nvidia "D8E" High End solution, what can we expect in 2008?

turtle,

Considering the low risk strategy NV has been using for the past years, it's highly unlikely they'll use such a young manufacturing process for something high end.

As for the G100, I had the impression it was their D3D11 generation GPU. Albeit I doubt anyone knows what's going on anymore, if whatwasformerlyknownasG100 is a D3D11 chip I wouldn't expect it before 2009 and we get another refresh of the refresh in between with an unknown codename.
 
ninelven said:
Let's see wasted logic, die size, inefficient use of memory, cost, heat, card size, compatibility/rendering issues, power draw, availability, etc...
Click to expand...
All of that will not matter for the people who are willing to shell out money for it. People thought the same issues would hinder the GX2 but uber-enthusiasts still ate it up.
 
Sure it will matter if its competition is 2xRV670. Also, the G71 die was a fair bit smaller than the G92...
 
Ailuros said:
turtle,

Considering the low risk strategy NV has been using for the past years, it's highly unlikely they'll use such a young manufacturing process for something high end.

As for the G100, I had the impression it was their D3D11 generation GPU. Albeit I doubt anyone knows what's going on anymore, if whatwasformerlyknownasG100 is a D3D11 chip I wouldn't expect it before 2009 and we get another refresh of the refresh in between with an unknown codename.
Click to expand...

The fact NV stayed with 8800 for this round, suggest that they have yet another G80 update wating to be 8900.
 
i am sure there will be no 2XG92.why nV will do so.no need too !!
simply 128sp@ 800 on 384bit bus will outperform the 2 RV670 without cost them self an arm & leg to produce the 2x G92 and make a headache for thier software engineer to support SLI
for to many games.
 
ninelven said:
Sure it will matter if its competition is 2xRV670. Also, the G71 die was a fair bit smaller than the G92...
Click to expand...
You think 2xRV670 will be competitive against 2xG92?

Yes, G71 was quite smaller than G92. It will be a matter of adjusting clocks and chip configurations. Nvidia used G71M in the GX2 & G81-M is up and running already ..

_xxx_ said:
Yeah, a few hundreds of them worldwide.
Click to expand...
If that rocks your boat then yes. You can bet it was a successful venture for Nvidia and they made good money from it.

Oushi said:
i am sure there will be no 2XG92.why nV will do so.no need too !!
simply 128sp@ 800 on 384bit bus will outperform the 2 RV670 without cost them self an arm & leg to produce the 2x G92 and make a headache for thier software engineer to support SLI
for to many games.
Click to expand...
If I follow your logic correctly, then Nvidia didnt need the 8800 Ultra either .. a GTX would have been perfectly fine. If they can capitalise on an oppurtunity and monopolise a really high margin part, then they will.
 
serenity said:
How much can you bet that was few hundreds worldwide? Last time I checked your history with bets is not that good ...
Click to expand...

Bollocks. Such (misinformed) provocations won't bring you anywhere. That bet was based on the discussion "OMG, ATI will release the GF8 killer for $399", just look at the last 2-3 pages of discussion prior to that bet.

Again on topic, numbers please.
 
_xxx_ said:
Bollocks. Such (misinformed) provocations won't bring you anywhere.
Click to expand...
Just like I expected. :LOL:

I wasnt the one who presented "few hundred worldwide" number, so unless you back that up :LOL: , this is not going anywhere.
 
Of course, what else would you expect? Jeez. The thread went for months with "R600 will kill GF8 and cost just 399$" and you know it very well that the bet was based on that. I also said in that thread "IF it's as fast or faster, no way it will cost 399" and that's where it started. But whatever, you have your opinion anyway, be happy with it.

You are the one claiming "GX2 earned nV lots of money", so either you back that up or not, period.
 
serenity said:
If I follow your logic correctly, then Nvidia didnt need the 8800 Ultra either .. a GTX would have been perfectly fine. If they can capitalise on an oppurtunity and monopolise a really high margin part, then they will.
Click to expand...

nvidia made the ultra to make the release of the R600 not that shine. as i remember it was before it
with few days and it was just a GTX overclocked now it's a different story u r talking about 2 PCB 2 GPU and an SLI that must work in every single 3D application.which is hard to be done.
 
All high-end skus are high-margin parts, if you think they lost or made no money on the GX2 then you really have no clue about Nvidia's MO.

Still waiting for you to back the 'hundred worldwide' number.
 
_xxx_ said:
Of course, what else would you expect? Jeez. The thread went for months with "R600 will kill GF8 and cost just 399$" and you know it very well that the bet was based on that. I also said in that thread "IF it's as fast or faster, no way it will cost 399" and that's where it started. But whatever, you have your opinion anyway, be happy with it.

You are the one claiming "GX2 earned nV lots of money", so either you back that up or not, period.
Click to expand...

And you were the first to claim Nvidia only sold a few hundred of them worldwide.

The ball is in your court my friend to provide numbers to back up your accusations. So in your own words...

_xxx_ said:
so either you back that up or not, period.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you don't want anyone to take you seriously. ;) The knife cuts both ways. Granted it might be it's just your opinion that Nv only sold a few hundred. But then his opion that Nv sold more than a few hundred is just as valid until you can prove your original statement.

Regards,
SB
 
A few hundred was exaggerated of course, but definitely not many. And nowhere near enough to make any money out of them. But since we have no sales numbers, I guess we're both just talking shite since neither I nor him can prove it.
 
well nV did still have around a 20% profit margin on the GX2, Arun and I had a disagreement about this before, and I thought they didn't have much margin, but suprisingly they did, don't know if they sold alot of them, but profits where there on a per card basis.
 
Did sales * profit-per-card cover the development costs though? If not, then no, NVIDIA didn't make any money on them.
 
And now we see some backtracking .. :LOL:

Razor1 said:
well nV did still have around a 20% profit margin on the GX2, Arun and I had a disagreement about this before, and I thought they didn't have much margin, but suprisingly they did, don't know if they sold alot of them, but profits where there on a per card basis.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
nutball said:
Did sales * profit-per-card cover the development costs though? If not, then no, NVIDIA didn't make any money on them.
Click to expand...

Although marketing can and will always argue that having high visibility for your company even if it's only one product can help sales for all of your products.

In which case even if they lost money in a hard line cost to research and produce vs revenue from said card, they could still claim a win as a viable means of marketing the brand.

Considering noone but Nvidia has numbers on what they sold and how much they spent on R&D for this particular product. Noone can state definitively whether they made money from it.

However, I don't think there are many people that would argue that Nvidia didn't get their money's worth from it. In form of blunting ATI market penetration in the High End. And raising awareness of the brand and thus free advertising for the Geforce line of products through reviews around the net.

Regards,
SB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top