Nvidia withholding the launch of GeForce4 Ti 4200

[Sabastian]

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?IR=N&ClassID=100&datePublish=2002/02/19&pages=04&seq=25

Nvidia withholding the launch of GeForce4 Ti

Graphics chip designer Nvidia has quietly withheld the launch of its new GeForce4 Ti 4200 chips, a move reportedly to avoid further positioning overlap of its products. However, the company will continue to roll out its other products as scheduled.

Originally, Nvidia planned to introduce six new chips this month: the NV25 core-based GeForce4 Ti 4600, 4400 and 4200 targeting the high-end market and the NV17 core-based GeForce4 MX 460, 440 and 420 aimed at the medium-end sector. However, in the graphics card market, although most manufacturers have launched a series of GeForce4 cards, none has developed products based on the GeForce4 Ti 4200 chips.

Card makers said that the GeForce4 Ti 4200 chip should be Nvidia’s low-price version of the NV25-core products, designed to replace the company’s GeForce3 Ti series. However, as the chip designer only introduced its GeForce3 Ti 500 and 200 chips in the fourth quarter of last year, positioning the new product appears to be difficult, the latest chip in danger of significantly affecting the sales of the older GeForce3 Ti 500 and 200.

Manufacturers said that due to growing competition, graphics chip designers are forced to introduce newer products faster, which inevitably leads to increasingly shortened product life cycles and market positioning overlap of products.

Graphics card makers believed that Nvidia’s decision to hold the launch should be able to prevent the overlapping problem from being aggravated. They also predicted that after the current GeForce3 Ti series gradually phases out of the market, Nvidia is very likely to reintroduce the chip to complete its GeForce4 portfolio, especially as its rival ATI Technologies has planned to roll out an RV250-core chip shortly. The new chip is a low-price version of its Radeon 8500.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sabastian on 2002-02-21 22:17 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sabastian on 2002-02-21 23:02 ]</font>

[Dave Baumann]

Makes sense. Plus, the Ti 4200’s are likely to be the NV25 chips that don’t ‘cut the grade’ for Ti 4400 or 4600’s so they are likely to want a little stockpile before they have to waste good NV25’s on the low end parts that’s aren’t going to have anywhere near the margins the high end will.

[Sabastian]

On 2002-02-21 23:21, DaveBaumann wrote:
Makes sense. Plus, the Ti 4200’s are likely to be the NV25 chips that don’t ‘cut the grade’ for Ti 4400 or 4600’s so they are likely to want a little stockpile before they have to waste good NV25’s on the low end parts that’s aren’t going to have anywhere near the margins the high end will.



I read somewhere that this was to be competitive card against Radeon 8500 in mainstream market. But it appears that nvidia wants to put the GF4MX(or whatever it is.)mainstream.(Pardon me for saying this but isn't that kind of like downgrading the mainstream market i.e. a DX7 card?) Yeah if I owned a GF3Ti500 and paid alot of cash for it a couple of months ago and now here this card comes(GF4200) for substaintialy less $$ I would be pissed royaly.

Sabastian.

[Joe DeFuria]

...so they are likely to want a little stockpile before they have to waste good NV25’s on the low end parts that’s aren’t going to have anywhere near the margins the high end will.

Higher margins, no, but higher volumes, yes. The price-point for the Ti4200 ($200 MSRP) would sell in MUCH higher volues than the $299 and $399 brackets.

My assumption is that nVidia and its partners wants to
1) Clear out Ti-200 inventory
2) Give The GeForce4 MX as much time as possible to sell before launching the Ti-4200.

One can make a semi-reasonable case for buying a GF4 MX-460 vs. a GF3 Ti-200 which are priced in a similar range. GF4 Mx-460 is ideally both a high-volume AND high margin part. A real cash cow.

But put a Ti-4200 anywhere NEAR the price of a GeForce4 MX, and all the sudden the cash-cow is gone.

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, I think that last part of that report is quite interesting. I'm really beginning to wonder if Rv250 is a .13um part. If not then I'd guess it would be a cut down version of R200.

[Joe DeFuria]

There have been so many conflicting rumors about the RV250, I don't know what to think. :wink:

[Sabastian]

On 2002-02-21 23:36, Joe DeFuria wrote:
...so they are likely to want a little stockpile before they have to waste good NV25’s on the low end parts that’s aren’t going to have anywhere near the margins the high end will.

Higher margins, no, but higher volumes, yes. The price-point for the Ti4200 ($200 MSRP) would sell in MUCH higher volues than the $299 and $399 brackets.

My assumption is that nVidia and its partners wants to
1) Clear out Ti-200 inventory
2) Give The GeForce4 MX as much time as possible to sell before launching the Ti-4200.

One can make a semi-reasonable case for buying a GF4 MX-460 vs. a GF3 Ti-200 which are priced in a similar range. GF4 Mx-460 is ideally both a high-volume AND high margin part. A real cash cow.

But put a Ti-4200 anywhere NEAR the price of a GeForce4 MX, and all the sudden the cash-cow is gone.


So for mainstream market nvidia is putting the GF4MX vs Radeon 8500? They are gonna lose market share if that is the case. Not to mention the fact the Radeon 8500 is a much better card.Just saying.

Sabastian

[Galilee]

but Radeon 8500 is ATI's top card. They don't have anything faster. GF4-MX is cheaper and aren't competing in the same category.

[ben6]

Hrm , I don't think this is news. I thought Nvidia said at launch that Ti4200 would come out 8 weeks from launch which is April. Or is my recollection incorrect

[Joe DeFuria]

but Radeon 8500 is ATI's top card. They don't have anything faster. GF4-MX is cheaper and aren't competing in the same category.

Radeon was released on product cycle before GeForce4. The 64 MB Radeon 8500 (now retailing at $166), will not be ATI's "top" card this spring. (Should be the rumored Radeon 8800, based on the RV250).

The 64 MB "high-end" Geforce4 Mx 460, is supposed to retail for $179. So it is directly competing with the Radeon 8500.

Which one would you rather have? You're right, it really isn't much of a competition. :wink:

[pcchen]

IMHO GF4 MX 460 will not retail at US$179. Less than US$150 is more likely. Comparing MSRP with real retail price is not adequate.

I am not going to buy any GF4 MX product, though :smile:

[Exposed]

Have any of the newer Radeon 8500 drivers (beta or otherwise) allowed trilinear filtering to be used in conjunction with anisotrophy?

[Dave Baumann]

Have any of the newer Radeon 8500 drivers (beta or otherwise) allowed trilinear filtering to be used in conjunction with anisotrophy?

Thats a limitation on their Anisotropic filtering implemetation. No amount of driver changes is going to allow this unless ATi opt to use a completely different algorithm.

[nAo]

Thats a limitation on their Anisotropic filtering implemetation. No amount of driver changes is going to allow this unless ATi opt to use a completely different algorithm.
Never say never! Maybe they can but this is not exposed by drivers at the moment, cause it too slow on their architecture (fetching 2 mipmaps from memory on a crossbar-less architecture per fragment could be deadly slow..)

ciao,
Marco

[Dave Baumann]

Well, if they are going to use an implemetation similar to NVIDIA's then I would hazard a guess that the first place to look for this would be the FireGL variants of the boards.

[pascal]

Nvidia has to kill the GF3 Ti200 (which is now selling for as low as $130) to make room for the GF4 Ti4200.

It has only 5% more silicon but my guess the chip will cost 50% more :sad:

[Joe DeFuria]

Pascal...exactly.

I'm sure nVidia would have liked to avoid even bringing out the 4200, and just kept the price of the Ti-200 higher.

Competition won't allow for it though! :smile:

[jb]

On 2002-02-22 10:24, pcchen wrote:
IMHO GF4 MX 460 will not retail at US$179. Less than US$150 is more likely. Comparing MSRP with real retail price is not adequate.


Actually the MX 440 is retailing right now at 179.00 at CompUSA here in the states. Of course buying it on line is the only way yo go....

[pascal]

Joe DeFuria:
I'm sure nVidia would have liked to avoid even bringing out the 4200, and just kept the price of the Ti-200 higher.

Competition won't allow for it though!

That´s right. ATI is doing a good job :smile:

jb:
Actually the MX 440 is retailing right now at 179.00 at CompUSA here in the states. Of course buying it on line is the only way yo go....


Who is buying this ugly thing ??? http://www.ina-community.com/forums/images/smilies/weird.gif

[Galilee]

Well GF4-MX has great FSAA performance. Spanking most other cards.

[jb]

On 2002-02-22 16:30, pascal wrote:


Who is buying this ugly thing ??? http://www.ina-community.com/forums/images/smilies/weird.gif



Not me thats for sure :smile:

[pascal]

Well GF4-MX has great FSAA performance. Spanking most other cards.

