But the GF4MX didn't bill itself as "dx9 for $79".RussSchultz said:
NV40 failure, Nvidia out of graphics?
- Thread starter ByteMe
- Start date
absurd to think NVIDIA's going to fold
It's absurd to think NVIDIA's going to fold with only failure in consumer graphics. The NV3x Quadro FX workstation GPUs simply rape the competition, nForce is the clear performance king for the AMD platform, and the purchase of MediaQ and deal with Transmeta gives NVIDIA a good shot at dominating handhelds in a few years.
NVIDIA is the world's largest fabless semiconductor firm, fastest firm in history to reach $1 Billion USD in annual revenues, and just last month was still the fourth fastest-growing technology company.
Saying NVIDIA will fold with a failure of NV40 is like saying Apple will forld with $6B cash in the bank. Not going to happen. NVIDIA will be around for a long time to come.
It's absurd to think NVIDIA's going to fold with only failure in consumer graphics. The NV3x Quadro FX workstation GPUs simply rape the competition, nForce is the clear performance king for the AMD platform, and the purchase of MediaQ and deal with Transmeta gives NVIDIA a good shot at dominating handhelds in a few years.
NVIDIA is the world's largest fabless semiconductor firm, fastest firm in history to reach $1 Billion USD in annual revenues, and just last month was still the fourth fastest-growing technology company.
Saying NVIDIA will fold with a failure of NV40 is like saying Apple will forld with $6B cash in the bank. Not going to happen. NVIDIA will be around for a long time to come.
thegrommit
Newcomer
You forget that ATI was in Nvidias and 3dfx's shadow for many years. Yet look where they are now.
I forget nothing. ATI used to be king in the mid 90's, the competitor everyone wanted to beat. Yet ATI survived as #2 from the graphics shakeout until the Radeon 9700.
Competition is not going to destroy NVIDIA. Ephemeral market dominance is not going to destroy NVIDIA. As long as NVIDIA turns out a competitive product in all their markets, they will be a player in all their markets.
For NVIDIA to be destroyed, the company has to maintain last year's corporate incompetence for a significant duration. Shareholders and the board simply will not permit such an ongoing failure without a management overhaul. Even founder/CEOs can be dethroned if they're demonstrably non-profitable.
ATI used to be king in the mid 90's, the competitor everyone wanted to beat. Yet ATI survived as #2 from the graphics shakeout until the Radeon 9700. Competition is not going to destroy NVIDIA. Ephemeral market dominance is not going to destroy NVIDIA. As long as NVIDIA turns out a competitive product in all their markets, they will be a player in all their markets.
For NVIDIA to be destroyed, the company has to maintain last year's corporate incompetence for a significant duration. Shareholders and the board simply will not permit such an ongoing failure without a management overhaul. Even founder/CEOs can be dethroned if they're demonstrably non-profitable.
nonamer said:
No offense taken. However, that turns out not to be the case. GeForce4 NV25/NV17 "came out" in February 2002, considerably more than 1 year ago.
Over one year ago, September 2002, was the release of GeForce4 Ti AGP8x (NV28). NV28 has never been a performance peer for the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, released August 2002. NVIDIA has been playing catch up since August 2002, more than one year.
In the last year, since October 2002, NVIDIA design incompetence and TSMC fabrication incompetence kept the NV30 from its well-announced and repetitively missed release dates. NVIDIA marketing incompetence kept NVIDIA from admitting to the delay, and instead pretend that nothing was wrong. Qualitative credibility and quantitative sales were lost due to NVIDIA design and marketing incompetence demonstrated in the year since October 2002.
I stand by my statement. For NVIDIA to be destroyed, the company has to maintain the last year's corporate incompetence for a significant duration.
Holy cow, off topic we go (not that I am complaining). I could care less what everyones' opinion is. I just would like to see some hard dollar facts on if the NV30 lost money and how much. I realize that the R&D money gets spread out over all the nv3x series. I read it was 400 million or so. And they shipped about 100,000 FX5800's. So the question is how much of the 400 million went into the nv30. I can't see the nv30 ever making money.
What would you consider a "signifigant duration"? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm really curious. I'm feeling that with a year+ of bad behaviour under their belt they've already got their work cut-out for themselves to re-establish their credibility.ricercar said:
Problem with that is the 400 mil that went into research for the NV30 is also paying a dividend on every NV3x board they make, the research applies to all of 'em so nVidia can spread out it's loss.ByteMe said:
It's damned hard to nail down R&D money with precision on a good day, with nVidia intentionally trying to muddy the issue it's pretty hopeless.
EDITED BITS: "for the" instead of "fort he"...
WTF? They share with you the cost in R&D for their new architecture and you're accusing them of intentionally muddying the waters because you can't calculate with ease how profitable a particular product line within that new architecture is?digitalwanderer said:It's damned hard to nail down R&D money with precision on a good day, with nVidia intentionally trying to muddy the issue it's pretty hopeless.
