akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,551
- 136
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: akugami
I've said for a while now to all the people castrating ATI over their lateness (inexcusable to paper launch under any circumstances) but you really lose your argument if you're going to point to nVidia as your example of a company with great track record...I mean look at nVidia's track record.
And again, if you think the 7800GTX 512MB was a true hard launch...something is wrong. Availability was so low that the resale price of the card actually went above the MSRP. Not to mention every vendor was selling at least $50-100 over MSRP. It is only now after the X1900 release, and the impending G71 release that there is any sort of availability on the 512MB's. That's cause people are either buying X1900's or waiting on the G71. The 512MB release simply screamed PR stunt. There are review sites that don't even have them...
Nvidia track record? Give me a break. They have been doing quite well with their launches since the 7800GTX.
7800GTX hard launch
7800GT hard launch
6800GS PCI-e hard launch
6800GS AGP a little late cause IBM is piss slow. (IBM fabbed the NV-40 core)
7300GS hard launch (launched in Asia, but still in over 100,000 quantity and still kicking)
Nvidia reps said 7300GS would be widely available on Feb 6th in the US. And lo and behold newegg
6150 chipset hard launch (6100 had a bug and was delayed a few weeks)
7800GS hard launch newegg
7800GTX512 screwed.
What were you saying about their track record again? Unless I missed something, Nvidia had 6 hard launches out of the last 9. The GTX512 was borked badly,but not so sure because of rumors of intentionally limiting quantities, the 6800GS AGP was a trickler, but I can safely say it was largely on IBM's part. They are notorious for being molasses. Nvidia contracted IBM to fab the NV40 if you recall. When the 6800 series launched, everything trickled then too. And lastly the 6100 chipset bug that delayed it about 2 weeks. If you think thats a poor track record, then there is just no impressing you.
They announced the 7300GS nearly a month ago. nVidia used the X1800 launch, where the X1800XT wouldn't be available for a few weeks and called it a paper launch. By nVidia's definition, the 7300GS was a paper launch. Hey, it's not my definition I'm using. I'm using nVidia's.
And I'm just mainly pointing out that except for one generation of cards, nVidia has just as bad a track record as ATI. I usually group them as a 6 month period, cause that's usually the minimum required for a product refresh cycle. So nVidia has a one product cycle hard launch in the last couple of years. Great track record. ATI's is worse, but at least they didn't fudge the X1900XT launch so, it's almost at the same level as nVidia's as far as hard launches go.
You argue that nVidia has at least 6 hard launches in the last year or so by counting individual cards. If you're going to be counting individual cards, then ATI has at least 3 hard launches in the last 6 months, the X1800XL, the X1900XT, the X1900XTX, and quite possibly the X1900 AIW.
It's a matter of semantics at times. You choose to count every single card, I choose to count by product cycles. Either way, until the X1900 launch, ATI's record was pi$$ poor. nVidia's was just as crappy until the 7800 launch but it's not exactly pristine. After the X1900 launch, both companies are roughly the same as far as hard launches go.
If you're going to excuse the 6800GS and call it an error due to IBM being slow, you also have to excuse the X1800 because it was due to a 3rd party asic (according to ATI) that they were delayed. In the end delayed is delayed and late is late.
And as for the 6100 chipset, I didn't even include that but a lot of nVidia fanboys were all over the X1800XT not being available until about two weeks (or was it 3?) after announcement as a paper launch. So why should nVidia be held to a lesser standard?
I'm not trying to say nVidia is doing poorly with launching video cards. Just that with all the fanboys worshipping nVidia's hard launch and all the fanboys castrating ATI for their lack of hard launches you would think nVidia has always been hard launching all of their products for years. nVidia has started a precedent, ATI has been forced to follow suite, now they just need to keep it up. Ultimately the beneficiaries will be the end users if both companies keep up with the hard launches and bring improvements in a timely fashion.
