Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
It is looking more and more like amd's small ball strategy is superior to nvidia's "build the fastest no matter what" philosophy.
The only way that statement can be viewed as accurate is that you have seen exactly how the GT3x0 parts are going to perform, so why not share with us? What has currently been proven in differences is that ATi's strategy allowed them to ship earlier this generation, nothing more. Considering that the 5xxx series is a modified 4xxx(which dates back to the 2xxx parts) while the GT300 series chips are an entirely new core, perhaps that shouldn't be surprising.
Ben, let me push back just a bit in one small way (and to be sure, I'm not one for the 'nvidia is doomed' perspective on all this).
One place where I think the small-die strategy has helped AMD is in pricing flexibility. It has allowed them to effectively re-price previously high-end parts as the market pushes on. I think it also saves on R&D (if you can profitably sell last-gen's high-end parts in the mid-range, there is no need to do a separate midrange design each generation).
The difference I see is that AMD happily pushed 4870/4850 into the sub $150 market, but NV certainly doesn't seem willing to do that with 285/280/275/260. As an aside, I'm really hoping for a top-to-bottom launch from NV early next year.
In general, I don't think that we can tell from a couple years' worth of data whether or not the small-die strategy is working, especially given who's trying it. AMD/ATI have had so many problems that they have had (and still have) some serious work to do in order to recapture consumer mind-share.
But I think the strategy itself is a sound one, and one I'd like to see NV pursue. A GT360 that starts at $299 and gets pushed down to $175-180 when the next generation hits? Yes, please!