- Status
But the future brings from both AMD and Intel CPUs with integrated graphics, which eats the lowest end market which brings in money quite nicely - that's straight out from nVidias pocket.
Add to that focusing more and more to general processing rather than graphics processing, it's not that far off thought.
Blazkowicz
Legend
Interestingly, nvidia has moved according to this and now makes CPUs with integrated graphics.
No, but they do make lowend GPUs and made chipsets with integrated GPUs, market for those dies with CPUs with integrated GPUs
Hence Tegra. I'm not sure why people believe they can see things coming that Nvidia already hasn't
Can they survive no matter what? Of course not but they're trying to make themselves relevant in other markets to offset their decline elsewhere.Because Silicon Valley (hell, the entire world) is a virtual graveyard of companies whose mgmt didn't accurately forecast their market's direction. Though I don't think NV's history suggests their mgmt falls into such a category, but I also see no harm in discussing forces that are crimping the company's potential share in certain markets.
Anand's obviously just wrapping up the article by invoking its opening, which is that NV has had a rough past year. But to avoid sounding negative he's simply stating that while they were squeezed out of one market, despite their recent issues it would takes years to see them pushed out of their core business.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Actually the low end market would still be healthy even with integrated, assuming your low end part manages to still outperform integrated. Even more so if it can hit more OEM checkmarks.
Granted there might not be much room for that with AMD CPU platforms assuming ATI continues to execute well, but that still leaves the Intel platform wide open depending on how well Larrabee transitions to low end. Assuming of course that Larrabee has compelling performance when it launches in the first place.
Integrated graphics though are pretty much tied up with each respective CPU maker for the most part now.
Regards,
SB
Groo The Wanderer
Regular
Not true, they didn't deny the fake Fermi board. Oh yeah, they did. Then they admitted it. And then started denying again. I am confused.
Then they didn't deny the chipset division closing which I reported a year ago. Then they denied it, then they spun it. Now they are denying it on a technicality when Wall Street noticed. I am more confused.
And now the EOL stuff. They only personally attacked me, called me paid for (Ironically, I think I am the only site among my peers of my size that has a hard line between ad people and writers), and other suck names. Then they admitted it, then denied it loudly, and are still denying it as the evidence trickles out. Boy, don't they look stupid, but as far as they behavior is concerned, I am more confused.
I can't wait to see the hot shoe dance when Fermi doesn't ship on Nov 27.
Then again, I don't think they specified what year on Nov 27...... There guys, you have your out!I wonder if Razor has changed his sig yet? Think I will get a public apology?
-Charlie
Not true, they didn't deny the fake Fermi board. Oh yeah, they did. Then they admitted it. And then started denying again. I am confused.
Then they didn't deny the chipset division closing which I reported a year ago. Then they denied it, then they spun it. Now they are denying it on a technicality when Wall Street noticed. I am more confused.
And now the EOL stuff. They only personally attacked me, called me paid for (Ironically, I think I am the only site among my peers of my size that has a hard line between ad people and writers), and other suck names. Then they admitted it, then denied it loudly, and are still denying it as the evidence trickles out. Boy, don't they look stupid, but as far as they behavior is concerned, I am more confused.
I can't wait to see the hot shoe dance when Fermi doesn't ship on Nov 27.
I wonder if Razor has changed his sig yet? Think I will get a public apology?
-Charlie
No more so than you gave anyone for your 3 previous performance predictions, soon to be 4.
It doesn't. But with Fusion and Intel's equivalent they will lose some (a lot?) of the market share. I'm sure they are aware of that and it could be one of the reasons why Fermi emphasized so much on DP performance.
I also think they've made several mistakes this year and their CEO's arrogance doesn't exactly help there.
DegustatoR
Legend
Nicely done, AMD.
Charlie, I sure hope you will write about AMD's anti-Fermi FUD campaign soon.
Charlie, I sure hope you will write about AMD's anti-Fermi FUD campaign soon.
They quote DKanter (who you don't like) .. how could they be wrong?
DegustatoR
Legend
It doesn't matter who I like, it's how they quote, completely out of context and without any background.
And last slides are funny, yeah. And Eyefinity is innovation now (poor Matrox).
What i found particularly funny was the remark about "Disproportionate Increase in SPFP and DPFP performance over GT200**".
No chance for Nvidia to get out of this. If they hadn't done it, AMD would've written something about "Still no match for HD5870 in terms of highly important DPFP-performance".
No chance for Nvidia to get out of this. If they hadn't done it, AMD would've written something about "Still no match for HD5870 in terms of highly important DPFP-performance".
- Status
Similar threads
