From China with Love [G80, R600 and G81 info]

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
It's hard to take you seriously, apopin, when you fail to apply any logic into your argurments.

I don't want to see ATI go down either, nor R600 be their last high-end cards. My motto in this industry is "competition drives innovation." IMO, nVidia wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for ATI, and vice versa.

But that doesn't mean we need to sugar coat the facts and pretend like things are going to be all right for ATI - I, as well as most on this board, sure hope they will, but I, too, have reviewed the facts, and even though ATI's products, IP, and overall business will be an intricate part of AMD's new business model, I question whether R700 will ever see the light of day (R700 being the "more unified" architecture in pre-development.)

It will remain to be seen, but I'm not going to immediatly discredit claims that "R600" is ATI's last highend GPUs, because after-all, that would seem to jive with my current predictions. Does that mean ATI/AMD is completely removed from the GPU industry? Definately not. But if they'll be competitng in the ultra highend every several months is what's to remain in question.

Also to get back on topic, all of the rumored scores of G80 seem to be quite exciting. I'm a bit impressed, at this point, nearly 2 weeks from the actual launch and matured drivers. But I'd advice *everyone* to wait until NDA breaks and official reviews soar up on the net to make any final verdicts (though I do personally enjoy the info and speculation, Crusader).

Which brings me to my next point; can ya'll stop beating up on Crusader for what seems to be petty, little squawls. Even if you don't agree with him, it doesn't take a mob to divert this thread into a flame-fest. Let's try to stay on topic, and realize we're not little kids.

Thanks
 

Ulfhednar

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2006
1,031
0
0
The reason that R700 will see the light of day is because AMD won't say no to the profit it will generate.

To think that AMD would buy out one of the two top graphics card manufacturers in the entire world then not profit from the continuation of those product lines is pretty far fetched. Especially since AMD have said that the Radeon product family is going nowhere.

As for Crusader, attention is what he wants. Too bad the only attention he seems capable of getting is negative attention.
 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: thilan29
I wonder how long you would actually last if you spoke like you do in your marvelous capitalist system. You do work for a business don't you?? Do you speak at work like you do here? You're the one telling people they're only badasses on forums but not in real life...I have to wonder now whether you are the same. You might speak like you do to your friends but I really doubt whether you speak like this at work...trying to offend anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

And I'm an ATI fanboy because I don't want to see them leave the GPU market (yet to be confirmed anyway)??? You're dumber than I thought.

Yeah I work in the corporate world. For a Fortune 100 company. Its a hustle, no doubt.
Its funny watching you guys flame out, avoiding any actual statements made but rather cant help but focus on my digs. Kinda sad. Point in case- in the real world.. you'd get out hustled, or you already have.
When you make a statement no one can combat against, and they just get mad? That means I win. Trust me, it does work in the real world. ;)

Thats enough off topic for me in this thread. Be nice to see some actual G80 talk, which ended with my posts above. Oh, and redbox.

So I take it you don't talk like you do here because you'd probably be fired if you talked to all your colleagues like this.

And no it's not that "you made a statement no one can combat against", it's that most viewpoints were already shared earlier in the thread (I've already posted my viewpoints on G80 in another thread...don't need to do it again).

You just like to post flame-bait on these forums since I guess you get your $hits and giggles from that...and since you can't be flame-baiting others at work now can you. It's alright though...keep posting...no one takes you seriously anyway...and let me guess your response to that is "I don't care because I tell it like it is." Hehe, sure bud.

It seems like you're the one partial to the flaming. Your attitude is quite provoking and I still don't understand what you're trying to make a big deal of? 0_o

I guess you suffer from that infamous diease of having to nit-pick and argue because you have nothing better to do.

:roll:

 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
The reason that R700 will see the light of day is because AMD won't say no to the profit it will generate.

To think that AMD would buy out one of the two top graphics card manufacturers in the entire world then not profit from the continuation of those product lines is pretty far fetched. Especially since AMD have said that the Radeon product family is going nowhere.

As for Crusader, attention is what he wants. Too bad the only attention he seems capable of getting is negative attention.

Well obviously you missed why AMD bought ATI. If you think it's so they could enjoy the top-end niche of the GPU market, then I'm sorry, but you're quite mis-guided.

Secondly, you need to ask if R700 is going to have the margins worth AMD's interest. I think that question also applies to R600, but since R600 is obviously near completion, I don't think there's much influence AMD has on R600 at this point (as far as its launch goes).

It's easy to say AMD buys ATI and automatically positions intself in the high-end GPU market. But that assumption is also very one-sided, and doesn't even begin to take into account the logistics and plausibility of the matter.
 

Ulfhednar

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2006
1,031
0
0
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Well obviously you missed why AMD bought ATI. If you think it's so they could enjoy the top-end niche of the GPU market, then I'm sorry, but you're quite mis-guided.
No, I didn't say that I think that's why AMD aquired ATI at all. I just think that there is no singular reason for them buying ATI.

One thing has been made clear in particular, that AMD want to hybridise the CPU and GPU together in a single unit. No doubt this is one of their goals in aquiring ATI.

I don't believe for one moment though that AMD aren't interested in continuing the Radeon product family and reaping the profits, as it's been a very successful business for ATI to the point where they became one of the two most successful graphics card manufacturers in the world. Simply expanding their business into this new (for them) industry will bring in pretty big revenue.

Let's not forget also that AMD do not have a discrete GPU, Intel do. It's been clear from the beginning that AMD want to compete in this sector.

Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Secondly, you need to ask if R700 is going to have the margins worth AMD's interest. I think that question also applies to R600, but since R600 is obviously near completion, I don't think there's much influence AMD has on R600 at this point (as far as its launch goes).

It's easy to say AMD buys ATI and automatically positions intself in the high-end GPU market. But that assumption is also very one-sided, and doesn't even begin to take into account the logistics and plausibility of the matter.
Well, I'm not saying that "AMD are automatically in the high-end GPU market." AMD have however made it clear that ATI will continue to function (as a subdivision of AMD) and that the Radeon product family will continue. Now, I am no business or economics wizz, but I take that to mean that at least for the time being AMD will allow ATI some degree of autonomy in continuing the job they've been doing for years and reaping the profits from that very lucrative business.

AMD will take the deer by the horns of course, but I picture them doing that with a proper merging of personnel and resources so that both companies and their respective pet projects will benefit from the experience and technologies they can share, as well as merging those technologies (the obvious "future vision.")
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Crusader
Problem is, Nvidia isnt a 2-dollar-ho like ATI..

Wow, just wow...your arrogance/stupidity/insanity knows no bounds does it?

I'd like to see NVidia run out of business just to hear you squeal. Although I doubt that will happen any time soon.

not soon . . . but evidently nvidia is working on a CPU for '08 . . . they must do this to survive in the long term . . . and soon will most likely incur the enmity of intel and amd in this process

it is not likely the big players will tolerate nvidia also aggressively competing with them in the CPU arena. . . . and they hold all the cards with their patents on x86.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,091
619
126
Originally posted by: Crusader


You obviously havent read my direct response to this, or choose to ignore it becuase most of you would rather attack someone rather than take into account their actual viewpoints.

Crusaders view-
Doesnt matter what happens to "ATI" branded video cards. They can go under. That'd be great. Why? This is a free market, someone will take their place if theres a profit to be made.
ATI isnt necessary to be around, someone else will step in.
Thats why I dont care. Kinda funny watching the ATI fanboys squeal though, I can admit that much.

I'm guessing no one here is in any sort of private business? There are plenty capable companies that'd get in the market if they could A) Survive Nvidia, and B) Consider it worthwhile/profitable.


I'll take a stab at it. What about barriers to entry? It's not like opening up a competing lemonade stand across the street from your neighborhood rival. To get into the graphics card business takes some serious capital, some very talented engineers and programmers, and even then you're starting out behind the big boys by a long shot. If Nvidia and ATI have been in the graphics business for years and years now (i.e. they have LOTS of experience) and they've been working on G80/R600 for a long time now, how is an upstart company supposed to directly compete with them? They couldn't, not for many years to come and it wouldn't be a very lucrative business getting there.

That's a very basic business principal. Those industries which have little threat of substitutes, high entry barriers, and are very capital intensive don't have new guys popping up all over the place. It would be a lose lose situation for everyone if ATI stopped making high-end video cards no matter which team you root for.
 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
No, I didn't say that I think that's why AMD aquired ATI at all. I just think that there is no singular reason for them buying ATI.

One thing has been made clear in particular, that AMD want to hybridise the CPU and GPU together in a single unit. No doubt this is one of their goals in aquiring ATI.

I don't believe for one moment though that AMD aren't interested in continuing the Radeon product family and reaping the profits, as it's been a very successful business for ATI to the point where they became one of the two most successful graphics card manufacturers in the world. Simply expanding their business into this new (for them) industry will bring in pretty big revenue.
But you have to realize that "bringing in pretty big revenues" will also come at a cost. Because this was ATI's primary market, obviously whatever the cost was to stay on top of the technology of the GPU sector was well worth it. But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?

ATI has traditionally lower margins in their GPU sectors, which is very unattractive to AMD if they were ever considering remaining in those markets. So does it sound feasible to you that AMD now puts in top notch R&D, as much as previously by ATI, into GPU development, when the returns / gains on those investments don't nearly compare to what they're already involved with in their other core markets? The answer is no, it doesn't sound feasible. It would be more disadvantageous to AMD in the long run, dividing their resources, because after all, GPU development is mighty expensive, and if the margins aren't favorable, AMD isn't going to be dumb.

I'm not saying AMD immediatly pulls out of the graphics market, in fact they may never. But, imho, I don't believe they'll stay in the top-end, and that R600 may be the last "highend" part from ATI.

Originally posted by: UlfhednarLet's not forget also that AMD do not have a discrete GPU, Intel do. It's been clear from the beginning that AMD want to compete in this sector.
Unless Intel plans to compete with nVidia in the highend GPU sector, which virtually every analyst says will be nearly impossible (atleast for the next few years), AMD won't even need R700 vs. whatever Intel is conjouring up.

Also, I think you're putting too much into AMD's statement about "Radeon continuing to flourish." This may be true or not, but it was said right after the aquisition was announced, so it was mostly a PR move, IMO, to assure investors. We'll see what happens.

Lastly, please realize this is not an AMD / ATI merger. This is an AMD aquisition of ATI. Meaning, AMD makes the call for what best suits them.

 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
your world is filled with FUD and dreams of nvidia ...
you said -nvidia is AMD's friend?
:Q

ridiculous

and not anymore . . . look at AMD to blast away at nvidia as soon as nvidia attempts to compete with them . . .

And yet AMD will be on of the largest sponsors of the Geforce Lan3 event Nov. 7 and 8, debuting G80.

http://www.pdxlan.net/nvidia/news.php


Your logic floors me... :roll:
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,835
2,039
126
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
It seems like you're the one partial to the flaming. Your attitude is quite provoking and I still don't understand what you're trying to make a big deal of? 0_o

I guess you suffer from that infamous diease of having to nit-pick and argue because you have nothing better to do.

Oh brother...I am the one flame-baiting??...do you just skip by Crusader's posts?? Did I post anything negative to ANYONE ELSE but Crusader?? He's the one who tells other people that they can't possibly be so tough as they are in these forums...then turns around and does the same here(as I pointed out I doubt he can flame-bait others at his work but merrily does it here).

I've already given my views on G80 in another thread(that I WILL step-up to it with my 7900GTO and hopes that it wipes the floor with everything else) and also my views on Crusader's thoughts of a dead ATI (mainly that I think we need competition in the GPU business and like Elfear pointed out it won't be easy for another company to get into the GPU business)...so I still see no reason for Crusader to be gleeful that ATI may not produce high end GPUs anymore...THAT is what I take issue with...and of course digs aimed at him along the way (much like he admitted to doing).

I'm sorry if YOU found my posts flame-bait. They were not intended for you. I think I'll stop with this here now though...he can post whatever more he wants...I won't respond to any more of his posts in this thread. I will however post anything about G80 if I find any information, although I think most of it has already been spilled...except the prices.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Nelsieus

But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?
Evidence
...AMD had looked for some time at spreading its wings into the graphics arena, but concluded that it was better to approach a firm like ATI which had immense expertise in that marketplace. He said that the only rational way to approach that market was to take that approach.

...if you looked at the graphics and CPU market for PCs, there had been five to 10 companies which tried to enter the GPU business and the same sort of number attempted entry into the CPU business too. But that has consolidated into two or three firms in both sectors which suited AMD customers very well. A monopoly didn't suit PC manufacturers, who like to be able to choose which components they use and play the price and performance game.

It's too early to say how AMD's acquisition of ATI will shake out, said Hester, but there were unlikely to be too many redundancies. It continued to be a partner and to work with Nvidia and it was likely that AMD will continue to use the ATI brand in the AMD portfolio

it stands to reason that to have graphics solutions that compete with intel and nvidia would require persuing high-end grapics in addition to integrated gfx.... just like nvidia is persuing creating a CPU in addition to high-end gfx cards and chipsets.

the performance crown is something AMD likes to have and i believe they will keep it in the gfx market
 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus

But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?
Evidence
...AMD had looked for some time at spreading its wings into the graphics arena, but concluded that it was better to approach a firm like ATI which had immense expertise in that marketplace. He said that the only rational way to approach that market was to take that approach.

...if you looked at the graphics and CPU market for PCs, there had been five to 10 companies which tried to enter the GPU business and the same sort of number attempted entry into the CPU business too. But that has consolidated into two or three firms in both sectors which suited AMD customers very well. A monopoly didn't suit PC manufacturers, who like to be able to choose which components they use and play the price and performance game.

It's too early to say how AMD's acquisition of ATI will shake out, said Hester, but there were unlikely to be too many redundancies. It continued to be a partner and to work with Nvidia and it was likely that AMD will continue to use the ATI brand in the AMD portfolio

it stands to reason that to have graphics solutions that compete with intel and nvidia would require persuing high-end grapics in addition to integrated gfx.... just like nvidia is persuing creating a CPU in addition to high-end gfx cards and chipsets.

the performance crown is something AMD likes to have and i believe they will keep it in the gfx market

It's rather laughable that you would cite theINQ. I'm almost embarassed for you. :roll:
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus

But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?
Evidence
...AMD had looked for some time at spreading its wings into the graphics arena, but concluded that it was better to approach a firm like ATI which had immense expertise in that marketplace. He said that the only rational way to approach that market was to take that approach.

...if you looked at the graphics and CPU market for PCs, there had been five to 10 companies which tried to enter the GPU business and the same sort of number attempted entry into the CPU business too. But that has consolidated into two or three firms in both sectors which suited AMD customers very well. A monopoly didn't suit PC manufacturers, who like to be able to choose which components they use and play the price and performance game.

It's too early to say how AMD's acquisition of ATI will shake out, said Hester, but there were unlikely to be too many redundancies. It continued to be a partner and to work with Nvidia and it was likely that AMD will continue to use the ATI brand in the AMD portfolio

it stands to reason that to have graphics solutions that compete with intel and nvidia would require persuing high-end grapics in addition to integrated gfx.... just like nvidia is persuing creating a CPU in addition to high-end gfx cards and chipsets.

the performance crown is something AMD likes to have and i believe they will keep it in the gfx market

It's rather laughable that you would cite theINQ. I'm almost embarassed for you. :roll:

did you even bother to read it and did you see who they are quoting?
:Q

it is stupid to comment on something you have no knowledge of
:thumbsdown:

it's insider info on ATi/AMD . . . some thing theInq gets better than anyone else. ... and certainly better than your display of illogic

 

Nelsieus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2006
330
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus

But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?
Evidence
...AMD had looked for some time at spreading its wings into the graphics arena, but concluded that it was better to approach a firm like ATI which had immense expertise in that marketplace. He said that the only rational way to approach that market was to take that approach.

...if you looked at the graphics and CPU market for PCs, there had been five to 10 companies which tried to enter the GPU business and the same sort of number attempted entry into the CPU business too. But that has consolidated into two or three firms in both sectors which suited AMD customers very well. A monopoly didn't suit PC manufacturers, who like to be able to choose which components they use and play the price and performance game.

It's too early to say how AMD's acquisition of ATI will shake out, said Hester, but there were unlikely to be too many redundancies. It continued to be a partner and to work with Nvidia and it was likely that AMD will continue to use the ATI brand in the AMD portfolio

it stands to reason that to have graphics solutions that compete with intel and nvidia would require persuing high-end grapics in addition to integrated gfx.... just like nvidia is persuing creating a CPU in addition to high-end gfx cards and chipsets.

the performance crown is something AMD likes to have and i believe they will keep it in the gfx market

It's rather laughable that you would cite theINQ. I'm almost embarassed for you. :roll:

did you even bother to read it and did you see who they are quoting?
:Q

it is stupid to comment on something you have no knowledge of
:thumbsdown:

it's insider info on ATi/AMD . . . some thing theInq gets better than anyone else. ... and certainly better than your display of illogic

I usually don't take attacks too personal when they come from a.) fanboys who admit their loyality within an industry, b.)those who obviously lack comprehension skills towards intelligent conversations and topics by their inability to use reasonable explanations or ignoring pertinent facts, and/or c.) those who consider theINQ an "insider info source."

That gets a big :thumbsdown:

;)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Nelsieus

But now we're getting into AMD's turf, and what evidence do you have that suggests they are adament about entering the highend niche market, besides the assertion that just because it brings in "pretty big revenue," it must be at the top of AMD's agenda?
Evidence
...AMD had looked for some time at spreading its wings into the graphics arena, but concluded that it was better to approach a firm like ATI which had immense expertise in that marketplace. He said that the only rational way to approach that market was to take that approach.

...if you looked at the graphics and CPU market for PCs, there had been five to 10 companies which tried to enter the GPU business and the same sort of number attempted entry into the CPU business too. But that has consolidated into two or three firms in both sectors which suited AMD customers very well. A monopoly didn't suit PC manufacturers, who like to be able to choose which components they use and play the price and performance game.

It's too early to say how AMD's acquisition of ATI will shake out, said Hester, but there were unlikely to be too many redundancies. It continued to be a partner and to work with Nvidia and it was likely that AMD will continue to use the ATI brand in the AMD portfolio

it stands to reason that to have graphics solutions that compete with intel and nvidia would require persuing high-end grapics in addition to integrated gfx.... just like nvidia is persuing creating a CPU in addition to high-end gfx cards and chipsets.

the performance crown is something AMD likes to have and i believe they will keep it in the gfx market

It's rather laughable that you would cite theINQ. I'm almost embarassed for you. :roll:

did you even bother to read it and did you see who they are quoting?
:Q

it is stupid to comment on something you have no knowledge of
:thumbsdown:

it's insider info on ATi/AMD . . . some thing theInq gets better than anyone else. ... and certainly better than your display of illogic

I usually don't take attacks too personal when they come from a.) fanboys who admit their loyality within an industry, b.)those who obviously lack comprehension skills towards intelligent conversations and topics by their inability to use reasonable explanations or ignoring pertinent facts, and/or c.) those who consider theINQ an "insider info source."

That gets a big :thumbsdown:

;)

which means when translated - you intend to remain clueless



 

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
not soon . . . but evidently nvidia is working on a CPU for '08 . . . they must do this to survive in the long term . . . and soon will most likely incur the enmity of intel and amd in this process

it is not likely the big players will tolerate nvidia also aggressively competing with them in the CPU arena. . . . and they hold all the cards with their patents on x86.

First of all, Nvidia building a CPU is still speculation.. NV buys a small company with a few CPU guys and the media goes wild.
And theres no absolute NEED for Nvidia to "make a CPU or die" as you suggest. Care to elaborate as to why there arent thousands of other avenues in the semiconductor industry to support Nvidia (and grow)?

About X86 licensing.. Intel isnt the only holder.. I believe Texas Instruments and IBM do as well. Thats just off the top of my head.. but Intel isnt the only gatekeeper even if Nvidia is working on a CPU.
I'd guess that Intel and NV are getting close right about now.. oh wait, they are and in fact Intel has a sizable stake in Nvidia.. but you wouldnt have read the link I posted for you.

So if and when Intel and AMD has Fusion CPUs.. NV is not even remotely left out in the cold with nothing as you suggest.
Theres PLENTY to do outside of CPUs.. or even GPUs for nvidia to make money on in the semiconductor industry.

Besides, its insane to assume NV is going up against Intel and AMD.. with what fabs?
What are they going to do, outsource while attempting to compete against AMD and Intel.. who have in-house fabs??

They'd have to purchase TSMC (3rd largest foundry in the world).. and I dont think theres anyway they could swing that purchase.

I think NV is best off as they sit now. Tons of options open, and free to exist as they wish. ATI is just gone.. sucked up by AMD.
I highly doubt Nvidia even WANTS to make a CPU.

As far as AMD Fusion.. a large reason why AMD is doing this is because they have a hard time competing with Intel on the northbridge. It will be a cheap business solution for a long time.. add-in cards for enthusiasts arent going to be wiped off the map..

To compete with add-in boards like G80/R600/G90 the chip would be so complex and large.. it'll be a while I think till you see anything like that.

If you have any logic behind your suggestions that "NVIDIA must make a CPU to survive", I'd love to hear it..

There are a lot of easier, and more profitable areas for Nvidia to get into within the semiconductor industry than take on Intel and AMD. If anything has changed lately, its that AMD will likely be forced, or simply just want to pull away from the high end GPU market. I dont think they'll stop making cards, or attempting the high end.. but they arent going to be dumb about it and lose their shirts trying to fight Nvidia as Intel regains their lost ground.
Plus with Intel buying larger shares of Nvidia.. it just doesnt make sense for the partnership to not grow. But dream on.. I guess.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
The reason that R700 will see the light of day is because AMD won't say no to the profit it will generate.

The high end GPU market does not generate the profit that your imagination clearly does. The market was not big enough for both companies. One compay had to either go out of business or get bought out.....guess which happend.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
not soon . . . but evidently nvidia is working on a CPU for '08 . . . they must do this to survive in the long term . . . and soon will most likely incur the enmity of intel and amd in this process

it is not likely the big players will tolerate nvidia also aggressively competing with them in the CPU arena. . . . and they hold all the cards with their patents on x86.

A thousand cows could not fill the forum with as much BS as you. NVIDIA is doing just fine with chipsets and GPUs, why would they need to waste time and money to compete against Intel and AMD in which you yourself consider a losing battle. :roll:

Originally posted by: apoppin
did you even bother to read it and did you see who they are quoting?


it is stupid to comment on something you have no knowledge of


it's insider info on ATi/AMD . . . some thing theInq gets better than anyone else. ... and certainly better than your display of illogic

You have all the maturity of a zygote. Using the Inq as a reliable source is like using a screen door as a condom.
 

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
The reason that R700 will see the light of day is because AMD won't say no to the profit it will generate.

The high end GPU market does not generate the profit that your imagination clearly does. The market was not big enough for both companies. One compay had to either go out of business or get bought out.....guess which happend.


2003- ATI clearly dominates the high end of the graphics card market, and could soon dominate the midrange market as well. Despite these impressive accomplishments, ATI is still losing money. The company lost US$8.3 million, but unfortunately expects to continue losing money next quarter.

Doh.

-

Today- ATI has been losing money on its graphics card sales to buy marketshare, whilst propping its business up with TV chip and mobile phone chip sales.

Doh.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: apoppin
not soon . . . but evidently nvidia is working on a CPU for '08 . . . they must do this to survive in the long term . . . and soon will most likely incur the enmity of intel and amd in this process

it is not likely the big players will tolerate nvidia also aggressively competing with them in the CPU arena. . . . and they hold all the cards with their patents on x86.

First of all, Nvidia building a CPU is still speculation.. NV buys a small company with a few CPU guys and the media goes wild.
ah but it is
And theres no absolute NEED for Nvidia to "make a CPU or die" as you suggest. Care to elaborate as to why there arent thousands of other avenues in the semiconductor industry to support Nvidia (and grow)?
nope . . . nvidia IS making a cpu . . . no need to go off on another tangent
About X86 licensing.. Intel isnt the only holder.. I believe Texas Instruments and IBM do as well. Thats just off the top of my head.. but Intel isnt the only gatekeeper even if Nvidia is working on a CPU.
I'd guess that Intel and NV are getting close right about now.. oh wait, they are and in fact Intel has a sizable stake in Nvidia.. but you wouldnt have read the link I posted for you.
you certainly don't bother to read any links i post

four companies can make an x86 CPU : AMD, IBM, Intel and NatSemi.
possibly Via and Transmeta . . . and they all cross-liscence each other so if it is OK with intel/amd, it is ok with them all.

nvidia's license to the intel bus allows it to make chipsets but not cpus. the rest of the nonsense you post isn't worth a reply nor does it ask for one....the reality is that nvidia IS making a CPU .... clearly they see the future much better than your lame analysis
So if and when Intel and AMD has Fusion CPUs.. NV is not even remotely left out in the cold with nothing as you suggest.
Theres PLENTY to do outside of CPUs.. or even GPUs for nvidia to make money on in the semiconductor industry.

Besides, its insane to assume NV is going up against Intel and AMD.. with what fabs?
What are they going to do, outsource while attempting to compete against AMD and Intel.. who have in-house fabs??

They'd have to purchase TSMC (3rd largest foundry in the world).. and I dont think theres anyway they could swing that purchase.

I think NV is best off as they sit now. Tons of options open, and free to exist as they wish. ATI is just gone.. sucked up by AMD.
I highly doubt Nvidia even WANTS to make a CPU.

As far as AMD Fusion.. a large reason why AMD is doing this is because they have a hard time competing with Intel on the northbridge. It will be a cheap business solution for a long time.. add-in cards for enthusiasts arent going to be wiped off the map..

To compete with add-in boards like G80/R600/G90 the chip would be so complex and large.. it'll be a while I think till you see anything like that.

If you have any logic behind your suggestions that "NVIDIA must make a CPU to survive", I'd love to hear it..

There are a lot of easier, and more profitable areas for Nvidia to get into within the semiconductor industry than take on Intel and AMD. If anything has changed lately, its that AMD will likely be forced, or simply just want to pull away from the high end GPU market. I dont think they'll stop making cards, or attempting the high end.. but they arent going to be dumb about it and lose their shirts trying to fight Nvidia as Intel regains their lost ground.
Plus with Intel buying larger shares of Nvidia.. it just doesnt make sense for the partnership to not grow. But dream on.. I guess.
you're right . . . they way you explain it it makes ZERO sense.

and i am done debating anything with you . . . you lack the ability to hold a coherent debate nor do you have any knowledge of what you post as fact

aloha
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin

you're right . . . they way you explain it it makes ZERO sense.

you lack the ability to hold a coherent debate nor do you have any knowledge of what you post as fact

In case you missed it in the other thread.....

It must be like looking into a mirro for you.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: apoppin

you're right . . . they way you explain it it makes ZERO sense.

you lack the ability to hold a coherent debate nor do you have any knowledge of what you post as fact

In case you missed it in the other thread.....

It must be like looking into a mirro for you.

i didn't miss it and your ability to understand my posts must be like looking into a mirror upside down and backwards for you

 

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
and i am done debating anything with you . . . you lack the ability to hold a coherent debate nor do you have any knowledge of what you post as fact

aloha

LOL! Who lacks the ability to hold a coherant debate Mr. Back Out When Things Get Heated?
Hey Im MORE than willing to explain to you why you are dead wrong kid.
But you back down when you are right? Wow! You MUST be right!!! Thats fine, move along.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: apoppin
FACT: nvidia IS the little guy now

FACT: NVIDIA is the ONLY guy now.

ATI is gone, nothing more than a brand name and soon nothing more than a label printed on an intergrated chipset from AMD.

The R600 will be the last high end card from ATI.

just because you post the same ridiculous lie a thousand times doesn't make it true
:thumbsdown: