Chew on this: ATI makes GPU, nVidia makes NB's!

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Naustica
I wish Wendy's would combo their hamburgers with McDonald's fries.

Hmm. As far as I know, they do. (OEM foodservice fries seem to be the same model between both the rebadged McD and Wendys brands.)

Back in the day, Wendys actually used to have those big steak-fry style fries, I still kinda miss those. But no, they had to switch to McD's-style fries.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: NokiaDude
Why would anyone make faster GPU's when there was no need, since there was no one else in the market to force them to bother?
They would have market dominance, so the R&D would stagnate, the profits from selling cards would go back into the company and stay there, no need to invest, because you have a 100% market share.

No competition, no drive to make better things.

Sounds like (un-)Creative Labs. Haven't seen any real new innovations from them in the sound card market for, oh, like years now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Lets look back when the 9700Pro and 9500Pro arrived. Let's also say nVidia wasn't around. Alright, so all of the Gear-Heads go and buy the 9700Pro $400 the prosumers go and buy the 9500Pro. 6 months down the road the 9700pro has dropped in price so more people are buying them, some who had bought the 9500pro are even upgrading to the 9700pro.

That doesn't make any sense. Without competition, there would be no impetus for prices to go down, unless demand subsequently went down, which would only be due to total market saturation, which is unlikely given the overall number of PC owners.

Originally posted by: MangoTBGSix more months down the line the videocards are even cheaper because people are buying less of them. Why? Because most of everyone already has them. So now even good ol' Grandma and Grandpa can afford the $100 9500pro. We fast forward a year and you're getting a 9500pro just for filling up your tank with gas at the local stop'n'shop.

See where this is going?

Now, introduce the X800Pro and X800XT into the picture, and viola. The cycle starts again. Granted without competition we'd probably see a much slower development than we do now. I, however, am just pointing out that you are false in saying that there would be absolutely zero need to improve when you have market dominance.

Well, unless you design products that self-destruct after every six months. Or software licenses that expire every year, so that you have to purchase a subscription license agreement. (Hmm. Maybe this economic theory of competition, or lack therefore, *does* prove that Microsoft doesn't really have any effective competition in the market any more.)

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: Avalon
Burger King burgers > Wendy's burgers
Wendy's just pwns at chicken based sandwiches and frosties.

Wait, wait, I've changed my mind.
Krystal/White Castle > ALL!

Krystal/White Castle is only edible after 3 am when you're too drunk to know you're eating steamed meat.

Chick-fil-A has the best chicken sandwiches although Wendy's Spicy Chicken is not bad. Micky D fries are great along with Rally's battered fries. But Micky D fries have gone down hill since they stopped using beef fat grease to fry their fries after Islam lawsuit.

Burger King used to be great with their Whopper but they really suffered from lack of directions and switch to poor quality ingredients. They're trying to correct it now but it's going to take some time before their quality is same as years past.

I've actually never had Chick-fil-A...I'm assuming their chicken sandwiches would have to be good, if they are a chicken restaurant...but you know I was joking with the Krystal/White Castle thing
I really don't like McD's fries. They are always soggy, stale and overloaded with salt. I have to brush them off when I eat them. Maybe they just suck down here in Florida. I love getting a couple junior whoppers from the B, though. They're usually decent.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Why competition is good:
It took Intel two years to go from 300MHz to 550MHz (5/97-5/99)
In the next two years, Intel went from 550MHz to 1.7GHz (5/99-4/01)

The difference? AMD had the K6 from 4/97, and the Athlon kicked in at 6/99. One was competitive in all areas, the other wasn't.

Who won the CPU war? The consumer. CPUs became cheaper (though lately prices are going back up), much faster, FSBs became much faster, cache has become much faster, and system architecture has improved (well, for AMD atleast)

 

[Wingznut]

Not to mention that the profit margin on $25 chipsets is nowhere near as appealing as selling $400+ graphics cards. That being said, I'm pretty sure nVidia wouldn't go for this idea.

You could always write them a letter, and ask.

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Lets look back when the 9700Pro and 9500Pro arrived. Let's also say nVidia wasn't around. Alright, so all of the Gear-Heads go and buy the 9700Pro $400 the prosumers go and buy the 9500Pro. 6 months down the road the 9700pro has dropped in price so more people are buying them, some who had bought the 9500pro are even upgrading to the 9700pro.

That doesn't make any sense. Without competition, there would be no impetus for prices to go down, unless demand subsequently went down, which would only be due to total market saturation, which is unlikely given the overall number of PC owners.

Originally posted by: MangoTBGSix more months down the line the videocards are even cheaper because people are buying less of them. Why? Because most of everyone already has them. So now even good ol' Grandma and Grandpa can afford the $100 9500pro. We fast forward a year and you're getting a 9500pro just for filling up your tank with gas at the local stop'n'shop.

See where this is going?

Now, introduce the X800Pro and X800XT into the picture, and viola. The cycle starts again. Granted without competition we'd probably see a much slower development than we do now. I, however, am just pointing out that you are false in saying that there would be absolutely zero need to improve when you have market dominance.

Well, unless you design products that self-destruct after every six months. Or software licenses that expire every year, so that you have to purchase a subscription license agreement. (Hmm. Maybe this economic theory of competition, or lack therefore, *does* prove that Microsoft doesn't really have any effective competition in the market any more.)

I was giving an example and just beause I said "6 months" doesn't exactly mean that it would happen in 6 months. The point I was tyring to prove is that demand WILL FALL...soo EVENTUALLY prices will drop. It doesn't have to be those exact increments in time. A matter a fact replace any amount of time I said with a variable, X Months. Happy? Now see how we both agree on the same thing.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Seems like some people need to go to economics class.

Also saying all this stuff about monopolies is just like saying why dont we get rid of money alltogether. Well if we did that then there would be no motive to work. Same goes for the Computer industry. Creative is a prime example. It has had no reason to upgrade the Audgiy 2 too much because no one has threatened its reign. There is no need to upgrade it.

-Kevin