an example of that) - you can see it in the games where ATI absolutely destroys NV, those games have been written for ati hardware, and its not that the nvidia hardware does any worse than ususal, it just doesnt have an unspoken advantage.
Tell me this, would it be OK if: the maker of louisville slugger bats for major league gets payed by the Yankees to put lead in the bats of the Redsox so that they cant hit the fastest pitches?
its exactly the friggen same, I dont give a dman about business really, the TWIMTBP tactic is
a) detrimental to the advancement of GPU technology and performance
b) a downright dirty lying cheating tactic with no other motive than to line nvidia's pockets and let them be the lazy GPU maker they have always been (although ATI is doing a good job of taking advantage of their lethargy)
I can't really say that it's a terrible idea and that it's a cheating tactic. I mean they're here to make money, and it's a sound investment. A very very sound investment. And if you don't give a damn about business then you're not getting the point, this IS business, they're not here to make you happy, there here to get as many advantages as possible to beat the competition, and in reality this is a good thing, as this SPURS competition and makes ATI even stronger as they will have to work harder to get the upper hand.
What does that mean? Well simply, more innovations. If the ATI has survived this long and has shown they can beat Nvidia with unfair odds, it's clear that they have the ability to do so. And making it harder for ATI will just ultimately make even more innovations as they have to catch up.
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG so paying developers to use 3 ops per shader isnt wrong? when if nvidia hadn't been there the game would have been coded to use 5 because thats the highest standard (look at grid for an example of that) - you can see it in the games where ATI absolutely destroys NV, those games have been written for ati hardware, and its not that the nvidia hardware does any worse than ususal, it just doesnt have an unspoken advantage.
Tell me this, would it be OK if: the maker of louisville slugger bats for major league gets payed by the Yankees to put lead in the bats of the Redsox so that they cant hit the fastest pitches?
its exactly the friggen same, I dont give a dman about business really, the TWIMTBP tactic is
a) detrimental to the advancement of GPU technology and performance
b) a downright dirty lying cheating tactic with no other motive than to line nvidia's pockets and let them be the lazy GPU maker they have always been (although ATI is doing a good job of taking advantage of their lethargy)
I can't really say that it's a terrible idea and that it's a cheating tactic. I mean they're here to make money, and it's a sound investment. A very very sound investment. And if you don't give a damn about business then you're not getting the point, this IS business, they're not here to make you happy, there here to get as many advantages as possible to beat the competition, and in reality this is a good thing, as this SPURS competition and makes ATI even stronger as they will have to work harder to get the upper hand.
What does that mean? Well simply, more innovations. If the ATI has survived this long and has shown they can beat Nvidia with unfair odds, it's clear that they have the ability to do so. And making it harder for ATI will just ultimately make even more innovations as they have to catch up.
@SNiiPE DoGG - Frankly GPU advancement only occurs along economic lines particularly in light of the economic problems in the West. Nvidia Tesla GT200 architecture is just as advanced as ATI RV770 architecture. Both achieve similar levels in a different way. GPUs will only advance as long as there is a need for that power. Moore's Law is not as applicable here as it is in CPU's. Also you are talking garbage as Nvidia Quadro and Tesla solutions are the market leader in GPU computing and the playing ground is totally fair there. You need to admit that AMD have had their finger up their arse and they are to blame for the position they are in...
Thank you Elton. What this chap above us does not understand is that Nvidia and AMD are businesses out to make profit. Not to make you happy. They have shareholders to think about and not just a tiny minority of gamers who want more speed for their games. Nvidia are doing nothing wrong. This fellow above (not Elton) should really complain more about Intel as they have been convicted of anti- competitive behaviour.
The discrete GPU market is far fairer than the CPU one and AMD are starting to get back into their Game Dev relations with renewed purpose. Frankly we will see a spate of AMD optimized games and Nvidia TWIMTBP games and at least we have a decent choice for GPUs. In the CPU sphere it is a lot more one sided.
