I am not God, nor am I the management at NVIDIA, so I can't change the way they act.
Does that mean if everyone pretends either me or you is god, NVIDIA's management will radically change their ways? Cool! 8)
---
Perhaps NVIDIA has been external communication than ATI - but then again, the problem is pretty much everything they say is a lie
And when you realize employees including management get a similar treatement...
( I'm not saying they get
always exactly the same BS, but they they a large amount of BS too ).
---
And if you try to turn this thread over ULEditorial even though it's about Josh's editorial, I'll simply reply:
THings have been insane in real life this week; Unfortunately i'm thinking Monday or Tuesday for my next ediit if I can't get it out Saturday.
So no thread hijacking, thank you
( and yes, notice there are two types in that part of the message alone and a lot more in the rest. And yes, he's going to edit my editorial - I assume he had to type of it in a hurry though, he generally types an awful lot better than that
)
---
Regarding the "NV30 is more flexible" stance...
I wouldn't talk of flexibility or programmability or anything here. Instead, I'd simply talk of finesse.
Problem is, there's finesse that works and finesse that makes it worse than brute force. And then there's the from-paper-to-silicon transition which can be either good or bad.
My take on the NV30 is simple: Finesse that makes it worse than brute force coupled with a catastrophic paper-to-silicon transition.
The paper-to-silicon transition part is the worst one IMO, but that's discutable. The reason of this failure seems to have been exagerated optimism over just about
everything.
Whether this gives any "experience" advantage is doubtful, considering ATI worked on the R400 which is significantly more flexible than the NV30 - okay, so it was scrapped ( and redesigned into the "new R500" ) - but that doesn't mean they couldn't have learnt a lot from it.
Uttar
