NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

So the 6 display port Eyefinity edition has a market in security? Wow I had NOT thought about that one.

P.S How many displays would a game developer *want to* run? I can see AMD trying very hard to corner the developer workstation market.

 

exactly then you have a multi-million dollar market for TV on air live presentations and offline presentations that all require professional cards.

 

and that puts is right next to Cypress

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...09/test_ati_radeon_hd_5970/14/#abschnitt_hawx

 

Uh, why can't I edit... Got the 26 months mixed up. It should be 21 months, corresponding to 2.28 times the performance of 280. Sorry about that.

 

And thats what I'm saying its stupid to do that. Do you know what drivers were used, do you know what motherboard was used, etc etc etc. Its dumb to even look at that, because now if we use use up to 2x from the marketing slides its slower, oh no wait if we use hardware review that you used before

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/770-20/dossier-amd-radeon-hd-5870-5850.html

now its faster by 10%,

Where the hell can you even estimate anything from these numbers?

 

You don't. You know it, I know it, Aaronspink knows it. But Quadro is the corporate standard and that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

Now you sound just like NV-PR (in fact, they say exact the same thin almost to the letter in one of their PDFs).

 

well the NVS is that's true, but the market for that is much smaller then the advertisng + TV world. And into that CAD world, well yeah its very small.

 

Cool, the GTX285 goes from 37% faster than 4870 to 57% slower. Wait, could it be that the card is running out of memory?
And even the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA is higher than nVidia's own numbers.

 

I could easily see how having 3-4 monitors would be a benefit for a game developer:
1 3D display
1 debug/perf data display
1 IDE display
0/1 Office work display

Certainly I miss the 3 displays I had back in the day for IC design.

The reality is until you've used a multi-display setup for business environment you don't realize how much it improve efficiency, esp in the technical industries. Certainly for anything that involves code and debug, 2+ monitors make a world of difference.

 

From nvidia's Q2 report, page 23:
Quadro+Tesla: revenue $116M, income $41M
Geforce: revenue $372M, loss $144M (the $120M bumpgate charge probably included)

That's what compares to AMD's graphics division, MCPs ($237/53M) are in AMD's computing divison.

 

Forgive me, but thats just plain stupid! Cypress has the same amount of memory...

 

you either need multiple display cards or a card that support more than 2 displays. Until 5xxx, >2 display graphics cards have almost always been sold as part of the professional display lines. Someone pointed out matrox which has subsisted this whole entire time on basically selling 3+ display cards to markets like these for prices that they couldn't get in any other market with 5-8 year old ICs. Nvidia and ATI have also had these solutions for quite some time.

Some of the sub-markets are fairly specialized like transit/power monitoring stations and some are more mainstream like the financial sectors and the like, but they all share basically the same requirement which is lots of information display in a constant and understandable/readable presentation. In almost all cases the graphics performance isn't an issue as they aren't doing anything really taxing by todays standards graphically, they just have a LOT of information to display.

 

The amount of memory that a card has is immaterial if they ways the cards use the memory is different.

 

"ATi" made a lost of 1 million in the second quarter.

 

I'll keep it short, forgive me.
• You keep ignoring the possible different contracts at TSMC for AMD and Nvidia
• you forget the PCIe-Brigde
• 70% Yield would in my books provide a much higher rate of stock than it is right now. IOW: I doubt that number
• HSF uses Vapor-Chamber, which should be a bit higher than your average heatpipe-radial-blower-combo
• Board-Design should be using far more complex circuitry, because it has to switch two chips within mikrosekonds

edit:
Probably add to that higher per-unit-prices for even the same components because of volume.

 

I know, and I agree completely, but when you claim that eyefinity will kill these markets practically overnight, you're not taking into account the purchasing cycles, software compatibility validation, support overhead and yes even brand loyalty in these industries.

Eyefinity is a cost-effective and superior solution. But it's going to take (a lot of) time to make serious inroads. It's the same situation really with OpenCL and DC vs CUDA, and Bullet vs Physx. The emergence of a cool new technology doesn't mean that the established one will just disappear instantly. Too many people have an investment in time, experience or money going for that to happen as quickly as we might like from a purely technological perspective.

 

The same way, a Geforce FX is similar, but less usefull than an 8800 GTX or a Radeon 8500 compared to Juniper?

 

Thanks for that, didn't realize they broke it down. No gross margins, but the operating results are quite interesting. They are here for last quarter too:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581009000036/q310form10q.htm

$129M and $48M for Q3, both still far below where they were in 2008 when professional was providing the large majority of Nv's operating income.

 

Problem is that ATI has yet to reveal its DX1 generation archtiekture, with RV870 being an evolution of the previous generation. When R900 comes it might make Fermi look rather lame.

Due to the fact that Fermi is hardly able to veat an evolutionary ATI chip, I have little confidence for the future of that line. Especially if you consider the production problems and the TDW, which means one GPU from Fermi is more expensive than 2 RV870s. More expensive for NV and more expensive for the user, while lacking eyefinity.