Is this the end to ATi?!?!

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: trinibwoy

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Last I checked, ATI is still outselling Nvidia in total volume. Their overall situation is still better than AMD with just only 20% or so of the CPU market.

Volume doesn't matter if your margins are in the toilet and their stock price reflects that. Nvidia is selling more at the high-end where margins are a lot better.

If their margins of the high-end GPUS were so high, tell me why would ATI/Nvidia even bother to make low-end GPUs?

 

[Keysplayr]

At close of business Friday 7/22

Nvidia: NVIDIA Corp (NVDA) $25.83 down $0.69 Market Cap 4.36 billion
52wk Range: 9.30 - 29.60
Volume: 5,846,883

ATi: ATI Technologies Inc (ATYT) $12.95 down $0.07 Market Cap 3.25 billion
52wk Range: 11.20 - 20.66
Volume: 2,979,178

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
yuo people dont realize that the companies work on cards well in advance? I read somewhere that ATI works 5 generations ahead and NV 5 or 6. Of course NV will talk about NV80, but dont worry ATI has a R600 in the works for a long while too, ATI is just going to keep it as secrect since the general attitude at ati is dont ask dont tell, both companies are planning as high up as R1000 and G120(or whatever they will be called).

well they just have vague blueprints of what future gen cards which means nothing. major building and planning of the a next gen is done once their current flagship card is out and running. if what you say is true next gen cards should come out every 6months.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
If their margins of the high-end GPUS were so high, tell me why would ATI/Nvidia even bother to make low-end GPUs?

Please try to make sense. What does that have to do with my statement above? Higher margins on high-end cards are a fact not an opinion. Nvidia is shipping more high-end parts - ATi is shipping more at the low end. Net result - higher profit for Nvidia.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: trinibwoy

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
If their margins of the high-end GPUS were so high, tell me why would ATI/Nvidia even bother to make low-end GPUs?

Please try to make sense. What does that have to do with my statement above? Higher margins on high-end cards are a fact not an opinion. Nvidia is shipping more high-end parts - ATi is shipping more at the low end. Net result - higher profit for Nvidia.

Fact is, high performance parts sell entry-level and mid-level parts. Entry/mid-level has higher profit margins and sell more volume, thus are more profitable overall. Without a highly desirable high performance part, entry and mid sales tank which is why it is so important to have a high performance model.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Fact is, high performance parts sell entry-level and mid-level parts. Entry/mid-level has higher profit margins and sell more volume, thus are more profitable overall. Without a highly desirable high performance part, entry and mid sales tank which is why it is so important to have a high performance model.

Wrong again. Entry/mid-level brings more revenue due to higher-volumes. High-end parts have higher margins. I think some people don't understand the financial terms they try to use.

The margin is the difference between the cost price of a product and the selling price. Entry/mid-level cards are sold much closer to cost than high-end products.

I'm not sure why this is an argument - ATi themselves support what I'm saying.

http://apps.ati.com/ir/PressReleaseText.asp?compid=105421&releaseID=717070

While we believe end-user demand remains stable, a product mix shift in the quarter towards the lower end of the desktop and notebook discrete market caused revenues to come in below expectations.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Drayvn
R600?

Ready and waiting pretty much in the Xbox360 already...

Waiting for what?
Let's see ya go out and purchase one. And, I can't stand how the consoles are meshing in with our PC conversations. Consoles are consoles. Should have there own forum.
And that's where they should stay. I know, the forum says video.

As in an R600 variation is working in the Xbox360...

I cant go buy one, but they are out at the devs already as a lot of press has been about explaining that.

So why cant console discussion be in here, as its basically a big video game playing device.

ITS A R500 VARIATION IN THE Xbox360

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Is this the end to ATi?!?!

No.

QFT- ATI isn't going anywhere. They were second in the high performance market a lot more years than they were first, they're still around.

Yep and they are into MANY things other than highend PC graphics.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Drayvn
R600?

Ready and waiting pretty much in the Xbox360 already...

Waiting for what?
Let's see ya go out and purchase one. And, I can't stand how the consoles are meshing in with our PC conversations. Consoles are consoles. Should have there own forum.
And that's where they should stay. I know, the forum says video.

