What happens to nvidia?

[Puffnstuff]

Since ati is part of the amd fold then you must also consider cpu sales for a total company portfolio. Intel has been eating amd's lunch for years in this market so any sales advantage that amd has in the gpu market is negated by their shortcomings in the cpu market.

 

[crislevin]

nVidia won't be exiting consumer market as long as it has the fanbase and not losing too much money. Even if it loses a bit in this market, they can still keep making it. Brand loyalty is important.

Situation can change, and as a end user, we should hope both of them stick around, competition will only help us.

 

[Idontcare]

nVidia won't be existing consumer market as long as it has the fanbase and not losing too much money. Even if it loses a bit in this market, they can still keep making it. Brand loyalty is important.

Situation can change, and as a end user, we should hope both of them stick around, competition will only help us.

Welcome to the forums crislevin! :thumbsup:

I think maybe you mean to write "nVidia won't be exiting..." instead of "nVidia won't be existing..."?

 

[Scali]

I copied and pasted your line where you listed those features, but was speaking to physx and cuda which I carried on with in that sentence referring to features that are not going anywhere.

I mentioned Cuda and PhysX because they are existing applications of GPGPU, used in current games. In other words, a technical argument.
Then you focus on the fact that they're nVidia-only.
That's not the point, because through DX11/OpenCL, you can build the same GPGPU-applications in a vendor-independent way... I just cannot mention them, as currently there are none in existence. So the only practical examples of GPGPU-accelerated physics technology in games is PhysX at this point.

I wasn't aware that DirectCompute and OpenCL could be used to offer features like running in game physics on the video card, thank you for that information. Hopefully things will start to evolve using those standards then.

No offense, but what are you doing responding to a discussion of graphics and GPGPU-usage in games when you don't even know what the major GPGPU APIs are, or how they can be applied?
Especially with OpenCL it should be pretty common knowledge, as AMD has been marketing OpenCL-acceleration in Havok and Bullet for quite a while now (although neither are anywhere near a finished product).

I don't think discussing proprietary features is really a political discussion ?

Not if you are discussing the technology, like I was doing. I was discussing GPGPU-accelerated features in games, and named PhysX as an example of this technology.
It happens to be proprietary, but I wasn't discussing that, as I didn't think it was relevant. I just cannot name any alternatives, neither proprietary nor open standard, as they simply do not exist at this point.

You on the other hand made the claim that GPGPU-accelerated physics aren't going anywhere because PhysX is proprietary... that's a political argument, not to mention a flawed one.
It would be like saying "3D acceleration is not going anywhere because Glide is proprietary". We all know how that went (Glide being replaced by OpenGL and D3D), and it seems pretty inevitable that history is going to repeat itself... but just like 3DFX with Glide at the time, nVidia currently has a headstart with Cuda and PhysX.

 

[crislevin]

Welcome to the forums crislevin! :thumbsup:

I think maybe you mean to write "nVidia won't be exiting..." instead of "nVidia won't be existing..."?

yeah, thanks.

 

[Scali]

But since there is no response by AMD that seems to imply NVIDIA isn't undercutting AMD sales or price. And that is why NVIDIA keep dropping prices.

That could be possible, if AMD is supply limited.
Then nVidia's dropping of prices will mainly result in the market for DX11 cards growing larger, while AMD continues to sell the same amount of cards.

If AMD is supply constrained, there is really no incentive for NVIDIA to drop the prices unless it is because people go into a shop and buy a 5850/5870 instead of GTX460/470 meaning NVIDIA has cards that are sitting in shelves and not moving.

AMD is supply constrained because the demand for AMD products is larger than the supply.
This says nothing about nVidia.
nVidia may have a much larger supply and/or a much lower demand, so they need to be more aggressive with their pricing.
Basically you really can't draw any conclusions from one or the other.

 

[Grooveriding]

I mentioned Cuda and PhysX because they are existing applications of GPGPU, used in current games. In other words, a technical argument.
Then you focus on the fact that they're nVidia-only.
That's not the point, because through DX11/OpenCL, you can build the same GPGPU-applications in a vendor-independent way... I just cannot mention them, as currently there are none in existence. So the only practical examples of GPGPU-accelerated physics technology in games is PhysX at this point.



No offense, but what are you doing responding to a discussion of graphics and GPGPU-usage in games when you don't even know what the major GPGPU APIs are, or how they can be applied?
Especially with OpenCL it should be pretty common knowledge, as AMD has been marketing OpenCL-acceleration in Havok and Bullet for quite a while now (although neither are anywhere near a finished product).



Not if you are discussing the technology, like I was doing. I was discussing GPGPU-accelerated features in games, and named PhysX as an example of this technology.
It happens to be proprietary, but I wasn't discussing that, as I didn't think it was relevant. I just cannot name any alternatives, neither proprietary nor open standard, as they simply do not exist at this point.

You on the other hand made the claim that GPGPU-accelerated physics aren't going anywhere because PhysX is proprietary... that's a political argument, not to mention a flawed one.
It would be like saying "3D acceleration is not going anywhere because Glide is proprietary". We all know how that went (Glide being replaced by OpenGL and D3D), and it seems pretty inevitable that history is going to repeat itself... but just like 3DFX with Glide at the time, nVidia currently has a headstart with Cuda and PhysX.

This thread was actually initially about nvidia's future in the light of their current shortfalls in the DX11 market in comparison to AMD's current success. Read the thread.

I'm sorry that argument about the proprietary nature of physx is not a 'political' one, you put too much weight in something so insignificant compared to actual concerns of politics. To help you understand; it's an issue of consumer appeal and economics when dealing with a market where you want to try and establish a proprietary standard not available to everyone. And in the current market with AMD holding the lion's share of the DX11 installed based, it's not going to be successful.

You responded to a post I made that was not directed at you and you were not involved prior to that point, I thought I might retort, you responded again, I replied.

In short, chill Winston.

But please do reply and take the last word, I think that is what you need to make an exit from replying to me, you're welcome to it.

 

[Paratus]

You know the biggest indicator to me that NV is underperforming is the fact that their stock price took such a tumble this year. It tells me that investors are not happy withe the direction of the company.

Or is someone going to come in here and tell me NV had a banner year and they hope to see a similar showing next year?

 

[Idontcare]

You know the biggest indicator to me that NV is underperforming is the fact that their stock price took such a tumble this year. It tells me that investors are not happy withe the direction of the company.

Or is someone going to come in here and tell me NV had a banner year and they hope to see a similar showing next year?

And AMD's shareholders?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...cmpto=NYSE:AMD&cmptdms=0&q=NASDAQ:NVDA&ntsp=0

 

[GaiaHunter]

Are we going to base what a good product is or isn't on Stock price?

Remember a few years ago the Dot companies?

 

[Paratus]

And AMD's shareholders?
Well the OP was about what happ...price doesn't have much todo with it IMHO. ;)

 

[Scali]

To help you understand; it's an issue of consumer appeal and economics when dealing with a market where you want to try and establish a proprietary standard not available to everyone. And in the current market with AMD holding the lion's share of the DX11 installed based, it's not going to be successful.

You're the one who doesn't understand.
PhysX may be a proprietary standard... but GPGPU-accelerated physics is NOT.
AMD's DX11 hardware supports both DirectCompute and OpenCL, and as such is perfectly capable of accelerating physics and other game-related things through GPGPU technology.

I was arguing that GPGPU in games has a future (in other words: there really is no such thing as 'graphics/game' vs 'gpgpu'-performance. The two will be inseparable, and future GPUs need to be good at both in order to deliver good framerates in games). You turned into it into PhysX/proprietary stuff.
I was never arguing any of that. You however apparently did not understand that physics can be accelerated by other means than a proprietary solution (and you talk like you still don't).