Did FX series hurt nVidia?

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
There goes Rollo again, fervently defending his 5800

it is now his son's fx5800. i think his kid is 4, and his video card smashes mine to bits

-Vivan

Turn that frown upside down, Vshah.
I bought my 4 year old a GF3, which is probably more in line with the kind of gaming he does. I got to thinking he doesn't really play loud shooters, and the whine of the FlowFX might annoy him playing his kiddie games.
If I can get a fair price for it, out the door it goes. You can't win holding on to vid cards for sentimental value, unless it's a V5 6K

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: discodanman45
I for one will never buy a nVidia vPU for a long time after I got a FX5200. The card can not even play Tiger Wood's golf without skipping.

Well duh! It's a 5200!

I am getting a 9800 pro, because right now it is the best bang for the buck I believe. When a new generation FX card has trouble outperforming the MX series and gets killed by the Ti4200 and Ti4600 cards, it should have never been released. nVidia lost all my respect.

Why? It's no different than the GF4 MX.
...or better yet, the 9600 SE!

 

[Necrolezbeast]

kinda off the subject...but as to budget cards, when I built my first computer I had a 1.2ghz Athlon and 256mb RAM, I went cheap on the vid card, geforce2 MX 32mb, and that thing was pretty damn good for the $35 i spent on it. I was able to play all games that were fairly new at that time, but these budget cards now could not play anything that came out in the last 2 years. I don't know if my expectations were lower then than they are now, or if that card was as great as i remember..

 

[Zebo]

Hell yes it hurt them. Thier market cap was 6B in the days of GF4 now it's 3B. ATi was 2B then now its 3B just like Nvidia.

It also hurt them and continues to hurt them among publics eye by releasing power hogs which are loud as a tornado fan. I for one don't care because as I water cool everything but when you can hear it over other fans that's a "bad thing."

Luckily for Nvidia they have the GT which everyone will buy because it's the right price point and performs excellent. Combined with thier continued apperance of "driver superiority" and Intel like "market savvy" NVidia is hear to stay.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

My 9600 Pro will ultimately smash a 6800 Ultra-Extreme Edition. I mean, 9600 is higher than 6800, so I gotta be right, right?

 

[nRollo]

Thank you for your kind words. I'm familiar with the reasoning behind its proces, it's .13 micron process, its RAM issues, ramping up production for these "new technologies," etc etc... If you remember those things, then hopefully you haven't mentally blocked out the pain that people felt when they found out that their delay was for naught.

You're welcome. I felt no pain. I bought a 5800NU, OCd it to 5800U speeds, found it performed about as well as my 9700Pro, so I sold the 9700Pro.

When you wait 6 months for something, even if new features aren't added during that timespan, "we all knew" that it was because of the new technology that they were ramping up that was supposed to make the difference between the 9700 and the 5800.

Why would they be adding new features when they can't even produce the chip they have? You think that is a good time to make changes and start the process again?!

On paper, it had a higher fillrate, more bandwidth, and overall better specifications and people expected it to beat the Radeon 9700 Pro hands down.

This is not true. It had >20% less bandwidth due to it's 128 bit interface. It did have a higher fillrate and a more advanced core.

This was far from the case. And yes, it was a poor performer. It wasn't neck and neck with a card that came out 6 months earlier.

Gee it wasn't? Check out the benchmarks on this very site?
Looks neck and neck with the 9700Pro to me?
Where are the benchmarks in that review where a 9700Pro outperforms it by an amount you can notice without the counter on?

It was a clear marginal loss for the 5800. It lost most benchmarks to older cards and the benchmarks that it was "the fastest" at, it was by a frame or so.

Err, see above? I can post more if you like?

Then the 5800 line, soon after production finally stabilized, was axed due to its sound, its lackluster performance, and even its size. Nvidia soon began to focus on the more mainstream markets instead of besting ATi's highest card. When the 9800 came out, Nvidia did not have a card that could decisively beat it either. It has only been in the last cycle that Nvidia can say that their cards can marginally beat ATI's cards.

Are you aware this reads like a HS term paper?

Considering that ATI was strictly a second tier company (in terms of performance) in the later 90's and early 2000's, I would say that Nvidia's inability to smother the competition, as it had done so with Geforce 2, 3, and 4, certainly hurt it.

This make no sense whatsoever. Because ATI was bad, they should always be bad? Because nVidia used to beat them, they always should? You're not an adult are you? In the business world you do your best and companies rarely stay on top forever. The R300 was a revolutionary, excellent product. nVidia wasn't going to likely put out anything that "smothered" it.


[/quote]Rollo, I think you should know that not only do some of us know about the 5800, but unlike you, some of us were quite ticked off about it. [/quote]
Hmm. I bought 2 and traded for one. Your perceptions about it are skewed.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Rollo, how long did it take you to write that up (my question mark button doesnt seem to work in Linux right now *sigh*)

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: discodanman45
I am just saying when you come out with a new generation Video card it should be able to destroy the previously released cards. Especially in a technology market. The FX5200 and FX5600 are complete garbage and should not have been released. They should have just kept mass producing the Ti cards and sold them for the same price. The FX5900 is not that great of a card as well. The FX5950 is good, but the only one in the series that gamers will like.

The FX5800 Slaughters the Ti4600, and so does every card higher in the line.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
My 9600 Pro will ultimately smash a 6800 Ultra-Extreme Edition. I mean, 9600 is higher than 6800, so I gotta be right, right?

6800 Ultra-Extreme: Ultra=1000, Extreme=2000, which means 6800 Ultra-Extreme = 6800+1000+2000= 9800>9600, that's why it massacres your 9600

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
the only thing that saved the fx line from complete failure was their driver team

Exactly

 

[chsh1ca]

If you are asking if it hurt them in a popularity sense, no way. Sure, a few people might say "to hell with NVidia!", but more won't care or notice. Many people will buy a card based on the company who makes it, be it ATI, NVidia, etc.. This is true in almost all sectors, not just computers. No big player in the computer business is ever down and out simply because of one bad product launch. It is rare that it has any long-lasting economic impact at all. Look at Intel with the P4As, or AMD with the hugely delayed Opteron/A64s, or even 3dfx with the Voodoo3's delayed release.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779&p=14

They were posted when the 5800 was first released. Subsequent drivers may have increased the 5800 U's performance to a more competitive level, but if you spend $400 on a card it should perform well right out of the box. Besides, when those later drivers were released, the 5800 was already a rare outdated product anyway. Also consider that the 9800 Pro was released only 2 months later. Even ignoring SM2 performance it was still a slow card.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Rage187
um your the moron who bought a 5200, dont blame Nv.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779&p=14

They were posted when the 5800 was first released. Subsequent drivers may have increased the 5800 U's performance to a more competitive level, but if you spend $400 on a card it should perform well right out of the box. Besides, when those later drivers were released, the 5800 was already a rare outdated product anyway. Also consider that the 9800 Pro was released only 2 months later. Even ignoring SM2 performance it was still a slow card.

Want to hear about my problems with my rev. 1 9700Pro I bought the month they were released General?
The fact of the matter is the 5800 was a totally new a chip, and new chips are never at top performance right out of the gate no matter what they cost.
The only reason your X800 is fast right away and bug free is they've been writing drivers for that core for two years.

LOL- memories:
Want to hear about the legendary problems the 8500s had out of the gate? Or the Radeon VIVO? Or the MAXX?
Or do you just want to mindlessly slander the 5800 some more with standards you apparently don't use for ATI?

 

[Garfield3d]

Rollo, I'm not sure why you have to be so caustic in your posts to me. I haven't been so insulting in my disagreements with you. You do seem awfully defensive of Nvidia's lackluster card. I'll start from the top of your post.

Originally posted by: Rollo

Thank you for your kind words. I'm familiar with the reasoning behind its proces, it's .13 micron process, its RAM issues, ramping up production for these "new technologies," etc etc... If you remember those things, then hopefully you haven't mentally blocked out the pain that people felt when they found out that their delay was for naught.

You're welcome. I felt no pain. I bought a 5800NU, OCd it to 5800U speeds, found it performed about as well as my 9700Pro, so I sold the 9700Pro.

Well it's good that you could get it to Radeon 9700 Pro speeds, but unfortunately, most online reviews and a lot of unhappy customers feel otherwise. The significance of this is... well, look at the title of the thread.

When you wait 6 months for something, even if new features aren't added during that timespan, "we all knew" that it was because of the new technology that they were ramping up that was supposed to make the difference between the 9700 and the 5800.

Why would they be adding new features when they can't even produce the chip they have? You think that is a good time to make changes and start the process again?!

On paper, it had a higher fillrate, more bandwidth, and overall better specifications and people expected it to beat the Radeon 9700 Pro hands down.

This is not true. It had >20% less bandwidth due to it's 128 bit interface. It did have a higher fillrate and a more advanced core.

Meh, my bad, thank you for the correction. I was thinking of Nvidia's decision to go with DDR2. It did push the envelope with DDR2 and a .13 micron process. People were also hyped at its 500mhz/500mhz core/memory clock rates, which further added to the anticipation of the card.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_1502451__3

This was far from the case. And yes, it was a poor performer. It wasn't neck and neck with a card that came out 6 months earlier.

Gee it wasn't? Check out the benchmarks on this very site?
Looks neck and neck with the 9700Pro to me?
Where are the benchmarks in that review where a 9700Pro outperforms it by an amount you can notice without the counter on?

When I say "neck and neck," I'm talking about numbers in tests that you can't attribute to a bad run or uncertainty. Look at the higher resolutions with the bells and whistles turned on. The 5800 Ultra excels primarily at lower resolutions and benchmarks without AF and AA turned up too high. The 5800 non-Ultra isn't even in contention.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003
http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/Inno3D/FX5800/page10.htm
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_2216021__4
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=404

It was a clear marginal loss for the 5800. It lost most benchmarks to older cards and the benchmarks that it was "the fastest" at, it was by a frame or so.

Err, see above? I can post more if you like?

The 5800 Ultra was comparable in many respects (except AA with AF at higher resolutions), but the 5800 non-Ultra was not something that was comparable. For the time that the 9800 Pro paired with the 5800 Ultra and the 5800 non-Ultra paired with the 9700 Pro, it was pretty clear that Nvidia had botched their cycle and likewise, they moved away from the 5800 series and onto other places where they could consolidate gains.

You've heard of the 5800, without Ultra at the end, yes? It lasted in production a bit longer than the Ultra, I think.

Then the 5800 line, soon after production finally stabilized, was axed due to its sound, its lackluster performance, and even its size. Nvidia soon began to focus on the more mainstream markets instead of besting ATi's highest card. When the 9800 came out, Nvidia did not have a card that could decisively beat it either. It has only been in the last cycle that Nvidia can say that their cards can marginally beat ATI's cards.

Are you aware this reads like a HS term paper?

Try to stay on topic, hotshot. You seem to be having problems staying on topic by making conjectures about people who disagree with you.

Considering that ATI was strictly a second tier company (in terms of performance) in the later 90's and early 2000's, I would say that Nvidia's inability to smother the competition, as it had done so with Geforce 2, 3, and 4, certainly hurt it.

This make no sense whatsoever. Because ATI was bad, they should always be bad? Because nVidia used to beat them, they always should? You're not an adult are you? In the business world you do your best and companies rarely stay on top forever. The R300 was a revolutionary, excellent product. nVidia wasn't going to likely put out anything that "smothered" it.

The topic of this thread reads: "Did FX series hurt Nvidia?" My answer is yes. As evidence of this, because the GeforceFX was far below expectations, ATI was able to cut into Nvidia's territory. This is seen in how ATI has been able to establish itself from being the seller of OEM and office graphics to the higher performing level of gaming and heavier 3d rendering cards.

I like arrows. Maybe you like arrows too, so I'll try to use them to show how the inability to develop superior cards is indicative of the marketplace:
3dfx makes fastest cards ---> Nvidia makes faster, superior 2d/3d cards ---> 3dfx(Loss of performance edge + business decisions in response) ---> 3dfx loses customers ---> 3dfx dies.
ATI makes mediocre cards, sticks to OEM market ---> ATI makes well performing Radeon series ---> Nvidia does not make superior cards ---> ATI gets time and room to build on Radeon's edge ---> ATI gets customers ---> ATI consolidates gains in higher performaning market

But how is this possible? Ah yes. This is possible because there was room in the market to expand. This room was created because Nvidia's offerings were late and below expectations. Since Nvidia did not fill it, ATI did with its Radeon 9700 Pro.

Rollo, I think you should know that not only do some of us know about the 5800, but unlike you, some of us were quite ticked off about it.

Hmm. I bought 2 and traded for one. Your perceptions about it are skewed.

Well, Rollo, I'm not telling you to be ticked off. I'm informing you that I, and other people, were ticked off. This is important because the topic of the thread is "Did FX series hurt Nvidia?"

The answer is yes. I'm not saying it crushed them, or that the engineers collectively had therapy for months afterwards, or that suicide rates went up. My post, as I read it, basically says that it hurt Nvidia by allowing ATI into the game and giving them several months to gather attention in the limelight.

 

[Garfield3d]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779&p=14

They were posted when the 5800 was first released. Subsequent drivers may have increased the 5800 U's performance to a more competitive level, but if you spend $400 on a card it should perform well right out of the box. Besides, when those later drivers were released, the 5800 was already a rare outdated product anyway. Also consider that the 9800 Pro was released only 2 months later. Even ignoring SM2 performance it was still a slow card.

Want to hear about my problems with my rev. 1 9700Pro I bought the month they were released General?
The fact of the matter is the 5800 was a totally new a chip, and new chips are never at top performance right out of the gate no matter what they cost.
The only reason your X800 is fast right away and bug free is they've been writing drivers for that core for two years.

"a totally new a chip, and new chips are never at top performance right out of the gate..."

And the moral of this story is:
"Did the FX series hurt Nvidia?
Yes"

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Garfield3d
Rollo, I'm not sure why you have to be so caustic in your posts to me. I haven't been so insulting in my disagreements with you. You do seem awfully defensive of Nvidia's lackluster card.

There are some things in life worth pursuing. Attempting to change anyone's mind over the internet isn't one of them. Rollo would present a difficult challenge as he's actually owned three versions of the FX5800.

The topic of this thread reads: "Did FX series hurt Nvidia?" My answer is yes. As evidence of this, because the GeforceFX was far below expectations, ATI was able to cut into Nvidia's territory.

No, because of the Radeon 9700's label as GF4 Killer ATI was able to cut into NVidia's territory. The ensuing delays of the FX line only furthered the cause, but the actual inroads were there because of ATI's VAST LEAP ahead of where they were with the Radeon 8500s.

I like arrows. Maybe you like arrows too, so I'll try to use them to show how the inability to develop superior cards is indicative of the marketplace:
3dfx makes fastest cards ---> Nvidia makes faster, superior 2d/3d cards ---> 3dfx(Loss of performance edge + business decisions in response) ---> 3dfx loses customers ---> 3dfx dies.
ATI makes mediocre cards, sticks to OEM market ---> ATI makes well performing Radeon series ---> Nvidia does not make superior cards ---> ATI gets time and room to build on Radeon's edge ---> ATI gets customers ---> ATI consolidates gains in higher performaning market

That's an overly simplistic view of what went on. Judging by the tech introduced with the FX5900s, NVidia would clearly have been at least on par with ATI had they not had so many delays and/or issues with TSMC. The delay at TSMC meant their cards were rushed out the door, even NVidia knows this, which is why Rollo generally gets angry at them when you mention their intentional devaluing of the card when they said in a statement it wasn't a great performer.

The answer is yes. I'm not saying it crushed them, or that the engineers collectively had therapy for months afterwards, or that suicide rates went up. My post, as I read it, basically says that it hurt Nvidia by allowing ATI into the game and giving them several months to gather attention in the limelight.

Indeed, each is entitled to his or her own opinion, but don't mistake this thread as being fact oriented. In reality, far more differing events transpired to simply say "this product line hurt NVidia". It was a combination of many things, and should not be nailed down to one single thing.

 

[nRollo]

Rollo, I'm not sure why you have to be so caustic in your posts to me. I haven't been so insulting in my disagreements with you. You do seem awfully defensive of Nvidia's lackluster card.

As a guy who's owned and liked 5800s Garfield, I start to feel a little bit like a cat in a dog pound.

The answer is yes. I'm not saying it crushed them, or that the engineers collectively had therapy for months afterwards, or that suicide rates went up. My post, as I read it, basically says that it hurt Nvidia by allowing ATI into the game and giving them several months to gather attention in the limelight

LOL- this is pretty funny

For the time that the 9800 Pro paired with the 5800 Ultra and the 5800 non-Ultra paired with the 9700 Pro, it was pretty clear that Nvidia had botched their cycle and likewise, they moved away from the 5800 series and onto other places where they could consolidate gains.

You've heard of the 5800, without Ultra at the end, yes? It lasted in production a bit longer than the Ultra, I think.

I disagree with this. The 5800 was never meant to compete with the 9800 Pro and did come out more than two months earlier. The 5900 series was meant to compete with the 9800 series:
Hierarchy:
5800NU=9700NP
5800U=9700P
5900NU= 9800NP
5900U=9800P
I had a 5800NU it was a pretty good card. OCd to 500/1000, which every one I ever read about did, it was a very good card.

It could be said the FX line hurt nVidia to be sure, but why it did is beyond me. There were no PS2 games, only the 5800U was loud and it wasn't that bad. The performance was a little lower, but people didn't make it their life's work slurring the 8500 when it was a little slower then the GF4? Or the VIVO when it was slower than the GF2 U?

