Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

[whql]

Halo is approaching $200 million in gross revenue as is SSBM. SMS and SAB2 are approaching the $150Million mark. Zelda and PGR are both in the $100Million range.

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

It isn't just the PS2 market that is huge(although it is the biggest currently).

No current console is in the vaguest position to avail that, and by the time the next gen comes around Vinces point may well be pointless.

As far as the breakdown of the individual board vendors goes, what are BFG's numbers looking like? Their sub $100 GF4Ti boards had to have a decent impact on the nV market. B&Ms having boards for ~30% less then NewEgg etc.

Why a bit player like BFG? What about the volume players such as MSI and ASUS?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030414100251.html

We also noted on Saturday that MSI’s sales of graphics cards were unbelievably weak in March, while ASUS’ sales of graphics cards also stayed on not so high level."

 

[demalion]

Vince is doing quite well on the console market and how it works so I'll let him carry on with that end of the discussion.

What, by restating what you did and pretending I haven't addressed it before?

On to the other factors you adressed from my last post, marketshare and HL's performance.

I can see only two possible reasons for your incomprehension of the marketshare numbers.

My incomprehension, you say?

Either you are changing things around and switching from the ATi v nV discussion we were having or you don't grasp statistics.

Or you're mistaken in something. Let's examine that, shall we?

If you are changing things around and want to discuss the broader market then you can argue with yourself. For the statistics breakdown-

According to the link you provided shipments were roughly 53Million in the quarter they were using, so we will use that as a baseline.

ATi= 10,070,000

nVidia= 16,960,000

That was for Q4 last year and represented a 18% increase for ATi and a 13% increase for nVidia. That would have the compared quarter @-

ATi= 8,539,360

nVidia= 15,009,600

ATi would be up ~1,530,640

nV would be up ~1,950,940

OK, here is why I quoted the definition of market share to you. If Company A had 20% of the market in one quarter, and 20% in the next, their market share did not decrease.

If Company N had 35% in one quarter, and 30% in the next, their market share did decrease.

If unit shipments for the entire market went up, and for Company A their shipments went up 20%, and for Company N shipments went up 10%, guess what, it doesn't change which one of those companies had their marketshare decrease (Psst...it isn't Company A).

Once we get past this, we can maybe discuss what it means when we have other numbers indicating rapid market penetration (not just in shipped units, but in market presence) of a new product for one of those companies when relative to the established market presence of parts of another company that have been out for much longer, and how the market segment reflected by those numbers can then have a significantly different picture of market share than those for overall market share. Let me know when you are ready for that, so I can refer you back a few pages in the thread....though I suspect it might be a while until you finally read some of what I've provided for you.

Taking a look at the Q4 numbers we have ATi up by 2.888% with nVidia up by 3.681% when looking at the entire market in terms of sales, absolute numbers. nVidia increased their sales by over 400K more then ATi. Just for reference-

That's not market share, that's unit shipments, your percentages are completely mixing up the two. Here, Jon Peddie seems to have similar ideas as myself as to the difference.
Fun quote from this report: "Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market".
Maybe you could look up what it says of the other company under discussion?

16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

Quoting your bad math doesn't change that your applying the unit shipment growth to market share percentage, though I do think it makes you look a bit silly. Perhaps you could read my prior post (for the first time?)

I was off by 0.028% for ATi and 0.011% for nVidia. All of the information needed to calculate that nV grew faster in absolute terms has been posted twice by you and once from myself.

You're pretty thick headed, Ben.

Despite not knowing what the actual shipments were all the figures were there to figure it out for yourself. Either you have changed your discussion over to something removed from what we had been discussing or I am correct.

What the analysts comments state are irrelevant in this discussion

By this I presume you mean you didn't read the actual Jon Peddie report but are sticking to the Inquirer's mangling because it allows you to hang on to your beliefs?

as we have three sets of identical numbers and they all equate out to the above. nVidia grew faster in marketshare terms looking at absolute numbers.

Polishing your routine?

