What happens to nvidia?

[Leyawiin]

Nvidia is slashing there prices almost daily now. Ati is still above the msrp from a year ago. guess ppl aint ready to pay for the extras nvidia offers.

Meaningless assumption on your part. In the HD 4000 vs. GTX 200 round ATI slashed prices to the bone. Nvidia was much more resistant to discounting. Everyone said that was just ATI pressuring Nvidia's market share. Now that the shoe is on the other foot everyone says its just some kind of corporate weakness on Nvidia's part when they discount their highly regarded and popular card (GTX 460) and ATI doesn't budge.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You seem blind to a simple concept. This game works in rounds. One round goes to ATI, one round goes to NV. If NV has nothing until late 2011, most enthusiasts who purchased an HD6000 in early 2011, will be easily willing to sell and buy the new NV card if it delivers more performance. Remember we are enthusiasts, we want the latest and greatest. Average Joe that buys a GTX 460 and keeps it for 4 years is not an enthusiast, nor a significant source of profit in this segment.


I don't understand how you figure that NV is going to go bankrupt because the enthusiast gaming market (the smaller of their profit margin) is not buying their high end for a brief 2 to 3 quarter time span. It's like you think that "after HD6000 that's it, nobody will buy NV again, they are doomed". As long as they launch a new product that is better than the competitor's and price it accordingly, they will recap that small niche market of high-end GPU users.

Christ... I NEVER said Nvidia is going out of business from being behind in the consumer graphics card arena. I never implied that.

In post 8 you said, "You are either ignorant or in denial if you think AMD could even put a dent in nvidia's profits with Radeon cards."

I addressed that statement in post 13.

Let me say this as simply as I can. I believe AMD can put a dent in Nvidia's profits with their Radeon cards. That's it. That's all I meant. I believe the opposite of your statement about AMD not being able to dent Nvidia's profits with Radeon cards.

Nvidia may get the most profit from their professional parts. But if AMD is able to put the squeeze on them in the consumer arena, a large amount of revenue may dry up for Nvidia. Money that may be used to cover R&D for their next GPU that will be used in the professional space.

 

[JAG87]

Christ... I NEVER said Nvidia is going out of business from being behind in the consumer graphics card arena. I never implied that.

In post 8 you said, "You are either ignorant or in denial if you think AMD could even put a dent in nvidia's profits with Radeon cards."

I addressed that statement in post 13.

Let me say this as simply as I can. I believe AMD can put a dent in Nvidia's profits with their Radeon cards. That's it. That's all I meant. I believe the opposite of your statement about AMD not being able to dent Nvidia's profits with Radeon cards.

Nvidia may get the most profit from their professional parts. But if AMD is able to put the squeeze on them in the consumer arena, a large amount of revenue may dry up for Nvidia. Money that may be used to cover R&D for their next GPU that will be used in the professional space.

We may just have different definitions of "dent" then. I consider a "dent" a big financial loss in the order of billions in a company of this size, that is only recoverable by taking a drastic action. NV just suffered losses in the hundreds of millions, and they are still up on their feed and healthy. I don't think ATI is capable of causing anything like that with the Radeon vs. GeForce market.

 

[Kenmitch]

That is how they keep their fishes in their pool. You may not like the idea, but it isn't a bad idea if the pool is of good quality.

Well have fun in the pool as you call it....Not sure if I'll ever jump in as currently the water looks a little too green for me

Just for the record maybe at some point in time I'll consider a product from nvidia. Currently the Fermi just isn't for me. Although the GTX 460's in sli was a little tempting to me....Hmm time will tell.

For clarity, the 'GF' letters used in the GF100 GPU name are not an abbreviation for 'GeForce'. They actually denote that this GPU is a Graphics solution based on the Fermi architecture. - Source

Scratches head....lol then thinks wtf that sounds pretty gay when you think about it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

NV has always used more power than ATi, but does that mean its previous cards under performed?, of course not. It only matters now because ATX standards are showing their age, and a little jealously from the red team.
Oh, funny how you couldnt help yourself commenting on the GTX480 and dual GPU 5970 card...even though my comment DID clearly state fastest GPU, not card.....but then again the fastest card isnt 50% faster than the fastest GPU but costs 50% more....is that under performing as well?

