I couldn't agree more.
I don't see what welsh was trying to gain by trying to remove these posts from the forum.
The conversation of:
Nvidia sucks and is doing everything wrong
vs counter point
Well, their financials are kicking ass so they must be doing something right, maybe not technically, but operationally.
...Is perfectly valid...not to mention it was a well formulated and well written argument.
And completely off topic for this thread.
That didnt happen after the NV30 did it? This should perform better than NV30 did against the R300.
And completely off topic for this thread.
Before NV30 launched, everyone, including Anandtech journalists thought that the NV30 would be faster than the R300.
Brand names are extremely powerful, and from a business perspective, are more of a factor in how good your sales are than the products themselves.
Nvidia has a really strong brand name. Because of that they can get away with all kinds of things such as offering products that are slower for the same price or products that are just as fast but more expensive than ATI's. They can also just not release anything new for a while and people will still buy their stuff over newer technology from a lesser known company. People recognize the name Nvidia and Geforce more than ATI and Radeon.
An example of this is Intel. They had nothing but their own brand name going for them during Pentium 4 and Pentium D era. There was an 3 year period where AMD was better than Intel at virtually everything in every price bracket and they still kicked AMD around in sales.
That said, brand names are only something you can rely on for so long. It is only a matter of time until people begin to recognize and realize that AMD makes products that are just as good and reliable as their competitors' products. Once that happens, the only thing that will determine sales and market share is product performance and pricing.
They doubled their revenue this year in the quarter that just ended a couple of weeks ago and improved their profit/loss by over a quarter of a billion dollars. Their gross margins have also increased by 15%.
I think that would certainly be the case if ATi were to handle their marketting and B2B relations as well as nVidia.
And completely off topic for this thread.
Originally Posted by bryanW1995
good points. I would go one step further and state that nvidia is today reaping rewards for their years and years of sustained market dominance. They can continue to rest on their laurels or they can innovate; it appears that they have chosen to innovate but are having a difficult time with it. I believe that another couple quarters of fermi hell will cause nvidia problems, not only this year but for years to come because their mindshare loss will begin to accelerate.
That didnt happen after the NV30 did it? This should perform better than NV30 did against the R300.
drivers are still fubarded for the 5970.
i was gonna go that route, as its the only real upgrade from my HD4870X2's.
But i heard its a safer approach to get 2 hd5870's and bask in the sunlight of whats called eyefinity. :hmm:
You give the impression that you are slightly confused, I'll explain it out a bit more.
ATi and nVidia sell graphics chips. When they sell these chips, they do so to make money. They do not sell canned hams, they don't sell toaster ovens, they sell graphics chips. In order for them to make money, they need to sell graphics chips. The way they sell those graphics chips is to end users. When a whole lot of end users by one type of graphics chip over another, it shows up in the financial reports. When a whole lot of users by one chip over another for a very long time, it means there is less money for the smaller party to continue to develop graphics chips. When there isn't enough money to develop graphics chips any more, most companies stop making new graphics chips. That means less competition. For end users, less competition is almost always a bad thing because our end price increases no matter if you bought from company A or company N.
The technology we see today was based on the sales of graphics chips over the last several years. The graphics chips that are selling today are generating money to make new graphics chips we will see in the years to come. At the end of the day, all parties involved in this industry are for profit companies, so their financial status has an explicitly direct correlation to their long term viability in a given market segment.
Simplified, if ATi can't make any money being the technology leader while nV makes truck loads lagging behind, what do you think the powers that be are going to decide to do?
we should be seeing benchmarks soon if its going to be launch on March 26 ?
Before NV30 launched, everyone, including Anandtech journalists thought that the NV30 would be faster than the R300.
Brand names are extremely powerful, and from a business perspective, are more of a factor in how good your sales are than the products themselves.
Nvidia has a really strong brand name. Because of that they can get away with all kinds of things such as offering products that are slower for the same price or products that are just as fast but more expensive than ATI's. They can also just not release anything new for a while and people will still buy their stuff over newer technology from a lesser known company. People recognize the name Nvidia and Geforce more than ATI and Radeon.
An example of this is Intel. They had nothing but their own brand name going for them during Pentium 4 and Pentium D era. There was an 3 year period where AMD was better than Intel at virtually everything in every price bracket and they still kicked AMD around in sales.
That said, brand names are only something you can rely on for so long. It is only a matter of time until people begin to recognize and realize that AMD makes products that are just as good and reliable as their competitors' products. Once that happens, the only thing that will determine sales and market share is product performance and pricing.
An example of this is Intel. They had nothing but their own brand name going for them during Pentium 4 and Pentium D era. There was an 3 year period where AMD was better than Intel at virtually everything in every price bracket and they still kicked AMD around in sales.
An example of this is Intel. They had nothing but their own brand name going for them during Pentium 4 and Pentium D era. There was an 3 year period where AMD was better than Intel at virtually everything in every price bracket and they still kicked AMD around in sales.
This point drives home what I'm talking about better then any other. Despite having technical superiority over Intel for quite some time, AMD was never able to leverage this into increased revenue and it was proven, from a business perspective, that giving up on the high end in a sense was a more prudent business decission then trying to push Intel to their limits. This is precisely that we as enthusiasts don't want to see. A nice 50/50 split with both companies making decent profits is ideal for enthusiasts.
I wouldn't want to apply this Intel analogy to nVidia. As much as some little things they do may seem a bit anti-competitive, (we've discussed these ad nauseum); nVidia as a whole, has been rather fair with its competitive practices, competing on the merits of their technology with generally honest advertising.
nVidia has a diverse set of intellectual property, but as deep as they are, a couple things have recently stacked against them. (Intel chipset lockout, lack of an 86x license, fab issue). I wouldn't predict doom, but to discount adversity would be a bit naive.
This point is moot in light of the fact that intel engaged in illegal business practices such as paying off OEM's and other vendors to NOT buy AMD chips during this period. Who knows what effect their better tech would have had on their marketshare had this not been the case?This point drives home what I'm talking about better then any other. Despite having technical superiority over Intel for quite some time, AMD was never able to leverage this into increased revenue and it was proven, from a business perspective, that giving up on the high end in a sense was a more prudent business decission then trying to push Intel to their limits. This is precisely that we as enthusiasts don't want to see. A nice 50/50 split with both companies making decent profits is ideal for enthusiasts.
BTW- As far as this conversation being off topic, I was simply replying to points raised by others and let's look at what the core of this topic was to start with- speculation on the announcement of an announcement. If you don't realize how that is entirely a function of nV's business department, well, I don't know what to tell you
This point is moot in light of the fact that intel engaged in illegal business practices such as paying off OEM's and other vendors to NOT buy AMD chips during this period. Who knows what effect their better tech would have had on their marketshare had this not been the case?