no i did not...and i never said anything about that, or negate it...the fact remains, that nvidia lost a crapload of money by reducing the prices...and its not because they love their customers, but because of AMD/ATI competition
no i did not...and i never said anything about that, or negate it...the fact remains, that nvidia lost a crapload of money by reducing the prices...and its not because they love their customers, but because of AMD/ATI competition
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Originally posted by: dadach
no it doesnt mean they dont have top cards...it does however mean that they lost a large sum of cash, and that they might be selling them at a loss
Why does a companies financial losses or gains concern you? Stockholder?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
He we are again. The price lowering was terrific!! We all agree! But why do you care if Nvidia lost a crapload of money? I can see it bothering you if your own wallet suddenly became lighter, but why does a corporations wallet matter to you? And you use the term, "the fact remains" as if this is actually means something to this conversation? Why?
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,330
- 126
As someone who has owned and likes ATI, but also owns nvidia, I have to say that having owned a 4870 1gb that was oced, I could not discern the difference between it and a GTX260 216 also oced.
I stepped the 260 up to a 285, and I also oced the 285, and there is a noticeable difference. Now I've never owned a 4890, but if the performance of my oced 285 compared to the oced 4870 I owned is any indication, the 285 is a faster card, and it's noticeable in certain instances, this is at 1920x1200.
That said, seeing the prices of 4890s these days compared to 285 prices, I think the 4890 is definitely the card to get, as the 285 is definitely more expensive but not really all that much faster than a 4890.
If I were to have the choice of any card to have right now rather than my 285, I would get a 4870x2, I would rather a second 285, but I feel they are overpriced considering the performance of a 4890.
If I were freshly buying a new video card setup today, I would get two 4890s as that is the clear performance/price winning setup these days.
I stepped the 260 up to a 285, and I also oced the 285, and there is a noticeable difference. Now I've never owned a 4890, but if the performance of my oced 285 compared to the oced 4870 I owned is any indication, the 285 is a faster card, and it's noticeable in certain instances, this is at 1920x1200.
That said, seeing the prices of 4890s these days compared to 285 prices, I think the 4890 is definitely the card to get, as the 285 is definitely more expensive but not really all that much faster than a 4890.
If I were to have the choice of any card to have right now rather than my 285, I would get a 4870x2, I would rather a second 285, but I feel they are overpriced considering the performance of a 4890.
If I were freshly buying a new video card setup today, I would get two 4890s as that is the clear performance/price winning setup these days.
Because they are now arguing for and against nVidia and AMD/ATI as companies. For some reason, in each generation, only one can win and the other loses. I don't believe that to be the case.
There's budget, mainstream, performance and enthusiast markets. You can even trim that down to budget and enthusiast; budget focuses on bang-for-the-buck and enthusiast focuses on pure performance.
Both companies trade blows in these market segments within each generation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
For the aim of declaring a winning company, this debate is futile.
For the aim of declaring a winning card, this debate is also futile, unless there are specific factors to measure against.
Even so, it's pretty far from what this topic was about. If there's any debating to be done, it should be about the non-existent next generation and the rumours about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic:
I'm looking forward to seeing launch prices of the next generation. This interests me the most. More interesting is whether the next generation will drive prices of the current generation down, which is of course what's happened in the past. However, prices are so frigging low already that I'm starting to think that they couldn't possibly drop any further!
It's going to be a fun year ahead ^_^
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Originally posted by: dadach
no it doesnt mean they dont have top cards...it does however mean that they lost a large sum of cash, and that they might be selling them at a loss
Why does a companies financial losses or gains concern you? Stockholder?
I think it might have something to do with a company not being able to sell at a loss forever. We don't need another 3DFX.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,005
- 126
I think you?re missing the point. The point is that the 2900 XT flopped but it was a new architecture. It wasn?t until the 4xxx had refined that architecture enough that ATi became competitive.
Yeah, the 4890 isn?t as fast as the GTX285, but 80%-90% of the performance is a much better position than they were in with the 2900 XT compared to the 8800 GTX.
So to repeat my point: a new architecture is not necessarily required to be competitive.
What do you mean by that? How can you stay competitive without modifying your architecture? R600 and RV770 are similar, but not the same at all. They have the shader and tesselator in common, but memory? thread setup/management? cache? I would say GT200/G92 have more in common than 600/770. Likewise I expect GT300/RV870 to be generational evolutions as well. Simply because the central design appointment is a cluster of stream processors does not mean these architectures must be the same or even similar. Considering how shader-disadvantaged AMD was with the 2900XT I would assume they will be doing more than just shoving more shaders onto their die. They can't have another RV770 again. They have to eventually get eye to eye with nvidia's encapsulation and thread management, and they very well may be able to do it without making many changes to their shader, even though it has already been demonstrated that the large 5-way shader has the potential to be slower and less power efficient than nvidia's 1-way shader.
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Originally posted by: dadach
no it doesnt mean they dont have top cards...it does however mean that they lost a large sum of cash, and that they might be selling them at a loss
Why does a companies financial losses or gains concern you? Stockholder?
I think it might have something to do with a company not being able to sell at a loss forever. We don't need another 3DFX.
Can you back that up with financial figures showing what money they lost on their high end GTX 200 cards and how that is going to turn them into another 3DFX?
I didn't say that they were selling for a loss.
My comment was about being concerned about a company's gains/losses.
At this point everyone knows how 3DFX was operating at a loss for an extended period of time and the obvious results.
NV is nowhere near going belly up anytime soon, in fact a stronger case could be made of ATI/AMD being closer to doing so.
I HOPE NV hasn't been taking losses this generation, but their current design, on the surface, does appear to be more expensive to manufacture.
However, none of us have access to the actual figures so all we can do is take our best guess and keep our fingers crossed that they are maintaining a healthy profit.
My point is, you don't need to be a stockholder to have reason to be concerned with a company's profitability.
It is in our best interest as the consumers to have as a many healthy competitors in the market as possible.
My comment was about being concerned about a company's gains/losses.
At this point everyone knows how 3DFX was operating at a loss for an extended period of time and the obvious results.
NV is nowhere near going belly up anytime soon, in fact a stronger case could be made of ATI/AMD being closer to doing so.
I HOPE NV hasn't been taking losses this generation, but their current design, on the surface, does appear to be more expensive to manufacture.
However, none of us have access to the actual figures so all we can do is take our best guess and keep our fingers crossed that they are maintaining a healthy profit.
My point is, you don't need to be a stockholder to have reason to be concerned with a company's profitability.
It is in our best interest as the consumers to have as a many healthy competitors in the market as possible.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Speaking of which, it looks like NVIDIA may have gained even more marketshare.
http://online.barrons.com/arti...24725011233824459.html
AMD/ATI could be going down the 3DFX path.
Well, I think one thing is obvious:
If nVidia has twice the marketshare that AMD has, they can get the same profit with half the profit margin on their products.
If nVidia has twice the marketshare that AMD has, they can get the same profit with half the profit margin on their products.
Which means they could sell a new card that is terribly overengineered and overspec'd, and outperforms ATi's best card by a large margin, at half the cost of what the top-end card would normally cost, losing 50% of profit but effectively rendering ATi's entire card lineup useless.
Any company that continuously operates at a lost will eventually go bust. We can check that sort of stuff out on stock market web pages.
I would fear for nvidia more because they don't have an Intel cpu license or the ability to make those cpu's. If the cpu and gpu do truly merge then they will get left out in the cold. Nothing to do with whether a certain range of cards made or lost a few $$$.
I would fear for Ati as they are part of AMD and it's in huge amounts of debt - the sort of debt level that even if Ati produce the greatest card ever they won't even be able to make a small dent in it.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
I wholeheartedly agree. However, my point is that you can't chalk up the win for ATI with the X1900XTX based solely on the fact that it was the fastest card, and then also chalk up the win to ATI for having the (slightly) slower card but (presumably) better profit margins. That sort of revolving door of criteria is what started this line of debate in the first place.
Impressive that nV could still gain marketshare with the value of the 4890. Doesn't bode well for ATi.
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Yeah, specially that most nVidia profits comes from it's low end cards thanks to it's good OEM relationships that is steadily diminishing thanks to the bump issue, Dell now offers only ATi cards in the high end line up. Also considering the huge writte off inventory done the last quarter which dumped lots of inventory, that's impressive.
I see we are in agreement here, as that generation was essentially a wash as well.
The only clear cut losers of the last few generations were the hd2900's and the FX series.
Otherwise it has been reasonably close.
You maaaaay be able to make a case for the 3xxx radeons being a loser as well, but there were sticky points in each generation so I tend to lump them into the "compelling but not class leading" category.
The x800's/x850's were fast but the geforce 6 series were more feature complete.
SM3.0 compatibility actually turned out to be a necessary feature over time.
Some titles required it to even play (Bioshock, Splinter cell titles...ect) and others benefiting greatly in either performance (Stalker comes to mind) or eye candy.
apoppin
Lifer
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Dell's XPS Desktop line Offers both SLI and Crossfire setups.
Dell XPS laptop line Offers Nvidia 8400
You can pretty much go into various different systems Dell if offering, and find a mix and match of ATI or Nvidia video card options. It just depends on the model you're looking at. Some offer only ATI, some offer only Nvidia, some offer both.
So yes, Evolutions comments were misleading even though his exact comment was accurate (Uber high end lappy is ATI only, certain XPS model) . Dell still carries Nvidia across a wide spectrum of Desktop and laptop models.
apoppin
Lifer
thanks for that; but all his comments appear inaccurate - if you count the highest end {alienware by Dell} - the ultra end in Notebooks is owned by Nvidia in their NEW lineup:
i know Dell is still carrying Nvidia - look at their highest end for GTX 280 M hybrid SLi:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ph...&ID=1294970&highlight=
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter