nVidia profit down 74% in Q3

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Marc,
I meant no offense, and made the poor choice of bringing my response to the thread in general into my reply to you.

Sorry to unload on you, not intentional.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,657
1,761
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
Profits are down largely because margins are.
I'm pretty sure it ALSO has something to do with ATI selling more cards.

product quality (compare the look and feel of a 9800GTX+ to a 4850- the 4850 seems like something from days long gone)
I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.

 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Phynaz
I also think discussing "less profits for NVIDIA" in a year where their main competitor decided slash the price of their high end product to 1999 levels in an effort to win back some marketshare is fairly pointless. Profits are down largely because margins are.
In other words Nvidia products are poor enough that Nvidia doesn't have pricing power. AMD has determined what Nvidia products sell for.

Not the best position to be in.
Hmmm. Or is it that NVIDIA products were good enough that AMD had to price their second place GPUs far below NVIDIA's first place GPUs to try and get some sales based on price, not performance?
If that was indeed the case, then Nvidia wouldn't have had to dropped prices as much as they did.

The cheapest 4870x2 on Newegg is $490 after rebate. That's still well below what Nvidia wanted to charge for the GTX280. It's also in line with what I think you'd expect to pay considering the lowest price 4870 1GB is $270. Not too bad for what is considered the overall fastest card on the market. Which by your own admission many times in the past comes at a premium over even products that are nearly as fast.

AMD is playing much nicer with prices this round then Nvidia would. I have no illusions that they're doing this to be nice, they are trying to win back market share.

And regarding your whole overall quality comment earlier, I really don't think now is the time to try and boast about Nvidia's 'better' quality seeing as they have a few hundred million dollars set aside to fix faulty chips that are out there.

The bottom line is that they made a profit which is great considering their price cuts. They're facing stiff competition and still making money.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: thilan29


I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.

The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.

Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.

Here, see for yourself:

<deleted>

Oh for the love of Mike. A video card on top of a Playboy centerfold is not appropriate for Video. You can put the link back in if/when you remove the offending photos

-ViRGE





Less racy parody of advertising, pics of cards

 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.

To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,657
1,761
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.
This is my point...how do you tell the quality of a VIDEO CARD by how it feels in your hand (you can do that for a lot of products such as the cars you mentioned but I don't think you can do it with video cards)? As I said the 8800GT I have feels flimsy and looks worse compared to the X1800XL I had a while back but that doesn't mean it's a lesser quality card.

Also, take for example the nVidia laptop IGPs...I'm sure they passed some quality control steps and "looked fine" but some still failed. Can you just by looking at your 9800GTX say that the GPU itself or the GPU mounting or any capacitors/resistors, etc won't fail somehow? If you can't say that then you can't make a blanket statement like 4850s are lower quality than 9800s. If 4850s were lower quality we'd have loads of reports of failing 4850s wouldn't we? Unless you have intimate knowledge of how the cards are manufactured, you're not qualified to say which one is higher quality.

I agree about the coolers...they should exhaust air out but many 4850s are single slot (necessitating a smaller and most likely crappier cooler than the 9800GTX), which may be important to some.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.

To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
Does that halo effect apply for NVIDIA because they have the highest performing GPU in the world?
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Nope this round it seems to apply to what is promoted as the most efficient gpu with the single fastest card. All pr spin, but you never get much else from the sales guys.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.
Besides that fact that how heavy a video card feels has nothing to do with its quality (I remember a modem brand that glued lead wheights <sp> in the case to make the product feel more substantial than other modems), I notice how you are equating the subjective quality of a card with the quality of the components. Perhaps Nvidia GPUs are so unstable they need more board layers for electrical isolation, therefore you have the impresson of a heavy duty board. Maybe the 9800 MUST exaust outside the case because it runs hot, while the 4850 doesn't need to.

To say that a product manufatcued by a third party makes the AMD component somehow inferior to the Nvidia component makes no sense at all.

It may reflect upon the manufacturers of the video cards, but it hardly reflects upon the quality of the components that make up the video card.

Nice try at a staw man though.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,657
1,761
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
Or maybe the 4850 is the hottest GPU in the world (and runs almost 50% hotter than the 9800GTX+) and it was just a bad choice

I'm not going to debate this any further- I realize the board has nothing to do with the chip, and vice versa.
The temperature of the 4850 is not a function of how "hot" it runs, only how good the stock cooler is (which sucks IMO). It's not the "hottest GPU in the world" technically, that title belongs to the GTX280 since it uses the most power and hence dissipates the most amount of heat (just to be clear we are talking about single GPUs here).
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: thilan29

I'm pretty sure it ALSO has something to do with ATI selling more cards.
Maybe, but AMD took yet another loss last quarter.

http://ap.google.com/article/A...csdvrrmfnPtRQD93RQP681

The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company on Thursday reported a loss of $67 million
So I know the title is spun to try and make NVIDIA look bad, but they actually had a profit, something AMD has not seen in over 2 years.

It's actually amazing that NVIDIA made a profit during what is now essentially a recession.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,657
1,761
126
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: thilan29

I'm pretty sure it ALSO has something to do with ATI selling more cards.
Maybe, but AMD took yet another loss last quarter.

http://ap.google.com/article/A...csdvrrmfnPtRQD93RQP681

The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company on Thursday reported a loss of $67 million
And? No one was arguing THAT point.

nRollo said this:
"Profits are down largely because margins are."

And I responded with what you quoted from me. IIRC the graphics division of AMD was actually profitable as well. I'm guessing it's the CPU side that brought AMD's financials down. I'm not really sure why you posted what you did.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,070
1,241
126
Originally posted by: nRollo

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case.
To be fair pretty much every single-slot card will dump heat into the case, as will any passively cooled video card. That?s the price you pay for not having active dual-slot cooling.

As for construction, the 4850 does not feel flimsy at all compared to my GTX260-216 though the nVidia card does have much better thermals, especially when idling. Also from my limited testing the nVidia card isn't as loud under load as the 4850 is.

I?m impressed with the thermals of the nVidia card though I do find the circuitry is quite noisy under load compared to other cards I?ve had.
 

sourthings

Member
Jan 6, 2008
153
0
0
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.

To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
Does that halo effect apply for NVIDIA because they have the highest performing GPU in the world?
No, because you don't put a GPU in your video card slot, you put a video card, with a gpu(s) on the card, in it. And nvidia does not have the highest performing video card in the world.

And the whole comparison of the physical aesthetics of a 4850 vs a 9800gtx is laughable. Who cares, it's how the card performs. 4850s have no history of failing more than any other video card, so obviously their quality level is just fine.

You do a disservice to your job in promotions by grasping at straws so much.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,606
134
106
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29


I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.

The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.

Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.

Here, see for yourself:

Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way :p

For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: sourthings
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
The halo effect is huge - as many will pay $10 - $20 more just to have the ati sticker regardless of range. That 10 - 20 dollars adds up.

To maintain their position in the market, Nvidia best get these much promoted respins out the door.
Does that halo effect apply for NVIDIA because they have the highest performing GPU in the world?
No, because you don't put a GPU in your video card slot, you put a video card, with a gpu(s) on the card, in it. And nvidia does not have the highest performing video card in the world.

To be fair, he didn't say highest performing video card. He said GPU, and he is correct.

And the whole comparison of the physical aesthetics of a 4850 vs a 9800gtx is laughable. Who cares, it's how the card performs. 4850s have no history of failing more than any other video card, so obviously their quality level is just fine.

Sure, sure. People care more about aesthetics than you realize. They even care about box art.
Don't ask me why. But, physical appeal or "perception" could play a role. Hold a 4850 in your left hand, and a 9800GTX in your right, and you tell me which card "feels" more expensive and which one feels cheap. I know it's in your interest to ignore all but performance in this particular mini discussion, but that's really not what is being talked about here.


You do a disservice to your job in promotions by grasping at straws so much.

Allrighty then. Feel free to add "High Road" to your sig. If you aren't in it, you might as well have the credit there if you are going to continue to single out Focus Group members with comments such as this. Because it doesn't seem like you put any effort into keeping things "un-personal" in any way, shape or form.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29


I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.

The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.

Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.

Here, see for yourself:

Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way :p

For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Yes, I can see how an advertised "800 shaders" would sound more appealing than "128 shaders" on the box.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,606
134
106
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29


I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.

The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.

Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.

Here, see for yourself:

Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way :p

For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Yes, I can see how an advertised "800 shaders" would sound more appealing than "128 shaders" on the box.
Cause they don't do a difference at all in heavy shaders game, right?
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29


I'm not sure how the 9800GTX is in comparison to the 4850 (I've never owned either card) but I can tell you my 8800GT feels pretty flimsy compared to the X1800XL I had a couple of years ago. I'm not really sure what you're getting at...I think it's pretty hard to compare quality just by looking at a video card...you don't see all the important underpinnings of it just by looking at it.
I own both.

The 9800GTX+ feels heavy, solid in your hand, like it's well constructed. The HSF exhausts outside the case, has a styling glossy back shroud.

The 4850 on the other hand is literally the crappiest card I've seen (construction-wise) in many years. The plate at the back is flimsy, the PCB feels flimsy, it has what looks like a Thermaltake Orb on the GPU, nothing on the RAM. All the heat is dumped in the case. The card looks like an old NIC with an Orb on it.

Functionally the two are pretty equivalent and I could make a case for either if I wanted to, but the construction differences are like comparing a Kia Spectra to a BMW 9 series. The differences are glaring.

Now, do I think construction is reason 1, 2, or 3 to buy a card? No, but if this is what it takes for companies to sell cards at $200- $300, I'd rather they tacked $50 on and added a HSF like the NVIDIA cards have now and save us the trouble of aftermarket.

Here, see for yourself:

Which looks better to you?
Of course nVdia would really prefer to sell theirs 9800 GTX at much higher price, and that's why it was built that way :p

For consumers either is a good card (I bought a 4850 cause I think the 800 shaders are a better choice).
Yes, I can see how an advertised "800 shaders" would sound more appealing than "128 shaders" on the box.
Cause they don't do a difference at all in heavy shaders game, right?
If you say so.
 

MarcVenice

Moderator Emeritus <br>
Apr 2, 2007
5,664
0
0
This has to be the most hilarious thread ever. Nrollo's pictures of both videocards, one with a fishing magazine beneath the videocard, one with the playboy's playmate of the month on the background. I mean, thats either just the lamest thing ever, or the best joke ever.

Also, keys, which consumers are going to a retailshop, and remove the videocards from their packaging, and then decide which one they want, based on one feeling more sturdy and looking 'better' ? You really are grasping at straws ... This thread should be closed though, it's offtopic as hell ...
 

AmberClad

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
4,914
0
0
This thread really is straying from anything related to financial reports, so maybe you guys should start a new thread if you want to continue discussing construction quality and whether it influences buyers.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
This has to be the most hilarious thread ever. Nrollo's pictures of both videocards, one with a fishing magazine beneath the videocard, one with the playboy's playmate of the month on the background. I mean, thats either just the lamest thing ever, or the best joke ever.

Also, keys, which consumers are going to a retailshop, and remove the videocards from their packaging, and then decide which one they want, based on one feeling more sturdy and looking 'better' ? You really are grasping at straws ... This thread should be closed though, it's offtopic as hell ...
It was meant to be a joke, associating the ATi card with a fish and the nV card with a Playmate. I honestly expected some "LOLs" and was surprised I didn't get any- figured no one liked my jab at the way of advertising. :(
(glad you got the joke)

I am SO not stupid enough to think "If I put the nV card on a Playmate people will buy it!", not to mention I don't care what anyone buys- not like it affects me.

I also didn't bring up the looks and construction to tell people "buy NVIDIA cards they're built better" - the point was "If this is where we're headed with the trend toward cheaper, we're better off paying more.". I like a good HSF, more layers on the PCB when possible- less flex in the card taking it in and out, better thermals.

As noted, functionally the cards are about the same with each having a couple advantages that are brand specific.

As far as "off topic" goes, I was making the point that the trend toward lower margins/profits may well come with a price to the consumer.

EDIT:
Sorry Amber- posted before I read your response, just wanted to tell Marc it was a joke, and why I thought margins/profits may be tied to build decisions now and in the future. (i.e. the nv cards were likely built to sell for more, had to compete with cards with less costly construction, profits reduced)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY