[quotemsg=6572357,75,66863]How is advertising stupid? I don't here you criticizing Intel or AMD, and Nvidia has PLENTY of $$$$ to go around with their marketshare being so high. Fact:The 8800GTX has been selling like hotcakes since its release. Can't debunk that.[/quotemsg]
It's not just advertising. They aren't paying for a logo with no purpose. Nvidia's paying for access to game code so they can optimize drivers before the game's release. That skews benchmarks when new games arrive. ATI eventually catches up, but the few extra fps Nvidia gets often works to their advantage. It's not as dishonest a program as Intel's OEM rebates, but it's something that most reviewers and nearly all Nvidia fans don't take into account when comparing ATI to Nvidia cards.
[quotemsg=6572357,75,66863]
@yipsl How is Nvidia hurting because they can't buy AMD?
[/quotemsg]
It was reported that AMD wanted to merge with Nvidia, but Nvidia's CEO wanted to be in charge of the new company. Ruiz didn't go for it, so AMD bought ATI. AMD had relied upon Nvidia chipsets for years and AMD CPU's with Nvidia boards and GPU's were popular among enthusiasts.
However, ATI had made great strides in chipsets and often had the better card in each generation, even if Nvidia had the fastest card because they skewed image quality (i.e. 7xxx series). So, ATI for Swift is actually a better deal for AMD. Recently, it was reported that Nvidia floated a buyout plan for AMD among it's Taiwanese partners, but they didn't go for it. It would have to be a hostile takeover, since AMD would not want to merge with Nvidia at this point. Nvidia's also soured it's relations with Intel, such that Intel went for the freely licensed Crossfire over Nvidia's expensive SLI.
At any rate, IGP will move off the chipset to the CPU; especially in notebooks. That puts Nvidia at a disadvantage with notebooks, OEM's and non-gaming budget builds. Nvidia needs a CPU and fast. Perhaps they could buy Via and get the old Cyrix x86 license? Perhaps they could buy their own from Intel? At any rate, even enthusiasts will end up with multicore CPU's having at least one graphics core.
That graphics core will probably work in power saving mode, powering down the GPU while surfing the net or playing video, but powering it up when gaming, doing 3D graphics or other intensive tasks suited to a discrete GPU. Nvidia will have to ditch SLI to join the club and have their discrete cards work alongside Swift (AMD) and Larrabe (Intel) fusion CPU's on AMD or Intel motherboards. At the end of the day, they may only have the business of loyal fans at the enthusiast end who demand Nvidia chipsets and Nvidia cards.
I see Nvidia in the same position that 3dfx was in many years ago, and they're in danger of losing marketshare in their core business to competition from both ATI and Intel in 2009, especially when ATI and Intel's GPU's work alongside fusion CPU's. We need standards, so I'd love to see SLI die out and be replaced with Crossfire.
It's not just advertising. They aren't paying for a logo with no purpose. Nvidia's paying for access to game code so they can optimize drivers before the game's release. That skews benchmarks when new games arrive. ATI eventually catches up, but the few extra fps Nvidia gets often works to their advantage. It's not as dishonest a program as Intel's OEM rebates, but it's something that most reviewers and nearly all Nvidia fans don't take into account when comparing ATI to Nvidia cards.
[quotemsg=6572357,75,66863]
@yipsl How is Nvidia hurting because they can't buy AMD?
[/quotemsg]It was reported that AMD wanted to merge with Nvidia, but Nvidia's CEO wanted to be in charge of the new company. Ruiz didn't go for it, so AMD bought ATI. AMD had relied upon Nvidia chipsets for years and AMD CPU's with Nvidia boards and GPU's were popular among enthusiasts.
However, ATI had made great strides in chipsets and often had the better card in each generation, even if Nvidia had the fastest card because they skewed image quality (i.e. 7xxx series). So, ATI for Swift is actually a better deal for AMD. Recently, it was reported that Nvidia floated a buyout plan for AMD among it's Taiwanese partners, but they didn't go for it. It would have to be a hostile takeover, since AMD would not want to merge with Nvidia at this point. Nvidia's also soured it's relations with Intel, such that Intel went for the freely licensed Crossfire over Nvidia's expensive SLI.
At any rate, IGP will move off the chipset to the CPU; especially in notebooks. That puts Nvidia at a disadvantage with notebooks, OEM's and non-gaming budget builds. Nvidia needs a CPU and fast. Perhaps they could buy Via and get the old Cyrix x86 license? Perhaps they could buy their own from Intel? At any rate, even enthusiasts will end up with multicore CPU's having at least one graphics core.
That graphics core will probably work in power saving mode, powering down the GPU while surfing the net or playing video, but powering it up when gaming, doing 3D graphics or other intensive tasks suited to a discrete GPU. Nvidia will have to ditch SLI to join the club and have their discrete cards work alongside Swift (AMD) and Larrabe (Intel) fusion CPU's on AMD or Intel motherboards. At the end of the day, they may only have the business of loyal fans at the enthusiast end who demand Nvidia chipsets and Nvidia cards.
I see Nvidia in the same position that 3dfx was in many years ago, and they're in danger of losing marketshare in their core business to competition from both ATI and Intel in 2009, especially when ATI and Intel's GPU's work alongside fusion CPU's. We need standards, so I'd love to see SLI die out and be replaced with Crossfire.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram