Who would you say was under more pressure?

[jvd]

True but it just doesn't have enough mystique to push the ATI brand on its own. The XL is doing a much better job of that. There are also enough high-profile titles were the Ultra is on top for Nvidia to not be panicking. Remember it was ATI who felt the need to refresh its high-end.

THe sli rig doesn't have the mystique to push the nvidia name far . Esp not when people realise in some games your paying double for 0% increase in performance. Also thier dual card set up will no longer be unique and it may no longer be the most advanced dual card set up on the market sortly . As for ati , they refreshed so they would make more money per chip and have higher yields . Not only that but to claim that ati is under pressure because they had to refresh thier cards would mean nvidia was under presure when they launched the geforce 3 ti and then geforce 4 brands .

Not sure how this applies since we don't know anything about what Nvidia is doing. It is obviously some kind of NV40 refresh since they don't need to do much on the feature front but how big a refresh is going to be key.

It seems that nvidia is going to stay at 110nm and ati will be at 90nm . Now this could amount to nothing , then again it could amount to ati being in the lead again for speed and have the same if not more advanced feature set . Sm3.0 + 3dc vs Sm3.0 .

This equates to more pressure, not less. This is the first time that they've had to come up with something new since the R300 so things were pretty easy for them over the past few years in comparison. ATI has several areas where they need to execute well, more so than Nvidia does so that translates to more pressure on them.

I disagree .

Since the r300 which was a solid attempt at dx 9 ati has only enhanced its design . So they made the r300 enhanced it into the r420 and now the r520. So they have 3 parts from what woud have been 1 part . Then they have the r500 which was an off spring of the r400 which never left developement from the r500 they will have the r600 for the desktop . For the ns5 gpu they may use an extension of the r500 or mabye even r600 when it comes out or a version of the r520 with some custom work .

On the other hand nvidia has the horrible fx series . Had to build a dx 9 card that performed well from scrap and now is using a future gpu in the ps3 only modified to what extend no one knows .

So while ati has had a good 3 years with them building thier brand name up nvidia had 2 years in which thier name was dragged through the mud (thier own fault ) and has only had a rebuilding year .

In which SLI supported game does an X850XT/PE beat out a GT or Ultra SLI setup when not CPU limited? edit: nevermind found one - EQII

Not only that but there are a slew of games that the sli rig does nothing for dispite costing twice as much . While sli is nice and does give a godo performance gain in many cases for double the price its not a magic bullet its an attempt to achive the speed crown at all costs . Its hardly ideal to push out something on consumers and have it only work with half the games on the market or whatever the number may be .

That may be true but what does that have to do with the pressure of coming up with something in next couple months? Both companies have something to prove. Nvidia has to demonstrate that NV30 was an anomaly and ATI has to show that R300 was not.

The nv30 was not an anomaly . There was the nv1 , there was the tnt , there was the geforce sdr , there was the geforce 3 which was slower than the geforce 2 ultra in the games out at the time .

Ati has had a stellar card in the r300 and a strong card in the r420 . The flipper was also a strong part in the cube easily on par with the parts in the other consoles .

Its nvidia who has something to prove as all ati's mistakes were over 3 years ago. Nvidia is the one with the problems in the recent past

 

[rendezvous]

I'm astounded by how you figure out whom of ATI and nvidia is under most pressure by the facts you have mentioned.

 

[ninelven]

erased

 

[trinibwoy]

I'm astounded by how you figure out whom of ATI and nvidia is under most pressure by the facts you have mentioned.

You're not alone

 

[Fodder]

It seems that nvidia is going to stay at 110nm and ati will be at 90nm. Now this could amount to nothing , then again it could amount to ati being in the lead again for speed and have the same if not more advanced feature set. Sm3.0 + 3dc vs Sm3.0.

Though perhaps the strongest rumour so far regarding G70 is that it will support 3Dc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not only that but there are a slew of games that the sli rig does nothing for dispite costing twice as much . While sli is nice and does give a godo performance gain in many cases for double the price its not a magic bullet its an attempt to achive the speed crown at all costs . Its hardly ideal to push out something on consumers and have it only work with half the games on the market or whatever the number may be .

I remember reading ages back that nVidia weren't interested in the low-margins entry-level cards, but were more aggressive in the high-cost, high-performance professional market. They make a lot more money selling a few high-end pro solutions than a lot of entry-level consumer cards.

I think SLI is primarily for these graphics pro, 3D content creators, where every drop of performance counts. Though it's a bonus for a gaming rig where the gamer cares nothing for cost, it's not a mainstream solution.

 

[mercury]

I would think ATI has a bit more pressure on it.

NVIDIA IMHO seemed to have stretched their resources pretty thin developing the XBOX gpu and the FX series in the same timeframe.
This is NVIDIA's second time around on a console/PC gpu so one would think they have learned from the past.

ATI on the other hand,flipper aside,this is their first attempt at a full fledged console gpu on two fairly different systems while also bringing the same(but modified)gpu to the pc marketplace.

I could be wrong but I think both companies have learned from NVIDIA's mistakes and both gpus'(PC/Console)will launch fine.

 

[trinibwoy]

jvd, I think you're going off on a tangent with most of your points.

THe sli rig doesn't have the mystique to push the nvidia name far . Esp not when people realise in some games your paying double for 0% increase in performance. Also thier dual card set up will no longer be unique and it may no longer be the most advanced dual card set up on the market sortly . As for ati , they refreshed so they would make more money per chip and have higher yields . Not only that but to claim that ati is under pressure because they had to refresh thier cards would mean nvidia was under presure when they launched the geforce 3 ti and then geforce 4 brands .

What does SLI have to do with this discussion. SLI isn't Nvidia's answer to the XT PE - the Ultra is. They don't 'need' SLI to be competitive. The X850 refresh shouldn't be compared to previous refreshes. Past refreshes have actually brought something tangible (significant clock bumps etc). The X850 brings nothing over the X800 from a consumer perspective.

It seems that nvidia is going to stay at 110nm and ati will be at 90nm . Now this could amount to nothing , then again it could amount to ati being in the lead again for speed and have the same if not more advanced feature set . Sm3.0 + 3dc vs Sm3.0 .

Rumors do say Nvidia at 110nm and ATI at 90nm. But since nothing is stopping Nvidia from going 90nm I don't see how such rumours are relevant. Dave has also hinted/stated that the next Nvidia part will have hardware 3dc support.

Since the r300 which was a solid attempt at dx 9 ati has only enhanced its design . So they made the r300 enhanced it into the r420 and now the r520. So they have 3 parts from what woud have been 1 part . Then they have the r500 which was an off spring of the r400 which never left developement from the r500 they will have the r600 for the desktop . For the ns5 gpu they may use an extension of the r500 or mabye even r600 when it comes out or a version of the r520 with some custom work .

On the other hand nvidia has the horrible fx series . Had to build a dx 9 card that performed well from scrap and now is using a future gpu in the ps3 only modified to what extend no one knows .

So while ati has had a good 3 years with them building thier brand name up nvidia had 2 years in which thier name was dragged through the mud (thier own fault ) and has only had a rebuilding year .

What does all that have to do with next gen parts? R300 and NV30 are history. The NV40 is here now. Or do you think that the success/failure of the R300/FX will somehow impact the success of next generation cards?

The nv30 was not an anomaly . There was the nv1 , there was the tnt , there was the geforce sdr , there was the geforce 3 which was slower than the geforce 2 ultra in the games out at the time .

Wow!!! It's a wonder they still managed to stay in business!

Its nvidia who has something to prove as all ati's mistakes were over 3 years ago. Nvidia is the one with the problems in the recent past

That's one way to look at it. But I think you're wrong that ATI has nothing to prove. Their glory from R300 has long waned. It's time for them to step up and show that they are in it for the long-haul. I also disagree that Nvidia is the one with the problems in the recent past. ATI had hiccups with their midrange x700 line and the x800PRO - the NV40 had a smoother ride in general.

 

[Titanio]

The X850 isn't all that more powerful than the 6800 Ultra though, is it? At least looking at benchmarks, the difference is small, and in a number of games the 6800 retains the performance lead.

Here's another way of looking it: if ATi last released a card 6 months after NVidia, that arguably barely beats it (and I believe they had supply problems at that?), is it not somewhat difficult to see them produce something that beats NVidia's coming 6 months earlier? This is in relation to the console chips..

In all fairness, everyone can spin things as they like it. I'm going to consider ATi and NVidia equally capable for now, and just see what they do.

 

[whql]

The only "advantage" Nvidia has is their support for SM3.0 and FP blending. A refresh was not required to maintain this advantage.

So, why not go for features and performance?

The x800xl was born out of the fact that ATI had an inferior product to go up against the GT.

So this wasn't part of their roadmap? it only appeared 6 months after the first x800 line, sounds like it would have been on the roadmap before they even knew what nvidia were doing.

The only reason it is $300 is to undercut the GT's momentum in the marketplace. It is doing a good job of that but Nvidia has no need to respond since the GT is still selling very well.

No, its 300 bucks becuase its on .11u where nv40 is .13u so they can sell it cheaper - why didn't nvidia do the same? they could have an even more sucessful "gt" if they had a similar performance part but on a cheaper die. This is where the whole "they don't need to" argument falls down.

You are asking why Nvidia didn't refresh as if it is an omen of doom for them. However, I can ask why ATI felt the need to refresh. Was it to solidify some advantage or was it out of necessity?

Perhaps these refreshes were on ati's roadmap anyway, could that not pissibly be? After all, we're already hearing about r580 as a refesh to r520, so it doesn't follow that r480 is a reactionary move. But still, the question remains why aren't nvidia doing it now when they have always done it historically and in circumstances where it is less "needed" for them to do so. I'm not the one talking about doom though.

The x800xl (R430) is a die-shrunk R420. Not exactly a new chip.

It is exactly a new chip - even "die shrunk" chips don't fall out of thin air.

Rumors do say Nvidia at 110nm and ATI at 90nm. But since nothing is stopping Nvidia from going 90nm I don't see how such rumours are relevant.

So, why don't they? Surely, if there was "nothing" stopping them then they would becuase it would mean they could either have a higher performance chip or a lower cost one. there must be something stopping them.

Their glory from R300 has long waned. It's time for them to step up and show that they are in it for the long-haul.

Eh? on the one hand you say they refresh only as an answer to nvidia products, but then on the other you say they need to "step up to the plate".

 

[whql]

The X850 isn't all that more powerful than the 6800 Ultra though, is it? At least looking at benchmarks, the difference is small, and in a number of games the 6800 retains the performance lead.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/his-5.html

Looking at this review, the x850's leads are bigger than the ultra's

Here's another way of looking it: if ATi released a card 6 months after NVidia, that arguably barely beats it (and I believe they had supply problems at that?)

Indications are that the ultra's were in just as short supply - shorter if steams stats are anything to go by.

 

[London Geezer]

We didn't have enough NVIDIA IZ DA CHING vs ATI RULEZ ALL in the other 8 forums in here dedicated to PC graphics...

 

[BOOMEXPLODE]

haha...both of these companies are under a huge amount of pressure...developing GPUs for next generation consoles while developing next-generation PC GPUs while a very fierce competitor is breathing down your neck...they have to pull out all the stops JUST to remain competitive. Neither one of them wants to become like 3dfx, so the pressure is on for both of them.

 

[trinibwoy]

So, why not go for features and performance?

Because they already have both with the NV40.

The x800xl was born out of the fact that ATI had an inferior product to go up against the GT.

So this wasn't part of their roadmap? it only appeared 6 months after the first x800 line, sounds like it would have been on the roadmap before they even knew what nvidia were doing.

Well it seems we're both guessing here. I'm guessing the XL was not on their roadmap before they saw how the GT and PRO matched up.

No, its 300 bucks becuase its on .11u where nv40 is .13u so they can sell it cheaper - why didn't nvidia do the same? they could have an even more sucessful "gt" if they had a similar performance part but on a cheaper die. This is where the whole "they don't need to" argument falls down.

Yes, they can sell it cheaper because it's cheaper to make. However, why do you think Nvidia needs to go through a die-shrink just to have a .11u part when their .13u part is doing just fine against the XL?

Perhaps these refreshes were on ati's roadmap anyway, could that not pissibly be? After all, we're already hearing about r580 as a refesh to r520, so it doesn't follow that r480 is a reactionary move.

You can't seriously think ATI would plan a 20Mhz clock increase refresh. I don't remember for sure but I think yields on the X800 line were poor so they had to tweak it a bit for better yields. Or are you expecting a 3% increase from r580 over r520 as well?

But still, the question remains why aren't nvidia doing it now when they have always done it historically and in circumstances where it is less "needed" for them to do so. I'm not the one talking about doom though.

That's a good question and one I have asked myself. But the most obvious answer I can give is that there is no pressure on them to do so. They have strong performers at all price points and a richer featureset. Going through a refresh to add on a couple Mhz may seem like a waste of time/effort.

The x800xl (R430) is a die-shrunk R420. Not exactly a new chip.

It is exactly a new chip - even "die shrunk" chips don't fall out of thin air.

Like I said, it's your perogative to regard a die-shrink as a refresh of some sort.

So, why don't they? Surely, if there was "nothing" stopping them then they would becuase it would mean they could either have a higher performance chip or a lower cost one. there must be something stopping them.

Ummm do you know something that we don't. You're talking as if Nvidia going 110nm is set in stone.

Their glory from R300 has long waned. It's time for them to step up and show that they are in it for the long-haul.

Eh? on the one hand you say they refresh only as an answer to nvidia products, but then on the other you say they need to "step up to the plate".

Please explain how that statement (with regard to the thread topic) has anything to do with my other comments about the x800xl / x850 "refreshes". If you're going to selectively mish-mash comments of mine that have no relevance to each other then we can end this discussion now.

 

[trinibwoy]

We didn't have enough NVIDIA IZ DA CHING vs ATI RULEZ ALL in the other 8 forums in here dedicated to PC graphics...

Nope. We can never have enough of that.

 

[whql]

Because they already have both with the NV40.

And definitive performance.

Well it seems we're both guessing here. I'm guessing the XL was not on their roadmap before they saw how the GT and PRO matched up.

So, how long does it take to make anew chip? All the inidications are that its longer than 6 months.

However, why do you think Nvidia needs to go through a die-shrink just to have a .11u part when their .13u part is doing just fine against the XL?

How good is "fine"? Its not as though they have captured their marketshare back is it? Why don't they have it do better than "fine" by making it cheaper as well?

You can't seriously think ATI would plan a 20Mhz clock increase refresh. I don't remember for sure but I think yields on the X800 line were poor so they had to tweak it a bit for better yields. Or are you expecting a 3% increase from r580 over r520 as well?

I don't know exactly what they were planning then and what they are planning now, but r480 was rumored even before the release of r420 - i'd say that its pretty clear that this wasn't just a reactionary move.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1966

But the most obvious answer I can give is that there is no pressure on them to do so. They have strong performers at all price points and a richer featureset. Going through a refresh to add on a couple Mhz may seem like a waste of time/effort.

recapturing the huge, and unprecidented, marketshare swing is not "pressure"? they did it in far less pressure situations previously.

Like I said, it's your perogative to regard a die-shrink as a refresh of some sort.

It is. It created higher performance products at previously untapped prices - that offers "tangiable benefits" to consuers, as you put it.

 

[trinibwoy]

And definitive performance.

Exactly what is "definitive performance"?

So, how long does it take to make anew chip? All the inidications are that its longer than 6 months.

Wasn't the XL announced 6+ months after the GT and Pro debuted?

How good is "fine"? Its not as though they have captured their marketshare back is it? Why don't they have it do better than "fine" by making it cheaper as well?

Well I guess "fine" means "fine enough for Nvidia" since its their call.

I don't know exactly what they were planning then and what they are planning now, but r480 was rumored even before the release of r420 - i'd say that its pretty clear that this wasn't just a reactionary move.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1966

Well I guess we'll never know

recapturing the huge, and unprecidented, marketshare swing is not "pressure"? they did it in far less pressure situations previously.

Marketshare is actually swinging back the other way already. Exactly what would you have Nvidia release to "recapture the huge, and unprecidented marketshare swing" ? It almost sounds magical.

It is. It created higher performance products at previously untapped prices - that offers "tangiable benefits" to consuers, as you put it.

Fair enough. My tangible benefits comment was in regard to the X850 line but I'll let it slide.

 

[Legend]

NVidia was brought onto the PS3 project at really late date so they have had a lot less time then ATI to work some magic.

I don’t know when ATI started working on X2 and Rev, but nVidia has been working with Sony on PS3 for more than two years.

 

[PC-Engine]

NVidia was brought onto the PS3 project at really late date so they have had a lot less time then ATI to work some magic.

I don’t know when ATI started working on X2 and Rev, but nVidia has been working with Sony on PS3 for more than two years.

It says you have 72 posts, how come nothing comes up when I search your profile? Are you some kind of hacker?

 

[London Geezer]

It says you have 72 posts, how come nothing comes up when I search your profile? Are you some kind of hacker?

NO WAY! Is there a prob with the site? Or... no... it can't be... r u thinking what i'm thinking?