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Want to hear about my problems with my rev. 1 9700Pro I bought the month they were released General?

Not really.

The fact of the matter is the 5800 was a totally new a chip, and new chips are never at top performance right out of the gate no matter what they cost.
The only reason your X800 is fast right away and bug free is they've been writing drivers for that core for two years.

If you say so. How about the performance of a 8 month old card at time of release? In the 2 months after it's release, they apparently didn't bother making new driver improvements in preperation for the 9800 pro either.

Or do you just want to mindlessly slander the 5800 some more with standards you apparently don't use for ATI?

I want $400 performance out of a $400 card. Forgive me. I (and a lot of other people) didn't have any driver problems with their cards back then either. If I did, why would I have kept the card?

If you want the novelty of a loud heating fan and a big cooler, that's your perogative. But claiming that the 5800s were ever a good product for gaming is denying the truth.

 

[Zebo]

only the 5800U was loud and it wasn't that bad
--------------
THIS IS JUST FALSE. (i'm shouting so you can hear me cause I think your deaf) Natually it's subjective but the dust busters (2 fans) on my 5900 is what forced me to go water. The single fan on the BFG5700 is loud as hell too inside jrs however he's young and does'nt know any better yet Maybe i'm just a sensitive type of guy but I've always found those small 60mm fans on video cards and north bridges very annoying, but NVidia takes it to a whole new level with 6000+++ rpm ones. If the reviewers feel the need to comment on the 5800 noise I know it's a screamer the way they generally give products a pass in the noise arena.

 

[kingmike]

NV has made poor PR choices, but so has ATI. The fx series of cards are not bad, and NV sales are doing just fine. If anything has hurt NV , it was the driver issues and smear tatics used by their competitors, and fan base.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: discodanman45
I am just saying when you come out with a new generation Video card it should be able to destroy the previously released cards. Especially in a technology market. The FX5200 and FX5600 are complete garbage and should not have been released. They should have just kept mass producing the Ti cards and sold them for the same price. The FX5900 is not that great of a card as well. The FX5950 is good, but the only one in the series that gamers will like.

And it does.
You need to compare it to the class it competes with.
FX5200 costs CONSIDERABLY less to manufacture than a GF4ti, yet costs the same to manufacture as a geforce4mx440 and is faster. Do you see now why the FX5200 was released?
9200, 9500, and 9600 is slower than the GF4ti series too, so you are saying that is hurting ATI? BS, you need to get a clue in the graphics market. There are 3 levels of video cards, value, midrange, and high end. A low end of a new generation will NEVER beat the high end of a previous generation. Never happened, and will never happen.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

My answer is also "Yes it hurt them"

For evidence, I point to the existence of the "ATI Fanboy" (or is it fanboi).

Before the 9700pro, ATI didn't really have any fanboys. It really seemed to be Nvidia and 3dfx. ATI was basically known as a low end card maker.

Ever since the 9700pro they have had the distinction of being @ the top of the performance scale with one card or another. The FX series, even though it was released after the 9700pro, was unable to lift Nvidia back to the top where they had been for quite some time. I agree that this really made ATI seem like a legitimate enthusiast brand, which was something they weren't known as previously.

Now, if the FX series had clearly lead the ATI offerings in performance, I don't think ATI would have the same reputation it does today.

So, while the FX series was not Nvidias strongest, they certainly weren't BAD cards, expecailly now with the 5900XT which I feel is a very good value. However, when compared with the competition they were a marginally SLOWER (not necessarily inferior) product in most cases.

Anyhow, Nvidia certainly seems to be on track with the 6800 series, provided they can get the chips out in decent quantities.

-D'oh!

 

[nitromullet]

I am just saying when you come out with a new generation Video card it should be able to destroy the previously released cards. Especially in a technology market. The FX5200 and FX5600 are complete garbage and should not have been released.

I'm not sure if you noticed this, but with the GeForce 4 series, nVidia had the Ti cards and the MX cards. The FX 5200 was basically the new version of the MX series cards, not the Ti series. Also, these cards were cheaper than the Ti series cards when they came out as well. Newer doesn't always mean better.

 

[Cawchy87]

I would say yes. Their high end cards matched or beat ATI's high end cards. However, their mid-range (until the 5700U came down in price) was lacking vs. ATI's 9600 series. The lower end cards from nvida really hurt them. Not because they were worse than ATI's lower end, but because they were marketed much more agressivly than ATI"s low end cards. Which made more buyers unhappy. And ATI's ability to lower their price on the 9800 pro while the 5900U was still very high hurt nvida sales as well.