So, you don't care what AMD bought to have first, but you do care what NV bought to have first? Hmm...
Don't shift the goalposts, we're talking about what Nvidia did first. I don't care if it was ATI or AMD who was first as both back my point anyway - I want to know what Nvidia was first at that they didn't buy. In innovation terms these companies are like night and day.
Where is the AMD 3D now?...oh, and why do you negate NV because it bought 3DFX and Ageia for the IP, yet AMD is allowed to buy ATI IP?...PhysX - aquired from Ageia
3d Vision - followed AMD months later, surround was simply an improvement.
You don't need to use your ''buying dollars'' to get Nvidia graphics cards,don't you??
Anyhow you make a good point.I want to see a 50/50 market share between these two companies in discrete graphics.
Don't shift the goalposts, we're talking about what Nvidia did first. I don't care if it was ATI or AMD who was first as both back my point anyway - I want to know what Nvidia was first at that they didn't buy. In innovation terms these companies are like night and day.
I don't know if you know what 3D vision is. It was definitely prior to AMD's HD3D and AMD does not have a 3 monitor HD3D yet.PhysX - aquired from Ageia
3d Vision - followed AMD months later, surround was simply an improvement.
The point you're both missing is that I don't care if it was AMD or ATI who was first. It could have been either company that was responsible for the innovation, they still beat Nvidia to it first.
Most of Nvidia's early "innovations" were the direct result of IP aquisitions. It's possible that even SLI was 3dfx's idea before Nvidia launched it. Since that ran out of usefulness it's mostly been AMD who is first and innovating.
I don't know if you know what 3D vision is. It was definitely prior to AMD's HD3D and AMD does not have a 3 monitor HD3D yet.
And yet previously in the thread, TrueAudio wasn't treated the same?It may be acquired by Ageia, but it was put into the GPU by Nvidia and expanded to work on the CPU.
I got them mixed up - the surround part was what Nvidia copied AMD at so I dunno why you put that one as an Nvidia innovation when it was just a pure copy of Eyefinity many months later.
And yet previously in the thread, TrueAudio wasn't treated the same?
Don't shift the goalposts, we're talking about what Nvidia did first. I don't care if it was ATI or AMD who was first as both back my point anyway - I want to know what Nvidia was first at that they didn't buy. In innovation terms these companies are like night and day.
Sure aquiring ArtX helped. PhysX was invented by Ageia, period. That's what they did and Nvidia bought it, under no circumstances can PhysX be labelled an Nvidia innovation (even though they like to call it Nvidia PhysX).
The point you're both missing is that I don't care if it was AMD or ATI who was first. It could have been either company that was responsible for the innovation, they still beat Nvidia to it first.
Most of Nvidia's early "innovations" were the direct result of IP aquisitions. It's possible that even SLI was 3dfx's idea before Nvidia launched it. Since the 3dfx IP ran out of usefulness it's mostly been AMD who is first and innovating.
Dude, you are not going to get away with such BS...their are too many knowledgeable gamers here not to fall for that....Your embarrassing yourself....
LOL, at least you should be paid for this...!
Hehe. You must realize that all this BS your spewing is going to severely bite you in the arse sooner than later? Yes?
So tell me, how well did PhysX run on Nvidia GPUs right when Nvidia purchased Ageia? I bet it loaded right up, knew what hardware it was on, and got down with it's bad self. Yes?
Or was it something different?
And SO WHAT if ArtX "helped". There would not have been 9700 as we knew it without them. Period. Dance. Dance.
If you look at the whole picture it's pretty clear that ATI (then AMD) is far more of an industry innovator than Nvidia ever was. They were almost always first on new nodes and first with the big improvements. Anything major Nvidia is claiming credit for like SLI and PhysX was actually bought technology from aquisitions.
That's all I'm saying. I cannot see how anyone armed with the facts can believe otherwise.
You aren't armed with anything, let alone facts.
Secondly, and bolded above, Why are you saying it? Are you trying to get your fellow forum members restless by constantly throwing gas on flames?
Need you to stop now.
AMD is the bigger company. Fact. The might not be richer but in every other way they are bigger.If mantle is 20% faster then Nvidia just has to increase performance by 20%. They are the bigger company and should be more than able to beat AMD. Nvidia pushes the tech then the next year amd takes advantage.
I'm saying it because an awful lot of people don't seem to understand stuff they are claiming as fact.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35577512&postcount=45
AMD is the bigger company. Fact. The might not be richer but in every other way they are bigger.
AMD is the more innovative company, "pushes the tech" way more than Nvidia. They are almost always first on new nodes, first to use the new DirectX and first with the industry game-changers.
It isnt an opinion, it is a fact AMD bought ATI and had a combined market cap near 10 billion. Today that market cap sits at ~2.8 billion. They have completely evaporated the value of ATI within 7 years of purchase.
Your history on who has and hasnt brought useable technology to the marketplace is shoddy at best. If you think SLI in 04 is the only thing Nvidia has brought to the market place in the last decade. You have to be trolling or clueless.