Vince said:
With your reasoning it seems you believe it is required while Joe believes it's preferred, which is why he still seems to believe...
It will be required to compete against a competitor which does take the chance. For example, when the Graphic Synthesizer was first in silicon back in 1998, the best PC part was a TNT2 or Avenger.
Why "for example" here? Don't you keep trying to deny PC parallels? Back in '98 the PS2 had no competitor other than the Dreamcast--I'm not even sure if MS had announced their intentions to enter the console arena at that time.
So they were "competing" only against their own expectations--how hard they wanted to push themselves and the tech, over their own proposed launch timetables. The EE/GS itself--ALL of it--was developed over the years earlier to try to leverage themselves best against the industry that existed, the timeframe they wanted to be out, how they forsaw their future, and how to remain competitive with those to follow until their next generation were to come.
Vince said:
DaveBaumann said:
When your argument didn't hold much water in the PC space you then seemed to shift the tangent to "but we're talking about consoles here"
Quite frankly it's comments like this that's what caused this problem. I was never talking about a PC product. This was abundently clear from the beginning and only echoed again and again.
Except--again and again--you were drawing examples entirely from PC-space to state why ATI would be doing X while nVidia would do Y, and use nVidia's PC track record for supposition Z. If ALL we were to do is take ATI and nVidia's experiences with the GC and Xbox that would be fine, but you've repeatedly used PC experience to justify your beliefs and DENIED the parallels other people bring up that as irrelevant. I think many of us just wish you'd make up your mind so we could stop sparring on a mudslide.
Vince said:
And then we all see two instances in the most recent rounds of consoles where lithography that was in reach wasn't the be all and end all and other market pressures played a bigger hand.
The only true instince is the NV2A, but that just shows the downfall of adapting a PC part for the console platform. Something I addressed as did Mfa and his posts on the CPU/dedicated IC's.
I'm not sure how ArtX/ATI suddenly no longer developed Flipper... Or did I miss something and it either has A) no lithography, or B) was never really used in Gamecubes which secretly use the GS instead but are too embarrassed to say.
Flipper may well not have switched litho, but it certainly had other hardware compromises to work through.
Vince said:
The GS and EE are shining examples of this given their advanced process, eDRAM, and physical size is the best attribute to show.
I still don't think anyone is truly disagreeing with this, yet the Xbox and Gamecube DO seem to exist, they ARE consoles, and they ARE actively competing with the PS2 even as we speak. They both CAN outperform the PS2 in many ways, and they both ALSO HAVE their own distinct manufacturing models. Each company DOES make different amounts off them, and they DO have different strategies. As for the ultimate future, it IS nice to comtemplate, yet we still have to deal with all these pesky things that HAVE happened before and probably WILL happen again, because the products they make are all REAL and UNIQUELY DISTINCT.
Vince said:
But appearently nobody saw it as everyone started pulling specific one-time situations, that should have no place in a lithography discussion, out and using them as arguing-points. Instead of people looking back on lithography and saying, "Yes, having the most advanced process that will allow for upwards or beyond a billion tranistsors would be adventageous to a IC designer for a closed box" or even a, "With an increase like that seen in lith of logic gates, it's definatly the pre-eminent decider in computation preformance - which happens to be gaining in precedence."
I think it's rather because you proclaim with as with full knowledge that ATI's situation was NOTHING but luck, that not a single scrap of what they did was more intelligent or had any market value, and that you know exactly what their gameplan will be for the rest of eternity since it's so utterly obvious.
Certainly that rather came out of the tone and your objections to just about everything mentioned... I can't see how
anyone might be offput by that at all, no...
In that whole situation you pretty much have been seeing what you want, and discounting everything that goes against your pre-concieved notions. The rest of us, including "Joe the fanb0y," have been watching their decisions on a broader scale, and basically stating "we'll need to see more" before we claim ANYTHING like you toss out with unwavering conviction.
Vince said:
But no... people fight on stupid stuff that aren't even related. They avoid questions that could have ended this long before and bring in topics not even related... mades sence to me. Like I said, this was just an excersise in IHV damage control for a situation that doesn't need it.
Because it seems to many you only say "it doesn't matter" when you haven't built up a cogent arguement against something, and freely borrow from those same things "that aren't even related" whenever they support your opinions.
We shall see.
Ex
actly.
