Why has Nvidia not replied or given any statement about Mantle?

[Abwx]

The point is your argument is pure bs. All of AMDs "innovations" were the direct result of IP acquisitions. But, that doesn't help your argument, so continue to ignore that.

The BS is to not consider the context..

AMD is a company designing only CPUs and they bought
a GFX company with their IP , for sure , but it s not like
buying a company that do the same products as yours ,
actualy Nvidia needed to buy graphics related IP , as
if AMD would buy a CPU company to improve their designs.

In that respect AMD , or ATI if you prefer , has been way
more innovative than Nvidia who , as pointed by a member ,
acquired SLI thanks to 3DFx in a buy out whose conditions
and legality are to this day still questionned in courts....

 

[Keysplayr]

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. You can maybe disagree that AMD is *always* first - I'll grant you that - but anyone who claims AMD is somehow following Nvidia? Sorry that's complete BS.

Now that you've said your piece, is it out of your system? Obviously you are beyond the scope of any reason and can't be bothered learning anything new. So, are you quite finished throwing the gas on these forums?

 

[SiliconWars]

ATI wasnt even in the game before NV came along, so I dont know what you are talking about..The only graphics cards used, was 3DFX...NV came along with TNT and broke them...ATI then decided to try gaming, and it wasnt good....

You sure have an...interesting version of history there.

We have just debated this with you and pointed out the errors and BS...yet you still continue with it....???

If anything, its the other way around....

I think you don't really understand what a "debate" is. I've asked all of you for some evidence of what Nvidia has brought to the table by themselves and so far I've got SLI and PhysX? Two technologies that were invented by two other companies then rebadged as Nvidia technology?

That's it?

 

[rainy]

SiliconWars, I understand that your nickname put some obligations on you, however could you stop this crusade?

I have sympathy for AMD and literally none for fanboys of any kind company.

 

[SiliconWars]

Now that you've said your piece, is it out of your system? Obviously you are beyond the scope of any reason and can't be bothered learning anything new. So, are you quite finished throwing the gas on these forums?

I wouldn't even have started if some people didn't keep making the same goddam mistakes.

There's always somebody claiming Nvidia has bigger market share, Nvidia is the bigger company, Nvidia invents everything and AMD follows. It's complete and utter BS and the exact opposite.

 

[SiliconWars]

The BS is to not consider the context..

AMD is a company designing only CPUs and they bought
a GFX company with their IP , for sure , but it s not like
buying a company that do the same products as yours ,
actualy Nvidia needed to buy graphics related IP , as
if AMD would buy a CPU company to improve their designs.

In that respect AMD , or ATI if you prefer , has been way
more innovative than Nvidia who , as pointed by a member ,
acquired SLI thanks to 3DFx in a buy out whose conditions
and legality are to this day still questionned in courts....

Yes good point. AMD didn't aquire ATI to improve their own graphics, they aquired ATI because they needed graphics.

Nvidia bought an imploding 3dfx, who was miles ahead of them in technological terms but completely out to lunch when it came to running a company. In effect, the vast majority of Nvidia's technological expertise was bought at the same time, and the company would be nowhere at all without 3dfx blowing up.

 

[Keysplayr]

I wouldn't even have started if some people didn't keep making the same goddam mistakes.

There's always somebody claiming Nvidia has bigger market share, Nvidia is the bigger company, Nvidia invents everything and AMD follows. It's complete and utter BS and the exact opposite.

You can't spin it into something it isn't. I'm sorry to be that bearer of bad news, but you just can't "wish" something you want to be true into existence and expect everything you spew to be eaten up by knowledgeable people.
If you sit there and say Nvidia doesn't invent or innovate anything, then you'd be lying. If you were knowledgeable that is.
Is that what you're saying?

 

[Keysplayr]

Yes good point. AMD didn't aquire ATI to improve their own graphics, they aquired ATI because they needed graphics.

Nvidia bought an imploding 3dfx, who was miles ahead of them in technological terms but completely out to lunch when it came to running a company. In effect, the vast majority of Nvidia's technological expertise was bought at the same time, and the company would be nowhere at all without 3dfx blowing up.

Nvidia was already ahead of 3Dfx with the RivaTNT and forever after that point.

Who made the first GPU?

 

[SiliconWars]

Nvidia was already ahead of 3Dfx with the RivaTNT and forever after that point.

Who made the first GPU?

Why Nvidia made the first GPU - don't you know they claimed to be the inventor of it in 1999? Of course when you "invent" something with such restrictions as...

a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, and rendering engines that are capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second

...it's not hard to be the inventor of it, is it?

Weird thing is, I distinctly remember my first GPU on my Commodore Amiga back in 1985...but how can that be when Nvidia invented the GPU in 1999????

 

[Abwx]

Yes good point. AMD didn't aquire ATI to improve their own graphics, they aquired ATI because they needed graphics.

Nvidia bought an imploding 3dfx, who was miles ahead of them in technological terms but completely out to lunch when it came to running a company. In effect, the vast majority of Nvidia's technological expertise was bought at the same time, and the company would be nowhere at all without 3dfx blowing up.

Actualy Nvidia has always had a frenzy of buy outs
second to none , surely that they innovated in this matter
to the point that one can wonder if they really have
a research department that search for anything else
that a company to buy....

In 2000, Nvidia acquired the intellectual assets of its one-time rival 3dfx, one of the biggest graphics companies of the mid- to late-1990s

In July 2002, Nvidia acquired Exluna for an undisclosed sum. Exluna made software rendering tools and the personnel were merged into the Cg project

In August 2003, Nvidia acquired MediaQ for approximately $70 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia#cite_note-11On April 22, 2004, Nvidia acquired iReady, a provider of high performance TCP/IP and iSCSI offload solutions.

On December 14, 2005, Nvidia acquired ULI Electronics, which at the time supplied third-party southbridge parts for chipsets to ATI, Nvidia's competitor.

In March 2006, Nvidia acquired Hybrid Graphics.

On January 5, 2007, Nvidia announced that it had completed the acquisition of PortalPlayer, Inc

In February 2008, Nvidia acquired Ageia Technologies for an undisclosed sum.

In May 2011, it was announced that Nvidia had agreed to acquire Icera, a baseband chip making company in the UK, for $367 million in cash

 

[blackened23]

Pfft. I don't care who bought who. Speaking of that fact, the only thing that was remotely innovative since AMD bought ATI was eyefinity. I won't get into the issues with eyefinity either as compared to NV surround...

Who cares who bought who. The consumer cares about the end product. That's it. Period. This argument you guys are making about the "biggest company" and "buyouts" is beyond ridiculous because nobody cares - and it's somewhat meaningless as well because the size of a company's headquarters in square yardage doesn't equate to profit. Consumers care about the end product and the software which makes that end product tick.

 

[YBS1]

Nvidia bought an imploding 3dfx, who was miles ahead of them in technological terms but completely out to lunch when it came to running a company. In effect, the vast majority of Nvidia's technological expertise was bought at the same time, and the company would be nowhere at all without 3dfx blowing up.

Wow! That's some revisionist history if I've heard any right there. nVidia was for the most part the superior player in the market from TNT2 on vs. 3dfx.

 

[Jacky60]

Your financial opinion changes nothing. AMD is the bigger company and ATI/AMD is the more innovative company. Anything Nvidia got to first was based on 3dfx's IP after the buyout. After that ran out they've been lagging behind AMD.

ATI/AMD - Always first to the new node, normally first to the new DirectX, mostly first with the real knockout features like Eyefinity and soon Mantle. Nvidia has some decent software based innovations but on the hardware side they barely do anything new. What was their first and last true innovation? SLI in 2004? The company history has more aquisitions than innovations - http://www.nvidia.com/page/corporate_timeline.html

AMD also bestride CPUs and GPUs with the only alternatives and quite cheap viable alternatives in both markets. AMD could tomorrow produce and sell an integrated solution for the highest end console gaming for at least the next five years....oh wait they just did. AMD can do 75% of what both Intel AND Nvidia do. That's why what Silicon Wars says makes sense. If you had to get the best gaming performance from one company today AMD would piss all over Intel and Nvidia because AMD can do both CPU and GPU, admittedly neither usually quite as well, but hugely better than the competition can do both. TNT2's success was hugely marketing led and 3Dfx were ahead until business rather than tech scuppered them.

 

[NIGELG]

NIGEL! Back the F off.
I buy more Nvidia cards than I'll ever get in 100 years. It's high time you closed that abusive abrasive crass mouth of yours and come back when you have the slightest INKLING of what you're talking about.

ONCE AGAIN!

BACK OFF!!

Lol....so you get mad and resort to using the F word!!!!Lol....

You are a liar and a hypocrite so don't come here and talk about crass,abusive mouths.You insult me and I will insult you back.

You get your gear from Nvidia and no amount of big, bolded, threatening text will convince me otherwise.....

You get too emotional about this stuff.

Remember who you represent!!!!!

Infraction issued for thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[blackened23]

Wow! That's some revisionist history if I've heard any right there. nVidia was for the most part the superior player in the market from TNT2 on vs. 3dfx.

Indeed. NV became a threat with the Riva 128 and took a clear lead with the TNT. The Voodoo 3 was a joke in comparison. I loved the Voodoo 1 and Voodoo 2 - I was such a huge 3dfx fan back in the early days. But after they bought STB it all went downhill, very fast.

 

[SiliconWars]

Actualy Nvidia has always had a frenzy of buy outs
second to none , surely that they innovated in this matter

to the point that one can wonder if they really have
a research department that search for anything else
that a company to buy....

It's mind boggling to see it but no great surprise. That list is just proof of which company innovates and which company acquires. There's nothing wrong with acquiring per-se, but confusing it with innovation is quite another thing.

 

[blackened23]

Yeah, do you mind pointing out some of these "innovations" that you're claiming? Specifically on the software side?

 

[SolMiester]

You sure have an...interesting version of history there.



I think you don't really understand what a "debate" is. I've asked all of you for some evidence of what Nvidia has brought to the table by themselves and so far I've got SLI and PhysX? Two technologies that were invented by two other companies then rebadged as Nvidia technology?

That's it?

Yes, I remember it well, I was in my 2nd? year in on my first job as desktop support for a London based company, which had Elonix desktop PCs with onboard ATI graphics.
The gaming chips were S3 Virge, 3DFX and TNT.

 

[Abwx]

Wow! That's some revisionist history if I've heard any right there. nVidia was for the most part the superior player in the market from TNT2 on vs. 3dfx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3dfx_Interactive

Give credit where it is due.....

 

[blackened23]

Actually, solmeister, the S3 virge was the 3D "decelerator" I remeber a lot of folks used the S3 Virge (Diamond stealth 3D!) for 2D and a 3dfx card for 3D. I think I did that IIRC. 3DFX was the only game in town for a long time, and the rendition verite was pretty good as well. Glide had a huge advantage over rendition, though - vQuake was nice but GLquake was way way faster with the 3dfx mini GL wrapper.

Ahh, the early days of 3D.

 

[Jacky60]

Pfft. I don't care who bought who. Speaking of that fact, the only thing that was remotely innovative since AMD bought ATI was eyefinity. I won't get into the issues with eyefinity either as compared to NV surround...

Who cares who bought who. The consumer cares about the end product. That's it. Period. This argument you guys are making about the "biggest company" and "buyouts" is beyond ridiculous because nobody cares - and it's somewhat meaningless as well because the size of a company's headquarters in square yardage doesn't equate to profit. Consumers care about the end product and the software which makes that end product tick.

I care Goddamit and AMD's HQ is bigger!

 

[SolMiester]

Actually, solmeister, the S3 virge was the 3D "decelerator" I remeber a lot of folks used the S3 Virge (Diamond stealth 3D!) for 2D and a 3dfx card for 3D. I think I did that IIRC. 3DFX was the only game in town for a long time, and the rendition verite was pretty good as well. Glide had a huge advantage over rendition, though - vQuake was nice but GLquake was way way faster with the 3dfx mini GL wrapper.

Ahh, the early days of 3D.

Yes, I had the Diamond Stealth.....LOL, then a banshee with dual Voodoo 2s!...3DFX was only 16bit, and everyone was going on about TNT and 32bit!...so, I went with the 256DDR GF...
Gllide was so silky....and the light reflections!

 

[Keysplayr]

Why Nvidia made the first GPU - don't you know they claimed to be the inventor of it in 1999? Of course when you "invent" something with such restrictions as...

...it's not hard to be the inventor of it, is it?

Weird thing is, I distinctly remember my first GPU on my Commodore Amiga back in 1985...but how can that be when Nvidia invented the GPU in 1999????

I rest my case. Thank you.

 

[SiliconWars]

I think you forgot to present your case first Keys.

 

[MutantGith]

I know this might be redundant and obvious, but the genesis of this thread is a clear example why I rarely post, and tend to spend less and less of my substantial lurking time in VC&G all the time.

The constant flag waving, personal attacks, and anger directed at members because of tenuous brand associations is pretty off putting. While the thread title did smack a bit of being potentially baiting, I was (foolishly) hoping that there might be a discussion about the unfolding shape of PC graphics on the software and OS end.

I would love to have seen a conversation about what impact a mantle/non-mantle bifurcated future might look like, how it would be good or bad, and weather anything would then prevent NVIDIA from similarly releasing a competing, metal level instruction set....Stratus.

Personally, I would like to participate in a conversation about that future. Because I don't relish the thought of having a return to the days when you had to configure software installs based on which model of sound card, video card, and OS patch you had, and then try and troubleshoot all of the attendant conflicts and problems therein.

But that's not what we have. I think that's too bad.

Back to the regularly scheduled demolition derby.