I cant go buy one, but they are out at the devs already as a lot of press has been about explaining that.

So why cant console discussion be in here, as its basically a big video game playing device.

ITS A R500 VARIATION IN THE Xbox360

Im glad youre so confident, since R500 doesnt have unified shaders, and R600 does, and the Xbox GPU does.
As in an R600 variation is working in the Xbox360...

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Is this the end to ATi?!?!

No.

QFT- ATI isn't going anywhere. They were second in the high performance market a lot more years than they were first, they're still around.

Exactally. People said the same about nVidia 2 years ago. ATi is just in a slump right now and will easily dig themselves out just like nVidia did.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Is this the end to ATi?!?!

No.

QFT- ATI isn't going anywhere. They were second in the high performance market a lot more years than they were first, they're still around.

Exactally. People said the same about nVidia 2 years ago. ATi is just in a slump right now and will easily dig themselves out just like nVidia did.

They were always second/third in the performance race, you don't need the fastest card to run a profitable business.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im glad youre so confident, since R500 doesnt have unified shaders, and R600 does, and the Xbox GPU does.
As in an R600 variation is working in the Xbox360...

No, he's right.

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=02

A name that has long since been mentioned in relation to the graphics behind Xenon (the development name for XBOX 360) is R500. Although this name has appeared from various sources, the actual development name ATI uses for Xenon's graphics is "C1", whilst the more "PR friendly" codename that has surfaced is "Xenos". ATI are probably fairly keen not to use the R500 name as this draws parallels with their upcoming series of PC graphics processors starting with R520, however R520 and Xenos are very distinct parts.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: trinibwoy

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Fact is, high performance parts sell entry-level and mid-level parts. Entry/mid-level has higher profit margins and sell more volume, thus are more profitable overall. Without a highly desirable high performance part, entry and mid sales tank which is why it is so important to have a high performance model.

Wrong again. Entry/mid-level brings more revenue due to higher-volumes. High-end parts have higher margins. I think some people don't understand the financial terms they try to use.

The margin is the difference between the cost price of a product and the selling price. Entry/mid-level cards are sold much closer to cost than high-end products.

I'm not sure why this is an argument - ATi themselves support what I'm saying.

http://apps.ati.com/ir/PressReleaseText.asp?compid=105421&releaseID=717070

While we believe end-user demand remains stable, a product mix shift in the quarter towards the lower end of the desktop and notebook discrete market caused revenues to come in below expectations.
According to Hexus.net in a review from January 2004:

The high end sector of consumer graphics is a curious one. It usually drives brand awareness more than any other sector, despite having very low sales compared to the mid-range, since consumers like the peek at performance they'll have in their mainstream accelerators in the coming year. Cards are often sold at a loss too; ATI announced to Wall Street this year that R420, their upcoming new high-end GPU part, due to arrive early next year, may be sold at a loss, simply to hold on to the performance crown at any (to a certain degree) cost. If it means undercutting whatever NVIDIA can come up with next, ATI will more than likely do so. Big competition for not much gain, reputation is king.

 

[VIAN]

And what makes you think ATI won't learn from this mistake?

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
According to Hexus.net in a review from January 2004:

The high end sector of consumer graphics is a curious one. It usually drives brand awareness more than any other sector, despite having very low sales compared to the mid-range, since consumers like the peek at performance they'll have in their mainstream accelerators in the coming year. Cards are often sold at a loss too; ATI announced to Wall Street this year that R420, their upcoming new high-end GPU part, due to arrive early next year, may be sold at a loss, simply to hold on to the performance crown at any (to a certain degree) cost. If it means undercutting whatever NVIDIA can come up with next, ATI will more than likely do so. Big competition for not much gain, reputation is king.

How much more expensive do you think a 6800Ultra GPU is in comparison to a 6200? What ATi did with one SKU is not indicative of the norm - they had a lot more problems getting their last generation parts to market than Nvidia did. I can assure you that Nvidia didn't sell NV40 at a loss - their financial results speak for themselves.

