I don't think anyone doubts that nVidia had a larger (GK100) more powerful GPU planned for their top model. The BS is that somehow Tahiti or AMD is anyway responsible for GK100 not making it to market.
nVidia, all by themselves, realized they couldn't have the GK100 manufactured. Whether it's because the process couldn't handle it, or because it would have been too power hungry, or some other internal reason, no one is saying.
GK100 was scrapped or renamed to GK110. It's still not commercially viable, even in the pro market (What I mean by pro market is workstations) where they could get several thousand dollars for them. If AMD could have somehow managed something that nVidia couldn't and made a +500mm^2 chip in commercially viable quantities <300W and released it, nVidia still would not have been able to release their super chip any sooner than they are.
In the end, both companies built the most powerful chips they could on the 28nm process. Remember the GK104 was later than Tahiti and in short supply for quite a while after release. Why would anyone think that they would have released GK100 if they needed to in order to compete with Tahiti and they only scrapped/delayed it because they didn't need it?
Agree
:thumbsup:
Nvidia did not put off the gk110 because they just wanted to. they were forced to work with the gk104. It was a result of their ambitious nature. Launching with this 7+ billion transistor 600mm^2 monster was out of reality. Had they not been so ambitious they might have been able to produce a more capable flagship. As consequence, their smaller gk104 was their only option.
Also think its hysterical when people suggest that nvidia put the gk110 on the back-burner because the gk104 can compete. This is ridiculous. They have tremendous demand in the tesla market they havent even began to fill. You can bet your butt they have been working endlessly on trying to bring this chip to fruition. Every second that the gk110 isnt on the market can be a loss sale for nvidia. Not only have they not delivered the gk110 for a graphics card, they have yet to achieve a tesla launch. There is no way they could get it out sooner. None what so ever.
(snip)....
When it comes down to it, $1000 is about a two week paycheck at min wage. So what are we really talking about? It's not a lot, we're talking about a recreational item that is meant for enjoyment and relaxation, not petty cash flow at the cost of usability time.
.......
min wage? is that personal reference?
if your referring to the minimum wage salaries then your math is off.
the federal minimum is $7.25 per/hour but from state to state it varies from equal to slightly higher. The average should be slightly less than $8 per/hour. So using 8 x 40 hours the weakly income is $320 before taxes. So at min wages 1000$ would be about a months income. But anyone making that amount would have a very hard time getting there in a month, saving nearly every dime of it.
My point is that the question is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to us if AMD or nVidia make more money or sell more cards. Just like it doesn't matter to Intel or M$ if Apple makes more money than them. We can buy either one as we wish. AMD CPU's on the other hand are typically a very poor value when compared to what Intel offers. This is a problem. How much nVidia sells isn't.
<Snip>.
I think the title of this thread says it all. It is the topic. The discussion is about AMD and it not making money. They are not alone in their type of business and this is why other corporations that do similar things are relevant to the discussion. Naturally AMD will be compared to others in a similar business, its like comparing football teams. If you see a team doing poor you will naturally compare it to a team that is doing better. Its really the most natural thing to do.
Its in our nature to see things and compare them in a similar way. Its fundamentally part of how we improve ourselves as a species.
) I just had to pop in to compliment Russian Sensation on his awesome posts.:awe:
Facebook
Twitter