GeFX canned?

THe_KELRaTH said:
Kyle, have you tried to run the ATI DX9 demo's on the NV30 yet?

Brent has been the only one to really have time to play with the card in that way, you might ask him.
 
Looks like the original Inquirer story had more cred than some people gave it. I just heard it on the grapevine and must admit I am a bit shocked. Wa'gwaan?
 
Maybe you trying to be nice to NVIDIA and get that fansite card once again

Actually, you could take the Kyle approach...

Cry about not getting one online, until you get a response. Of course, in playing this out to the end, you would also then have to show unfair bias against the Company for not hooking you up.

:)
 
Diespinnerz said:
Type, It has to do with site traffic not whining...

Nvnews doesnt even have 5 percent of the traffic hardocp does.

Ouch I bet that hurts.... hexus.net in the UK got one and me sure that NVNEWS gets more traffic than them.
 
FrgMstr said:
LeStoffer said:
FrgMstr said:
Going to be hard to get confirmation from NVIDIA PR when they are do not know it themselves.

Huh? Are you saying that it is the OEM's that is going to dump the ultra? Or are you saying that nVidia PR wont come forward about this until later (on Monday)?

We got our information on this through some VERY ODD channels, but still reliable. I do not think NV PR was aware of this issue when we posted it.

Kyle, I commend you on posting it. No doubt you absolutely believe it to be accurate as I'm sure you'd have never posted otherwise. As others have pointed out, PNY has dropped the Ultra from its product description pages and the only thing there now is info on the 5800, with reduced specifications. I know that the Ultra was the only one featured on the site at first, with its appropriate specs, so this definitely serves to underscore the validity of your report.

I'd like to know your opinion on something--and this is not in any way a "trick" question or anything like that--I'd genuinely like to know what you think...Some people have expressed their opinions that nVidia is guilty of a sort of "bait 'n switch" tactic which it accomplished by sending out a few proptotype Ultras and allowing reviews to be made with them while premeditatedly planning to pull the Ultra the whole time. At first I disagreed with that opinion, and I guess I still do (since reviewers were also given non-Ultras to review at the same time), but after considering it I'm just not as sure that the Ultra's cancellation was unplanned at the time you guys got the reference cards. What's your gut feeling about that? (If you don't want to say--no problem.)
 
It seems like Anand may have had a good idea this was coming, it seemed a little odd at the time that he'd include Gf FX scores at 400/800, but now it makes a little more sense.
 
duncan36 said:
It seems like Anand may have had a good idea this was coming, it seemed a little odd at the time that he'd include Gf FX scores at 400/800, but now it makes a little more sense.

It's not odd.

Some sites did the same with 9700 Pro and 9700.
 
martrox said:
Mulciber said:
Jebus jumped up man! I cannot believe you're spreading this to another thread. What makes you think that DDRI at 400mhz is going to be dissipating less heat and be less susceptible to signal noise than DDRII at the same frequency?
You keep spouting this crap off in every thread....wheres the proof? :?:

Listen, you are the one that doesn't listen. I've now posted in 2 different threads on this. To me, it's YOU that doesn't listen. I've given you far more proof than you have given in disproving what I have said, so quit busting my cahonies. And stop getting personal, I haven't jumped on you, even though you have followed me to every thread I've posted in.
Again, PLEASE read:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewt...p;postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewt...p;postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

lol, absolutely none of that was proof. just because you can site your speculation, doesn't make it any more than speculation.

1. you cannot confirm that 400mhz DDRI dissipates less heat than 400mhz DDRII.

2. you cannot show me a "spec sheet" or anything of the sort that shows the latency of samsungs GDDRII OR the latencies of DDRI at 400mhz (as it doesn't even exist on a product yet).

3. you cannot tell me one reason why slightly higher latency would have any sort of negative impact on the GeForceFX. It DOES NOT access memory in the same patterns as a CPU and the comparission cannot be made.

4. I'm not making this "personal" and never said you "jumped on" me, you said that. I'm simply asking you to prove something, anything, before constantly spouting off in every thread. (oh and the fact that I actually read these threads and you also post in them doesn't mean I'm "following" you. Get over yourself :rolleyes: )
 
Discussing with you is fruitless..... you refuse to even consider anything that doesn't agree with you.
 
It's not odd.

Some sites did the same with 9700 Pro and 9700.

Anand didn't downclock the 9700pro to 9700 levels in his review of the card. Therefore him downclocking the GF FX to 400/800 levels is relevant, and does suggest he had some knowledge that this move might be coming.
My original point stands.
 
demalion said:
I said:
Perhaps yields in the 500 MHz bin were too low, or there are cost problems for 500 MHz DDR-II, but if that's the case, better to quietly scale back volume of the Ultra part rather than cancel it altogether. After all, "Ultra" parts are allowed to be rare.
Hmm...I see what has happened as a "'terminal' volume scale back", not a "cancel it altogether". The Ultra parts will be rare, not non-existant.
Except that this is a decision that can and will be reported as hard news, and very embarrassing news. No Ultras at retail; all further Ultra production cancelled. Whereas if it was just a matter of Ultras being very rare in retail, probably very few people would notice and those that did wouldn't make a big deal of it. I mean, 9500 Pros are said to be very rare in retail, but no one doubts that's a real part or "shouldn't count" when discussing ATI's lineup.

My only guess is that perhaps Nvidia wanted to keep this quiet and thought they could get away with it...?

demalion said:
I said:
Perhaps concerns they'd need to swallow too many returned units from irate retail customers??? Perhaps indicated by some recent consumer testing with the new and slightly improved fan version...?
I'm not so sure it would be nVidia being concerned with that, but more like nVidia being concerned about OEMs being concerned or dealing with such. Not being the only big kid on the block means you get away with a lot less.
It'd be interesting to know exactly what happens when a correctly functioning card is returned at retail. Presumably the store sends it back to the card OEM and the OEM swallows almost all of the cost. But do they then test the card and, if it passes, put it in a new box and sell it again? Or at least try to sell it as a refurb? If not, I bet there's some provision in their contracts for Nvidia to share part of the cost of returns.

WaltC said:
Seriously, though...now that the news is out that the product has been cancelled, who'd want to buy the noisy, hot thing...? I mean, if nVidia has such little confidence in it that they are withdrawing it from the market before it ships, why should a consumer pre-order it?

Because it will be a collector's item? ;) Seriously, though, I think this is more to do with meeting their existing obligations to people who've already made pre-orders rather than selling more at this point.

WaltC said:
I think ATI would be wise to press ahead while it has the advantage. The more distance it can put between its products and nVidia's, the better. The worst thing a company can do, as has been proven by more than one company, is to withhold its viable technology from the market when it is able to ship it.

I'm not suggesting ATI will delay R350 shipping by a single day. Only that they will delay the R350 product reviews until closer to shipping than they might have otherwise. No reason to encourage anyone to wait for R350 when they would only be buying a 9700 Pro otherwise.

WaltC said:
At any rate, the thermal and electrical problems inherent in the design undoubtedly complicated manufacturing of the product and added to the expense, and I think in the end someone at nVidia just simply "woke up" and realized this was a choice of cutting your losses now, or continuing on ahead and risking millions of dollars more in losses.

I just don't buy the "someone suddenly woke up" theory. Nvidia has had months to think about the ramifications of the FXFlow; there must have been some catalyst to make them change their minds. I can think of the following:
  • The benchmark theory: Nvidia never planned on really selling the Ultra, but only "released it" (to the extent they did) to be able to claim the performance crown vs. 9700 Pro
  • Poor yields on the 500 MHz speed bin
  • Poor yields or higher than expected cost on 500 MHz DDR-II
  • Weren't able to reduce FXFlow noise as much as they thought they could
  • Consumer testing revealed retail customers wouldn't accept FXFlow
 
I think the consumer response played a large role in determining the fate of the Ultra. Let's face it, there are very few people that would have accepted that ridiculous amount of noise in their system. Maybe...just maybe...if it proved to double the performance of the 9700...or something else extreme. But when it yielded such little advantage, I strongly believe that nVidia just came to the conclusion that there was very little to gain in continuing on with the Dustbuster approach.

Of course, there could have been a variety of other problems as well...But I do think what the consumer had to say played a large role.
 
Low yields?

It's more likely that it's simply impossible for that chip architecture on that specific process to attain 500MHz without extravagant cooling.
 
Typedef Enum said:
Maybe you trying to be nice to NVIDIA and get that fansite card once again

Actually, you could take the Kyle approach...

Cry about not getting one online, until you get a response. Of course, in playing this out to the end, you would also then have to show unfair bias against the Company for not hooking you up.

:)

Actually I am quite glad that you brought this up as we were at NVIDIA's offices in Cali last week and we discussed exactly this instance you are mentioning.

While yourself, will say anything you can publicly to discredit me and the site I own and operate, hit the nail on the head and the card manufacturers out there know this now.

The [H] Litmus test: If a comapny has a retail 3D card and they will not send us one for review, it's gonna "suck" for the masses. Bottom line, if we are not reviewing it, then you will not want it in your box for gaming.
 
Diespinnerz said:
Type, It has to do with site traffic not whining...

Nvnews doesnt even have 5 percent of the traffic hardocp does.

You are wrong and you are right here. If NVNews was still a "fan site", they would have very likely gotten a card by now. I am sure that posting fanciful Matrox reviews and stellar 9700 reviews takes them right out of that fansite genre'.

As for traffic, you are correct, it is all about who can give it the most exposure to the community.
 
Tahir said:
Diespinnerz said:
Type, It has to do with site traffic not whining...

Nvnews doesnt even have 5 percent of the traffic hardocp does.

Ouch I bet that hurts.... hexus.net in the UK got one and me sure that NVNEWS gets more traffic than them.

Hexus did not get their directly from NVIDIA, I think theirs came from a distriubutor. I might be wrong on this though. In any event, different PR groups handle Europe and America.
 
WaltC said:
FrgMstr said:
LeStoffer said:
FrgMstr said:
Going to be hard to get confirmation from NVIDIA PR when they are do not know it themselves.

Huh? Are you saying that it is the OEM's that is going to dump the ultra? Or are you saying that nVidia PR wont come forward about this until later (on Monday)?

We got our information on this through some VERY ODD channels, but still reliable. I do not think NV PR was aware of this issue when we posted it.

Kyle, I commend you on posting it. No doubt you absolutely believe it to be accurate as I'm sure you'd have never posted otherwise. As others have pointed out, PNY has dropped the Ultra from its product description pages and the only thing there now is info on the 5800, with reduced specifications. I know that the Ultra was the only one featured on the site at first, with its appropriate specs, so this definitely serves to underscore the validity of your report.

I'd like to know your opinion on something--and this is not in any way a "trick" question or anything like that--I'd genuinely like to know what you think...Some people have expressed their opinions that nVidia is guilty of a sort of "bait 'n switch" tactic which it accomplished by sending out a few proptotype Ultras and allowing reviews to be made with them while premeditatedly planning to pull the Ultra the whole time. At first I disagreed with that opinion, and I guess I still do (since reviewers were also given non-Ultras to review at the same time), but after considering it I'm just not as sure that the Ultra's cancellation was unplanned at the time you guys got the reference cards. What's your gut feeling about that? (If you don't want to say--no problem.)

At this point, if I end up being "wrong" on this, it will be because NV changed direction on this issue and I have not found out yet. Always a possibility, but highly unlikely in this situation IMO.


Gut feeling on bait and switch? I think this theory is WAY OFF and have heard enough from behind the scenes to know that my opinion on this is very close to solid fact...although I have no proof on that.
 
Back
Top