NVIDIA claims top DX9 GPU marketshare spot.

[Jerky]

It appears NVIDIA has claimed the top spot in the DirectX 9 GPU marketshare. However, this number is a little misleading considering that a large majority of that is the FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly.

ATI's numbers are smaller in this category because they only have DX9 solutions shipping in higher-range models (Radeon 9500 and higher). If ATI had shipped R9200s with DX9 support, the race will probably be a lot closer.

But overall, the market remained pretty static. NVIDIA lost a little in the overall marketshare (4%) where both Intel and ATI gained 5% and 1% respectively.

So looking at this, it would mean that even though NVIDIA dominates the DX9 market by share, ATI still managed to beat NVIDIA overall with their higher-end products (R9500s and higher).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...0801102103.html

Next week's NVIDIA conference call should be interesting.

- Jonathan.

 

[Pete]

Marketspeak. I agree that ATi needs to take a serious look at transitioning the RV350 to their low-end slot, but that probably won't happen until R360 or, more likely, R420. That still leaves them with a marketing gap they need to cover.

 

[Doomtrooper]

That article is very misleading

 

[Ostsol]

The stocks are rather interesting, right now. . . ATI's stock prices are sitting at a close 90% of NVidia's, at the time of this post.

 

[nonamer]

That article is very misleading

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

 

[RussSchultz]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Ostol: #1, you're wrong. ATYT closed at 12.80, NVDA closed at 19.72; #2, comparing stock price is meaningless without context.

 

[Slides]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

That's not really a false statement, though I realize that was not the point of NVIDIA's claim.

 

[Dean]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

 

[Ostsol]

Ostol: #1, you're wrong. ATYT closed at 12.80, NVDA closed at 19.72; #2, comparing stock price is meaningless without context.

2 's's! 2!!

Well. . . my numbers were right. . . assuming a Canadian dollar is worth the same as a US dollar. . . which it isn't. . . Doh. My mistake.

 

[StealthHawk]

But overall, the market remained pretty static. NVIDIA lost a little in the overall marketshare (4%) where both Intel and ATI gained 5% and 1% respectively.

Well, no. NVIDIA did not lose any market share. Neither did ATI gain any.

As reported yesterday, NVIDIA has 64% of the total standalone GPUs for desktop computers market, flat with the Q1, just like ATI Technologies with its 28%. Other suppliers’ shares obviously remained unchanged.

What the article did say was that shipments decreased and increased respectively.

 

[Dave H]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It does have hardware waivers from MS for that compliance.

 

[Evildeus]

It does have hardware waivers from MS for that compliance.

:? Can you restate your sentence, i don't understand what you are saying?

 

[Dave Baumann]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.

The WHQL process is quite convoluted, not necessarily in terms of testing for compliance but more in terms of penalties for non-complaince (i.e. for non-WHQL hardware saying windows compatible being sold, the vendor has to pay MS money for each unit).

 

[Evildeus]

Ok thx, that what i thought... Does MS agree with the DX9 compliance or not finally?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

*properly* when allowed to run lower precsion stated by M$ as a minimum.
It is slower that a Geforce 4 MX it is replacing and runs Pixel Shader 2.0 so slow it is not useable.

So sure if you like slide shows running at 1fps, its a good card

 

[demalion]

Ack! I wouldn't bother to tackle this "horrible" semantic issue, except that some misuse of English (as it appears to me) is being used to deny someone's right to hold an opinion.

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion.

Right, but that's not what he said. Your taking "properly" to mean "compliance" is also an opinion. It is also an assumption (maybe right, maybe wrong...given the context, it seems wrong to me) that Jerky means compliance, and an assumption (wrong, thought it could be right in the context of a thread where compliance was the only factor being evaluated) that compliance (in DX 9 usage) is the only allowed meaning of "properly".

For instance, a set of standards could have a minimum fps criteria. "DX 9 compliance" is a specific word usage that excludes that, but only for the specific words used in the phrase. "running DX 9 properly" is not that phrase.

Semantics? Yes. Unclear? Not AFAICS....there is quite a bit of indication that performance is exactly what Jerky had on his mind, and "properly" is not a wrong word to use to include that consideration.

The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

Not if you are of the opinion that "properly" includes some criteria of fps performance that the 5200 does not meet. Of course, it is an opinion that it won't (though fairly well supported by performance data, and a criteria like 30 fps and 1024x768, for example), but that doesn't mean that is wrong.

I point this out because you proposed your disagreement by saying that 1) Jerky wasn't entitled to make this statement because it couldn't be a matter of opinion, 2) Russ was correct to propose that this opinion indicated incompetence (which, I'll mention since I'm responding here, did not seem to be an at all useful way of proposing disagreement itself ).

Aside from your asserting that your opinion is indisputable, I'm not even disagreeing with your opinion itself.

Note that I would agree with you (Dave H) if he said the 5200 was not a "proper DX 9 card", because that usage of proper would require exclusion of "DX 9 compliance", as well as other standards. Note that this is drastically different in implication than saying the 5200 is not a "proper DX 9 card for running games"...."for running games" introduces a whole host of other criteria that changes the meaning of "proper" away from being synonymous with the concept of "DX 9 compliance".

Sorry to dwell on specifics, but it seems necessary to discuss them when you are saying someone can't hold an opinion based on ignoring them when they are there. Wouldn't have brought it up except for that factor.

 

[Doomtrooper]

That article is very misleading

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.

 

[Evildeus]

That article is very misleading

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.

For Nv it's the same thing.

 

[Evildeus]

Right, but that's not what he said

That's your opinion