For Half-Life performance, the framerate drops from its constant 99FPS rate once in a while, but it seems to be quite brief. I can't give you xxFPS average as there is no benchmark utility that runs on the current build that I am aware of. The performance should be no surprise, HL runs on Pentium166 systems without a 3D board. Running a 2.1GHZ AXP with a Ti4200 it shouldn't be shocking in the least that it doesn't slow down much no matter what you do.

99 fps with 4xS and 8x trilinear Aniso? Bleh, I said all I wanted was for you to confirm all of these things simultaneously so we could progress in our discussion of comparing indisputable image quality (and for the 9700 Pro versus the GF 4 MX, too )

 

[Vince]

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

This is untrue. While I'm sure Ben will be sure to remember me saying this for our future discussions (heh) - XBox is doing pretty damn well for all thats stacked against it. Of course Sony's kicking it's ass in, but they've [MS] made a foothold and Halo's sales are upthere with Metal Gear Solid2: Sons of Liberty. This has me awed indeed as MGS2 was the game, it was untouchable pre-GTA. Which is indicative of something, believe me.

And the whole Console market is blowing up, face the facts bud. Outside of The Sims and Solitare - the PC scene is stagnating and starving on the vine. Retailors are cutting back space devoted to PC sales and devoting it elsewhere or to Consoles.

This isn't to say that PC gaming will die, as Marco was correct. But the days of PC gaming being a trend-setter and/or leader in electronic gaming has reached and end and it's going down from here.

 

[whql]

This is untrue.

What, that potential sales for any PS2 title is likely to far greater than any title for the XBox? You’re admitting that yourself.

Halo's sales are upthere with Metal Gear Solid2: Sons of Liberty.

Does sales include bundling? I can’t remember when XBox’s didn’t come with Halo stuck to the front of it.

And the whole Console market is blowing up, face the facts bud.

Again, shrug, didn’t I say this wasn’t the case. But the market for PC titles is still there, it just depends on the type of title, and you’ve pointed out one of the best sellers.

 

[Vince]

Well, since 3/4ths you post was attacking linguistics - I'll assume a victory, but it's ashame you must turn this debate into such a state by not providing any factual or empiracal evidence. It's truely ashame, well atleast you know what Economies of Scale is now.

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities.

What?!? You've got to be kidding... are you out of things that I haven't shot down or what?

For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002

I covered 3D Marks, this is insane - you think 3D Marks is indicative of the PS gaming community at large?

Let me tell you something, Half-Life and Counter-Strike hasn't been made popular by people like you who'll jerk off over the latest 3D accelerator from ATI. It's popular with the masses, the masses who don't know what 3D chip their using, don't know what IHV's made it, what DirectX is, nor do they care.

It's to these people that the Valve survey has shed light on. Irregardless of if the Survey date was 1996, 1999, 2000, or 2003 - the proportionality will remain near static because the majority of users aren't buying add in cards, nor are they bouncing between IHV's based on what Dave Baumann's latest review has shed light on (No offense Dave, you know I love ya). They play using their PC and they play because they enjoy it. Thbe sooner you can differentiate between the constant 30,000 people playing CS or the millions who play HL and the select few whose playing UT2003 or Quake3 the sooner you'll see this.

your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales).

Ok, yo want to play this game. It's also without the sales of any NV30 cards. Thus, how can you state that because the R300 was on sale for only "1 month" it's sales wouldn't peak with enthusiest purchases upfront?

Or that the GeForceFX won't have a counter-balancing effect when it's released and will negate any advantage the R300 would have caused? I've read the How to lie with Statistsics Book too.


Thus, lets take the [Q3] numbers for what they are - nVidia widened the gap between them and ATI dispite the existence of preformance parity/superiority with the established Radeon8500 brand, aswell as the undisputed reign with enthusiensts with their R300 core.

I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.

What? They stated the same you already are, that the R300 was only on sale for a month. And I agree and accept that, but if what your saying is correct, ideology speaking, that a higher preformaning solution allways outsells the competition especially when price/preformance is included...

They why the heck is nVidia kicking ATI's ass in the DX8 generation?

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all.

I think to anyone reading this, it's clear whose correct in their views. As one such person has already stated.

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply).

This isn't it at all - this is a side issue, please attempt to not create additional BS by stating things like this.

Demalion, answer this: Can a PS2 console owner, if so inclined, designs a game and/or everything one could do on a PC?

Sample of this Proposition:

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

Digging past initial "layer" of this Proposition:

Are you going to fight substance anytime soon? Or just my outlash at my inability to tolerate your utter stupidity at times? Because if so, then this argument is over... If I want abuse I can go talk to Lauren.

This looks like you blaming me for not stating I was discussing XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you interjected about PS2 Linux as a solution for content development. (If you insist in disputing things, there is some more excellent, in context, quoting opportunity).

This is off topic, but to clear it up - Did you or did you not state this:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

I'm expecting a one word answer... think you can hack it?

Hmm...let us see if some bolding and commentary in italics can help help you in parsing the actuality of what was said, even when restricting this quote to immediately before and after what you quoted for your response so as to not have too high of an expectation of your ability to read and think about what other people say.

Ok, to jump right into youur semantics debate: I have read it yeat again and have come to the same conclusion.

Your statement, even if the lineage of the comment is vested only in relation to Valve's console prospectives (Thus implying Valve, MS, and nVidia only), your intention with the following comment:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity

Was to show that Ben's preceeding comment:

Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Thus, your intention was to show the inability of (Your words) users to make "content with console exclusivity". Thereby rendering Ben's statement wrong based on the inability of his line of reasoning to exist. The Economies of Scale can't exist if the ability to decrease inherient per unit cost doesn't exist.

Unfortunatly for you, this potential exists already as I stated in a fea areas, for example here:

Actually, this just shows how out of touch you are with the Console industry. Ben's statement is not only correct, it's prophetic (although it's obvious do to it's linear extrapolation of today)

XBox Next is the de facto online service at this time and is the template for the Next Generation which is being built around Broadband and the distrobution of digital medium via this method. Sony is definatly gearing up for this type of synergy big-time; although at this time MS has the lead.

Look no further than the 10 or so games for XBox Live! which have additional downloadable content thats distributed thew the MS controlled fabric and stored on the HD. Ubisoft's widely acclaimed SplinterCell has additional levels that are released to Xbox players just like Valve's done on the PC arena.

And here in responce to your wrongfull comment number 2:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

http://playstation2-linux.com/

:Shock at how little this guy knows:

There are also several games that I know of for PS2 that have editors built in as well - the recently released broadband capable MidnightClubII comes to mind.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120


This is also insignificant because you stated this:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100

Did you state this or not? You asked what "console users" could create content, I answered..

Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?

Just did... also, I have yet to play "hide and seek." You've asked me to retrack and answer questions from like page2 which I have and yet nothing from you on that or a plathora of other issues....

Then again, I feel that you'd rather debate semantics like above. It's too bad that you're still incorrect. I'd recommend you walk (or click) away.

 

[Vince]

Demalion,

What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

How to lie with Statistsics baby, yeah! Should get a Pulitzer...

 

[David G.]

Edit: Now that I think about, there is no way the PC gaming industry is headed down that path. For that to happen, one very large player would be left sitting on the bench, and we know MS doesn't play on the bench. Why else would MS spend resources developing DX?

They don't control OpenGL.

Hopefully there will be a significant user backlash to encourage developers not to go down this route.

Doom III is OpenGL . Also there will be a lot of games that will use this engine .

nVIDIA can't rely on the fact that they can pay off some game developers to make "nVIDIA only games" .

BTW ... who's engine will be used for HL2 ?

As I remember they used the Q2 engine for Half-Life .

 

[duncan36]

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

And the line that is responsible for this the gf4ti line is almost dead, the line thats replacing the FX line is in every way inferior to ATi's Dx9 parts including costs.
See thats the thing about GPU's every product generation is like a total reboot, all that momentum you build up with huge volume is gone. Nvidia would like to hang onto the GF4Ti line forever, but they cant.

 

[demalion]

Demalion,

What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?