Re-spinning of a chip is a costly process, as every re-spin costs several millions of U.S. dollars. Still, provided that such a re-spin would improves commercial yield by a significant margin, the cost of re-spin will be compensated because of extremely high profit margin on high-end graphics processors.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050609093014.html

I really don't see the argument here. It is very common knowledge that ATi and Nvidia make a lot more profit off of each high-end GPU they sell. However, their revenues are dependent on a large volume of lower-margin sales.

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Is this the end to ATi?!?!

No.

QFT- ATI isn't going anywhere. They were second in the high performance market a lot more years than they were first, they're still around.

Exactally. People said the same about nVidia 2 years ago. ATi is just in a slump right now and will easily dig themselves out just like nVidia did.

well its not easy to come out from slumps...nvidia put in a lot of money tweaking their FX series cards to compete with the 9xxx series and also in developing the NV40. had nvidia failed with its NV40 it could have meant their end. its going to be alot harder than just saying "theyll dig themselves out easily".
barring the R300 ATI hasnt really shown how capable they are in developing new cores/architectures.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: ddogg
well its not easy to come out from slumps...nvidia put in a lot of money tweaking their FX series cards to compete with the 9xxx series and also in developing the NV40. had nvidia failed with its NV40 it could have meant their end. its going to be alot harder than just saying "theyll dig themselves out easily".

Sorry dude, you're just wrong about this. nVidia is the largest manufacturer of AMD chipsets, and has the Sony PS3 contract. Coming in second in the high end race wouldn't have "meant their end". ATI was in second or third in the high end race for 8/10 years (or more), losing millions a quarter, and they're still around.

barring the R300 ATI hasnt really shown how capable they are in developing new cores/architectures.

ATI didn't develop the R300, an American company named ArtX did. ATI bought ArtX and the R300.

 

[Greenman]

USA today had an interview with the founder and CEO of nvidia about 3 weeks back, he said that at one point, nvidia was down to one million dollars in the bank and their products weren?t selling. They laid off most of their employs and started over again. I think this was before they were selling Nforce chipsets.
A good read, if usa today has old articles on line it would be worth looking up.

 

[RussianSensation]

As insomniak mentioned, high-end parts are not there for high-volume sales. Since the AGP market still comprises close to 50% or more of the graphics card market, 7800GTX didnt' even leave a mark as a whole (not to mention that so few people spend $500 on a graphics accelerator). Given that NVidia has no mid-range or low-end cards based on G70 (and might not have them in agp format), ATI has not lost anything yet. The battle still remains between current generation.

It's only been 1 month since 7800GTX's release. ATI was supposed to release R520 on July 26th (so technically they are not even late yet). 1 month is nothing in a race where graphics card cycles are at least 12 months. Again Nvidia only has 1 type of graphics card for $500 US; in only 1 interface. That's around 3% of the market.

If ATI released their cards 1 month before and Nvidia was in ATI's position now, would people say Nvidia is finished? I dont think so.

Until either company releases both AGP and PCIe new generations cards for $300 that are significantly (not 10%) faster than X800XL and 6800GT, $100 and below cards, faster than 6200/6600 and x300/x700 series, nothing conclusive can be drawn about the situation.

EDIT: Plus, if 7800GTX was such a breakthrough in the industry, why have the prices on it dropped $100$100 in just 1 month after introduction? Maybe because there are expectations that R520 will be >>>> than 7800GTX, and 7800Ultra will take the high-end at $599? Or maybe the quantity demanded for 7800GTX is lower than expected? Or maybe because most people don't think it's worth getting 7800GTX over their already high-end x800/850/6800GT/U parts given that it's performance shines in just 3-4 games? We need more demanding games damnit...

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
It's only been 1 month since 7800GTX's release and ATI was supposed to release R520 on July 26th (so technically they are not even late yet). 1 month is nothing in a race where graphics card cycles are at least 12 months. Again Nvidia only has 1 type of graphics card for $500 US in only 1 interface. That's like 2% of the market.

If ATI released their cards 1 month before and Nvidia was in ATI's position now, would people say Nvidia is finished? I dont think so.

Until either company releases both AGP and PCIe new generations cards for $300 that are significantly (not 10%) faster than X800XL and 6800GT, $100 and below cards faster than 6200/6600 and x300/x700 series, nothing conclusive can be drawn about the situation.