Oh and 6+ mths late for a card not fully spec'd but 20%+ faster isnt bad. ATi is at its 3rd gen series on this architecture so they should have it sorted by now...

Nvidia has not always used more power. See the x1950xtx and 2900XT. The GTX480 underperforms from a power stand pont because it is slower than the 5970 and uses more power. It's really that simple. We buy cards, not GPU's. You install a card in your PC, not a GPU. The GTX480 uses more power, puts out more heat, and is louder than the 5970 while being slower. If the GTX480 was faster than the 5970 than I doubt power would be mentioned by anyone, it would justify it's high power use.

As far as the 5970 being 50% more money and not being 50% faster, I woud agree, it's not going to win any bang for the buck contests. I don't think anyone would suggest different. But we've also come to expect that you pay a premium for the highest end. Look at an Intel Extreme Edition processor. It may only be a few hundred MHz faster than the next model down, but will cost hundreds more. On the high end you pay a premium to have the fastest, from a bang for the buck perspective they would be a very poor choice.

 

[Seero]

PhysX simply doesn't run on ATI card, hence runs on the CPU, simply as that, it isn't even multi threaded, only taxes one core, talk about performance crippling. I used my AGEIA card in tandem with my CF setup and worked like a champ, so it does run on AMD hardware, through the AGEIA card or CPU or a hacked driver for the nVidia GPU.

Guess what, the latest and greatest game from Blizzard, starcraft2, isn't even multi threaded. So what? It is not easy to write multi-threaded programs, let alone PhysX. If it is easy, people would have done it.

Hey I thought PhysX is a gimmick to you. Yet, you kept your 10 years ago AGEIA card for it. Why?

Again, PhysX doesn't run well on CPU, which was why there was AGEIA at the first place. The PhysX engine was designed to take advantage of lots of shaders (small processors). It can be executed on CPU but it really isn't designed to. Your old AGEIA card still works because the principle code has not been altered. That means, all those "designed to run bad on CPU by Nvidia" rumors are all FUD.

You have to open your mind for it to work. I never say AMD suck, and Nvidia rocks. In fact, I agreed that the GTX480, the first release of Fermi, is power hungry and generates too much heat. If you have an open mind, then you should see there is nothing unusual about it. Please reread my first post instead of just <snip> it next time.

Are you gonna keep this going? You told me that you hated me and that it was personal, which means that if you see me walking close by, you will look for a fight with me, and please keep your little secrets to yourself D:

You assumed too much. It all began as a joke in case you didn't know, up until you bring up your 195 pound muscle. I can't back out, can I? Muscle mass has no weight when it comes to forum fights. If you want to flex your muscle, please use the correct one. Besides, I don't hate you and I never said I do. Unless, you want me to like you...

By the way, what is the secret you spoke of?

 

[sandorski]

People keep thinking the GPU Market is the same ATI vs Nvidia Market it was years ago. This is a mistake. It is now AMD vs Nvidia. At first glance you may respond with, "Duh. So what?". The difference is that AMD(Intel too) is moving the Mainstream GPU Market in a direction that NVidia simply can not follow. This will have longterm negative impacts on NVidia.

Can NVidia maintain their lead in Professional Graphics? Maybe, but that depends on AMD to a large extent. If AMD abandons that Market, Nvidia should be fine. Remember though that AMD has a toehold in that Market already, if it decides to begin pursuing it, Nvidia will have yet another situation to deal with. They'll have to do it as a smaller Company at that time, with less Revenues from their Traditional GPU Market.

 

[SolMiester]

Nvidia has not always used more power. See the x1950xtx and 2900XT. The GTX480 underperforms from a power stand pont because it is slower than the 5970 and uses more power. It's really that simple. We buy cards, not GPU's. You install a card in your PC, not a GPU. The GTX480 uses more power, puts out more heat, and is louder than the 5970 while being slower. If the GTX480 was faster than the 5970 than I doubt power would be mentioned by anyone, it would justify it's high power use.

As far as the 5970 being 50% more money and not being 50% faster, I woud agree, it's not going to win any bang for the buck contests. I don't think anyone would suggest different. But we've also come to expect that you pay a premium for the highest end. Look at an Intel Extreme Edition processor. It may only be a few hundred MHz faster than the next model down, but will cost hundreds more. On the high end you pay a premium to have the fastest, from a bang for the buck perspective they would be a very poor choice.

NV has predominantly used more power, you list exceptions not the rule. But hey, Im not about to go hunting the info down to show you, Im not that anal. And while you may claim people use cards not GPU's, their is still a larger faction that wont use dual GPU cards. I'm not interested in dual cards. If it was a dual core GPU, that would be different.
I still dont understand the fuss about power, in most cases its not an issue...its just something for the red team to draw attention too.
ATi make great hardware, i have never said otherwise, however their drivers suck. NV are risk takers and they have paid the price several times, however they are multi function devices, have a much better driver\software team, are more about customers rather than manufacturers and more times than not leaders in their trade.

 

[bryanW1995]

here's a potential solution for NV in the consumer graphics market:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3905/...-headed-for-smartphones-notebooks-and-servers

 

[OCGuy]

lol @ the people hoping one player goes under.

The "Price/performance leader" who gave us the 4890, turned around and gave the 5XXX, which was priced the same for 12+ months.

nV gave us the 8800GTX for quite a premium.


Anyone who thinks either company would put consumer over shareholder when in a monopoly situation is delusional or a Zoner.

We need more competition.

 

[RussianSensation]

OCGuy, well spoken!

Anyone who wants either company to dominate the market for an extended period of time is a fanboy. Last time this happened we got $649 GTX280 before 4870 launched at $299, $399 5870 for 12+ months, $699+ 5970s when MSRP was supposed to be $599, and other than the poorly performing 5770, not a single card worth buying < $250 for 9 months!!!!

No thanks.

 

[sandorski]

It's not that I want Nvidia to go under. It just looks like that's where they're headed. At least as far as Consumer level GPUs are concerned. Their Markets are disappearing.

 

[Will Robinson]

OCGuy, well spoken!

Anyone who wants either company to dominate the market for an extended period of time is a fanboy. Last time this happened we got $649 GTX280 before 4870 launched at $299, $399 5870 for 12+ months, $699+ 5970s when MSRP was supposed to be $599, and other than the poorly performing 5770, not a single card worth buying < $250 for 9 months!!!!

No thanks.

You forgot the $800 GTX Ultra.:thumbsdown:
The "poorly performing" 5770 as you misname it has sold by the truckload.
Since the 2900XT ATi has delivered very good performance cards at far better prices than NVidia.
Recall the GTX260@$400,without ATi's introduction of the much better priced 4870 NVDA customers would still be getting shafted.
And as for the GPGPU market,you think AMD is going to ignore it if it is such a big money spinner? I think not.
They will soon introduce a FirePro version of the 6 series that may well dominate the current offerings from NV.

 

[SolMiester]

You forgot the $800 GTX Ultra.:thumbsdown:
The "poorly performing" 5770 as you misname it has sold by the truckload.
Since the 2900XT ATi has delivered very good performance cards at far better prices than NVidia.
Recall the GTX260@$400,without ATi's introduction of the much better priced 4870 NVDA customers would still be getting shafted.
And as for the GPGPU market,you think AMD is going to ignore it if it is such a big money spinner? I think not.
They will soon introduce a FirePro version of the 6 series that may well dominate the current offerings from NV.

Hello...?! they have to sort their drivers out 1st, why do you think the professionals use nVidia...

 

[hawtdawg]

ATI/Nvidia have been leapfrogging each other from the beginning. What evidence is there that Nvidia won't come back this time? The 460 is a pretty good sign that Nvidia is not gonna take the 6xxx series lying down. I'm sure they'll be able to compete just fine.

 

[hawtdawg]

Hello...?! they have to sort their drivers out 1st, why do you think the professionals use nVidia...

ATI and Nvidia both have equally good/crappy drivers.


We allow cussing in P&N and OT, not in the tech forums.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[SolMiester]

ATI and Nvidia both have equally good/shitty drivers.

Not so in the professional market, consumer market perhaps, though ATi is still behind!

 

[Pantalaimon]

though ATi is still behind!

Have they released a driver that would brick a card?

 

[Scali]

Not so in the professional market, consumer market perhaps, though ATi is still behind!

True.
Various companies literally have an nVidia-only policy. I've worked for such companies. We simply didn't buy any non-nVidia hardware to develop on, and we made no guarantees to our customers about running on non-nVidia hardware.

