NV: Everything under control. 512-Fermi may appear someday. Yields aren't under 20%

[waffleironhead]

Where do you get ~15% from?

look at dx11 market share, ati's percentage of that segment then compare that to ati's total market share.

 

[Attic]

It's gonna look real good for AMD. They're going to have their 6xxx series out before the thermi gets any supply or market penetration.

Thing to worry about is nVidia's viral marketing bullshit and focus group members going around spreading misinformation and half truths and further nVidia shenanigans via TWIMTBP program where there intention is to lock out AMD users from game affects ala Batman AA and Just Cause 2.

I'd really like to see AMD on top so gamers would be less at risk of seeing nVidia continuting to perpetuate propeitary standards that hurt gamers in an attempt to lock in market share at the cost of innovation.

 

[Genx87]

It's gonna look real good for AMD. They're going to have their 6xxx series out before the thermi gets any supply or market penetration.

Thing to worry about is nVidia's viral marketing bullshit and focus group members going around spreading misinformation and half truths and further nVidia shenanigans via TWIMTBP program where there intention is to lock out AMD users from game affects ala Batman AA and Just Cause 2.

I'd really like to see AMD on top so gamers would be less at risk of seeing nVidia continuting to perpetuate propeitary standards that hurt gamers in an attempt to lock in market share at the cost of innovation.

What is AMD bringing to the table that is so innovating that Nvidia is locking it away from the market?

 

[Attic]

What is AMD bringing to the table that is so innovating that Nvidia is locking it away from the market?

AMD isn't bringing, it has brought a robust top to bottom lineup of DX11 hardware that can fit different gamers budgets. I don't understand the point your attempt to make with your post. Is it a counter to my argument that I believe nVidia is hurting gamers through marketing deals they make through their TWIMTBP program? For nvidia users it's not the same issue, but nvidia is pushing a path I dont' like, and i'm not alone.

From Hardocp's recent Just Cause 2 gameplay/image evaluation,

When NVIDIA tells us that it will "Do no harm!" when it comes to gaming, that is really a bold faced lie, and we knew it when it was told to us. It will do no harm to PC gaming when it fits its agenda. NVIDIA is going to continue to glom onto its proprietary technologies so that it gains a marketing edge, which it very much does though its TWIMTBP program. And we have to assume that marketing edge is worth all the bad press it does generate. To say NVIDIA does not harm to PC gaming is a delusional at best. You AMD users just got shafted on these cool effects that could have been easily developed for all PC gamers instead of just those that purchase from one company.

 

[Genx87]

AMD isn't bringing, it has brought a robust top to bottom lineup of DX11 hardware that can fit different gamers budgets. I don't understand the point your attempt to make with your post. Is it a counter to my argument that I believe nVidia is hurting gamers through marketing deals they make through their TWIMTBP program? For nvidia users it's not the same issue, but nvidia is pushing a path I dont' like, and i'm not alone.

From Hardocp's recent Just Cause 2 gameplay/image evaluation,

You made the claim Nvidia is holding back innovation. I want to know what innovation AMD is trying to bring to the market that is being held back by Nvidia. Bringing out a faster card isnt innovating, and if it were, Nvidia clearly didnt hold AMD back.

 

[Attic]

You made the claim Nvidia is holding back innovation. I want to know what innovation AMD is trying to bring to the market that is being held back by Nvidia. Bringing out a faster card isnt innovating, and if it were, Nvidia clearly didnt hold AMD back.

Fair enough. My concern is that nVidia has shown it's willing and able to lock out gamers from game effects in an attempt to secure market share, when the game effects/additions in question are easy to delevelop for gamers who choose either GPU platform. When/If nVidia succeeds with their attempt to lock gamers into propeitary standards I believe that will hurt innovation down the road.

 

[Lonyo]

Fair enough. My concern is that nVidia has shown it's willing and able to lock out gamers from game effects in an attempt to secure market share, when the game effects/additions in question are easy to delevelop for gamers who choose either GPU platform. When/If nVidia succeeds with their attempt to lock gamers into propeitary standards I believe that will hurt innovation down the road.

The situation is that AMD are giving developers things they can exploit which are open and available to any company to use and implement (hardware and software) and are trying to encourage open things gently.
NV are going the other route and forcefully helping developers to add things to their games, such as PhysX GPU acceleration and CUDA-based things.

