- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,719
- 31,629
- 146
The 2 are inextricably bound.Originally posted by: Rage187
"actually they are, from a marketshare standpoint."
we are talking about graphics cards here, not market share.
The 2 are inextricably bound.Originally posted by: Rage187
"actually they are, from a marketshare standpoint."
we are talking about graphics cards here, not market share.
Originally posted by: Rage187
"actually they are, from a marketshare standpoint."
we are talking about graphics cards here, not market share.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
The market for gaming systems is constantly growing. Dell certainly didn't jump in because it's a losing proposition. The percentages of market share being thrown around here also fail to account for the fact that while the percentage on the demographic pie chart may not have changed radically in the last 5yrs, it's a much bigger pie now
The fact is that PC gaming has grown tremendously since the voodoo SLI days and there's much more money in it now than ever before. There is no comparison between now and then, the industry has grown, and with it, the on-line multiplayer community's growth, combined with many more homes getting broadband, have made PC and even console gaming much more dynamic than ever before. Ati would be making a serious mistake if they don't embrace this tech IMHO.
Originally posted by: reever
NVIDIA is even talking with game developers to convince them of taking this performance in count when designing games.
So how is that good for the industry?
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
The report closes with a conclusion and a strongly worded bit of advice: Adapt to the power of gaming, or miss out on an opportunity to share in the industry's future growth. "In less than a decade," the report states, "electronic gaming has transformed itself from an industry niche to a global powerhouse--and that trend is expected to continue through at least 2010. Driven by the relentless force of Moore?s Law, electronic gaming and its related technologies will generate shock waves that extend far beyond the electronic gaming sector, blurring the lines between industries and encroaching on existing product categories. Early movers, like Sony and Microsoft, are already spending billions of dollars to position themselves for market leadership, and many others are about to enter the fray. It?s a risky game, but the risk of inaction is even higher--as are the potential rewards."
And some of the guys that are now falling all over themselves over it would be trashing it instead.Originally posted by: VisableAssassinif ATi would came out with a link of some sort first...everyone would be bowing down to them....sad really.
SLI was NOT the reason for 3dfx' lack of later success . . . SLI was popular
Quite a few people had them. I liked mine quite a bit at the time, but was kind of glad to be rid of it. Replaced the 3 card setup (Matrox Millennium II AGP + 2 x 12 Meg Voodoo 2) for a V3 3000. Was just as fast if not a bit faster and had better IQ as well.Originally posted by: TourGuide
SLI was NOT the reason for 3dfx' lack of later success . . . SLI was popular
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
It must be nice where you are.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
If parallelism can provide the performance increase packaging technology for a single card solution can't, it's gonna be HUGE.
Fanboys need not apply please.Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
Dude, you must have set the controls of your time machine wrong! It's 2004 where ATI released a chip with the same feature set as the one they put out in 2002!
This year, nVidia put out a more advanced card, with better drivers, with more features, and you can sli it to double the power.
All ATI has this year is cheaper price sometimes, less performance, and 3Dc, a new texture compression technique that no games use.
Originally posted by: FluxCap
Fanboys need not apply please.Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
Dude, you must have set the controls of your time machine wrong! It's 2004 where ATI released a chip with the same feature set as the one they put out in 2002!
This year, nVidia put out a more advanced card, with better drivers, with more features, and you can sli it to double the power.
All ATI has this year is cheaper price sometimes, less performance, and 3Dc, a new texture compression technique that no games use.
Originally posted by: FluxCap
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
It must be nice where you are.
Yes, it is nice here. Supporting ATI from the dark days until now where they are on top, yes in market share. I guess Nvidia owners hate to admit it or something?
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: apoppin
SLI was NOT the reason for 3dfx' lack of later success . . . SLI was popular
:roll:
to an insignificant segment of the market. the % of people running sli was well into a single digit slice of the market.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: FluxCap
Fanboys need not apply please.Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
Dude, you must have set the controls of your time machine wrong! It's 2004 where ATI released a chip with the same feature set as the one they put out in 2002!
This year, nVidia put out a more advanced card, with better drivers, with more features, and you can sli it to double the power.
All ATI has this year is cheaper price sometimes, less performance, and 3Dc, a new texture compression technique that no games use.
Then why are you posting?
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: FluxCap
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: FluxCap
ATI doesn't have to bother, they can keep kicking ass and taking names.
It must be nice where you are.
Yes, it is nice here. Supporting ATI from the dark days until now where they are on top, yes in market share. I guess Nvidia owners hate to admit it or something?
hehe, cute. No, I meant oblivious.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: apoppin
SLI was NOT the reason for 3dfx' lack of later success . . . SLI was popular
:roll:
to an insignificant segment of the market. the % of people running sli was well into a single digit slice of the market.
In the voodoo 2 SLI days, 3D gaming was only starting to really get off the ground. There are a lot more hardcore gamers today then there were then. How do I know this? No proof. Just common sense. The market has obviously grown substancially over the last 5 to 6 years with an average of 2 computers per household being the norm now. I myself have 5 computers currently. At the time of SLI, I had only one.
You cant compare then and now. The computer gaming industry today is nothing like it was then. No comparison.
Originally posted by: VisableAssassin
Why so much hate over NVs SLI? This is a fairly awsome upgrade path for those of us down the road. I know my 939 FX-53 (ill have it here soon) well be transplanted in the first good mobo that allows dual PCI-express and by then these board will be cheap enough to buy two out right, hell if the ultra is too much then Ill go dual GT's....since it looks like the GTs may be able to do this.
But then again it seems as if NV brought something different to the table (it isnt the same as the old school SLI) and now everyonei s against it? Im willing to bet pretty hard here if ATi woulda came out with a link of some sort first...everyone would be bowing down to them....sad really.
This just gives us all as consumers more options as to where our money goes...if you dont like options there is something wrong.
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: apoppin
SLI was NOT the reason for 3dfx' lack of later success . . . SLI was popular
:roll:
to an insignificant segment of the market. the % of people running sli was well into a single digit slice of the market.
In the voodoo 2 SLI days, 3D gaming was only starting to really get off the ground. There are a lot more hardcore gamers today then there were then. How do I know this? No proof. Just common sense. The market has obviously grown substancially over the last 5 to 6 years with an average of 2 computers per household being the norm now. I myself have 5 computers currently. At the time of SLI, I had only one.
You cant compare then and now. The computer gaming industry today is nothing like it was then. No comparison.
you ignored all the relevant points in the previous post, so i'll make is simple for you:
show me one market study or a single reference from the past where extravagant gaming solutions (sli/dual cpu's) was or will be anything more than a niche market.