Vince, we were discussing market presence, I in Dec 2002 as indicated in 3dmark 2001 results, in rebuttal to yours from 2000 Valve survey results. You then (tried) to use market share figures! to support your viewpoint, and now that that is refuted, you're claiming such figures are "useless" so you can simply propose your own statement about the very same "intangible mathematical property" in its place! (That would be the bold statement in your text below).

There really is no limit, is there?

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

Ignoring everything having to do with having disputed your "units that people will play their games on" that I've proposed, for the moment (that's for another pile):

That's the very difference between unit shipments and (quarterly, not "months to month" is what we're discussing, BTW) market share figures. It is the bold statement that you just made that equates to the quarterly marketshare we were just discussing, and you dismiss as useless when it isn't coming from you. What your statement in the beginning boils down to is ignoring the actual market share figures so you can say what you want to believe instead.

How to lie with Statistsics baby, yeah! Should get a Pulitzer...

Hey, are you angling to be the potty mouth component of Ben's comedy act? He seems to have a gig lined up for some sort of financial convention.

Off to that first pile now, I smell a worsening aroma from that direction...

 

[flf]

And the line that is responsible for this the gf4ti line is almost dead, the line thats replacing the FX line is in every way inferior to ATi's Dx9 parts including costs.
See thats the thing about GPU's every product generation is like a total reboot, all that momentum you build up with huge volume is gone. Nvidia would like to hang onto the GF4Ti line forever, but they cant.

That simply isn't the way reality works out. The fact is that major OEMs work out deals with their hardware partners. How many machines were shipped with TNT M64 boards when GF2s were available?

Additionally, you discount brand loyalty. You may have none, but the general consumer (not the kiddies that post their bench scores, but their parents that actually buy hardware) often cares less for prime performance than they do about cost and comfort. Brand recognition and marketing are often more dominant than true technical prowess, regardless of who you think the leader is.

Betamax, anyone?

 

[Tahir2]

BTW ... who's engine will be used for HL2 ?

Inhouse engine IIRC.. source was from www.shacknews.com

 

[BenSkywalker]

So you are changing the discussion around and now want to argue the broader market instead of ATi v nVidia. You can argue with yourself on that one. I'll give you some fuel for your argument with yourself-

Jon Peddie Research estimates that approximately 53 million PC graphics devices shipped from nine suppliers in Q4'02, a 13% increase over the previous quarter.

As compared to Q3'02, Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market.

However, only five of nine suppliers drove growth in Q4'02: ATI, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, and VIA.

You want to debate the broader market go ahead, do it with yourself. Isolate ATi and nVidia and nVidia increased their marketshare which is what we have been discussing up until your end was dismantled.

WHQL-

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

The 'potential' PC market has never been realized. The best selling PC title ever hasn't managed to reach close to 1/50th of the global installed base. Also, Halo's sales would rank it in the top five PC titles of all time, and that is on the 'weak' platform. As far as weak is concerned, compare the best selling PS2 FPS against Halo or even MetroidPrime for that matter. The PS2 has such large mass market success for the same reasons The Sims was such a hit on the PC, casual gamers. FPSs are actually quite comparable across the different platforms in terms of sales.

No current console is in the vaguest position to avail that, and by the time the next gen comes around Vinces point may well be pointless.

Depends on how you look at it. By the end of this generation it is plausible that one of the other consoles will have the same installed base that Sony has now, or close to it. Even if they don't, both SM64 and Goldeneye hit $500Million in revenue on the N64 which was slaughtered in marketshare by the PSX.

Why a bit player like BFG? What about the volume players such as MSI and ASUS?

I brought it up as they are trying to extrapolate out what the entire market looked like based on what a couple of board vendors sold. They are not only going up against boards with different chips, they are also competing with each other. What were ATi's sales vs their third party suppliers? Without knowing this you can't tell exactly how the market is shaping up.

 

[demalion]

In technicolor

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all.

I think to anyone reading this, it's clear whose correct in their views. As one such person has already stated.

You mean Ben?

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply)

This isn't it at all - this is a side issue, please attempt to not create additional BS by stating things like this.

