Is there a reason why some of you prefer ATI and some Nvidia
- Thread starter Redeemer
- Start date
- Status
I am just happy that there are two companies with differing products yet still provide excellent performance across the entire spectrum of price points.
I like ATI's Catalyst program (a lot). I think what they are doing is great.
I think that NVIDIA's drivers overall are less buggy in games. I remember trying to play Thief 3 for months on an ATI card, but got so tired of having the flickering shadow problems that I dropped the game totally and didn't get back into it (cause my main card was a Radeon X800 Pro). That wasn't the only game either (but to be honest I did see issues with NVIDIA's drivers on some apps, but not nearly as many).
I couldn't be happier with both though. ATI and NVIDIA are big companies looking to make a profit, and perception is a large part of that. So, while I don't condone some of the behavior of each companies' marketing departments (and accounting), I can understand it. Keeping shareholders happy is a big part of any publicly owned company, and most of their decisions about upcoming products and how they are marketed are directed towards shareholders, and not so much consumers. But part of perception is that even if a company can fool the consumers once with bad products, they likely won't be able to do it again because the educated users will be screaming from their roofs, "Dont buy CompanyX!" So, they continue to be forced to make quality products because if they don't, they are sunk within two generations of products.
Having an all out war between ATI and NV is a good thing for all of us, as we get to see some really good technology at affordable pricepoints (6600, 6600 GT, X800, X800 XL).
I like ATI's Catalyst program (a lot). I think what they are doing is great.
I think that NVIDIA's drivers overall are less buggy in games. I remember trying to play Thief 3 for months on an ATI card, but got so tired of having the flickering shadow problems that I dropped the game totally and didn't get back into it (cause my main card was a Radeon X800 Pro). That wasn't the only game either (but to be honest I did see issues with NVIDIA's drivers on some apps, but not nearly as many).
I couldn't be happier with both though. ATI and NVIDIA are big companies looking to make a profit, and perception is a large part of that. So, while I don't condone some of the behavior of each companies' marketing departments (and accounting), I can understand it. Keeping shareholders happy is a big part of any publicly owned company, and most of their decisions about upcoming products and how they are marketed are directed towards shareholders, and not so much consumers. But part of perception is that even if a company can fool the consumers once with bad products, they likely won't be able to do it again because the educated users will be screaming from their roofs, "Dont buy CompanyX!" So, they continue to be forced to make quality products because if they don't, they are sunk within two generations of products.
Having an all out war between ATI and NV is a good thing for all of us, as we get to see some really good technology at affordable pricepoints (6600, 6600 GT, X800, X800 XL).
ERK said:
Sure. There are lots of links, this just happens to be the first I could find:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/25/ati_illegally_misled_shareholders_lawsuit/
You can find a better link if you dig a bit. Basically, several of the execs did some PR of their own and was able to build the stock price up. They then sold their shares and were able to profit handsomely while the stock holders who held onto their shares saw their stock price drop after financials were released.
Wasn't the whole "cooking the books" thing before ATi totally changed their management around too? :|martrox said:
I don't follow the financial market and such, but I do know that nVidia has been doing very well the last few months....very well compared to their previous release.trinibwoy said:
They're most definately players again, which is actually a GOOD THING®.
I think that NVIDIA is well above board when it comes to their finances. In fact, their financial practices might be considered a bit too conservative. After the big investigation of NVIDIA and their finances some years back, they had to revise some quarters' estimates because they didn't report enough of a profit. Usually when the books are cooked they try to show more of a profit so shareholders stay happy.
Unless of course NVIDIA was in the process of laundering money, and this was uncovered and they had to say it was "profit"...
Unless of course NVIDIA was in the process of laundering money, and this was uncovered and they had to say it was "profit"...
digitalwanderer said:
Well, y'know, some of us do recall when ATI f'ed WinBench even more blatantly than NV "optimized" 3DM. Hell, Tom Pabst practically "made his name" off that episode, so ATI has even more to answer for!
Time heals all wounds. . . eventually.
Edit: For those who'd enjoy a trip in the wayback machine: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/19980214/index.html
Try not to laugh yourself into hysterics over NV's answers given "later events". . .
JoshMST said:
wrong, but typical considering the source.....
"This matter involves false financial reporting by Nvidia Corporation ("Nvidia" or the "Company"), a developer and marketer of graphics processors and media devices located in Santa Clara, California. In April 2002, Nvidia restated its financial results for the first quarter of its fiscal year ended January 31, 2001, (the quarter ended April 30, 2000), as well as other periods. The restatement revealed that Nvidia had overstated its financial results for the quarter, primarily due to one transaction with a supplier, which is described below. As a result of that transaction, Nvidia's originally reported gross profit was overstated by 6.4%, net income by 15.3%, and diluted earnings per share by 14.8%.
Nvidia issued the restatement in part because it had inflated its quarterly results by entering into an agreement with a supplier that allowed Nvidia to reduce its costs by more than $3 million during the April 30, 2000 quarter, in exchange for Nvidia's agreement to repay that amount through higher prices on other products in a future period. By recording the cost reduction, but not the corresponding agreement to pay higher prices in the future, Nvidia inflated its results for the quarter ended April 30, 2000 and allowed the Company to exceed the consensus analysts' estimates for earnings, income, and product gross margin. 1"
Wow, its amazing how much shit comes out of people when they know they will never meet you face to face. Courtesy certainly is in short supply online.
After being investigated the the SEC, NVIDIA is a lot more conservative with their accounting than they were before. Just as ATI is doing the same after all of their investigations.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix...irol-newsArticle&ID=447870&highlight=
I remember after the SEC delivered their results, and NVIDIA went back over the accounting, the previous quarter to this was revised upwards.
After being investigated the the SEC, NVIDIA is a lot more conservative with their accounting than they were before. Just as ATI is doing the same after all of their investigations.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix...irol-newsArticle&ID=447870&highlight=
I remember after the SEC delivered their results, and NVIDIA went back over the accounting, the previous quarter to this was revised upwards.
Jima13 said:
No, actually exactly right.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/04/29/nvidia/index.php
Translation for those with reading comprehension deficiencies: Once Nvidia went over their results over the FY2000-Q302, the NET result was an UPWARDs restatement in earnings for the period in the amount of $1.3 million. Considering that they restated their FY2001 downwards by $3.7 million, it means that they have underreported $5 Million dollars elsewhere.
Perhaps you should focus more on reading up on the events in question and less on "considering sources"
See? That's the reason I never get involved in financial debates, they're just too nasty for me!
Not that any of this matters, but anybody who actually has a real depth of knowledge on accounting would tell you that NVIDIA has always had immpecable and conservative finances. Sure they have missed forcasts on two or three occassions, but show me a company thats been around for a while that hasnt.
In defense of Josh, who may be prone to conjecture, NVIDIA did indeed revise up its profits after three years (if i recall correctly) of its financial statements were analyzed by forensic accountants in response to the SEC concerns. Basically the numbers were remarkably accurate, since reported profits are only estimates. There are all sorts of reserve accounts for thinks like warranty returns, rabates, bad paying customers, ect...
NVIDIA also won the Fabless Semiconductor Association award for best finacially managed company prior to this event, and that award is voted on by peers.
What exactly transpired with that supplier payment is unclear. A mistake was made - and what company, organization, or person does not makes mistakes? However, what is clear is that the amount in question was relatively low, and what occured was probably a practice that happens at just about every single publicly traded corporation.
In defense of Josh, who may be prone to conjecture, NVIDIA did indeed revise up its profits after three years (if i recall correctly) of its financial statements were analyzed by forensic accountants in response to the SEC concerns. Basically the numbers were remarkably accurate, since reported profits are only estimates. There are all sorts of reserve accounts for thinks like warranty returns, rabates, bad paying customers, ect...
NVIDIA also won the Fabless Semiconductor Association award for best finacially managed company prior to this event, and that award is voted on by peers.
What exactly transpired with that supplier payment is unclear. A mistake was made - and what company, organization, or person does not makes mistakes? However, what is clear is that the amount in question was relatively low, and what occured was probably a practice that happens at just about every single publicly traded corporation.
- Status
