Gamers Depot: nVidia PWNED...Twice!

[BFG10K]

With it outselling the R3xx core by more then 2:1(including all the R3xx boards that were sold before the NV3X became available),

I'm sorry, I have very hard time believing that. Do you have a link to support your figures?

Or are you using the 5200 as your evidence? If you are that's just silly.

ATi needs to get on the ball with a low end R3xx part or nV is going to continue to slaughter them in DX9 level installed base.

For practical purposes the 5200 cannot be called a DirectX 9.0 card because it's so slow. Hell, it's too slow to run DirectX 7 games for heaven's sake. Also a lot of DirectX 9 games are purposely using a DirectX 8 path through it because of that very reason.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
None of this really effects me too much because I usually skip a generation so I'm still using a geforce4 ti4200 and ti4600. If both of my video cards can't run Doom3 and HL2 at an acceptable level than I'll upgrade to a r9800 to tide me over until next year.

I agree totally, I am using a 9700pro and unless it has an untimely end - the current cards will be old news when I upgrade.
Besides ATI is Canadian, so must be better.

 

[lchen66666]

Seems like I should buy some ATI share now based on comments from ATI.

 

[ginfest]

Seems like I should buy some ATI share now based on comments from ATI.

I have both along with both major CPU makers and a bunch of other stuff. No matter what HW you have or products you favor, a varied portfolio makes sense.
One thing I find humerous about the above quote from ATI is that they seem to have the same pompous attitude that NV is accused of having.
Also, when NV makes a "statement" the current trend is to denigrate it but when ATI does, it's praised?
Remmeber certain statements are made chiefly to "target" investors and must be taken with a "grain of salt"
Unfortunately the only way to really know which product does what is to buy both-obviously an expense burden to most but I just bought a 9800p to compare with my 5900np and now can see that the diff are not as absolute as you see stated time and time again by the so-called "experts".
In fact, I would be very careful of believing what you read, especially from those who quote sites like B3D but have no technical expertise of thier own, nor have the products in question.


Mike G


Mike G

 

[BenSkywalker]

Pete-

I call ATi's parts mid- and high-end true DX9 cards, while I call the 5200 (which accounts for most of nV's claimed DX9 sales dominance) a marketing sham.

Compared to what? The R9000...? The GF4MX...? Marketing sham? Maybe you are talking about the fact that they are considered DX9 parts? People consider the KyroII a DX7 part, the FX5200's PS 2.0 performance is much, much better then the K2's EMCM performance wouldn't you say?

Remember, nVidia came to "power" in the 3D field because it was such a succeses in enthusiasts' eyes.

No, they didn't. Back in early '98 3Dfx had their V2 SLI shredding the competition in the enthusiast market(twice as fast, at least, then the next nearest competitor), nVidia had their Riva 128ZX and ATi was pushing the RagePro. At that time ATi dominated the market while in that timeframe nVidia overtook 3Dfx in terms of marketshare. nVidia's best selling part by a staggering margin is the TNT2M64 to date, nothing else is close.

They're not selling MX's and 5200's on their merits, but rather on the merits of the top-class cards that came before them, the GF2, 3, and 4Ti.

And doing that with the TNT2M64 is what made them in to the dominant player in add in graphics. This is what nVidia has done in the past, actually it's a bit better in many respects as the 5200 at least has feature parity with the high end parts for the most part.

I agree ATi needs to work on a sub-$100 DX9 card. Rumors point to a cut-down RV350 appearing soon. 128MB 9600's are already hitting $100, albeit after rebate.

With the 5200 selling as well as it is, nV is making a sizeable rift in installed base for DX9 level parts. When EA is working on the 'Sims3' etc it will be a lot easier sell for Cg if nV owns 70% of the market, even if it is with low end parts, that is the norm not the exception.

BTW, Ben, what do you make of this quote? Does it jibe with your info? I just read it (linked at B3D).

NPD numbers for computer hardware don't include NewEgg, most of the PriceWatch sites, or anything OEM. It's mainly B&M numbers for major retailers and that's it. You figure time to market for B&Ms etc and you are looking at BestBuy sales for the R9700 vs the small handfule of BFG 5800's they got in Given lead times for publications and NPD's posting schedules and we are looking at June's numbers, I'd say those look completely in line for that time frame for large retail B&M chains in the US.

BFG-

I'm sorry, I have very hard time believing that. Do you have a link to support your figures?

I was actually being quite conservative.

Or are you using the 5200 as your evidence? If you are that's just silly.

The statement was that the NV3X core was DOA. The NV3X core has outsold the R3XX core by a significant margin. If the NV3X core was really DOA, then what does that say about the R3xx core? I'm talking business here, nothing more or less. You were around when 3dfx imploded, you must recall the adamant defense of their business model because people liked their feature set better(and that spilled over in to 3dfx's employees also). Looking at it from a business perspective, the NV3X is far from DOA. You could say the NV30 was DOA, but the other chips in the line are doing fairly well and overall better then the R3xx core. They need a low cost DX9 part, for all of the 5200's problems, would you want a R9000 over it?

For practical purposes the 5200 cannot be called a DirectX 9.0 card because it's so slow. Hell, it's too slow to run DirectX 7 games for heaven's sake. Also a lot of DirectX 9 games are purposely using a DirectX 8 path through it because of that very reason.

When we see *real* DX9 games the R9800Pro is going to be too slow(as will the 5900U and everything else out now) by our standards. DooM3 is the first game we are going to see that really pushes DX7 hard(and exceeds it, the engine was built focusing on the GeForce level feature set however). What we have heard so far is *this* DX9 native feature, one of the three we use in our game, runs slow on *this* hardware with these drivers. What do you think is a better option to throw in an OEM rig, a R9000, a GF4MX or a 5200? For its market, it isn't that bad of a card(check Digit Life's vid card digest and their breakdown of best buys in the value segment).

 

[ironique]

I honestly think that if Nvidia could get thier ti4600 to run @ 400/400 it would perform better than any nv3x! (except for not having dx9 support that is) They used to be able to get more out of their hardware - geforce3 -> geforce4 Ti, now they've got high spec hardware with little to show for it. disappointing really.

 

[BFG10K]

The statement was that the NV3X core was DOA.

And in terms of technology it is.

The NV3X core has outsold the R3XX core by a significant margin.

nVidia is simply riding on past sucesses. Once people realise how poorly the FX line performs they'll soon move on.

They need a low cost DX9 part, for all of the 5200's problems, would you want a R9000 over it?

Absolutely.

When we see *real* DX9 games the R9800Pro is going to be too slow(as will the 5900U and everything else out now) by our standards.

If you think the R3x is too slow then what chance does the FX core have? Also if you want to play Halflife 2 now (a heavy DirectX 9.0 game) then the Rxx core is a real option; the FX core is not. Hell even a Ti4600 is better for Halflife 2 than any of the FX cards.