Originally posted by: SickBeast
That's a pretty good attempt at discrediting my theory, in the case of DX10 anyway.
NVIDIA was joint developer of the DX graphics and audio API used in XBox, which are heavily based on DX8.
Tell me this though: Have you ever known of ATI going off on a tangent like NV has done with "C for Graphics" and CUDA?
Nope,
never.
From what I've read, ATI has historically worked very closely with MS since the infancy of DirectX (and by that I mean 2D). NV came into things later on, and they seem to be more of an individualistic entity than ATI (which parallels US/Canadian culture to some extent as well).
ATI would stand a better chance of being involved in early DX development than a company who did not yet exist, wouldn't you think? S3 Graphics, Matrox, and Cirrus Logic variously had significant roles in DX development prior to DX8. You might not have been into computers back when S3 Graphics, Cirrus Logic, Matrox, Paradise Systems, and Tseng Labs were more recognizable players in 2D VGA/SVGA accelerators than ATI.
VIA's a huge company; you should read up on them. They hold an X86 license and apparently have a very good processor in the Nano.
Oh, you mean that company whose Nano processor:
- has yet to ship
- would not run or complete several benchmarks (actually died on one reviewer)
- has five times the TDP of Atom while offering only 20% better performance
- was clocked 200MHz higher than Atom in said reviews (1.8GHz v. 1.6GHz), and used a higher FSB (800MHz v. 533MHz), which means it won't offer anywhere near 20% better performance at the same clocks
That VIA? Nano is only competitive now (in cyber review space against an actually available Atom) because of Intel's inexplicably stupid decision to pair the Atom with its inefficient and dated 945G chipset.