You then proceeded to addresswhat I was quoting, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was simply a quote of the very same post to which you replied to re-introduce yourself into this thread. The entire reason for posting it was to discuss the issue of you failing to read it, and you proceed to treat it exactly like that was the case. Does this mean we're done with this pile?

Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?

Just did... also, I have yet to play "hide and seek."

:

This is off topic, but to clear it up - Did you or did you not state this:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

I'm expecting a one word answer... think you can hack it?

No<-(one word answer).
Of course you're a pregnant woman! Did you or did you not state "I'm expecting"? One word answer.
Of course you should be ashamed of yourself! Did your did you not stop beating your wife? One word answer.
Some people outgrow that.

No hide and seek here!

What I stated was:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You know, the very same block of text I accused you of splitting up to facilitate playing hide and seek already.

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply)

You've asked me to retrack and answer questions from like page2 which I have and yet nothing from you on that or a plathora of other issues....

Do you grasp the concept of "I'm going to do this now, and we'll repeat those other things later", or did you not get beyond a problem with that as you aged beyond 3 years old (perhaps the forum should be renamed to be clear on expected behavior... )? Oh, that's right, I "haven't addressed your console argument already" (as I look back at several pages of replies).

Then again, I feel that you'd rather debate semantics like above. It's too bad that you're still incorrect. I'd recommend you walk (or click) away.

The post was quoting what was actually stated, Vince. Notably absent is your making a case against the assertions. What is present is a clear answer to the question "Can you manage not to ignore this request [to quote all my discussion] or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?".
Maybe I should have asked for a one word answer.

 

[demalion]

First Layer

Well, since 3/4ths you post was attacking linguistics - I'll assume a victory,

Any way you can, right? Read a bit more carefully.

but it's ashame you must turn this debate into such a state by not providing any factual or empiracal evidence.

What are you talking about? This post was only about your point, did you read it at all? I quote both myself and you, as that is the range of the empirical evidence required to deal with your assertion. Let me guess, you spent a post ignoring what I said, and restating your opinions not even realizing what I was actually talking to you about?!?

It's truely ashame, well atleast you know what Economies of Scale is now.

Vince, I'm perfectly willing to go through each and every one of your assertions (again). If you er...actually read the post to which you are replying, you'll see that I am not attempting to rehash all aspects of our discussion (again), which is why my preface (that you are disputing in an attempt to discuss everything but the one and only point of which the post was a focus), made the simple assertion that Dec 2002 is after Q3 2002, that you said otherwise, and were wrong to do so, and you can't even agree to stick to the validity of that! . I'm simply handling one of your assertions at a time (as I said in the post, you should read it some time ) to limit the amount of BS you can throw on to the discussion (doesn't limit you if you hold a completely different discussion, though, does it?). I have to admit it does look like I ended up over-estimating your ability to read what was stated. Perhaps you could try again and actually address the post?

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities.

What?!? You've got to be kidding... are you out of things that I haven't shot down or what?

I know you think you've shot them down, and I'll correct you one point at a time on that, however the post you are replying to was only about the one item...that I specifically mentioned, quoted, and highlighted for you. Not good enough?

For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002

I covered 3D Marks, this is insane - you think 3D Marks is indicative of the PS gaming community at large?

I pointed out that you stated a falsity about your figures being more current than anything I proposed. Instead of addressing the falsity you made, you say you "covered 3dmark" and go on a diatribe to bury the very simple question (EDIT: I covered the diatribe in the previous post).
That's what I call BS. It's an assertion without meaning ("covered 3dmark" to you means you insulted my usage of it and were absolutely right in saying it wasn't applicable because it was you that said it wasn't applicable).

Here I excise your multi-paragraph diatrabe accusing me of masturbating to ATI cards, and re-asserting your belief system as valid without any substantion whatsoever, let alone substantion linking the statements to any of our discussion, which I do admit goes hand in hand with stating that quarterly marketshare is a useless as an indication as you went on to do in your next post.

your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales).

Ok, yo want to play this game. It's also without the sales of any NV30 cards.

Which is why I'm not making claims that Q3 2002 figures indicate nv30's impact on ATI's market share, as you are doing for the 9700 and nVidia's market share.