Never mind that we have almost 0 data on these topics from any other IHV with regard to their own architectures or products.
I was referring more to how nVidia is trying to keep exact sales figures of the NV30 under wraps.RussSchultz said:WTF? They share with you the cost in R&D for their new architecture and you're accusing them of intentionally muddying the waters because you can't calculate with ease how profitable a particular product line within that new architecture is?digitalwanderer said:It's damned hard to nail down R&D money with precision on a good day, with nVidia intentionally trying to muddy the issue it's pretty hopeless.
So, what are the exact sales figures of the 9500?
Where's the intentional obsfucation accusations there?
Where's the intentional obsfucation accusations there?
ricercar said:
I firmly agree with you. Although I'd see a few more factors to it.
Plus, I disagree on the Quadro being the clear professional leader: it badly lacks behind in shading performance against ATI, but that doesn't matter a lot for *most* of that market, and NV got the flexibility lead.
So you're right, but I think that small detail is rather important, because it shows just how fast nV could lose the market if they lose the flexibility lead, and the market orients itself more towards shaders.
---
In my eyes, NVIDIA got one BIG project int he GPU market: The NV50. It's the card they're betting a lot on, probably expecting it and its refreshes to last a good 24 months. It's a LOT of R&D going in it, and the design being planned upon a lot longer than all other nV designs.
The NV40 can't kill NVIDIA. Anyone pretending that simply doesn't have a clue about business. But should the NV40 not be a good success or a failure, and should the NV50 be a failure, their core market is, IMO, toast. Their reputation would have gone the way of the dodo by then, so only their secondary markets could bring them any profit.
So you've got nForce and Transmeta. In nthe next 5 years, the mobile GPU market as done by Transmeta will require more complex engineering, so if they lose their core GPU market, they'll evantually lose a big part of that one too. But that's not in a sufficently short term for it to matter much, IMO, so they do have an important win in that direction.
Looking at the nForce3 though, their engineers better realize their mistakes, because right now, I know I'm not too tempted by one. And if the Soundstorm rumors are true, they lost a key niche market too. Not that it matters much, but at this rate, their solutions might focus on value instead of quality. Not a bad business solution, it all depends on how well it is executed, of course.
---
So, for NVIDIA to go bye-bye, they'd have to:
1. Not have a big success with the NV40 *and* have a failure or not a particularly good success with the NV50.
2. Their corporate techniques have to remain the same ( although if everything else happened, and not this, they might still be in trouble - the other way around is true too, but to a lesser extent IMO ).
3. They've got to slowly but surely lose their nForce market - losing it fully is not required, but becoming a smaller player would be sufficent to be in trouble overall if the rest is true.
NVIDIA becoming a smaller player, should their corporate incompetence as you say persist, is however a much more likely scenario IMO: Never becoming the new Intel they've always dreamed of, just doing alright at $2B market capitalization.
---
Regarding the NV30: $3670 per CHIP not to lose money on it alone, to be exact
And if the board sold at $400, it's likely NV sold the chip at 50-75 bucks. Maybe 250-500 for Quadros, which are half their production.Fact is, spread out the costs whatever way you want, some of them you just can't honestly say they contributed to making the derivatives.
Someone please explain me how all the failed tape-outs and the dozens of millions of dollars lost on failed accelerated risk production runs would contribute to future chips?
---
Once again, I agree with you ricercar, and I hope you'll also agree with me. I'm sure I'll know soon enough
Uttar
EDIT: Changed "sure" by "soon", last sentence made absolutely no sense.
I think it was somewhere between "lots" and "god-awful lots!", depending on if you include the Pros or not.RussSchultz said:
No one asked about ATi.
I'm not accusing nVidia of anything unsavory here, I'm just pointing out that it's very hard to get accurate information about these things.
Of course nobody asked about ATI. That would be unwarranted.
Why are you only sharing those numbers with dig? Many of the rest of us like numbers, too~! <snf>
cthellis42 said:
They're in the editorial too, plus, I just give him the exact figure for the NV30 R&D costs, not a lot of figures
I just thought of giving that number first to Dig because he seemed to believe these are nearly impossible to get...
Most of the info in the NV30 paragraph of the editorial do not come from my sources, but rather from someone also working on such matters, and he has a source in accounting. I'll always be very impressed by his sources too, as they are really much more diverse than mine.
Uttar
Uttar said:cthellis42 said:
They're in the editorial too, plus, I just give him the exact figure for the NV30 R&D costs, not a lot of figures
I just thought of giving that number first to Dig because he seemed to believe these are nearly impossible to get...
Most of the info in the NV30 paragraph of the editorial do not come from my sources, but rather from someone also working on such matters, and he has a source in accounting. I'll always be very impressed by his sources too, as they are really much more diverse than mine.
Uttar
Then maybe you should tell him to get his ass into this forum now