Ultimately ATI will have to convince more users to go with them when RV870 shows up next month. If they can wrestle back more market share then I don't think developers can afford to ignore them anymore.
Mmm, lot of anti nvidia, pro ati around here. Imo those "lame ass 3d glasses" will prove more important then DX11 in the next year - because those glasses work with the console ports (i.e. 95% of games) where as DX11 won't (the game is a console port, i.e. DX9c). Once we all have 120hz monitors (because they are better for gaming even if you don't want 3D), and the cost of the glasses go down a bit then the cost of entry is very low.
Physx - obviously hw physics will take off in the end, but haven't yet. As of right now they just add a few pretty effects, that said it's still more effects then DX11 is likely to add in the short term (mainly because it seems to be pretty easy to add a few physx effects to your console port, and nvidia are actively helping developers do just that).
TWIMTBP - obviously a good thing for nvidia, and game developers. They want their game to run well, most gaming computers have nvidia graphics, hence the fact that nvidia provide a programme for it suits everyone but Ati. However that is Ati's fault for not producing an equivalent. What it mostly means is you can expect 3d glasses, and physx to be well supported in games because nvidia will have helped developers add them.
As for Ati being first to DX11. That seems very likely, but also likely that it'll only be a couple of months, and the nvidia card will be faster when it arrives. This is very different from the 8800 to 2900 case, where the 8800 was out much earlier, and when the 2900 finally arrived it was slower, and more power hungry.
tbh I don't think Ati is the real threat to nvidia, it's more the way the market develops with regard to the way the cpu and gpu are changing (merging). For that you need to look at Intel. Nvidia have fired the first shots with CUDA and gained the initiative, but Intel are very big and very powerful, they might manage to shut nvidia out yet. That said it might go the other way - with more machines using small cpu's + a gpu (i.e. tegra/ion). In which case arm + nvidia win, and Intel are the ones with their backs to the wall.
In either case AMD/Ati is looking weak - with huge debts they just don't have the money to invest. That millstone seems to mean they don't have the same opportunities to spend on developing new technologies like the latest intel cpu's, or tegra, or CUDA. Sure they react and produce something decent, but there's too much chasing, and not enough taking the lead.
Originally Posted by DbD Mmm, lot of anti nvidia, pro ati around here. Imo those "lame ass 3d glasses" will prove more important then DX11 in the next year - because those glasses work with the console ports (i.e. 95% of games) where as DX11 won't (the game is a console port, i.e. DX9c). Once we all have 120hz monitors (because they are better for gaming even if you don't want 3D), and the cost of the glasses go down a bit then the cost of entry is very low.
Physx - obviously hw physics will take off in the end, but haven't yet. As of right now they just add a few pretty effects, that said it's still more effects then DX11 is likely to add in the short term (mainly because it seems to be pretty easy to add a few physx effects to your console port, and nvidia are actively helping developers do just that).
TWIMTBP - obviously a good thing for nvidia, and game developers. They want their game to run well, most gaming computers have nvidia graphics, hence the fact that nvidia provide a programme for it suits everyone but Ati. However that is Ati's fault for not producing an equivalent. What it mostly means is you can expect 3d glasses, and physx to be well supported in games because nvidia will have helped developers add them.
As for Ati being first to DX11. That seems very likely, but also likely that it'll only be a couple of months, and the nvidia card will be faster when it arrives. This is very different from the 8800 to 2900 case, where the 8800 was out much earlier, and when the 2900 finally arrived it was slower, and more power hungry.
tbh I don't think Ati is the real threat to nvidia, it's more the way the market develops with regard to the way the cpu and gpu are changing (merging). For that you need to look at Intel. Nvidia have fired the first shots with CUDA and gained the initiative, but Intel are very big and very powerful, they might manage to shut nvidia out yet. That said it might go the other way - with more machines using small cpu's + a gpu (i.e. tegra/ion). In which case arm + nvidia win, and Intel are the ones with their backs to the wall.
