What was that about Cg *Not* favoring Nvidia Hardware?
- Thread starter Hellbinder
- Start date
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Chalnoth said:
This has nothing to so with Nvidia selling more chips !! Take the tunnel vision glasses off, ATI has a $99 DX 8.1 card that has Pixel Shader support, almost 80% of the cards sold are sub $200.
OEMs love the 8500 (hence its return as a 9100), integrated the 9000 is the by far the best lap top solution (power requirements and feature set).
Nvidias entry level chip does not OFFER Pixel Shader Support, Nvidia discontinued the Geforce 3 and the only entry level Pixel Shader card Nvidia has is a G4Ti 200.
So market penetation for PS 1.4 is great, not everyone buys Nvidia cards do they Chalnoth.
I wouldn't go that far. It returned as 9100 because ATI are selling them cheap (because they still have a large inventory of them) to board vendors but under the current naming scheme it didn't fit in.
A write off of inventory, mainly from unsold R200's, was one of the main causes why ATI didn't post as big a profit as was expected (they didn't expect R300 to impact R200 so much).
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Well my info comes from a pretty good source 
..that may be partially the reason but the feature set of the R200 is pretty extravagent for a entry level chip and one of the reasons why they sell well..say vs. the Xabre 400 ??
Hardware DVD decoding
PS 1.1-1.4
Truform
etc..
..that may be partially the reason but the feature set of the R200 is pretty extravagent for a entry level chip and one of the reasons why they sell well..say vs. the Xabre 400 ??Hardware DVD decoding
PS 1.1-1.4
Truform
etc..
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Chalnoth said:
Ahem. Do you have install base numbers to prove your claim? I do, and your claim is false beyond belief.
EDIT: Keep in mind that any RETAIL-based market share report does not tell the entire story. In fact, it tells a very small part of the install base story. BTW, our Retail market share is really good as well, especially with the 8500, 9000, and 9500 series selling in a more consumer friendly pricepoint area, where as Dave B pointed out, the majority of the volume is.
i love how chalnoth demands numbers to prove he is worng.
I ask you, chalnoth: Where are the numbers to prove yourself right?
All i have seen from you is your typical anti-ATI rhetoric. Add that tot he fact that you have been shown to be blatantly WRONG about PS 1.1-1.3 support on ATI hardware, and continue to hold you views in the face of differing facts from people who actually would be in a place to ahve said facts (where as you are not), begs the question of "why is anyone listening to you?"
Your anti-ATI song and dance is getting old.
note: i am not saying you should be praising ATI, but your constant refusal to look at anything that involves ATI in a fair light is getting tiresome.
I ask you, chalnoth: Where are the numbers to prove yourself right?
All i have seen from you is your typical anti-ATI rhetoric. Add that tot he fact that you have been shown to be blatantly WRONG about PS 1.1-1.3 support on ATI hardware, and continue to hold you views in the face of differing facts from people who actually would be in a place to ahve said facts (where as you are not), begs the question of "why is anyone listening to you?"
Your anti-ATI song and dance is getting old.
note: i am not saying you should be praising ATI, but your constant refusal to look at anything that involves ATI in a fair light is getting tiresome.
Applies to UK:
Retail and OEM markets are WAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY different IMO.
Most of the marketshare NVIDIA has from OEM's is directly from Geforce4 MX at the moment. However more and more OEM's are placing large orders with either integrated or add-on graphics cards from ATI.
So you may have a Packard Bell machine, say a P4 - with an SiS chipset motherboard which has onboard graphics, but the onbaord is no longer used and the OEM places a Geforce4 MX or Radeon 8500LE, or Radeon 9000.
Hypothetical:
1) You have a choice of two systems at the same pricepoint one has a Geforce4 MX and the other a Radeon 9000
2) You have a choice of two systems at the same pricepoint one has a Geforce4 Ti4600 and the other a Radeon 9700 Pro
What do you go for?
I will tell you that the consumer (Mr Joe Average - I wanna PC for the internet and to let my kid play some games with) will almost definitely go for whatever machine the sales guys says is best.
What does the sales guy recommend?
The consumer (Mr Joe Average again) does not CARE or KNOW who NVIDIA or ATI are... they may see the names when they try to configure their TV OUT or when a game has a logo in it... but they won't remember for long.
The consumer does know that INTEL is good... but NVIDIA or ATI has nowhere near that brand name recognition (yet?).
Sorry post maybe off topic but I just returned to this thread after a brief absence and CANNOT be bothered to read 17 pages of the same thing.
Retail and OEM markets are WAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY different IMO.
Most of the marketshare NVIDIA has from OEM's is directly from Geforce4 MX at the moment. However more and more OEM's are placing large orders with either integrated or add-on graphics cards from ATI.
So you may have a Packard Bell machine, say a P4 - with an SiS chipset motherboard which has onboard graphics, but the onbaord is no longer used and the OEM places a Geforce4 MX or Radeon 8500LE, or Radeon 9000.
Hypothetical:
1) You have a choice of two systems at the same pricepoint one has a Geforce4 MX and the other a Radeon 9000
2) You have a choice of two systems at the same pricepoint one has a Geforce4 Ti4600 and the other a Radeon 9700 Pro
What do you go for?
I will tell you that the consumer (Mr Joe Average - I wanna PC for the internet and to let my kid play some games with) will almost definitely go for whatever machine the sales guys says is best.
What does the sales guy recommend?
The consumer (Mr Joe Average again) does not CARE or KNOW who NVIDIA or ATI are... they may see the names when they try to configure their TV OUT or when a game has a logo in it... but they won't remember for long.
The consumer does know that INTEL is good... but NVIDIA or ATI has nowhere near that brand name recognition (yet?).
Sorry post maybe off topic but I just returned to this thread after a brief absence and CANNOT be bothered to read 17 pages of the same thing.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Ahhh but its so much fun
Seriously just look at the DirectX Dev reply posted by Misae then later BEN 6...
Sounds as though there was some ummm disagreement there
There goes Chalnoths theory out the window
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Sorry Misae you get the cigar..I will edit my post...
It's all good folks... didnt mean to sound big headed or nothing. I was just wondering when people are gonna stop and let this topic rest
P.S. I think it was Russ who pointed in the right direction and I just ripped a quote from the MS DX forum regarding support for PS 1.4 in CG coming.. or maybe I dreamt that post of mine up.. I honestly can't remember.
When you have people as stubborn as Chalnoth and Doomtrooper meet head - to - head it is a sight to behold. Like a endurance race.
No offence meant to either party by the way!
P.S. I think it was Russ who pointed in the right direction and I just ripped a quote from the MS DX forum regarding support for PS 1.4 in CG coming.. or maybe I dreamt that post of mine up.. I honestly can't remember.
When you have people as stubborn as Chalnoth and Doomtrooper meet head - to - head it is a sight to behold. Like a endurance race.
No offence meant to either party by the way!
Doomtrooper
Veteran
None taken, I know I'm a blockhead (always have been)..yet I also know when I'm wrong and not afraid to admit it. 
Just to flog a dead horse some more... and to see if we can coax 20 pages out of this thread...
On the topic of 4XAA comparisons of NV30 vs R300:
Okay, so I get it that the concensus here is that such comparison would be unfair to ATI IQ-wise BUT... Given the much larger bandwidth requirements of 4XAA over 2XAA, I would also expect the R300, with all of its bandwidth, to win the FPS race as well vis-a-vis the NV30, with its more limited bandwidth. Or am I incorrect in this expectation?
On the topic of marketshare vis-a-vis PS1.1 vs PS1.4:
Yes, NV has the marketshare lead in terms of units, but I expect that the vast majority of those units are not PS1.1 (ie: GF4MX or lesser). Whereas ATI has less marketshare, but I expect that a large proportion, if not the majority, of those units are PS1.4 (R200 or better). In any case, even Chalnoth seems to have given up on that line of thought...
On the topic of Reviews:
Reverend, has your R300 review ever been published at ve3d.com? Or anywhere else, for that matter? If not then I, for one, would still be interested to see it.
Hrmmm... that reminds me, whatever happened to Ben6's review of R300? Was that ever published? If so, then I missed it and would appreciate a link.
And does anyone else miss seeing competitors' benchmarks in B3D reviews? It seems that all of the latest B3D reviews focus only on products from the same IHV. IE: R9700 vs R9000 vs R8500 or GF4 vs GF3 vs GF4MX but not R9700 vs GF4. While the B3D reviews are very informative, I do miss seeing 'shootouts' between all of the players.
EDIT: Oops. I seem to have mixed-up some of my comments between this and another thread. I'll add some of these comments to the proper thread...
On the topic of 4XAA comparisons of NV30 vs R300:
Okay, so I get it that the concensus here is that such comparison would be unfair to ATI IQ-wise BUT... Given the much larger bandwidth requirements of 4XAA over 2XAA, I would also expect the R300, with all of its bandwidth, to win the FPS race as well vis-a-vis the NV30, with its more limited bandwidth. Or am I incorrect in this expectation?
On the topic of marketshare vis-a-vis PS1.1 vs PS1.4:
Yes, NV has the marketshare lead in terms of units, but I expect that the vast majority of those units are not PS1.1 (ie: GF4MX or lesser). Whereas ATI has less marketshare, but I expect that a large proportion, if not the majority, of those units are PS1.4 (R200 or better). In any case, even Chalnoth seems to have given up on that line of thought...
On the topic of Reviews:
Reverend, has your R300 review ever been published at ve3d.com? Or anywhere else, for that matter? If not then I, for one, would still be interested to see it.
Hrmmm... that reminds me, whatever happened to Ben6's review of R300? Was that ever published? If so, then I missed it and would appreciate a link.
And does anyone else miss seeing competitors' benchmarks in B3D reviews? It seems that all of the latest B3D reviews focus only on products from the same IHV. IE: R9700 vs R9000 vs R8500 or GF4 vs GF3 vs GF4MX but not R9700 vs GF4. While the B3D reviews are very informative, I do miss seeing 'shootouts' between all of the players.
EDIT: Oops. I seem to have mixed-up some of my comments between this and another thread. I'll add some of these comments to the proper thread...
Doomtrooper
Veteran
The Nv30 has lots of badwidth too with 500 mhz DDR (1000 mhz effective)..resolution and AF need to be factored in (default LOD) also.
It will be very close IMO at lower resolutions...IQ MUST be compared as 4X AA on one card may require another to be set to 6X.
I agree..especially with a overclocked 8500 coming back as a 9100..
http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1220_2.html
Not really, you can get those on any of the fan forums or Anandtech and Tomshardware etc...
This is one of the few sites that takes attention away for a moment of the competitor and shows the product in the best light.
Hardocp has gotten alot better also in this area with Brent doing most of the reviews.
Maybe mid summer have a DX9 shootout or something might be worth while but Beyond3D has always centered on the technology (just look at the detail in the reviews and overlooked items in say a Anand article) who is busy putting some trash talk in the closing statements.."Yes its a good card now but brand X I visited is not really afraid of it..blah blah..yada yada.."
tamattack said:
Not entirely
Anyway, the problem I have with this argument is that it's only very recently since ATI released their own mainstream DX8 parts. I just have a hard time believing that they can have made much of a dent in the marketshare of DX8 parts compared to nVidia's. While I would probably accept the argument if, say, ATI had released a mainstream DX8 part around March or so of last year, I just don't think that there's been enough time for ATI to have made much of a dent.