FrgMstr
Newcomer
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.
THe_KELRaTH said:Kyle, have you tried to run the ATI DX9 demo's on the NV30 yet?
Maybe you trying to be nice to NVIDIA and get that fansite card once again
Diespinnerz said:Type, It has to do with site traffic not whining...
Nvnews doesnt even have 5 percent of the traffic hardocp does.
demonic said:also the review by hexus was horrible compared to [H]'s.
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.
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.
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=
It's not odd.
Some sites did the same with 9700 Pro and 9700.
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.demalion said: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.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.
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.demalion said: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.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...?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Diespinnerz said:Type, It has to do with site traffic not whining...
Nvnews doesnt even have 5 percent of the traffic hardocp does.
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.
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.)