Now, the trouble with ATI's strategy is that there is no incentive, and when you're dealing with a lot of console ports and cross platform games, there's even less incentive to add extra things that require more time and Q&A etc.
Case in point is Batman: AA's AA. It's a cross platform game, so with bother to deal with adding AA for the PC version when there's no need. NV stepping in and did PhysX and AA, while ATI said "there are these open standards you could use if you wanted.

The reality is that while ATI's softly softly approach is better in the long run for consumers, in the short term it doesn't get much done, while NV's approach of 'encouraging' developers means that stuff gets added, although at a cost to open-ness (being that it gets locked to NV systems).

 

[Skurge]

Fair enough. My concern is that nVidia has shown it's willing and able to lock out gamers from game effects in an attempt to secure market share, when the game effects/additions in question are easy to delevelop for gamers who choose either GPU platform. When/If nVidia succeeds with their attempt to lock gamers into propeitary standards I believe that will hurt innovation down the road.

+1

 

[Tempered81]

No, it's a....

Hrm. So if Ati has 99% of the DX11 cards on Steam and Nvidia has 1%, that means for every 99 Ati HD5000 cards, there is 1 GTX400 series card. You cannot dispute that. I must have made a mistake when I said it was 100 to 1. Sure the Ati cards have been around for 8 months now, but are you gonna blame them for that!? They did us a favor and put out the first DX11 fastest single gpu and kept a nice lead for 6-7 months. The 5970 has been the fastest card since last November, and it will likely hold that crown even longer now that Floppi has reared its ugly head.

The fact of the matter is Nvidia is getting curb-stomped in terms of technology & sales this round. But look on the bright side: they now have the fastest single GPU again, better driver software, and a greater overall market-share when you include mobile gpus and past generation discreet cards. And their ability to market a hot & loud turd is second to none. "Crank that s#!t up!"

It's sad to highlight 0.9% DX11 market-share as a "base" to gauge market penetration when the HD6000 cards are 5 months away from retail, and ATi has 99% market-share with the 5000 series now. I would expect Nvidia to have 5-10% next month; then maybe it would be something to talk about.

On topic, I doubt a 512sp Thermi will be able to compete with a 5970. Even if it comes close, the 5000 series cards will be a year old by then with a 6770 on the horizon. I think people would expect them to catch up within a year's time.

Fair enough. My concern is that nVidia has shown it's willing and able to lock out gamers from game effects in an attempt to secure market share, when the game effects/additions in question are easy to delevelop for gamers who choose either GPU platform. When/If nVidia succeeds with their attempt to lock gamers into propeitary standards I believe that will hurt innovation down the road.

Great point.

 

[Genx87]

Fair enough. My concern is that nVidia has shown it's willing and able to lock out gamers from game effects in an attempt to secure market share, when the game effects/additions in question are easy to delevelop for gamers who choose either GPU platform. When/If nVidia succeeds with their attempt to lock gamers into propeitary standards I believe that will hurt innovation down the road.

The only confirmed lock I know about is PhysX when an ATI card is present. I can see a legitimate reason for that while also recognizing it is a lock in marketing tool for Nvidia. Batman AA was, however not a lock out method. The developer was not planning on adding AA to the game. Nvidia spent man hours adding it to the game. The developer decided to test for Nvidia cards and if it wasnt present disable Nvidia's code. I can see the legitimate reason for the developer not wanting to support ATI cards running Nvidia code. Noithing stoppped AMD from doing the same except AMDs lackluster effort at working with developers.

So to sum up that situation. If Nvidia did nothing AMD card owners would be at the same spot they are today in that game. No in game AA.

The only proprietary standard Nvidia is currently pushing is PhysX. But I believe once OpenCL, an open standard, becomes reality. PhysX like effects will be available for all. Nvidia btw is working on OpenCL. And if I were a betting man would expect they have a stronger and mature solution once it hits mainstream.

 

[Genx87]

The situation is that AMD are giving developers things they can exploit which are open and available to any company to use and implement (hardware and software) and are trying to encourage open things gently.
NV are going the other route and forcefully helping developers to add things to their games, such as PhysX GPU acceleration and CUDA-based things.

Now, the trouble with ATI's strategy is that there is no incentive, and when you're dealing with a lot of console ports and cross platform games, there's even less incentive to add extra things that require more time and Q&A etc.
Case in point is Batman: AA's AA. It's a cross platform game, so with bother to deal with adding AA for the PC version when there's no need. NV stepping in and did PhysX and AA, while ATI said "there are these open standards you could use if you wanted.