It is not faster than a GF3 Ti200 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&amp;p=13
Not me thats for sure :smile:
Not me too http://www.tournament.com/forums/images/smilies/roofle.gif

[Sabastian]

On 2002-02-22 16:50, pascal wrote:
Well GF4-MX has great FSAA performance. Spanking most other cards.

It is not faster than a GF3 Ti200 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&amp;p=13
Not me thats for sure :smile:
Not me too http://www.tournament.com/forums/images/smilies/roofle.gif


I hate/love to say this but not anyone who actually knows what the heck it is. Personally I think it is a scam GF4MX(My ass it is a GF4- It is a GF2 with GF4 tech but it is still only DX7.) People will pay the cash thinking they are getting a new generation card but all they are doing is buying a butched up GF2MX. Nvidia is doing this so they can keep their margins thats all. But I think that the deal stinks personally.

Sabastian

[Exposed]

These name insignias don't mean anything. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down about the fact the Geforce 2 MX series is a step down from the original Geforce DDR.

[Galilee]

On 2002-02-22 16:50, pascal wrote:
Well GF4-MX has great FSAA performance. Spanking most other cards.

It is not faster than a GF3 Ti200 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&amp;p=13

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-14.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-23 17:16 ]</font>

[jb]

On 2002-02-23 16:41, Exposed wrote:
These name insignias don't mean anything. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down about the fact the Geforce 2 MX series is a step down from the original Geforce DDR.


That is not true at all. The MX had features not found on the GF DRR as well as almost all features of the normal GF2. The GF4 MX does not have the features of the GF4 cards.

[Nexus]

On 2002-02-23 17:50, jb wrote:

On 2002-02-23 16:41, Exposed wrote:
These name insignias don't mean anything. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down about the fact the Geforce 2 MX series is a step down from the original Geforce DDR.


That is not true at all. The MX had features not found on the GF DRR as well as almost all features of the normal GF2. The GF4 MX does not have the features of the GF4 cards.


Those where, except "TwinView" and one more TMU? And which "features" did the GF2MX miss from the GF2GTS, except from two more pixel pipes and higher memory bandwith (hardly a feature)?

A GF1 DDR is faster in todays games than a GF2 MX/400 in 32bit because of the much higher bandwith (2,8GB compared to 4,8GB).

[demalion]

On 2002-02-23 16:41, Exposed wrote:
These name insignias don't mean anything. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down about the fact the Geforce 2 MX series is a step down from the original Geforce DDR.


But a GF2 has the same feature set a the original GF DDR, but is just enhanced to make it faster. A GF4MX has the feature set of a GF2, not GF3. If it had GF3 features the name wouldn't be such a misnomer.

As has been stated by others, it just looks like a scam for the uninformed.

[pascal]

Galille,

I understand your point of view, looks like the GF4MX is highlly tuned for Q3.

IMHO one should not base his/her decision of a new card using an old benchmark like Q3 when a new benchmark based on real next generation game engine like Unreal 2 is available.

I upgraded from my Radeon 32MB DDR to GF3 Ti200 thinking about next generation games.

Probably any good DDR card will play Q3 very well.

[Galilee]

True
I'm not saying that GF4-MX is a good choice, but it looks to me like it get some of the same FSAA performance-increase as GF4-Ti does over GF3. Probably due to the two vertex things :wink: (2X and Quincunx same performance)
But in general GF4-MX is a lousy performer.

My guess on what will happen:
oem machines that usually ship with MX/TNT2 card will ship with GF4-MX, but it will not sell that good in the stores retail. Hopefully they will continue the GF3-Ti200 line.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-23 20:37 ]</font>

[pascal]

The problem is that GF4MX is much more expensive than the GF2MX. My guess for OEM it is not good too.

My hope is ATI pushing Nvidia with low cost DX8 cards.

[Sabastian]

On 2002-02-23 20:51, pascal wrote:
The problem is that GF4MX is much more expensive than the GF2MX. My guess for OEM it is not good too.

My hope is ATI pushing Nvidia with low cost DX8 cards.


They are the Radeon 8500 is going mainstream market. http://www.necxdirect.com/hai/prod_page.html?key=0000163272&amp;nonce=guest

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sabastian on 2002-02-23 23:15 ]</font>

[Exposed]

But a GF2 has the same feature set a the original GF DDR, but is just enhanced to make it faster. A GF4MX has the feature set of a GF2, not GF3. If it had GF3 features the name wouldn't be such a misnomer.


The GF4 has the improved crossbar memory system, Quincunx plus the new Accuview engine, and nview. It's more than a GF2, but not a full blown GF4. Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.

[Joe DeFuria]

Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.

Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." :wink:

[muted]

wait wait wait... don't you remember the mystery FSAA methods done by reverend on a geforce 3 ... wasn't that "accuview" ?

[Exposed]

Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless."

Blanket statement. How many game developers and publishers have you interviewed? :wink:


wait wait wait... don't you remember the mystery FSAA methods done by reverend on a geforce 3 ... wasn't that "accuview" ?


No.

[Joe DeFuria]

Blanket statement. How many game developers and publishers have you interviewed?

Heh, and I suppose "Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless" is not a blanket statement? :wink:

I have not interveiwed any developers / publishers, but I have read interveiws / statements by at least 2 of them: Carmack and Hook. And both were extremely disappointed.

[Exposed]

Heh, and I suppose "Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless" is not a blanket statement?


No, it's not a blanket statement. It's an opinion. "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." "....Now THAT's a blanket statement :wink:




I have not interveiwed any developers / publishers, but I have read interveiws / statements by at least 2 of them: Carmack and Hook. And both were extremely disappointed.



From one company? That doesn't quite support your statement above :wink:

Carmack was also extremely disappointed in the naming convention of the GF3 and GF2, yet I don't see you envangelizing that aspect :wink:

[Dave Baumann]

Hook is not at the same company as Carmack.

[Exposed]

Let's add one more and make it 3, that still doesn't support his statement :wink:

[Humus]

Whatever ... the general perception among most people is that the naming scheme is poorly choosen. A similar topic was brought up on opengl.org too, and I think most people contributing in that thread shared the same opinion, that it would only fool the uninformed. The same can be said about ATi old OEM vs. retail stuff too. That was only a speed difference though, but lots of people felt fooled. I guess many GF4 MX owner will feel fooled too when launching doom3 on it at the end of this year only to find the framerate sux, or when launching 3dmarks2001 only to find lots of features "not supported by hardware".

[SirPauly]

The key quote is this:

none has developed products based on the GeForce4 Ti 4200 chips.

Define none has developed?

ATI Technologies has planned to roll out an RV250-core chip shortly. The new chip is a low-price version of its Radeon 8500.
The new chip is a low-price version of its Radeon 8500

This part is interesting as Dave mentioned.

Doesn't add up when a Third party company executive said this about the Rv-250:

The card maker has already finished developing products based on ATI’s latest RV250 chips, scheduled to be introduced in March. Yeo noted that performance of the RV250 is estimated to be 1.5 times better than that of the Radeon 8500.

Again define finshing developing and define 1.5 times better?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-25 22:15 ]</font>

[Joe DeFuria]

Exposed,

Let's add one more and make it 3, that still doesn't support his statement...

Rather, let's have you interview a developer / publisher (or pull any comments made from any), that refute my "blanket statement".

I am always surprised when I present some "evidence" to support my position, and the counter to it is not to supply contradictory evidence, but to say I need to supply more...

Whether I have 2, 3, or 40 references, the point is, that's currently 2, 3 or 40 more references that I've found, or you've supplied, to the contrary of that statemet.

So rather than continue a debate on semantics and the exact number of references in question, please provide your own refuting evidence. It may be out there. I haven't found it. Maybe you can.

But I guess keeping up with the times isn't your forte...considering your belief that Hook is still employed by iD. :wink:

[demalion]

On 2002-02-25 03:57, Exposed wrote:

But a GF2 has the same feature set a the original GF DDR, but is just enhanced to make it faster. A GF4MX has the feature set of a GF2, not GF3. If it had GF3 features the name wouldn't be such a misnomer.


The GF4 has the improved crossbar memory system, Quincunx plus the new Accuview engine, and nview. It's more than a GF2, but not a full blown GF4. Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.


Eh? Isn't that what you are doing as well?

Yes it is more than a GF2, but less than a GF3, in about every way that matters. Yet the name doesn't reflect that. *scratch* Should I take it that you think that the consumers who are misled into buying a GF4 MX over any GF3 don't matter? If you do think that, please explain why?

EDIT: sp

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: demalion on 2002-02-25 22:32 ]</font>

[Joe DeFuria]

I'll give the "typical" response for someone with Exposed's opinion...let's see if Exposed's actual opinion is any different. :wink:

The typical response is "consumers who don't do the research to know the differences between each set of products, deserves to be mislead or screwed."

[Althornin]

Eh, its just Exposed. Thats the kind of stuff he posts.

Personally, i think the scheme is misleading, esp. based on the previous MX naming scheme, whereby a GF2MX has the features a GF2 does, just less pixel pipes. however, in this case, a GF4MX has the *essential* feature set of a GF2 STILL!
Yes i am aware, Exposed, that the GF4MX supports a new blur filter (for more craptastic graphics at speeds to slow to be usefull) and a new crossbar memory controller. As for the memory controller, thats NOT a feature. So, basically, a new blur filter ontop of the gf2mx, and youy have a gf4mx...what misleading crap.

[Sabastian]

On 2002-02-25 21:54, Humus wrote:
Whatever ... the general perception among most people is that the naming scheme is poorly choosen. A similar topic was brought up on opengl.org too, and I think most people contributing in that thread shared the same opinion, that it would only fool the uninformed. The same can be said about ATi old OEM vs. retail stuff too. That was only a speed difference though, but lots of people felt fooled. I guess many GF4 MX owner will feel fooled too when launching doom3 on it at the end of this year only to find the framerate sux, or when launching 3dmarks2001 only to find lots of features "not supported by hardware".


Just to bolster your argument further Humus the at least the Radeon 8500 buyers got a Radeon 8500 chip granted at a lower clock spead but in terms of performance. I doubt that the disparity in performance would be as much as a GF4MX compared to a GF4Ti4600. Further the underclocked Radeon 8500's are Direct X 8.1, err I guess that really doesn't apply because the GF4Ti4600 isn't even DX8.1. But the GF4MX is yet only DX7 were the other GF4 familly are all DX8, now that is a shafting if you ask me.

Sabastian

[Exposed]

Rather, let's have you interview a developer / publisher (or pull any comments made from any), that refute my "blanket statement".

I am always surprised when I present some "evidence" to support my position, and the counter to it is not to supply contradictory evidence, but to say I need to supply more...

Whether I have 2, 3, or 40 references, the point is, that's currently 2, 3 or 40 more references that I've found, or you've supplied, to the contrary of that statemet.

So rather than continue a debate on semantics and the exact number of references in question, please provide your own refuting evidence. It may be out there. I haven't found it. Maybe you can.

But I guess keeping up with the times isn't your forte...considering your belief that Hook is still employed by iD.

Don't tell me you're that dense Joe, that you can't see the simple flaw behind "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless."

Of course, that's not surprising from someone like you who's heavy into conspiracy issues, whether it be Anandtech's Unreal performance test or Madonion's 3dMark 2001SE. :wink:

No one in their right mind (not in the real world at least) would take a few examples and apply them to a whole....that would be quite ignorant. "Ask any developer/publisher" makes no sense (and I'm surprised you couldn't figure out why that's a blanket statement....you do know what a blanket statement is right?), that's something what a child would say to defend his/her argument. An even more example of ignorance is to try to reverse that argument. You base your broad generalization based on two examples, yet your generalization requires someone to specifically state otherwise to break that fantasy of yours. If I asked "any" developer, are you 100% sure they will agree with your stance? What makes you think its even important enough to make a statement upon? I don't see any other prominent programmers from various publishers making statements about the GF4 MX naming schemes, do you?

You didn't even addressed one of the main points I raised....and that was Carmack's criticism of the naming schemes of the GF2 and GF3. He thought the GF3 was an architectural difference enough to warrant a different naming scheme, compared to the GF2, a point he ranted upon earlier on. Yet, only his remarks concerning the GF4 is convenient for you
:rollseyes:


I'll give the "typical" response for someone with Exposed's opinion...let's see if Exposed's actual opinion is any different

Let's see, automatically forcing what you think on others despite what they actually believe. Typical Democrat :wink: (And no, I don't agree with that statement of yours).



Eh, its just Exposed. Thats the kind of stuff he posts.


