Where ATI has failed ...

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SirPauly
If one is only pro-consumer -- then it would be really hard for a company to survive.

Not service companies .. they must be pro-consumer to survive

i think many tech companies neglect their customers badly .. to their loss

it is not all about "innovation & value"

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Does GM support 3D glassess?

Certainly, can run anything you want in a hummer. Or did hummer bite the dust?

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: SirPauly

If one is only pro-consumer -- then it would be really hard for a company to survive.

Of course they couldn't survive without balance. Gouging and sticking it to the consumer when you make a bad bump - are on the other extreme.

 

[SirPauly]

There are always extremes so it seems and no company is perfect or ideal in all circumstances. It's easy to be judge and executioner sitting in an arm chair over-looking a monitor with zero accountability with zero risk involved.

That example probably has layers of data involved with most of the details not officially offered -- except some news in sensational journalism -- while some accept this kind of journalism as fact and hero worship.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
All I want is top-notch Linux support. Which, coincidentally, is still better from Nvidia.

Same here, I actually burned myself when I purchased an HD 4850. Dual monitors didn't work worth a shit and I had to return it, losing a little bit of money.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SirPauly
If one is only pro-consumer -- then it would be really hard for a company to survive.

Not service companies .. they must be pro-consumer to survive

i think many tech companies neglect their customers badly .. to their loss

it is not all about "innovation & value"

Amen to that!

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: akugami
Agreed. From a consumer standpoint, it was terrible. Who wants to pay more money when they can buy it for less? Certainly not I. However, from a business standpoint, great move by nVidia. They had ATI down with weaker products compared to theirs and they took advantage of it by charging more money. That's not their fault. Blame ATI more than anything else for being non-competitive and allowing nVidia to charge an arm and a leg.

???? So it's ATI's fault for allowing Nvidia to charge $650 for a GTX280? I haven't heard twisted logic like that since Rollo got booted.

Nobody forced them to try and gouge consumers with their $650 GTX280 and $400 GTX260 pricing scheme. They could just as easily have released them at their post HD4800 levels of $400 and $300 respectively. But instead they decided to try and suck as much money out of their customers wallets as possible. That was nobody's fault but Nvidia's.

ATI could have chosen to base their HD4800 pricing on their Nvidia equivalents. That would have put the 4870 at around $400 and the 4850 at $300. But as we saw, ATI decided to make a more modest profit per unit and set their MSRP at $300 for the 4870 and $200 for the 4850.

It's up to each individual company to set their own product's pricing. No other company can force them to do otherwise.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: akugami
Agreed. From a consumer standpoint, it was terrible. Who wants to pay more money when they can buy it for less? Certainly not I. However, from a business standpoint, great move by nVidia. They had ATI down with weaker products compared to theirs and they took advantage of it by charging more money. That's not their fault. Blame ATI more than anything else for being non-competitive and allowing nVidia to charge an arm and a leg.

???? So it's ATI's fault for allowing Nvidia to charge $650 for a GTX280? I haven't heard twisted logic like that since Rollo got booted.

Nobody forced them to try and gouge consumers with their $650 GTX280 and $400 GTX260 pricing scheme. They could just as easily have released them at their post HD4800 levels of $400 and $300 respectively. But instead they decided to try and suck as much money out of their customers wallets as possible. That was nobody's fault but Nvidia's.

ATI could have chosen to base their HD4800 pricing on their Nvidia equivalents. That would have put the 4870 at around $400 and the 4850 at $300. But as we saw, ATI decided to make a more modest profit per unit and set their MSRP at $300 for the 4870 and $200 for the 4850.

It's up to each individual company to set their own product's pricing. No other company can force them to do otherwise.

that isn't what he is saying from what i am reading

- he is saying that ATi's *non competitiveness* allowed Nvidia to set their margins sky high


That is not Nvidia "fault" .. they have been known to 'gouge' their fans on every new release; it is their "history"
. . . name ONE new card they released at a low price point and low margin



i would tend to suggest that ATi did not set their margins low because they love you
:brokenheart:
- they did it because they didn't think they could get any more for their 4XX0 series

 

[Dribble]

This argument any company *loves* its customer is rubbish. They are all ruled by the bottom line and their share holders. When it comes down to it all that matters is parting you from your money - it's the companies job to do so as efficiently as possible. The fact that anyone can think different just shows them to be a sucker for the PR department - or a paid up part of the PR department (if your name is Rollo).

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: akugami
Agreed. From a consumer standpoint, it was terrible. Who wants to pay more money when they can buy it for less? Certainly not I. However, from a business standpoint, great move by nVidia. They had ATI down with weaker products compared to theirs and they took advantage of it by charging more money. That's not their fault. Blame ATI more than anything else for being non-competitive and allowing nVidia to charge an arm and a leg.

???? So it's ATI's fault for allowing Nvidia to charge $650 for a GTX280? I haven't heard twisted logic like that since Rollo got booted.

Nobody forced them to try and gouge consumers with their $650 GTX280 and $400 GTX260 pricing scheme. They could just as easily have released them at their post HD4800 levels of $400 and $300 respectively. But instead they decided to try and suck as much money out of their customers wallets as possible. That was nobody's fault but Nvidia's.

ATI could have chosen to base their HD4800 pricing on their Nvidia equivalents. That would have put the 4870 at around $400 and the 4850 at $300. But as we saw, ATI decided to make a more modest profit per unit and set their MSRP at $300 for the 4870 and $200 for the 4850.

It's up to each individual company to set their own product's pricing. No other company can force them to do otherwise.

A company can set their own product's pricing doesn't translate into actually selling. Pricing is dictated more-so from competition and market conditions. Consumers were paying for the 8800 GTX because there was a lack of competition and the market conditions were different --- things change -- nVidia dropped prices quickly and adapted.

I can't understand how ATI could gouge consumers with their 4870x2 for a 550 MSRP and could of charged 400 or less -- but when there was competition -- priced drop. I thought ATI cared about me. Sound silly? You bet it does.

Or consumers were playing 550 for the 4870x2 because there was a lack of competition -- but when there was competition -- priced drop.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued

I think you are confusing a lot of processes. You are suggesting with a 120 hz monitor, watching something with natively 60 fps would look bad since it is "interpolating" two frames and finding the difference? Why would there even be a difference? It needs the same frame twice to make up the differnece. It can't be the difference between one frame forward and one frame backward, if it knew what the forward frame was, it would have displayed it already.

I think you misunderstood me.
You are fine as long as you watch the content at its default frame rate. The problem is some of the newer LCD have a mode where they take the default frame rate and increase it to 120fps. Depending on how good the DSP is in the LCD it can look good or worse since the DSP is creating frames that never existed. That is really what they are using to sell the 120Hz LCD to the consumer with lines like "Better than 60hz HDTV because our processor makes it 120hz" When a 30fps image is played on a 120hz LCD without interpolating it doesn't show the same frame twice, it increases the delay between frames.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is good tech as long as they make it an option to disable frame rate increase processing.

You are getting confused with 120hz LCD TV's. There is no frame rate increase processing for the monitor - just as 60hz LCD monitors don't have any frame rate increase processing. The graphics card sends it an image 120 times a second, same way as it would send a 60hz monitor an image 60 times a second.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Dribble

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is good tech as long as they make it an option to disable frame rate increase processing.

You are getting confused with 120hz LCD TV's. There is no frame rate increase processing for the monitor - just as 60hz LCD monitors don't have any frame rate increase processing. The graphics card sends it an image 120 times a second, same way as it would send a 60hz monitor an image 60 times a second.

I realize the difference in the two . I brought it up because TV is the driving force behind 120HZ displays and I wanted people to be aware that it and the pc are different. I don't think many companies are focusing on 120hz+ displays for the 3d potential.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Really the term refresh rate should not be used with LCD.

I disagree with that. I know how the displays work so I?ve snipped the rest of your quote, and that?s why I disagree with you.

No matter what the display technology or how it works, the refresh rate is used to describe the number of full frames the display can accept and display. The fact is, a 120 Hz LCD can accept and display 120 FPS while a 60 Hz LCD can only do 60 FPS. This applies to CRTs, Plasma, LCDs, projectors, or whatever.

To put it simply, it?s the metric of how many discrete frames the display can accept and display. I also might add that while LCDs only change after a frame is updated, the internal matrix still runs at the stated refresh rate.

The problem with the term is that in CRT higher refresh rate meant a better looking display. That is not always true with LCD. You could buy a 120hz LCD with terrible response time and the display would be worse than a 60hz with great response time. Plasma is probably the one new display where refresh rate does apply just like in the old CRT, confusing things even further since in plasma displays low refresh causes flicker and is different from how many frames the display can show.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Maybe it's just the terminology that is the issue. In CRT's, each pixel had to be refreshed so many times per second by an electron beam. In LCD's, at least TFT's, the "redraw" rate would be more appropriate I guess. Measuring how fast each thin film transistor can twist and untwist.

On the static desktop, CRT's still needed to continuously refresh the pixels. On LCD's the TFT remains static until a change is required. In gaming though, the max theoretical "redraw rate" on a 120hz LCD would be of course 120. Or 60 per eye using 3DV and shutter glasses.

I think that is the issue. In CRT a higher refresh rate meant a better looking display. That doesn't hold for LCD because the display process is different . Plasma display confuse it even further. Response seems closer to refresh rate as it was meant for CRT.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Really the term refresh rate should not be used with LCD.

I disagree with that. I know how the displays work so I?ve snipped the rest of your quote, and that?s why I disagree with you.

No matter what the display technology or how it works, the refresh rate is used to describe the number of full frames the display can accept and display. The fact is, a 120 Hz LCD can accept and display 120 FPS while a 60 Hz LCD can only do 60 FPS. This applies to CRTs, Plasma, LCDs, projectors, or whatever.

To put it simply, it?s the metric of how many discrete frames the display can accept and display. I also might add that while LCDs only change after a frame is updated, the internal matrix still runs at the stated refresh rate.

The problem with the term is that in CRT higher refresh rate meant a better looking display. That is not always true with LCD. You could buy a 120hz LCD with terrible response time and the display would be worse than a 60hz with great response time. Plasma is probably the one new display where refresh rate does apply just like in the old CRT, confusing things even further since in plasma displays low refresh causes flicker and is different from how many frames the display can show.

uhm...the times of "LCDs with terrible response time" are LOOONG over. You can go read on prad..they certainly confirm that the 120hz are indeed a step forward. I highly, highly doubt that a nice 120hz LCD would be a bad thing or you wouldn't see any difference

I have had endless debates with people which STILL *insist* how LCDs are bad for gaming (not even talking about the 60hz refresh cap)...but i have never, never seen what those people claim. I would go so far and say that from all my hardware i ever bought this 22" LCD is probably one of the best purchases i ever made.

I also think its ironic how so many people actually saw that 60hz cap as something bad and prefer an old CRT with washed out colors and convergence problems over a new 22" LCD. Its mostly "those CS players". The point is that there is a pretty high number of high-end games where you cant even reach 60hz (let alone 100hz) refresh. (Exceptions are older games with very old engines like CS, HL2, maybe WoW). Who plays Crysis and maxes it out on a CRT at 100hz?

And by the way..i really don't have a "preference" in that sense..i had my ATI years and now Nvidia....but "subjectively" i remember that ATI AA looked always a bit better.

By the way i just ordered a BFG 275...i know its stupid, but i hear people say GTX300 might still take til end of the year maybe even Q1 2010...it was just too tempting. Love my 8800GTS...but its time for a little boost again. (If that thing FITS in my case..will see tomorrow...)

 

[2012ooOOoo]

Nvision is not 3D vision. That's nvidia's dual monitor thing.

 

[Nemesis 1]

ok I spoted this nv promotion thread . earlier . So I called my brother in law but didn't reach him till about 40 min ago .

He had mentioned earlier something about Intels very good 3D which flew over my head because I blind left eye . So I can't see 3D so I could careless.

But I wanted to find out more . About all I can tell thats related to this thread and he will read this . So heres what I can say . Don't count AMD out of the 3d market . HE says and I quote ATI and intel are still very good working partners and not to count ATI out of the 3D market . Thats all I can say .

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.intel.com/consumer/learn/intru3d.htm

looks like all three players will have 3D
It would seem intel wants 1 standard now I see more clearly why AMD stayed with Havok physics . I like 1 standard . Now things make a little more since whyAMD did what they did with havok

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nice correction on the bumped thread . I was waiting for it to be bumped . Now I can get it out of my links thank you . I have way to many links .

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Well, the 120Hz monitor and 3DVision shutter glasses started out at 600.00 for both.
Now you can get a 120Hz 3D Ready monitor and shutter glasses for 440.00. 320.00 for the monitor and 120 for the glasses. If you're in the market for a new monitor, it makes transistioning that much easier. And it won't cost you a Bentley either.

Also, in the NCP, there is a compatability list under the "Stereoscopic 3D" section. Lists probably around 1600 games and their 3DVision compatability. Ranging from "Not Recommended", "Fair", "Good", "Excellent".

Ok, that sounds a bit more resonable, I don't think too many people would be interested in the glasses that can't be used for anything outside of supported games for over $100. Hopefully things will get better with better deals using CB at whatnot.

The monitors though, still not seeing that as an 'upgrade'. Isn't it a bit ironic to buy these powerful new cards for monitors only as large as 22''? Being the cheapest and all, not sure about the quality (not 60hz monitors are equal either, you know). A lot of people are turned off by TN panels, though there are many others that think it's just fine for gaming. The fact remains that TN is often viewed as a definite downgrade compared to higher grade VA/IPS stuff. Maybe it is a good thing that nvidia is taking an extra long break to release the new cards, lets all keep our fingers crossed 120hz monitors will become much more attractive by then.

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.intel.com/consumer/learn/intru3d.htm

Keys I will keep this at the bottom nice effort tho . Ati will have 3D also

In addition to working with DreamWorks Animation® to enhance the in-theater experience, Intel is also developing next-generation 3D viewing experiences and technology for a range of other platforms, including home theater, personal computers, video games, and online environments

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.intel.com/consumer/learn/intru3d.htm

Keys I will keep this at the bottom nice effort tho . Ati will have 3D also

AMD bought ATI not Intel.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.intel.com/consumer/learn/intru3d.htm

Keys I will keep this at the bottom nice effort tho . Ati will have 3D also

AMD bought ATI not Intel.

He didn't say that at all. You might want to reread that.