Excellent post. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: akugami
I've said for a while now to all the people castrating ATI over their lateness (inexcusable to paper launch under any circumstances) but you really lose your argument if you're going to point to nVidia as your example of a company with great track record...I mean look at nVidia's track record.
And again, if you think the 7800GTX 512MB was a true hard launch...something is wrong. Availability was so low that the resale price of the card actually went above the MSRP. Not to mention every vendor was selling at least $50-100 over MSRP. It is only now after the X1900 release, and the impending G71 release that there is any sort of availability on the 512MB's. That's cause people are either buying X1900's or waiting on the G71. The 512MB release simply screamed PR stunt. There are review sites that don't even have them...
Nvidia track record? Give me a break. They have been doing quite well with their launches since the 7800GTX.
7800GTX hard launch
7800GT hard launch
6800GS PCI-e hard launch
6800GS AGP a little late cause IBM is piss slow. (IBM fabbed the NV-40 core)
7300GS hard launch (launched in Asia, but still in over 100,000 quantity and still kicking)
Nvidia reps said 7300GS would be widely available on Feb 6th in the US. And lo and behold newegg
6150 chipset hard launch (6100 had a bug and was delayed a few weeks)
7800GS hard launch newegg
7800GTX512 screwed.
What were you saying about their track record again? Unless I missed something, Nvidia had 6 hard launches out of the last 9. The GTX512 was borked badly,but not so sure because of rumors of intentionally limiting quantities, the 6800GS AGP was a trickler, but I can safely say it was largely on IBM's part. They are notorious for being molasses. Nvidia contracted IBM to fab the NV40 if you recall. When the 6800 series launched, everything trickled then too. And lastly the 6100 chipset bug that delayed it about 2 weeks. If you think thats a poor track record, then there is just no impressing you.
They announced the 7300GS nearly a month ago. nVidia used the X1800 launch, where the X1800XT wouldn't be available for a few weeks and called it a paper launch. By nVidia's definition, the 7300GS was a paper launch. Hey, it's not my definition I'm using. I'm using nVidia's.
And I'm just mainly pointing out that except for one generation of cards, nVidia has just as bad a track record as ATI. I usually group them as a 6 month period, cause that's usually the minimum required for a product refresh cycle. So nVidia has a one product cycle hard launch in the last couple of years. Great track record. ATI's is worse, but at least they didn't fudge the X1900XT launch so, it's almost at the same level as nVidia's as far as hard launches go.
You argue that nVidia has at least 6 hard launches in the last year or so by counting individual cards. If you're going to be counting individual cards, then ATI has at least 3 hard launches in the last 6 months, the X1800XL, the X1900XT, the X1900XTX, and quite possibly the X1900 AIW.
It's a matter of semantics at times. You choose to count every single card, I choose to count by product cycles. Either way, until the X1900 launch, ATI's record was pi$$ poor. nVidia's was just as crappy until the 7800 launch but it's not exactly pristine. After the X1900 launch, both companies are roughly the same as far as hard launches go.
If you're going to excuse the 6800GS and call it an error due to IBM being slow, you also have to excuse the X1800 because it was due to a 3rd party asic (according to ATI) that they were delayed. In the end delayed is delayed and late is late.
And as for the 6100 chipset, I didn't even include that but a lot of nVidia fanboys were all over the X1800XT not being available until about two weeks (or was it 3?) after announcement as a paper launch. So why should nVidia be held to a lesser standard?
I'm not trying to say nVidia is doing poorly with launching video cards. Just that with all the fanboys worshipping nVidia's hard launch and all the fanboys castrating ATI for their lack of hard launches you would think nVidia has been hard launching all of their products. Now they just need to keep it up. Ultimately the beneficiaries will be the end users if both companies keep up with the hard launches and bring improvements in a timely fashion.
Originally posted by: crazydingo
Excellent post. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: akugami
I've said for a while now to all the people castrating ATI over their lateness (inexcusable to paper launch under any circumstances) but you really lose your argument if you're going to point to nVidia as your example of a company with great track record...I mean look at nVidia's track record.