Hehe, I see you're still threatened by my presence, since you never really have anything intelligent to say concerning the discussion :wink:


Just to bolster your argument further Humus the at least the Radeon 8500 buyers got a Radeon 8500 chip granted at a lower clock spead but in terms of performance. I doubt that the disparity in performance would be as much as a GF4MX compared to a GF4Ti4600. Further the underclocked Radeon 8500's are Direct X 8.1, err I guess that really doesn't apply because the GF4Ti4600 isn't even DX8.1. But the GF4MX is yet only DX7 were the other GF4 familly are all DX8, now that is a shafting if you ask me.



No, what's shafting is buyers not knowing which clock speed their Radeon 8500 were clocked at. Not everyone knows the difference between OEM and retail. The Geforce 4 MX at least has that MX extension.....it took quite a good amount of "shouting" to change ATI's marketing of the lower clocked chips to the "LE" insignia.

[SirPauly]

Now, all you have to do is find TWO developers to offer positive statements about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX; as others have offered two developers that offered two negative statements about the naming scheme.

And you get a bonus: because one of the two is John Carmack and, of course, his name doesn't carry any extra weight so-to-speak.

Should be easy for ya to find just two postive comments from developers the way you downplay the two negative comments offered by developers including John Carmack.

No conspiracy, ufo's, Mason's,illumaniti and such.... they offered proof for their views on the naming scheme and valid ones to many.

Now, you prove them wrong and offer how positive the naming scheme is. Simple.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 11:03 ]</font>

[Entropy]

On 2002-02-25 03:57, Exposed wrote:

Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.


If you hadn't been around, there wouldn't have been an argument. The rest of us all agree you see, and would prefer to smugly bitch about the G4MX naming in elitist cameraderie.

Entropy

[pascal]

HEY

What about a GF4MXSUCKS.COM http://www.tournament.com/forums/images/smilies/roofle.gif with all reasons/comments why it sucks.

[Reverend]

wait wait wait... don't you remember the mystery FSAA methods done by reverend on a geforce 3 ... wasn't that "accuview" ?


No.Prove your "no".

[Exposed]

Now, all you have to do is find TWO developers to offer positive statements about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX; as others have offered two developers that offered two negative statements about the naming scheme.


You didn't read my post did you? Trying to reverse a flawed perception is an exercise of ignorance itself. How about I find positive statements about the Voodoo naming schemes? Or the TnT, or the Radeon, or the Kyro? You get the point or is too obviously far beyond your grasp?

It's like the man who says this magic bracelet keeps elephants away. He says "Do you see any elephants? That's proof it works." A woman says "that's not proof", and the man responds.."Well, prove it doesn't work."


Prove your "no".

Because you of all people should know "Accuview" isn't the name of the hybrid supersampling/multisampling mode in your shots.

[SirPauly]

You didn't read my post did you? Trying to reverse a flawed perception is an exercise of ignorance itself

What is the flawed perception?

Two developers that offered negative comments about the naming scheme?

Some posters that offered they don't like the naming scheme either?

Posters that offered they don't like the naming scheme and offered the developers' quotes that offered negative comments about the naming scheme?

Seems to me the perception here is a lot of people don't like the naming scheme of the GeForce4MX, no? hehe,:)

This is the flawed perception to you?

How about I find positive statements about the Voodoo naming schemes? Or the TnT, or the Radeon, or the Kyro?

Okay, but make sure you keep looking for the GeForce4 MX positive comments, too.

But,I really didn't ask for that.. I asked for positive comments about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX from two developers. I think Joe was on to something here.

If you want to play this game..I'll play, and this is more apples to apples:

Why don't you find some negative comments on the naming scheme of the Voodoo, Radeon or Kyro.... there is some on the GeForce4 MX from TWO developers, no? Should be easy.. all you need is just two, hehehe.:smile:


You get the point or is too obviously far beyond your grasp?

I grasp fine... I see a poster that claims he doesn't want to discuss the flawed perception behind the naming scheme of the GeForce4MX.


It's like the man who says this magic bracelet keeps elephants away. He says "Do you see any elephants?

If you consider John Carmack like a man that wears a magic braclet and says, " Do you see any thing negative in the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX?"

Bad analogy, hehehe.:smile:

That's proof it works." A woman says "that's not proof", and the man responds.."Well, prove it doesn't work."

Okay. if you say so, hehehe.:smile: How you can offer a man with a magic bracelet creating a magical illusion of keeping elephants away to two prov'n names in the 3d industry offering their opinions on the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX to the public?

You're calling John Carmack a con man... you do realize this?

That is flawed to me... but that is just my opinion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 18:03 ]</font>

[Exposed]

What is the flawed perception?


Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension :wink: This is the flawed perception: "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." "

So you see no fault with that statement?


Okay, but make sure you keep looking for the GeForce4 MX positive comments, too.

But,I really didn't ask for that.. I asked for positive comments about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX from two developers. I think Joe was on to something here.


And so you still did not get the point...it's more above your head than I thought. Stop and think for a moment, how many developers are you going to find that went out of their way to make positive comments about a naming scheme? I know its going to be hard, but think back to the Voodoo2 and Voodoo3, the TnT and TnT2, and Kyro and Kyro 2.... The answer? None....because its a moot point.


If you want to play this game..I'll play, and this is more apples to apples:

Why don't you find some negative comments on the naming scheme of the Voodoo, Radeon or Kyro.... there is some on the GeForce4 MX from TWO developers, no? Should be easy.. all you need is just two, hehehe

That's quite obvious....or did you forget the Radeon 8500 OEM/Retail debacle? Or the dozens of threads that littered Beyond3D's very boards concerning the Kyro2's release (that it was simply an overclocked Kyro)? Or how about Carmack's own gripes about naming the NV20 "Geforce 3"?

However, that wasn't even the point I was making.



I grasp fine... I see a poster that claims he doesn't want to discuss the flawed perception behind the naming scheme of the GeForce4MX.


You grasp fine? Apparently not since you don't even have a clue about what the debate with Joe is about, nor could you even figure out the flawed nature of the reverse condition posed.


If you consider John Carmack like a man that wears a magic braclet and says, " Do you see any thing negative in the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX?"

Bad analogy, hehehe.



Hehehe, seems you still can't comprehend :grin: That man is Joe stating "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." ", using carmack as proof, and then asking to disprove that blanket statement otherwise with a flawed reverse condition. (Prove that it doesn't work/Find positive comments concerning naming schemes)


Okay. if you say so, hehehe. How you can offer a man with a magic bracelet creating a magical illusion of keeping elephants away to two prov'n names in the 3d industry offering their opinions on the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX to the public?

You're calling John Carmack a con man... you do realize this?

That is flawed to me... but that is just my opinion.


When you're able to comprehend at a higher level then maybe you'll understand :wink:






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Exposed on 2002-02-26 18:59 ]</font>

[Sabastian]

"And so you still did not get the point...it's more above your head than I thought. Stop and think for a moment, how many developers are you going to find that have positive comments about a naming scheme? I know its going to be hard, but think back to the Voodoo2 and Voodoo3, the TnT and TnT2, and Kyro and Kyro 2.... The answer? None....because its a moot point."

You simply can't compare the naming schemes of these others without taking into consideration the performance disparities. It would be like hmm TDFX naming a Voodoo3XXX a Voodoo6XXXMX. You see it isn't just a matter of naming scheme but a performance factor as well. The GF4MX is a GF2MX with a few GF4 features and none of the performance of a real GF4 with 60 million transistors as opposed to the 26-30 million the GF4MX carries. So truly your case here is asinine.

Sabastian

[Exposed]

You simply can't compare the naming schemes of these others without taking into consideration the performance disparities. It would be like hmm TDFX naming a Voodoo3XXX a Voodoo6XXXMX. You see it isn't just a matter of naming scheme but a performance factor as well.

And the point is? A Geforce2 MX 200 suffers considerably against a Geforce DDR. You need to factor that in as well.


The GF4MX is a GF2MX with a few GF4 features and none of the performance of a real GF4 with 60 million transistors as opposed to the 26-30 million the GF4MX carries. So truly your case here is asinine.


What does transistor count have to do anything? A crippled pipeline/core will always yeild lesser transistos. Then again, you did post a while back that the GF4 Ti4600 didn't impress you because it was on the same .15 fab process as a GF3, and the GF4 Ti4600 had a less percentage gain in transistors compared to a GF2 (despite the mathematical fact that lesser numbers yield higher percentages than higher numbers even with the same numbered increase).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Exposed on 2002-02-26 19:01 ]</font>

[Mariner]

The problem as I see it is that all the advertisements for PCs will soon be saying "Includes GeForce4 graphics" when they are actually selling the GF4MX chips.

This will cause confusion to many non-techie types who have read that the new GeForce4 supports DX8 functions, especially when new games using the pixel shaders start to come out.