I'm not saying I approve of the policy, but historically it has come to that. So many companies had absolutely appalling driver support for the professional market (especially OpenGL), that it was just not worth the time and effort to try and support anything other than nVidia. So this became official policy.

When another one of those AMD forum marketers started to PM me, trying to convince me that their OpenCL REALLY works (after I made a remark on how I found a few bugs, and how they were not included with the end-user drivers anyway)... I just told him that it was useless to try and convince me anyway, because even if they stopped denying the bugs and actually fixed them, they'd still have to convince management first to change the policy and allow us to invest time into using their products.
He knew exactly what I meant, and gave up after that little reality-check. AMD is aware of the problem, however they do not have a solution.

 

[mv2devnull]

Things come and go. I have watched the (shutter glass) hardware stereo.

Early 90'ies E&S did the "good stuff", until the SGI took over. That lasted until the concept of GPU in PC got up to speed. For a while ATI's R200 with third-party drivers for X11/Linux was the affordable stereo solution. Then NVidia finally made stereo-drivers for Quadro/Linux. It's been thin lately, with CRT's aging out (dying hard) and LCD 3D emerging slowly.

I don't care for any particular company, but if their downfall removes above-mentioned niche "solutions" from the market, then I shall not be pleased.

 

[SlowSpyder]

NV has predominantly used more power, you list exceptions not the rule. But hey, Im not about to go hunting the info down to show you, Im not that anal. And while you may claim people use cards not GPU's, their is still a larger faction that wont use dual GPU cards. I'm not interested in dual cards. If it was a dual core GPU, that would be different.
I still dont understand the fuss about power, in most cases its not an issue...its just something for the red team to draw attention too.
ATi make great hardware, i have never said otherwise, however their drivers suck. NV are risk takers and they have paid the price several times, however they are multi function devices, have a much better driver\software team, are more about customers rather than manufacturers and more times than not leaders in their trade.

If the GTX480 delivered 90&#37; as much performance as the 5970, I'd agree with you... it'd be close enough in performance and have the advantage of being a single GPU. And power use is quite close, close enough to not matter.

But, the 5970 pretty thoroughly out performs the GTX480, and does so while being quieter and using a bit less power. The one area the GTX480 returns the favor and thoroughly beats the 5970 is bang for the buck. The GTX480 gives you a high end gaming experience for much less money.

I would like to know, what do you have against gaming on a modern multi-GPU set up when you currently game on a 9600GT? I don't think you can complain about micro stutter, I'm sure with a 9600GT you get plain old stuttering in games. Many modern games will likely slow down tremendously at times with a 9600 level card. Otherwise you have to turn the details, AA, res way down, right? So can you really say that you don't like multi-GPU's any more than you like gaming on a really low end part?

And what was your terrible experience with AMD drivers? You seem to hate them. I don't remember the details, but weren't you the one who was trying to use some sort of non-supported configuration with an x1900 or something?

 

[Genx87]

It's not that I want Nvidia to go under. It just looks like that's where they're headed. At least as far as Consumer level GPUs are concerned. Their Markets are disappearing.

What markets are disappearing? Possibly the sub 100 market graphics market??? I see the discrete market over 100 as open and they are branching into HPC and Mobile markets. Markets AMD and Intel cant possibly touch at the moment. BenSkyWalker has provided information on ultra mobile,netbook,and tablet vs x86 shipments. x86 is becoming less relevant by the year.

 

[Genx87]

You forgot the $800 GTX Ultra.:thumbsdown:
The "poorly performing" 5770 as you misname it has sold by the truckload.
Since the 2900XT ATi has delivered very good performance cards at far better prices than NVidia.
Recall the GTX260@$400,without ATi's introduction of the much better priced 4870 NVDA customers would still be getting shafted.
And as for the GPGPU market,you think AMD is going to ignore it if it is such a big money spinner? I think not.
They will soon introduce a FirePro version of the 6 series that may well dominate the current offerings from NV.

Considering Nvidia expanded their marketshare to 87&#37; without shipping a single Fermi based Quadro card. And AMD has basically ignored GPGPU since it the term was coined. Those assumptions are wishful thinking.

 

[Will Robinson]

Hopefully NVDA will do some cost cutting to stop the loss of market share...first thing they can cut is the Focus groups.

 

[Grooveriding]

x86 is becoming less relevant by the year.

Good for a laugh that was.