The reality is that while ATI's softly softly approach is better in the long run for consumers, in the short term it doesn't get much done, while NV's approach of 'encouraging' developers means that stuff gets added, although at a cost to open-ness (being that it gets locked to NV systems).

I really dont believe in the long run it is better for consumer though. If DX wasnt around what would OpenGL consist of and where would we be today? If GLide wasnt implented would we ever get a DX platform worth playing on? The bottom line imo is in the computing world we have this romantic view of open standards. But open standards are stuck in a quagmire of competing interests and ego's that limit their ability to grow. Linux, an open standard has been stuck for 20 years trying to gain a foothold in the desktop market. If we waited around for it to be good for consumers we might be dead. Nvidia's approach will get this stuff implemented and force AMD to jump on board. In the end we will have some kind of standard that will work on both platforms. If we waited like AMD does it would take much much longer if ever.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Hrm. So if Ati has 99% of the DX11 cards on Steam and Nvidia has 1%, that means for every 99 Ati HD5000 cards, there is 1 GTX400 series card. You cannot dispute that. I must have made a mistake when I said it was 100 to 1. Sure the Ati cards have been around for 8 months now, but are you gonna blame them for that!? They did us a favor and put out the first DX11 fastest single gpu and kept a nice lead for 6-7 months. The 5970 has been the fastest card since last November, and it will likely hold that crown even longer now that Floppi has reared its ugly head.

The fact of the matter is Nvidia is getting curb-stomped in terms of technology & sales this round. But look on the bright side: they now have the fastest single GPU again, better driver software, and a greater overall market-share when you include mobile gpus and past generation discreet cards. And their ability to market a hot & loud turd is second to none. "Crank that s#!t up!"

It's sad to highlight 0.9% DX11 market-share as a "base" to gauge market penetration when the HD6000 cards are 5 months away from retail, and ATi has 99% market-share with the 5000 series now. I would expect Nvidia to have 5-10% next month; then maybe it would be something to talk about.

On topic, I doubt a 512sp Thermi will be able to compete with a 5970. Even if it comes close, the 5000 series cards will be a year old by then with a 6770 on the horizon. I think people would expect them to catch up within a year's time.



Great point.

You don't understand baseline.
You don't understand how to use these numbers.
The first "mark" for NVIDIA in the DX11 segment was +1%
Next month will tell a far better story.
The next month after that even better.
In a year, you will have the full picture.

Like I said, you don't understand math/time...

See you in 6 months *waves*

 

[Lonyo]

You don't understand baseline.
You don't understand how to use these numbers.
The first "mark" for NVIDIA in the DX11 segment was +1%
Next month will tell a far better story.
The next month after that even better.
In a year, you will have the full picture.

Like I said, you don't understand math/time...

See you in 6 months *waves*

Next month will hardly tell a much better story. You still have a full lineup of DX11 from ATI against just two high end cards from NV.
Until NV release a wider gamut of DX11 cards, there won't be a massive shift towards NV, and that's many months away for release, and then permeation of actual computers.
It's realistically 3 months until a real move starts to happen, when more mainstream DX11 is out from NV, and then indeed in 6 months to a year it will be a different picture. But next month and the month after? Not really gonna be a dramatic change.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The only confirmed lock I know about is PhysX when an ATI card is present. I can see a legitimate reason for that while also recognizing it is a lock in marketing tool for Nvidia. Batman AA was, however not a lock out method. The developer was not planning on adding AA to the game. Nvidia spent man hours adding it to the game. The developer decided to test for Nvidia cards and if it wasnt present disable Nvidia's code. I can see the legitimate reason for the developer not wanting to support ATI cards running Nvidia code. Noithing stoppped AMD from doing the same except AMDs lackluster effort at working with developers.

So to sum up that situation. If Nvidia did nothing AMD card owners would be at the same spot they are today in that game. No in game AA.

While this a decent and even valid argument for NVIDIA, for the consumers still is BS.

Fact is if neither NVIDIA or ATI was paying devs to incorporate exclusive features, games like Batman: AA could or could not have AA. We would never know.

What we know is: in a world where someone is paying there is an "incentive to sell exclusive features".

I'm not saying it is illegal. I'm not saying it is a bad strategy. I'm saying it is bad for me as a consumer.

I don't have financial interest in NVIDIA or ATI, so these strategies for my own interests are bad.

As a consumer why do you defend NVIDIA? I understand you pointing it isn't illegal. i understand you pointing it is logical from NVIDIA point of view. I don't understand why you say it is ATI hurting the consumers by not adhering these practices.

 

[Skurge]

The only confirmed lock I know about is PhysX when an ATI card is present. I can see a legitimate reason for that while also recognizing it is a lock in marketing tool for Nvidia. Batman AA was, however not a lock out method. The developer was not planning on adding AA to the game. Nvidia spent man hours adding it to the game. The developer decided to test for Nvidia cards and if it wasnt present disable Nvidia's code. I can see the legitimate reason for the developer not wanting to support ATI cards running Nvidia code. Noithing stoppped AMD from doing the same except AMDs lackluster effort at working with developers.

So to sum up that situation. If Nvidia did nothing AMD card owners would be at the same spot they are today in that game. No in game AA.

The only proprietary standard Nvidia is currently pushing is PhysX. But I believe once OpenCL, an open standard, becomes reality. PhysX like effects will be available for all. Nvidia btw is working on OpenCL. And if I were a betting man would expect they have a stronger and mature solution once it hits mainstream.

So you thinks its okay if AMD locked out nV hardware from using AA in stalker Clear Sky? since it was them who helped add AA to the engine. Or lock out nV hardware from running dx11 in dirt2, battleforge and stalker COP?

 

[Lonyo]

I really dont believe in the long run it is better for consumer though. If DX wasnt around what would OpenGL consist of and where would we be today? If GLide wasnt implented would we ever get a DX platform worth playing on? The bottom line imo is in the computing world we have this romantic view of open standards. But open standards are stuck in a quagmire of competing interests and ego's that limit their ability to grow. Linux, an open standard has been stuck for 20 years trying to gain a foothold in the desktop market. If we waited around for it to be good for consumers we might be dead. Nvidia's approach will get this stuff implemented and force AMD to jump on board. In the end we will have some kind of standard that will work on both platforms. If we waited like AMD does it would take much much longer if ever.

That was what I was trying to get at
ATI is better in theory (ideologically at least), but NV is more effective in practice.

 

[evolucion8]

The only confirmed lock I know about is PhysX when an ATI card is present. I can see a legitimate reason for that while also recognizing it is a lock in marketing tool for Nvidia. Batman AA was, however not a lock out method. The developer was not planning on adding AA to the game. Nvidia spent man hours adding it to the game. The developer decided to test for Nvidia cards and if it wasnt present disable Nvidia's code. I can see the legitimate reason for the developer not wanting to support ATI cards running Nvidia code. Noithing stoppped AMD from doing the same except AMDs lackluster effort at working with developers.

So to sum up that situation. If Nvidia did nothing AMD card owners would be at the same spot they are today in that game. No in game AA.

The only proprietary standard Nvidia is currently pushing is PhysX. But I believe once OpenCL, an open standard, becomes reality. PhysX like effects will be available for all. Nvidia btw is working on OpenCL. And if I were a betting man would expect they have a stronger and mature solution once it hits mainstream.

You are an nvidia loyalist. Your consistently brand loyalty is written all over your posts. The lock out also affected me because I own an AGEIA card which suddenly stopped working with the latest PhysX Software System, in the card features, never stated that required an nVidia card to work.

Batman AA is bullshit because clearly the developer stated that the code has simply a Device ID check to protect the famous nVidia MSAA which works very fine with ATi cards when you change the DeviceID with ATi Tray Tool, I proved myself and worked like a champ.

Batman AA uses the Unreal Engine 3, which games like Mirrors Edge supports Anti Aliasing natively without hacks. So can you care to explain why suddenly Batman AA doesn't support Anti Aliasing natively within the game's menu like Mirror's Edge did along with other UE3 games?

Its quite interesting see how nVidia/ATi traded blows in the DX9 market, the utter nVidia domination in DX10 in which the only ATi card was the HD 4800 series topped the chart and the utter domination of ATi in the DX11 market, by the time that Fermi takes off, S.I. will be here.

 

[Skurge]

That was what I was trying to get at
ATI is better in theory (ideologically at least), but NV is more effective in practice.

If you do a bit of digging you will find ATI do alot with developer. Their marketing departing department sucks though. The supermarket down my street could do better.

In contrast I heard of GeForce long before I heard of Nvidia, AMD, Intel or any other brand.

 

[Skurge]

talk about derailing a thread, I just looked at my last post and the thread title.

 

[Genx87]

While this a decent and even valid argument for NVIDIA, for the consumers still is BS.

Fact is if neither NVIDIA or ATI was paying devs to incorporate exclusive features, games like Batman: AA could or could not have AA. We would never know.

What we know is: in a world where someone is paying there is an "incentive to sell exclusive features".

I'm not saying it is illegal. I'm not saying it is a bad strategy. I'm saying it is bad for me as a consumer.

I don't have financial interest in NVIDIA or ATI, so these strategies for my own interests are bad.

As a consumer why do you defend NVIDIA? I understand you pointing it isn't illegal. i understand you pointing it is logical from NVIDIA point of view. I don't understand why you say it is ATI hurting the consumers by not adhering these practices.

When it comes to Batman we can easily say the game wouldnt have AA. Because the developer decided against implenting it. So Nvidia took it upon themselves to implement it. It works on ATI cards apparently but the dev decided against allowing it. So for consumers is this not beneficial?

I didnt say ATI is hurting the consumer. I am saying having a leader utilizing proprietary standards has proven through the history of computers to be beneficial to consumers. Open standards sound great on paper but the reality is they dont deliver in a timely fashion and that denies consumers of technology advance.

 

[Genx87]

So you thinks its okay if AMD locked out nV hardware from using AA in stalker Clear Sky? since it was them who helped add AA to the engine. Or lock out nV hardware from running dx11 in dirt2, battleforge and stalker COP?

Nvidia didnt lock them out though. The developer decided to make that decision. Nvidia provided the code, the developer chose who gets to use it.

 

[Genx87]

You are an nvidia loyalist. Your consistently brand loyalty is written all over your posts. The lock out also affected me because I own an AGEIA card which suddenly stopped working with the latest PhysX Software System, in the card features, never stated that required an nVidia card to work.

Sure I am which is why I own a 4850 and 2 of my last 4 video cards have been ATI(9600AIW, 6800GT,8800GTS 640, 4850)

Batman AA is bullshit because clearly the developer stated that the code has simply a Device ID check to protect the famous nVidia MSAA which works very fine with ATi cards when you change the DeviceID with ATi Tray Tool, I proved myself and worked like a champ.

Yeah but Nvidia didnt add that bit of code. Go direct your rage at the dev for that.

Batman AA uses the Unreal Engine 3, which games like Mirrors Edge supports Anti Aliasing natively without hacks. So can you care to explain why suddenly Batman AA doesn't support Anti Aliasing natively within the game's menu like Mirror's Edge did along with other UE3 games?

Ask the developer.

 

[GaiaHunter]

When it comes to Batman we can easily say the game wouldnt have AA. Because the developer decided against implenting it. So Nvidia took it upon themselves to implement it. It works on ATI cards apparently but the dev decided against allowing it. So for consumers is this not beneficial?

Actually we can't prove either way.

I didnt say ATI is hurting the consumer. I am saying having a leader utilizing proprietary standards has proven through the history of computers to be beneficial to consumers. Open standards sound great on paper but the reality is they dont deliver in a timely fashion and that denies consumers of technology advance.

Especially if those leaders instead of supporting the open standards are interested in developing their own proprietary standards and paying devs to implement them as exclusive features in their own games.

Of course, all the leader was able to do was implement some minor visual effects in a few games.

 

[Genx87]

Actually we can't prove either way.

What do you mean? Before Nvidia showed up there were no plans for AA in the game. So yes, we can definitively say there wouldnt be AA in that game.

Especially if those leaders instead of supporting the open standards are interested in developing their own proprietary standards and paying devs to implement them as exclusive features in their own games.

Of course, all the leader was able to do was implement some minor visual effects in a few games.

I bet you hate DirectX then right? Wish we were stuck in OpenGL land?

 

[Skurge]

What do you mean? Before Nvidia showed up there were no plans for AA in the game. So yes, we can definitively say there wouldnt be AA in that game.

I don't think you can prove there were no plans to add AA into the game before nV showed up.

and the davs claimed the code was nVs so they couldnt enable it on ATi cards even if they wanted to.