And again, if you think the 7800GTX 512MB was a true hard launch...something is wrong. Availability was so low that the resale price of the card actually went above the MSRP. Not to mention every vendor was selling at least $50-100 over MSRP. It is only now after the X1900 release, and the impending G71 release that there is any sort of availability on the 512MB's. That's cause people are either buying X1900's or waiting on the G71. The 512MB release simply screamed PR stunt. There are review sites that don't even have them...
Nvidia track record? Give me a break. They have been doing quite well with their launches since the 7800GTX.
7800GTX hard launch
7800GT hard launch
6800GS PCI-e hard launch
6800GS AGP a little late cause IBM is piss slow. (IBM fabbed the NV-40 core)
7300GS hard launch (launched in Asia, but still in over 100,000 quantity and still kicking)
Nvidia reps said 7300GS would be widely available on Feb 6th in the US. And lo and behold newegg
6150 chipset hard launch (6100 had a bug and was delayed a few weeks)
7800GS hard launch newegg
7800GTX512 screwed.
What were you saying about their track record again? Unless I missed something, Nvidia had 6 hard launches out of the last 9. The GTX512 was borked badly,but not so sure because of rumors of intentionally limiting quantities, the 6800GS AGP was a trickler, but I can safely say it was largely on IBM's part. They are notorious for being molasses. Nvidia contracted IBM to fab the NV40 if you recall. When the 6800 series launched, everything trickled then too. And lastly the 6100 chipset bug that delayed it about 2 weeks. If you think thats a poor track record, then there is just no impressing you.
They announced the 7300GS nearly a month ago. nVidia used the X1800 launch, where the X1800XT wouldn't be available for a few weeks and called it a paper launch. By nVidia's definition, the 7300GS was a paper launch. Hey, it's not my definition I'm using. I'm using nVidia's.
And I'm just mainly pointing out that except for one generation of cards, nVidia has just as bad a track record as ATI. I usually group them as a 6 month period, cause that's usually the minimum required for a product refresh cycle. So nVidia has a one product cycle hard launch in the last couple of years. Great track record. ATI's is worse, but at least they didn't fudge the X1900XT launch so, it's almost at the same level as nVidia's as far as hard launches go.
You argue that nVidia has at least 6 hard launches in the last year or so by counting individual cards. If you're going to be counting individual cards, then ATI has at least 3 hard launches in the last 6 months, the X1800XL, the X1900XT, the X1900XTX, and quite possibly the X1900 AIW.
It's a matter of semantics at times. You choose to count every single card, I choose to count by product cycles. Either way, until the X1900 launch, ATI's record was pi$$ poor. nVidia's was just as crappy until the 7800 launch but it's not exactly pristine. After the X1900 launch, both companies are roughly the same as far as hard launches go.
If you're going to excuse the 6800GS and call it an error due to IBM being slow, you also have to excuse the X1800 because it was due to a 3rd party asic (according to ATI) that they were delayed. In the end delayed is delayed and late is late.
And as for the 6100 chipset, I didn't even include that but a lot of nVidia fanboys were all over the X1800XT not being available until about two weeks (or was it 3?) after announcement as a paper launch. So why should nVidia be held to a lesser standard?
I'm not trying to say nVidia is doing poorly with launching video cards. Just that with all the fanboys worshipping nVidia's hard launch and all the fanboys castrating ATI for their lack of hard launches you would think nVidia has been hard launching all of their products. Now they just need to keep it up. Ultimately the beneficiaries will be the end users if both companies keep up with the hard launches and bring improvements in a timely fashion.
I concur :thumbsup:
Ronin
Diamond Member
Exactly the same thing, but that didnt enter the subject so not sure why you brought it up.
Anyhow, I agree, ATI screwed over X1800 owners aswell, but the situation here was not half as bad.
Why?