In either case AMD/Ati is looking weak - with huge debts they just don't have the money to invest. That millstone seems to mean they don't have the same opportunities to spend on developing new technologies like the latest intel cpu's, or tegra, or CUDA. Sure they react and produce something decent, but there's too much chasing, and not enough taking the lead.
Interestingly you're a bit too pro Nvidia. To be honest, I think Tegra and CUDA while an awesome addition, is an absolute waste. They should be focusing on GPUs it's what they do. Meanwhile ATI is an even bigger threat now that it can freely choose to use x86-64 as it's merged with AMD. And while Snipe was a bit extreme, TWIMTBP program was for advertising intents and for perhaps a bit of incentive for developers to program for them.
As for the Glasses, they're flat out useless. There's no point, console games already look a bit crap as it is, and that they cost a hell of alot of money. You also have to realize that Nvidia cannot make a CPU as it is, well not one on regular PCs anyways. And perhaps you might not realize this, but the PC market is quite big, very big. In fact big enough that if they were to ignore DX11 and go with the glasses they'd lose enough market share to needing to use the same pennies ATI uses for R&D.
In short: This article isn't about Nvidia declining, rather about them losing focus and just making a bunch of random if not mediocre(as far as I can tell) products.
For those saying there are no DX11 games in production, yes there is.
1. DIRT 2 by codemasters has been delayed for PC as it is DX11.
2. I bet there are quite a few more games in production that will be using DX11, that are not announced yet.
Interesting article I thought (yeah, I'm a bit slow to catch up on these things!)
Ever since the arse fell out of 3dfx, I've pretty much always been an nVidia man. At first it was purely a financial decision - IIRC, the Riva TNT2 was simply cheaper than the Voodoo3. Up until that point, 3D gaming for me had consisted of Quake and it's variants/sequels rendered in software, so the TNT2 opened up a whole new world for me. ATI cards of the time couldn't compete with nVidia (IMO at least); although ATI excelled with video in/out cards, such as the ATI All-in-Wonder series. I think I later upgraded to the GeForce 2MX, then the GeForce4 MX 440 - purely on the strength of the brand. After that point, I got myself a laptop with a Radeon Mobility 9700 - by the time, I had moved on to console gaming and 3D graphics weren't really an important requirement - I just wanted a laptop. I stuck with that for many years...
It was only earlier this year that I decided I need to build a PC again, so my first choice went to nVidia for graphics - purely because it was a brand that I trusted. I did a little research online, and decided on the 9600/9800 series, as I thought they'd offer good performance (compared to what I was used to, which was nothing!), good value for money and DX10 support. Not quite sure I'm going to be upgrading any time soon (I'm still not hardcore enough to part with over £150 for a graphics card!), but it is looking like I might be jumping from the nVidia ship.
Nvidia is now playing second fiddle to ATI.
While Nvidia was patting itself on the back and tooting it's own horn ATI was in the gym preparing for war.
Nvidia made great graphics cards then got the idea that they could sell anything because they were Nvidia.
Not to mention a cult of fanboys.
They bought Ageia and then had the balls to tell the industry "this is the next big thing". Nobody listened. Physicx is OK and can now be done through software and not a $300 dollar card.
Nvidia while searching for other markets to capture forgot it's core and just kept Frankensteining it's older cards to make new cards. For the most part all excellent products but the industry and technology changes. AMD buys ATI.
Nvidia acts like a king amongst peasants and as far as Intel is concern there is only one KING. Intel sues Nvidia and the blissful relationship is now sour. I guess Intel like ATi got tired of Nvidia laughing at it video cards. Tegra and what ever else Nvidia is doing is cool but won't make Nvidia rich like gt8800 or it's GTX series. Nvidia won't survive with out Intel, so kiss and make up.
Amd/ATI unleash the 4870 4890 4770 4870 x2 and shows not only Nvidia but the world that they are serious contenders in the video card market. Then AMD / ATi release the HD 5000 series and have essentially become the NEW leader in graphics while Nvidia has yet to answer back. Not only that but has yet to draw out a future plan in regards to Video cards and the industry.
All the while Nvidia the once giant scrambles to get itself out of the same hole that it use to piss in, ATI has been hard at work and dedicated to its core product. Nvidia still has the money to make great products but the industry has changed and without Nvidia either making CPU's or strengthening it's relationship with INTEL then NVidia will just get bought out by Intel and cease to exist.
Nvidia instead of bribing developers and hardware review magazines you should have been making new technology. Being the company that championed the CPGPU idea you should have finished it, now Nvidia may legally be locked out of the new technology. I'm sure Nvidia will come through but will their attitude towards the business change as to respect your core product and audience. If not then ATi's HD 6000 series will end Nvidia forever seeing how ATi is just correcting fabrication problems before full scale production ensues on it's new HD 6000 series card built around GPCPU technology.
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e. Nvidia is now playing second fiddle to ATI.
<snip />
NVidia is in the same position ATI was in after NVidia released the 6000-series, which is the same position that NVidia was in when they released the GeForceFX series, and ATI kicked their ass with the Radeon 9800. The GPU industry is cyclical, with each manufacturer working on their own timescale.
ATI's 5900 series are, essentially, souped up version of their older cards (You know, like NVidia did with the 8800/9800/GT280). They've added "Eyefinity", a handy little framebuffer-splitting trick, but there is nothing really revolutionary there.
NVidia are building something totally different, a GPGPU card that happens to also do graphics, rather than a graphics card that happens to do GPGPU, and these things take time.
I believe NVidia's stance now is "Welcome back, ATI, you've finally managed to get yourself into the lead again. But watch your back, 'cause we're coming to blow you out of the water again, just like we did with the G80".
Comments 26 to 50 of 55
ReplyIMO the cause of NVIDIA's victory at that time was just about good timing.
8800GTX series jumped right after the releasing of some new big Game titles, including The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion, which immediately required a lot of DirecX 9 horse power.
DirectX 9 was an important milestone because of its post processing technic which requires at least a quite high horse power. People can easily see the differences between Directx 8 and DirectX 9, but not between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10, or even DirectX 11.
It 's horsepower, not just DirectX version that gamers always need.
Back on topic, from that old time, NVIDIA has won gamers hearts.
Talking about a giant's death, while it is still very strong, is just a new creative way of thinking.
Graphic on CPU is still at the horizon.
High horse power will never mix with mainstream.
And, what I must say right now is:
NVIDIA WILL BE THERE STRONG FOREVER!!!
I started buying Nvidia with the TNT2, then the Geforce 2, then the Geforce 4 Ti, which melted... :( then finally to the end of the AGP era, the Geforce 6600 GT. What an awesome card that was.
Unfortunately though, this article missed a big chunk of the Nvidia industry... I work in an industry where I see the majority of cards in use are Nvidia Quadro's. For every 20 quadro cards, I see an ATI FireGL card. For some reason, when ever anyone thinks Nvidia, they completely forget the CAD systems that usually employ an Nvidia Quadro, which at the end of the day is usually identical to the Geforce card, with exception to the firmware and the price mark up!!!
But the article does give me some hope to the future of the computing world in general. Better phones, better OS' competition, better gadgets in general. I've been getting quite jaded lately of all the hype the gadget segments seem to market out, but don't innovate nor push for consumers needs. Catering to the "it should just work" without learning how to use it, just hurts more in the long run.
This is another bit-tech article without numbers or references to back itself up and for me is the last straw. I may check back over the years.
They're merely speculating. And if you don't realize that Nvidia has been well not too competitive this year, then there's something wrong. So far all they've made in the last 2 years is ION, the GT200 which proved to be too expensive, Tegra and more CUDA apps. Now I don't know about you, but if there are people still using the 8800GTX a card from 2 years ago, then you can figure out they Nvidia has stopped being aggressive and just took a back seat to all this.
And please tell me, how was buying out Ageia exactly a good move?
:D yeah that pretty much sums up nvidia since the g80
My first card was a 7600GT and it worked decently, but was rather weak, and drivers were an issue. My new HD4850 is flawless, and Catalyst drivers are magnificent.
When I built my PC I was on a really tight budget, so I when with ATI even thought I've always been a Nvidia man
sir, might I interest you in a can of rebranded whoop-ass. :)
They're doing fine, they hadn't had their legs knocked out from under them. a little beaten bruised the deathwatch is on nvidia, another year like this investors are going start leaving port. Worst case for AMD, Intel pushes then out of the CPU business but they still Chipset and Graphics Card business, and Global Foundries. Now Nvidia, they have been all but pushed out of the chipset market. It's in tatters, and they're trying to salvage it with Tegra, Ion, and whatever pity deals Intel gives them till Larrabee fully matures.
you know what nvidia does to "support" games with this program? they force dev's to code in ways that favor older less efficient architecture in exchange for nvidia money. Instead of coding for ATI's more efficient model of 5 ops per cycle they code for the 3 nvidia does and 2/5 of the ati GPU computing power is left sitting on its arse, essentially TWIMTBP does nothing but slow down the industry and allow nvidia to stick to rehashing its inferior architecture into more and more monolithic dies - the apex of this thank god was the gt200 and maybe they will actually innovate for once since g80.
Hmm its called business.... If ATI don't like the state of affairs they can pay developers themselves to use their hardware. They are already doing it. The new FPS Wolfenstein is an AMD/ATI game as well as the upcoming Command and Conquer 4. I don't see you crying foul about that now.
Using your logic I suppose Intel should have been punished when Core 2 with is "old inferior FSB technology" was destroying Athlon X2 and Phenom I on all performance fronts, since the FSB is an old and inefficient technology that it still handing Phenom II its arse. Oh and yes Intel are also pretty aggressive with their game developer relations like Nvidia. I suppose that annoys you as well.
Funny how Nvidia's "old" technology is still as powerful as ATI's "so called more efficient technology". Maybe ATI should get off its behind and be more proactive with devs to expose their Teraflops of power in games and keep their 800 VLIW ALUs always fed with data.
Simply TWIMTBP shows that Nvidia actually gives a damn about their customers and their gaming experience. ATI are following suit and starting to support games again as well. Have a look at AMD Game website and go to the Wolfenstein website and see that it is an AMD Game.
Tell me this, would it be OK if: the maker of louisville slugger bats for major league gets payed by the Yankees to put lead in the bats of the Redsox so that they cant hit the fastest pitches?
its exactly the friggen same, I dont give a dman about business really, the TWIMTBP tactic is
a) detrimental to the advancement of GPU technology and performance
b) a downright dirty lying cheating tactic with no other motive than to line nvidia's pockets and let them be the lazy GPU maker they have always been (although ATI is doing a good job of taking advantage of their lethargy)
I can't really say that it's a terrible idea and that it's a cheating tactic. I mean they're here to make money, and it's a sound investment. A very very sound investment. And if you don't give a damn about business then you're not getting the point, this IS business, they're not here to make you happy, there here to get as many advantages as possible to beat the competition, and in reality this is a good thing, as this SPURS competition and makes ATI even stronger as they will have to work harder to get the upper hand.
What does that mean? Well simply, more innovations. If the ATI has survived this long and has shown they can beat Nvidia with unfair odds, it's clear that they have the ability to do so. And making it harder for ATI will just ultimately make even more innovations as they have to catch up.
@SNiiPE DoGG - Frankly GPU advancement only occurs along economic lines particularly in light of the economic problems in the West. Nvidia Tesla GT200 architecture is just as advanced as ATI RV770 architecture. Both achieve similar levels in a different way. GPUs will only advance as long as there is a need for that power. Moore's Law is not as applicable here as it is in CPU's. Also you are talking garbage as Nvidia Quadro and Tesla solutions are the market leader in GPU computing and the playing ground is totally fair there. You need to admit that AMD have had their finger up their arse and they are to blame for the position they are in...
Thank you Elton. What this chap above us does not understand is that Nvidia and AMD are businesses out to make profit. Not to make you happy. They have shareholders to think about and not just a tiny minority of gamers who want more speed for their games. Nvidia are doing nothing wrong. This fellow above (not Elton) should really complain more about Intel as they have been convicted of anti- competitive behaviour.
The discrete GPU market is far fairer than the CPU one and AMD are starting to get back into their Game Dev relations with renewed purpose. Frankly we will see a spate of AMD optimized games and Nvidia TWIMTBP games and at least we have a decent choice for GPUs. In the CPU sphere it is a lot more one sided.
Ultimately ATI will have to convince more users to go with them when RV870 shows up next month. If they can wrestle back more market share then I don't think developers can afford to ignore them anymore.
Physx - obviously hw physics will take off in the end, but haven't yet. As of right now they just add a few pretty effects, that said it's still more effects then DX11 is likely to add in the short term (mainly because it seems to be pretty easy to add a few physx effects to your console port, and nvidia are actively helping developers do just that).
TWIMTBP - obviously a good thing for nvidia, and game developers. They want their game to run well, most gaming computers have nvidia graphics, hence the fact that nvidia provide a programme for it suits everyone but Ati. However that is Ati's fault for not producing an equivalent. What it mostly means is you can expect 3d glasses, and physx to be well supported in games because nvidia will have helped developers add them.
As for Ati being first to DX11. That seems very likely, but also likely that it'll only be a couple of months, and the nvidia card will be faster when it arrives. This is very different from the 8800 to 2900 case, where the 8800 was out much earlier, and when the 2900 finally arrived it was slower, and more power hungry.
tbh I don't think Ati is the real threat to nvidia, it's more the way the market develops with regard to the way the cpu and gpu are changing (merging). For that you need to look at Intel. Nvidia have fired the first shots with CUDA and gained the initiative, but Intel are very big and very powerful, they might manage to shut nvidia out yet. That said it might go the other way - with more machines using small cpu's + a gpu (i.e. tegra/ion). In which case arm + nvidia win, and Intel are the ones with their backs to the wall.
In either case AMD/Ati is looking weak - with huge debts they just don't have the money to invest. That millstone seems to mean they don't have the same opportunities to spend on developing new technologies like the latest intel cpu's, or tegra, or CUDA. Sure they react and produce something decent, but there's too much chasing, and not enough taking the lead.
Interestingly you're a bit too pro Nvidia. To be honest, I think Tegra and CUDA while an awesome addition, is an absolute waste. They should be focusing on GPUs it's what they do. Meanwhile ATI is an even bigger threat now that it can freely choose to use x86-64 as it's merged with AMD. And while Snipe was a bit extreme, TWIMTBP program was for advertising intents and for perhaps a bit of incentive for developers to program for them.
As for the Glasses, they're flat out useless. There's no point, console games already look a bit crap as it is, and that they cost a hell of alot of money. You also have to realize that Nvidia cannot make a CPU as it is, well not one on regular PCs anyways. And perhaps you might not realize this, but the PC market is quite big, very big. In fact big enough that if they were to ignore DX11 and go with the glasses they'd lose enough market share to needing to use the same pennies ATI uses for R&D.
In short: This article isn't about Nvidia declining, rather about them losing focus and just making a bunch of random if not mediocre(as far as I can tell) products.
1. DIRT 2 by codemasters has been delayed for PC as it is DX11.
2. I bet there are quite a few more games in production that will be using DX11, that are not announced yet.
Ever since the arse fell out of 3dfx, I've pretty much always been an nVidia man. At first it was purely a financial decision - IIRC, the Riva TNT2 was simply cheaper than the Voodoo3. Up until that point, 3D gaming for me had consisted of Quake and it's variants/sequels rendered in software, so the TNT2 opened up a whole new world for me. ATI cards of the time couldn't compete with nVidia (IMO at least); although ATI excelled with video in/out cards, such as the ATI All-in-Wonder series. I think I later upgraded to the GeForce 2MX, then the GeForce4 MX 440 - purely on the strength of the brand. After that point, I got myself a laptop with a Radeon Mobility 9700 - by the time, I had moved on to console gaming and 3D graphics weren't really an important requirement - I just wanted a laptop. I stuck with that for many years...
It was only earlier this year that I decided I need to build a PC again, so my first choice went to nVidia for graphics - purely because it was a brand that I trusted. I did a little research online, and decided on the 9600/9800 series, as I thought they'd offer good performance (compared to what I was used to, which was nothing!), good value for money and DX10 support. Not quite sure I'm going to be upgrading any time soon (I'm still not hardcore enough to part with over £150 for a graphics card!), but it is looking like I might be jumping from the nVidia ship.
While Nvidia was patting itself on the back and tooting it's own horn ATI was in the gym preparing for war.
Nvidia made great graphics cards then got the idea that they could sell anything because they were Nvidia.
Not to mention a cult of fanboys.
They bought Ageia and then had the balls to tell the industry "this is the next big thing". Nobody listened. Physicx is OK and can now be done through software and not a $300 dollar card.
Nvidia while searching for other markets to capture forgot it's core and just kept Frankensteining it's older cards to make new cards. For the most part all excellent products but the industry and technology changes. AMD buys ATI.
Nvidia acts like a king amongst peasants and as far as Intel is concern there is only one KING. Intel sues Nvidia and the blissful relationship is now sour. I guess Intel like ATi got tired of Nvidia laughing at it video cards. Tegra and what ever else Nvidia is doing is cool but won't make Nvidia rich like gt8800 or it's GTX series. Nvidia won't survive with out Intel, so kiss and make up.
Amd/ATI unleash the 4870 4890 4770 4870 x2 and shows not only Nvidia but the world that they are serious contenders in the video card market. Then AMD / ATi release the HD 5000 series and have essentially become the NEW leader in graphics while Nvidia has yet to answer back. Not only that but has yet to draw out a future plan in regards to Video cards and the industry.
All the while Nvidia the once giant scrambles to get itself out of the same hole that it use to piss in, ATI has been hard at work and dedicated to its core product. Nvidia still has the money to make great products but the industry has changed and without Nvidia either making CPU's or strengthening it's relationship with INTEL then NVidia will just get bought out by Intel and cease to exist.
Nvidia instead of bribing developers and hardware review magazines you should have been making new technology. Being the company that championed the CPGPU idea you should have finished it, now Nvidia may legally be locked out of the new technology. I'm sure Nvidia will come through but will their attitude towards the business change as to respect your core product and audience. If not then ATi's HD 6000 series will end Nvidia forever seeing how ATi is just correcting fabrication problems before full scale production ensues on it's new HD 6000 series card built around GPCPU technology.
NVidia is in the same position ATI was in after NVidia released the 6000-series, which is the same position that NVidia was in when they released the GeForceFX series, and ATI kicked their ass with the Radeon 9800. The GPU industry is cyclical, with each manufacturer working on their own timescale.
ATI's 5900 series are, essentially, souped up version of their older cards (You know, like NVidia did with the 8800/9800/GT280). They've added "Eyefinity", a handy little framebuffer-splitting trick, but there is nothing really revolutionary there.
NVidia are building something totally different, a GPGPU card that happens to also do graphics, rather than a graphics card that happens to do GPGPU, and these things take time.
I believe NVidia's stance now is "Welcome back, ATI, you've finally managed to get yourself into the lead again. But watch your back, 'cause we're coming to blow you out of the water again, just like we did with the G80".
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums