JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Member
Just a thought, really. Looking back on how nVidia lost their crown after so efficiently gaining back in the day (ala the demise of 3DFX) makes me wonder how it happened. They had solid production "rythym" going, systematically nothing up the value of par for the course every 6 months. They were manged incredibly well, and ran both their R&D and production divisions with the utmost efficiency. Kick a$$ cards being churned out at a pace that most other companies simply could not compete with. It sent 3DFX down the tubes, and pretty much left several other companies out of the 3D gaming business altogether, S3, Matrox, Trident, STB (3DFX again I know,) all gone. ATI was left as essentially the sole competitor always hot on the heels of nvidia in release of their successive next gen products but none the less at their heels and not out in front. Perhaps ATI got sick of playing nvidia's game and decided ot shift focus from "the next product cycle" to the "next, NEXT product cycle" and release that only slightly later than they would the former. (Following me still? I'm impressed if you are because I'm having trouble putting this into words 🙂 That way, at the cost of one product cycle, they could advance significantly the following product cycle of technology significantly earlier and hence disrupting nvidia's product rythym. To me this seems plausible, as it would've left nvidia aiming for a product cycle that was a generation behind the competitions (aka GeForceFX V R300) and in effect relenquishing the performance crown. Let me know some of your thoughts on this please 🙂
John
John