It is obvious why NVidia has called their new MX chip the GF4MX but it simply doesn't have the features that would be expected from the "new generation".

From my experience, most of the computer salesmen you encounter don't have a clue about graphics cards. They will be assuring their potential customers that all GF4 cards are "future-proof" without really understanding what they are saying.

I dare say that this naming scheme could backfire on NVidia in some ways, but on the other hand, what else could they have called the MX chip?

[SirPauly]

Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.

This is the crux of the discussion.

Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless."

Define pointless? Depends on the context. And you're spinning the context of what it was intended for your flawed perception.

If I ask John Carmack:

John do you consider the naming scheme of the GeForce4 pointless?

He could say:

" Yeah, there is no negative or positve points to discuss..... pointless.

Or.... he could say:

" No, it isn't pointless..... It gives an impression it has programmable features to the consumer and a major point to discuss."


Stop and think for a moment, how many developers are you going to find that went out of their way to make positive comments about a naming scheme?

Stop and think.... why I asked you to look? hehehehe.:smile:

That's quite obvious....or did you forget the Radeon 8500 OEM/Retail debacle? Or the dozens of threads that littered Beyond3D's very boards concerning the Kyro2's release (that it was simply an overclocked Kyro)? Or how about Carmack's own gripes about naming the NV20 "Geforce 3"?

Did developers offer this or just posters? Two developers? Now, John thought the GeForce3 name didn't do the chip justice...and should of been named something else because the architecture was quite different than the GeForce2. But if this is the same as the negative GeForce4 MX comments or similar to you....okay.

You grasp fine? Apparently not since you don't even have a clue about what the debate with Joe is about, nor could you even figure out the flawed nature of the reverse condition posed.

Allow Joe to speak for Joe.


Hehehe, seems you still can't comprehend That man is Joe stating "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." ", using carmack as proof, and then asking to disprove that blanket statement otherwise

Does say ANY, right?

Why don't you ask John Carmack? He is a developer and let's find out how pointless it is and how great that analogy truly was.

When you're able to comprehend at a higher level then maybe you'll understand

When you stop spinning and dancing.... you might actually offer something.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 19:46 ]</font>

[pascal]

Exposed,

- Do you like the GF4MX?
- Will you buy one for yourself?
- Dont you think the name is intentionally misleading?
- Do you work for Nvidia?
- Are you a Nvidia shareholder?

I am just curios.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Sabastian]

Oh lord, there is no point in discussing this with you. Sorry but it seems you divert and modify the disagreement to your liking, maybe you would consider taking up sophistry?

"And the point is? A Geforce2 MX 200 suffers considerably against a Geforce DDR. You need to factor that in as well."

The position is that the GF2MX has been magically twisted into yet an additional entirely new creation yet still retains most of its original characteristics with the greatest change being in the generational name e.g. GF4MX. This is all been said prior and I(as well as others) am starting to sound like a broken record. Yet you can't or don't want to grasp the logical aspects of the argument. It would seem that you are intelligent but you fail to realize the folly in the GF4MX naming scheme. Intentional disregard of a completely logical comprehensive argument tells me that you would deny any dispute that you do not favor, I have no time for that.


"What does transistor count have to do anything? A crippled pipeline/core will always yeild lesser transistos. Then again, you did post a while back that the GF4 didn't impress you because it was on the same .15 fab as a GF3, and the GF4 had a less percentage gain in transistors compared to a GF2 (despite the mathematical fact that lesser numbers yield higher percentages than higher numbers even with the same numbered increase)."

The pipeline isn't "crippled" at all, the pipeline that exists in the GF4 chip but not in the GF4MX. Therefore it isn't a matter of "crippling" at all. The disparity in transistor count tells me that it really isn't a new generation chip at all, it is that simple.(If a 50%+ difference doesn’t tell you something then….. I don’t know what will.) At any rate I am done quarrelling with you on this. Others may want to conduct this exercise in futility with you but clearly you will fail to be convinced that the naming scheme of the GF4MX is a con. Exactly why that would be? Dare I use the term f*n boy?

Sabastian

[pascal]

Exposed:
Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless.

No it is not. I will argue whatever I want, specially because I did not born in another planet.

The name schema is intentionatlly misleading. One of the worst marketing moves (from customer point of view) I have ever seen. :evil:

Dont play naive because most people on this forum are not. :evil:

[Galilee]

NVIDIA is evil :evil: