NVIDIA claims top DX9 GPU marketshare spot.

You wouldn't happen to be a reviewer, would you?

 

J A ,
I think your taking me the wrong way. :?
What I'm saying is this.
Let's just imagine I'm fresh out of college with my Business degree.
I am hired by some start up business to gather the type of information MR provides. How am I to gauge there legitimacy? By the shear number of times they are referenced and quoted? You think they'd have some type of fact sheet or something with maybe an overview of how they reach there conclusions. I guess everyone should just jump off the Brooklyn bridge because everyone else seems to be doing it.
Do you think Mercury Research is above all reproach??? If so , why?
What I am saying is I have found zero information out about them that would give them the benefit of the doubt , quite the contrary. I have found enough to make me suspicious enough to dig deeper than a press clipping.
BTW where is the information that enumerates the times they are correct? Do there numbers match IHV numbers? If not what is the margin of error? Do they issue follow-up corrections? As powerful and oft quoted as these ppl. are some transparency is in order.

They are a big voice in the industry. The companies you mentioned know that these reports move "the market" ,whether correctly or incorrectly is irrelevant. That in and of itself is reason enough to buy the report. It is so a company knows what others are reading about them and can react accordingly.
The bean counters of the companies you've mentioned are most likely significantly more accurate in gauging marketshare , however that doesn't mean they can off-handly dismiss a report that is going to be quoted all over the media affecting there stocks price and system builder buying patterns.
The more times MR is quoted the more power they gain and likewise the more times ppl. will perceive them as expert and legitimate. It just grows from there. What I'm asking is this simple question.
Where is the basis of this reliance and trust? When did the industry start relying on MR and why? I think these are all fair questions.

 

Sure its possible that mercury research is legit, but woah! how could any real company invovled in the IT industry actually have a web site that amateurish? What are the odds. It would be like finding a heart surgeon driving a kia or a yugo. But..... All I'm really trying to say/do, besides having fun at someone else's expence, is point out how this IS somewhat suspicious. Image is everything in a information service business. You have to always appear as proffessional and respectable as possible, if you want people to believe in the value of the service/information your selling. You also have to appear connected, like there was a reason people should believe that you know things about inside information. Who the bleep would seriously start/run a business to analyze the computer industry, and NOT be where the industry was? (Thats why there is a silicon valley and not a silicon coast or continent) Let alone in Cave Creek Az (thats too much, I'm beginning to think I made that up) Seems crazy to me, but what the hell do I know?

Caps

 

YA-all that stuff indio said too! Sorry I didn't see your post before posting myself, seems a bit redundant now...

Well, we're both coming from the same place I think indio.

Caps

 

I don't even see why they need a professional website if they already have made a name for themselves in the industry?

 

Good point Slides.

Why, if anyone wanted to:
find out who they were,
or to "subscribe" to thier service
or to contact them....

They could just drop on by in Cave Creek, its only 25 miles north of Phoenix, they could sit on the porch and have a beer, talk directly to the man himself.

Or just write a little note and drop it in the mail. Perhaps ask people at the mall if anyone knows anything about them.



Caps

check that: no one could know they were in Cave Creek to visit, or thier mail address or phone number...I guess that just leaves going to the mall and asking around

 

indio,

I think you are right that critical analysis of the data they publish is the best way to measure the veracity of what they produce. Problem is, I don't know of anyone else who is providing this data in this sector. Gartner, IDC and Forrestor research are a few that follow the IT sector in general, but no one else does the legwork to as great a detail as these guys. My, perhaps flawed, logic tells me that if they produced inaccurate data that effected a negative change to the stock of a company, they'd be brought up on it very, very quickly. For example, while the data indicates that NVidia maintained market share in the core desktop sector, they dropped significantly in the mobile market. Every analyst on the Street worth their salt knows the mobile market is where there is still some growth. End result: NVidia stock goes down, Ati stock goes up. If the data were so inaccurate, I don't think the legal dept at NVidia would be too happy. And two guys with an, admittedly bad website in hobokensville would be out a job - not because of NVidia, but because EVERY company who's in the report would view the report as suspect and bring out the REAL hired guns...lawyers. We know NVIdia isn't shy about its legal dept., but I suspect this is true of all of the companies listed in the report.

No I do not. And conversely, I do not think they deserve to be personally or professionally vilified either - especially when we've admitted that we do not know much about them.

Good for you. I'm saying I don't start from a position that requires I cast or bestow benefit from doubt. I plainly don't see the relationship that causes you to cast doubt upon them.

I think these are fair questions. I'd be very interested in seeing B3D contact MR and interview them. I doubt that they (MR) provide data solely to make companies look good. Obviously a couple of years ago when they were saying that ATi was losing marketshare faster than Clinton was dropping his pants, ATI wasn't happy about the data. I've seen a couple of the quarterly reports, and as I recall it was a lot of data. I don't recall reading their method of data collection however.

The point of my original post was soley to provide balance to, what seemed to me at the time, a lopsided thread. I appreciate your reply, and can agree that the questions you posed at the end of the post are indeed interesting, valid and fair.

(moved a comma)

 

They're not a Wallmart. They are offering B2B services. I'm sure they have contacts with marketing firms.

 

IMHO
The whole "their site is not overloaded with flash/grafics/fancy java/vb scripts, so it's crap " is BULLSHIT.
Having simple , yet readable site is bad
Having site which will look almost same way on PC/MAC/PDA is bad
Using more and more "advanced" technics (java, vbscript, flash, c++, .net, XML.... add your "favorite") just to show you know about its existence is good.
What you offer is not important, how you look-like IS.

LOL

My POV - whole main page is 49KB, of which 6KB in html, setting "pictures off" does not change the view&information one receives. The site is good for one who seeks info, but not if you look for "dancing monkeys".
/IMHO

Oh, and about 5200 & DX9.
1 question
Is 5200 able to execute ps&vs 2.0 instructions?
Please be simple - Yes or No.
Otherwise - why not switching the theme? - arguing again and again if 9200 supports DX8, after all 9200 is not capable of running current games which use DX8 techniques, in 1600x1200 with 16xAF and 8xAA, yeah?

Since when the resolution&speed dominate over compatibility?


angry tirade from one who played Quake1 on 486 & Trident 8900 at ~ 6fps @ 320x200. It was great game, for god's sake - the only mode supported by first "Wolfenstein was 320x200...

 

Well, atleast that is an unambiguous statement of your intent. When you do this by refusing to take any opportunity to clear up anything, I think it shows we're talking about two different meanings of "clear up". Witness that your tactic of conversation persists in leaving abandoning lines of discussion one after another.
Your "clearing up" something seems predicated on you being right. Mine is predicated on actually having had a discussion, which you seem singularly determined to avoid. This would be a definition of discussion where logic, arguments of support, and some accountability to objective criteria (like language) are important, in case your definition is different.

Pardon? I said you are concentrating on this one item, just that you're not trying to discuss it. I've even given my reasons, but you don't address them when you simply assert otherwise. Which is a demonstration of what I'm asserting, as I've mentioned.

You see, Russ, when I quoted this text of yours, and give an explanation, replying by simply replacing my explanation completely and proposing your own just requires me to repeat my explanation again to point out the error in yours.

Sure, and what you seem unable to grasp is that this "communicates" something. Give careful thought to "yes" and "no" and how their meaning relative to a discussion is defined by context.
You know, I explained (not just stated) this before where I quoted you, right?

Objective criteria: your take lacks correlation to making sense in the English language. I've shown why, asked you to consider what I stated and respond with a demonstration of how it does. This repetition of denial is all you've provided instead, ad nauseum.
Hey, this was explained (not just stated) when I quoted you before too. See a pattern?

Ayep, this disagreed with it being a matter of opinion, as I just said, and said the first time I discussed your text.
Seems sort of silly for you to say you "never disagreed that it COULD mean something else", when what you just specified you were disagreeing with was discussing "a matter of opinion" definitively and explicitly for the purpose of proposing that properly "COULD mean something else".
You're stance is not compatible with logic, and it won't be shown to be compatible by its repetition, Russ.

Well, the only problems with the second protestation is 1) I've provide an answer to it before, several times, 2) I've specifically asked you to provide an alternative explanation, which is not accurately characterized as my saying "I am right, you MUST be wrong". However, the "protestation otherwise" is exactly right, if you recognize a difference between "protestation" and my usage of "discussion" along what I specified.

First of all, you continue to forget the simple possibility of "I'm wrong", Russ.
Second of all, your usage of "discuss" is incompatible with mine, as I've specified.
An interesting example: if I said "it is safe to assume your usage of discuss can't include simply repeating an assertion", because of the possibilities of the meaning of the word as defined objectively, I'd be precluding what you could say and doing so wrongly.
What I am instead saying is that my usage of discuss is distinct from what you've demonstrated by your "discussion", as I've repeatedly established throughout this discussion.
I could, however, argue that you can't equate your usage of "discussion" to mine, because I've established further details and provided discussion of how your conduct is lacking them.

...Russ makes up an intellectual slight for me to say to him, as an alternative to pointing out where I actually did so where I asked him to...

No, English, logic, and reasoning are forcing a view of what you "maintained", "communicated", "agreed with", "defended", etc. I'm not just stating it, I'm demonstrating why I propose that. When you recognize that there is a difference between the two, will your behavior change?

OK.

Sure.
What we are in dispute over is what you said before, however. Was the contrast between your behavior and Dave H's too inconvenient to deal with, or are you just dropping that discussion until you forget about my reply?

OK, but, as I said, what we are discussing what you said. I hope you understand why I snip the rest of your commentary.

Apparently not. Why are you asking me?

 

You seem to be unable to separate:
1) the concept of me interpreting the sentence to not be an opinion, and
2) the concept of the interpretation itself being an opinion/judgement.

 

No.

Before you go correcting me, the drivers do the ps & vs 2.0 instructions....the 5200 is incapable of doing it in hardware.

So simply put, no.

EDITED BITS: And I'm rooting for Russ over demalion just because his answers take so much less time to read!

 

Hrm, I hope you don't stop rooting for me when I tell you that your understanding of how the 5200 works is wrong--or at the very least, mostly wrong.

There's no way you could do pixel shader instructions in software in realtime.

Vertex shaders you could get some sort of reasonable performance, but I beleive that if you check vertex throughput numbers, they're pretty high and much higher than any software solutions.

 

I haven't used a 5200 first-hand yet so there ain't no way I'm gonna mind anyone correcting me on info about it.

Thanks Russ, I stand corrected.

 

This is supposed to be what I'm proposing, right?

The concept of saying "No" to someone saying "Properly can include performance perfectly validly, and you are wrong to provide an argument based on the precept that it cannot".

The concept of saying "No" to something else entirely.

It looks to me like you are either you are mistaken in your interpretation of what the first No means in its context (which is what I discuss in the quote above), or are proposing that I was talking about something else when you said "No". If you do think I was talking about something else, simply explain what it was and give your reasons.

I've already discussed both possibilities before, but your replies have been based on ignoring those discussions and simply stating that their premises are wrong without showing why.

Can you finish this line of discussion and not simply skip over what I've said? I.e., not do the same thing again?

 

This is not intended as a flame or to be disrespectful, but what in the heck are the two of you even arguing over anymore?

Could you just say it in simple words, and only a few of them?

 

So, you're suggesting that simply by offering my interpretation and my reasoning, I'm somehow stating that your interpretation cannot be, with certainty.

Like I said: you seem unable to grasp the difference between a statement of differing interpretation and a statement of denial of differing interpretation.

 

Maybe so, but vertex shaders can be emulated on a fairly fast CPU and Pixel Shader Speed of a FX 5200 Is too Slow to be considered a 'feature' as enabling Pixel Shader effects in a game would bring the game to unplayable levels, and that is all that matters.
The Pixel Shader speed is more imortant than Vertex Shader support IMO, there is still lots of game engines that use very little of Vertex Shaders, in fact UT 2003 engine doesn't use them at all.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

 

These results are normal in regard to the hardware implementation of pixel shader in FX5200.

In PS 1.1 a GeForce FX 5200 has half the units a GeForce 4 Ti has.

In PS 2.0 it's strange. With some other tests I have no difference between FX5200 and 5600.

In PS 1.4 there's a difference. FX5600 seems a lot faster than FX5200.

 

I'm glad you have your opinion that they're too slow to be considered a feature.

That wasn't the question asked.

The question was "are PS2.0 instructions done in hardware on the 5200?"

The answer is clearly yes.

But, to address your "too slow" opinion, consider that they are, even by your graph, half the speed of the 5600, and 1/4 the speed of the 9500. This would lead one to believe that you could run at 1/4 the resolution of the 9500 and still get the same framerates. That would be, for example, the difference of no AA at 1024x768 on the 5200 compared with 4x AA at 1024x768 on the 9500. Or no AA at 800x600 at a higher frame rate. (Assuming framerates are solely a ratio that mirrors the ratios of PS2.0 scores in 3dmk03). In that light, the it seems it is, indeed, a feature that has usefulness. Unless you're proposing that the 9500 is useless also, just 1/4 as useless.

And that doesn't even address that PS2.0, for the near future, will only influence a fraction of the framerate simply because no card can run them at truly acceptable speeds. Even more so that the bulk of the cards sold that can do DX9 PS20 shaders are in the "too slow" category.