Monday's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail contained a review of AMD's acquisition of ATI. Journalist Shawn McCarthy quoted Rob Enderle of Enderle Group as saying that ATI graphics are inferior to NVidia. Enderle still thinks the acquisition a positive move overall [since AMD ends up with better graphics than Intel can provide with the Centrino platform].
I'm not entirely convinced that the characterization of NVidia as a perennial frontrunner is accurate; rather, I think a tug-of-war not unlike that between AMD and Intel for superiority, more closely describes the current state of graphics prowess.
I'm curious to know what others think. To buttress my argument I ask people to consider 2 things, among other factors: ATI replacing NVidia as chipmaker for the Xbox last year [yes, I realize NVidia didn't have the best relationship with Microsoft], and the pronouncement by Microsoft at this year's WinHEC, that ATI shows off Vista best.
What about benchmarks? What do the gaming crowd gurus think? What does Tom think?
Cheers -
KentEl
I'm not entirely convinced that the characterization of NVidia as a perennial frontrunner is accurate; rather, I think a tug-of-war not unlike that between AMD and Intel for superiority, more closely describes the current state of graphics prowess.
I'm curious to know what others think. To buttress my argument I ask people to consider 2 things, among other factors: ATI replacing NVidia as chipmaker for the Xbox last year [yes, I realize NVidia didn't have the best relationship with Microsoft], and the pronouncement by Microsoft at this year's WinHEC, that ATI shows off Vista best.
What about benchmarks? What do the gaming crowd gurus think? What does Tom think?
Cheers -
KentEl