I totally agree. I think all of this "doomed" talk is due to the perception of multiple issues with r520. But all of that will go away once it's released in a reasonable timeframe.

 

[Rudee]

Yes, ATI is finished as a company. :roll:

 

[KeepItRed]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
As insomniak mentioned, high-end parts are not there for high-volume sales. Since the AGP market still comprises close to 50% or more of the graphics card market, 7800GTX didnt' even leave a mark as a whole (not to mention that so few people spend $500 on a graphics accelerator). Given that NVidia has no mid-range or low-end cards based on G70 (and might not have them in agp format), ATI has not lost anything yet. The battle still remains between current generation.

It's only been 1 month since 7800GTX's release. ATI was supposed to release R520 on July 26th (so technically they are not even late yet). 1 month is nothing in a race where graphics card cycles are at least 12 months. Again Nvidia only has 1 type of graphics card for $500 US; in only 1 interface. That's around 3% of the market.

If ATI released their cards 1 month before and Nvidia was in ATI's position now, would people say Nvidia is finished? I dont think so.

Until either company releases both AGP and PCIe new generations cards for $300 that are significantly (not 10%) faster than X800XL and 6800GT, $100 and below cards, faster than 6200/6600 and x300/x700 series, nothing conclusive can be drawn about the situation.

EDIT: Plus, if 7800GTX was such a breakthrough in the industry, why have the prices on it dropped $100$100 in just 1 month after introduction? Maybe because there are expectations that R520 will be >>>> than 7800GTX, and 7800Ultra will take the high-end at $599? Or maybe the quantity demanded for 7800GTX is lower than expected? Or maybe because most people don't think it's worth getting 7800GTX over their already high-end x800/850/6800GT/U parts given that it's performance shines in just 3-4 games? We need more demanding games damnit...

Exactly.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
EDIT: Plus, if 7800GTX was such a breakthrough in the industry, why have the prices on it dropped $100$100 in just 1 month after introduction? Maybe because there are expectations that R520 will be >>>> than 7800GTX, and 7800Ultra will take the high-end at $599? Or maybe the quantity demanded for 7800GTX is lower than expected? Or maybe because most people don't think it's worth getting 7800GTX over their already high-end x800/850/6800GT/U parts given that it's performance shines in just 3-4 games? We need more demanding games damnit...

Uh, this does not take a rocket scientist to figure out - it's simple....the parts are available in VOLUME. The re/e-tailers can't gouge because there is competition on the supply end.

Duh. This is how it always used to be. Did you forget or something? It's the way it SHOULD be too. Paper launches should be completely unacceptable, and hopefully Nvidia has set everyone back in the right path with the 7800GTX launch.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: trinibwoy

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
It's only been 1 month since 7800GTX's release and ATI was supposed to release R520 on July 26th (so technically they are not even late yet). 1 month is nothing in a race where graphics card cycles are at least 12 months. Again Nvidia only has 1 type of graphics card for $500 US in only 1 interface. That's like 2% of the market.

If ATI released their cards 1 month before and Nvidia was in ATI's position now, would people say Nvidia is finished? I dont think so.

Until either company releases both AGP and PCIe new generations cards for $300 that are significantly (not 10%) faster than X800XL and 6800GT, $100 and below cards faster than 6200/6600 and x300/x700 series, nothing conclusive can be drawn about the situation.

I totally agree. I think all of this "doomed" talk is due to the perception of multiple issues with r520. But all of that will go away once it's released in a reasonable timeframe.

I hope so. But the situation ATi put themselves in is far more serious than NV with their FX days. By that i mean, ATi has alot of grounds to gain, dual GPU market, mid range market expecailly, high end included AND the chipset market, all laid down by aggressive Nvidia. Oh and also the IGP market soon enough.

What i am trying to say is, Nvidia has that advantage of countering almost every product ATi brings to the market, since ATi themselves is late to the party.
Time will tell though.

 

[reever]

It's really not going to make a difference after this generation... Ati has what..... 4-5 years(excluding last year) behind them of increased sales, revenue and profits to fall back on?