Because X1800's are still holding their value, an X1800 owner can simply sell their card at a loss of about £50 and buy an X1900. Whereas a person who just bought the 7800 GTX 512mb for say $1200(!) will not be able to recoup that money once the 7900 GTX is released, as chances are the 7900 GTX will be both cheaper and better performing, so they are looking in the region of about a $500 loss.
Much worse then say the $100 loss you might be losing from changing the X1800 to the X1900.
Ronin
Diamond Member
Where do you suppose most of their income actually comes from? The midrange cards. It's those launches that absolutely make or break the company, not the high end cards. The high end cards are for bragging rights and the extremists.
This is common knowledge (and true for both companies), which is EXACTLY why they both continue to work the midrange market with cards.
Ronin
Diamond Member
1. $1200? That's a joke, right?
2. A $100 loss is a $100 loss (~25% of the purchase price on the X1800, right?). By that same math, an 512MB GTX could sell theirs for 525 and suffer the same loss, right? There's only so much room to fall on the high end (and I'm betting the actual sell #'s are closer to that $100 figure from the X1800's for the 512MB's when the G71 launches). There is no 'recoup of money' no matter which direction you go in.
No recoup perhaps, but garuanteed X1800 will lose less selling on to buy the X1900 then GTX 512mb owners will lose selling on to buy the 7900 GTX.
Ronin
Diamond Member
Guaranteed based on what vast experience you have on the subject? It's a crap shoot that no one can predict, but assuming as such is pretty silly.
5150Joker
Diamond Member
I don't know why you guys are arguing about video card devaluation, especially Ronin. He has 6 of the 20 cards ever made (my friend Rollo got the 20th one) and he got them via the nVidia welfare program and doesn't have to worry about devaluation. 
lolOriginally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't know why you guys are arguing about video card devaluation, especially Ronin. He has 6 of the 20 cards ever made (my friend Rollo got the 20th one) and he got them via the nVidia welfare program and doesn't have to worry about devaluation.
Common sense is all you need to figure it out.
As Joker mentioned, you dont even pay for your GPU's so your knowledge on devaluation is probably far more limited then most.
Its simple to work out really, the 7800 GTX 512mb cost more then any other single GPU (not taking in to account proffesional ones such as Quadro etc). $1200 came as a suprise to you, well guess what, there were websites selling it for this price, some around $1000. Only recently has it dropped to around the $750 mark.
Unless Nvidia want to lose a huge number of customers to ATI, the chances are the 7900 GTX will go back to the standard price matrix and cost around $650. So anyone who paid $1000+ for thier GTX 512mb would probably get around $550+ selling it at the time of the 7900's release. Think about it, thats a big loss. For a 2 months performance lead.
The X1800 XT is still worth around $520, if you sold it you might get say $500 or less.
Guess what, the X1900 XT costs pretty much exactly the same! Lol, so by selling one and getting the other, you will lose very little if anything. Considering how stupid people can be on eBay, you may even make some money!
So again, using common sense, its pretty easy to figure out.
Why you persisitantly argue points for the sake of arguing I have no idea.
Well actually I do, lol, its your bias towards Nvidia that drives you to defend it in such a manor. Before you even think about calling me an ATI fanboy, know this, I dont own any ATI cards at the moment, only 2 Nvidia ones.
I buy whatevers best, in terms of performance or value, at the time.
Key word...BUY.
You just like to argue and pretend to know everything, don't you? I have seen this in just about every post of yours. Not to mention your constant talking down to people and name calling. Then you take offense to someone on a forum that does not agree with you and try to bring "defaming" into your conversations. Then you like to pretend you are rich and can afford anything, whether it is a handout or not. Fact is, you have a superiority complex, that much anyone can see. A little bit a humility would do you some good.
1) Where did I say that nVidia and ATI do not make the majority of their money from the mid-range cards? Actually, you won't find anywhere where I have said that, because that wasn't what my post was about.
2) Most of those cards nVidia launched were not crucial launches. What compitition was ATI giving them at the time for those cards? Not much. The sales of their old mid-range cards were still selling.