Thus, how can you state that because the R300 was on sale for only "1 month" it's sales wouldn't peak with enthusiest purchases upfront?

So, of course, they shipped all cards instantly to be represented in your figures for that quarter, and selling for less than half the time compared to the Ti 4x00 parts, and at the price of the Ti 4600 parts, the figures you provided were quite representative of the 9700's impact in the two full quarters since then.

Or that the GeForceFX won't have a counter-balancing effect when it's released and will negate any advantage the R300 would have caused?
I've read the How to lie with Statistsics Book too.

You've proved that you have pretty thoroughly. Your assertion that I did, however, was part of a rather amazing post all in all.
"What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?". Now that's a sig candidate! Unfortunately for the level of mirth in the forum, using it would be against my own personal policy right now.

Thus, lets take the [Q3] numbers for what they are - nVidia widened the gap between them and ATI dispite the existence of preformance parity/superiority with the established Radeon8500 brand, aswell as the undisputed reign with enthusiensts with their R300 core.

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth? That really does explain a comment like... "What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?". Ok, Ok, enough of that for a while.

I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.

What? They stated the same you already are, that the R300 was only on sale for a month. And I agree and accept that, but if what your saying is correct, ideology speaking, that a higher preformaning solution allways outsells the competition especially when price/preformance is included...

The nv30 outperforms the 9700 and 9800, and costs less!!!! Thanks for the info.

Did you forget that ATi released their 6 month refresh part along with the nv30's release?

They why the heck is nVidia kicking ATI's ass in the DX8 generation?

When we get to this pile, remind me to ask you for the figures you are basing this on.

 

[Althornin]

bwahahahahah!
Demalion, its an excercise in futility.

As much fun as this discussion is, its a waste of time and space. Vince and Ben have never listened to facts, reasoning, or logic before.

 

[demalion]

So you are changing the discussion around and now want to argue the broader market instead of ATi v nVidia.

That doesn't make sense to me (yes, even reading it with what follows).

You can argue with yourself on that one. I'll give you some fuel for your argument with yourself-

This tries to indicate that a point will follow, I think.

Jon Peddie Research estimates that approximately 53 million PC graphics devices shipped from nine suppliers in Q4'02, a 13% increase over the previous quarter.

As compared to Q3'02, Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market.

However, only five of nine suppliers drove growth in Q4'02: ATI, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, and VIA.

You want to debate the broader market go ahead, do it with yourself. Isolate ATi and nVidia and nVidia increased their marketshare which is what we have been discussing up until your end was dismantled.

But I don't see one. The problem I see with your statements is in bold above.

Let me tell you my thoughts, and you get back to me on the mistake I'm making? Maybe I'm being a bit sloppy with my thoughts, and you can clarify what is wrong with it.

If Company A maintains its standing in overall market share, and Company N reduces its standing in overall marketshare, the relationship when viewing the "market", when just in terms of the two companies as you propose, is that Company A gained marketshare.

A1=A2= .2
N1= .35
N2= .3

A2/(A2+N2) > A1/(A1+N1)

.2, .35, and .3 are marketshare. market share * unit shipments is a count of the units comprising the market share for the volume of unit shipments in question....the unit shipments for that period associated with that company.
The market share for a company can decrease at the same time that the unit shipments for it increases...it just requires that the unit shipments for the rest of what is being considered increase by a more significant factor.
The above equation is applicable because of a mathematical property of the following statement:

(A2*UQ4)/((A2+N2)*UQ4) > (A1*UQ3)/((A1+N1)*UQ3)

You're using unit shipments in Q4 (UQ4) to make statements in comparison to Q3, without properly applying "UQ3".
Something wrong with my formulas? Something wrong with yours? Both are possible at any given moment. Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

 

[Blotta]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post.

Just some thoughts, nothing more. Feel free to disagree.

Keep in mind I didn't read alot of the long posts. Got a little bleary-eyed after the first few.

Regarding availability of 9500 pro mentioned earlier.
Here in Toronto I visited 7 stores (all withing 3 block radius), 6 of them had 9500 pro. Most had oem and retail versions. Bought one. I know different places have different availabilities. Just saying here there are plenty.

As for GFFX there were none. Want to eventually get 5200 for crap computer. Maybe Nvidia delivery man was afraid he was gonna get SARS.

I will be surprised if hl2 comes out before NV75. Maybe they can bundle it with tf2. As for relevance of hl2-Nvidia deal, I don't see much:

1-probably just a bundle deal where they ship hl2 with Nvidia product and throw in some crap bonus exclusives. (Kinda like EA deal)

2-Doom will overshadow hl2 completely. People are buying and will buy newer cards for doom not hl2. If Nvidia had a deal with id, that would be big news. (I'll need to get an NV35-40 or R350-400 bout then)

3- anyone who would alienate a segment of their market, even if only 30% is dumb. Who can predict who is gonna be market leader when Valve comes out with their next product anyway.

4- If hl2 is any good they can probably get more if they hedge ps2 against xbox for licensing of game.

5- correct me if i am wrong (I probably am) but this is basically a Microsoft issue and not an Nvidia issue anyway. Nvidia makes xbox chips, MS handles licensing and other noble tasks. Not sure what agreement Nvidia and Valve can make for consoles without MS calling the shots. No one really knows who is making chip for next x-box. Could be ATi.

6-Nvidia has a lot of cash. If Valve is hard up for dough I can see them becoming Nvidia's biatch.

That being said, any exclusive deal that would allow a major game to opperate on only one VC would be silly but not surprising. I'm sure ATI would love such a scenerio just as much as Nvidia. Truth is, as someone noted earlier (not sure who) these companies answer to their shareholders and bankers. I'm near the bottom of their list of priorities.
If either company felt they could increase profits by following this strategy they would do it in a minute. If they had to discount and alienate 10, 30 or 50% of computer users they would. I wouldn't be surprised to see either VC company turn to buying out companies such as Valve and making games exclusively for their product. It would seem to be a natural business extension. You provide the means, why not provide exclusive content. (Kinda like Rogers Cable - bought Sports channel22 - then bought the blue jays)

The only loser would be us, the consumer. We'd either have to pick our favourite games/VC combo and forsake others, depend on patches or emulators, or get 2 PCs, one with ATI another with NV.

But its all probably much ado about nothing.

Regards,

Julio

Go Leafs Go

 

[Rodéric]

As I remember they used the Q2 engine for Half-Life .

Well in fact they used a heavily modified Quake Engine. Even if the result looked more like Quake 2.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

Your formula takes into account all chips headed for Excel workstations in croporate machines that won't ever see a game. You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market. The reason why we have been segmenting nVidia and ATi is due to their nigh monopoly on gaming based PC gaming vid hardware(at least in the context which we are discussing it). This entire discussion has revolved around the comparable marketshare between ATi and nVidia, including the players without a viable presence in the gaming market invalidates the results for the purpose of this discussion.

When looking at the sales of next gen consoles, you don't factor in the PSX sales. For the first couple of years after the initial debut of the PS2 the PSX was selling well enough to throw the numbers off for all of the next gen consoles. Because of this, when attempting to analyze the next gen console market the PSX was eliminated from the equation and only sales of actual next gen consoles were utilized.

As I stated, if you are changing around the discussion I am not going to continue with this particular discussion. We started talking about this as it was in relation to nVidia having a significantly larger portion of the gaming market then ATi, and the numbers indicate that that is the case and the latest numbers we have seen indicate that the gap is growing.

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth?

Vince.....?

Vince has been a very vocal advocate of hybrid software based rasterization and has been rather convinced that Stanford's HLSL project is the future of graphics implementations. I could see how you could at least make an association on that point for me, but Vince is widely considered a CELL/GRID lap dog I've never been let down by his ability to cut up nV PR(or any PC based IHV) on any of their chips.

Edit-

Forgot to mention. The points I quoted stated that the PC graphics market saw a 13% sales increase and nVidia saw a 13% sales increase, and nVidia lost market share.

 

[Ollo]

Thought this might be interesting for the discussion at hand:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33679404[/img]

Date is May 16. Sounds familiar?