The 7800 GTX and 512 GTX were their two major launches that help PR the most, so they can claim "The fastest GPU" title... This trickles down even into the midrange and low end due to the company itself claiming, nVidia or ATI producing the "fastest GPU" in the world title. People read that in their common tech news and then when it comes time to purchase their video card they remember the brand name that is on top and then purchase a card for their price range within that company.
Now if you want to dissagree with me, I am totally ok with that. But to change the subject and start trying to bring up points I wasn't even touching, is a bit... Off target.
My hope is that you can bring a better attitude to AT forums with your next post.
Find a single instance of me leveling personal insults first. Best of luck with that.
It isn't me who defines a launch that way, it is the entire industry and all analysts tied to it. It is you who wants to change the given definition of the word.
We are talking about a particular industry, and it isn't the automotive one.
No, they didn't sell well at all. Shouldn't be surprising as they offered almost nothing over the significantly less expensive 256MB parts.
With the margins they were making on those parts they certainly would have loved to fill the channels with them.
So you want to focus on the element that bolsters your side of the discourse.
You can disagree, the sales numbers are seperated by orders of magnitudes.
Do you realize how many millions of dollars that 'nothing new' part cost to transition? This particular comment makes it sound like you know almost nothing about ramping up a new build process for a part. Wingznut works for Intel in their clean rooms inside the fabs, ask him about how 'nothing new' that kind of transition is.
I agree with you there. Board level there obviously were several changes but chip wise you are certainly correct.
Another half generation late product for ATi. If it was an isolated event it likely wouldn't have been a factor, but stack it on top of the half gen late R520 and it starts to make them look utterly inept much as nVidia did during the NV30 gen.
They were available at nearly every decent sized etailer in the civilized world, do you think they only got a few each in? Thousands was fairly conservative. How much they paid has nothing to do with nV at all(well, nV sets a MSRP and that's the only control they have)- they do not build boards. Their OEMs set their prices and then retailers add their margins. This isn't like ATi where they can set the bar wherever they like.
The 7300GS was available on launch day in the Far East, and there didn't appear to be a hint of supply issues(not a very interesting part).
I'm not sure why you arbitrarily get to decide what the industry thinks a product launch should be, but I disagree with the definition you have given.
I think you misinterpreted my comment (again) -- I was saying that demand was high on the 7800GTX 256MB cards at ~$500, and the 7800GTX 512MB cards were significantly faster but the MSRP wasn't that much higher. High demand should not have been hard to predict.
And the fact that they didn't would imply that they couldn't produce very many of them -- a fact that should not have escaped their knowledge. Either NVIDIA purposefully launched it knowing supplies would be VERY limited, or their marketing and engineering departments aren't talking to each other.
I didn't say the sales numbers or overall profits were higher on the top parts (they're not; in terms of actual business performance, these cards are probably the least relevant).
But you started in on 'mindshare', and people often look at the card that holds the 'performance crown' as part of determining which company is 'on top'. In terms of 'mindshare', blowing the launch of a highly visible product is more damaging then blowing the launch of a midrange or low-end part (at least IMO). Nobody will remember in a year that the 7300GS was paper launched in the US; everyone will remember how badly NVIDIA screwed up the 7800GTX 512MB.
You're putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say it was cheap (setting up the fabrication lines for any new chip is very expensive); I said it didn't require a lot of new design work.
Doing a die shrink of a part -- while still requiring engineering work -- is a *hell* of a lot easier than designing a new GPU from scratch. Screwing this card up, given the amount of experience they have with NV40 at this point, would imply sheer ineptitude in their engineering department.
Actually, that's exactly what people were saying. Certainly the fact that the cards went OOS almost everywhere within a day or so implies that there were not a ton of cards out there.
But the reason most retailers were gouging prices is that there was almost no supply. Basic economics -- high demand and low supply equals high prices. If there were more cards than buyers out there on the launch date, or NVIDIA had a steady supply of them coming, the price wouldn't have skyrocketed way over the MSRP and stayed there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter