Who would you say was under more pressure?

[quest55720]

Since we are under 2 weeks before the cards are on the table I atleast hope.

Who would you say has been under more pressure? ATI who I could be wrong but will be working with less of a transitor budget and slower clockspeed target. The whole XBox 360 might rest in the hands of ATI over coming the odds. Or is NVidia under more pressure? Lets be honest the average gamer is expecting the PS3 to completely wipe the floor with the XBox 360. NVida should have a higher clockspeed and transistor budget to stick it to ATI and MS. I could also be wrong but NVidia was brought onto the PS3 project at really late date so they have had a lot less time then ATI to work some magic. The cell might be the best thing since sliced bread but if Nvidia fails Sony could be in major trouble. With out the promise of a super machine Sony might have a much tougher time convincing people to wait another year for the PS3. Sony was able to get people to wait on the PS2 by completely destroying the dreamcast on paper.

If either one of these 2 ATI or NVidia hit an home run in design it could end up costing either MS or Sony billions of dollars and market leader ship.

 

[Lazy8s]

They're both under an equal amount of pressure because, for the first time in years, there'll be a TBDLR that can be compared to their respective important desktop/set-top lines in a climate of high image quality standards.

 

[jvd]

I'd say nvidia .

Ati has alot of nice things going into the r500 and they are going to use it to make a desktop dx 10 part / wgf2 chipset with unified shaders .

 

[Clashman]

And ATI can rely on two systems. If MS bites the big one, they still have a shot with Nintendo.

 

[trinibwoy]

I'm not really sure how you can answer this question with the limited info we have. ATI seems to have a lot more invested in the Xbox than Nvidia does in the PS3, judging from when they came into the project etc etc. Other than that there's nothing much to go on. ATI has more pressure on them in the PC space right now since they have to hit a home run with their SM3.0 parts and AMR solution but I don't know if that affects their console development.

 

[Shinjisan]

Looking at the market,Ati without any doubt.
Nvidia is the current leader with the only product on the market with pixel shaders 3.0 and with SLI gaining a lot of mindshare in the high performance market.
Ati on the other hand was supposed to have a new product out this spring but it has been delayed at least to this summer.
Nvidia is following its internal roadmap and will launch its next gen GPU this fall.
I understand that keeping everything so secret while we know a lot of what Ati is cooking puts Nvidia in a strange light of uncertanty but at the moment it's not Nvidia that has to catch up.

 

[whql]

Ati on the other hand was supposed to have a new product out this spring but it has been delayed at least to this summer.
Nvidia is following its internal roadmap and will launch its next gen GPU this fall.

So, lets understand this - ati releases possibly 3 high end products in less than 18 months and their part is "delayed", meanwhile nvidia stays with one high end chip for now at least 12 months, possibly 18 (if its fall, as you say) and they are "following their internal roadmap"? nvidia have never before not had a high end refresh in less than 8 months, let alone 18, even when they did need to claw back gobs of marketshare that they've lost, and not really displaying much traction into re-claiming.

 

[whql]

ATI who I could be wrong but will be working with less of a transitor budget and slower clockspeed target.

why do you assume that? do we have confirmation that nvidia and ati will be on different processes? Sounds like the edram part may actually be a separate chip, which might mean that ati has a transistor budget for two chips?

 

[Shinjisan]

Ati on the other hand was supposed to have a new product out this spring but it has been delayed at least to this summer.
Nvidia is following its internal roadmap and will launch its next gen GPU this fall.

So, lets understand this - ati releases possibly 3 high end products in less than 18 months and their part is "delayed", meanwhile nvidia stays with one high end chip for now at least 12 months, possibly 18 (if its fall, as you say) and they are "following their internal roadmap"? nvidia have never before not had a high end refresh in less than 8 months, let alone 18, even when they did need to claw back gobs of marketshare that they've lost, and not really displaying much traction into re-claiming.

Why should Nvidia harry with a new product when they have both the technology and speed crown at the moment with PS3.0 and SLI?
Also with GPUs taking much more time to be developed ,and developers implementing new features slowly because they have to make sure their games run on older hardware,a new product every 12 months is the new development cycle for GPU.

 

[Titanio]

The one thing I'm interested by is how NVidia has been very quiet now since the 6800 Ultra - no new refreshes, while ATi have been refreshing since, working on Revolution and X360 at the same time, as well as getting into R600 and the whole unified shading approach. Because of these factors, might it be possible that NV5x is R600's direct competitor and may land a fair bit earlier than R600 (earlier in 2006)..that NVidia will have their next generation sooner? Might that make PS3's GPU closer to that class of GPU, in terms of performance, than R500 is?

 

[whql]

Why should Nvidia harry with a new product when they have both the technology and speed crown at the moment with PS3.0 and SLI?

why should they have done it with gf3->gf3 ti, with gf3 ti->gf4? even more so now they are in a sorry 3rd position in market share and not clawing back much very fast. The "speed crown" with at least $300 more over a single board performance is a bit of a hollow victory. surely they it would have been sensible to get 6800 onto 0.11u and get that "speed crown" for lower cost? why didn't they?

Also with GPUs taking much more time to be developed ,and developers implementing new features slowly because they have to make sure their games run on older hardware,a new product every 12 months is the new development cycle for GPU.

Someone forgot to tell either ati or nvidia then - ati have had new chips (big changes or not) every 6-8 months so far. been 12 months and counting for nvidia.

 

[trinibwoy]

Ati on the other hand was supposed to have a new product out this spring but it has been delayed at least to this summer.
Nvidia is following its internal roadmap and will launch its next gen GPU this fall.

So, lets understand this - ati releases possibly 3 high end products in less than 18 months and their part is "delayed", meanwhile nvidia stays with one high end chip for now at least 12 months, possibly 18 (if its fall, as you say) and they are "following their internal roadmap"? nvidia have never before not had a high end refresh in less than 8 months, let alone 18, even when they did need to claw back gobs of marketshare that they've lost, and not really displaying much traction into re-claiming.

Nvidia didn't refresh because there was no reason to do so. Even with ATI's refreshes, faster process tech and higher clocks the original NV40 is still competing very well. It's kinda silly that Nvidia has been so quiet. They can't be focusing too much on the PS3 and it's anybody's guess what they're working on for their fall PC part.

 

[trinibwoy]

ati have had new chips (big changes or not) every 6-8 months so far. been 12 months and counting for nvidia.

I hope you don't consider the X850 a new chip.

 

[whql]

Nvidia didn't refresh because there was no reason to do so. Even with ATI's refreshes, faster process tech and higher clocks the original NV40 is still competing very well.

Thats the excuse, but then they didn't need to from gf3 all the way to gf4 when the competition was non-existant, why isn't it "needed" now when they need to hammer home the "advantage" they have? I don't buy there was no reason to - look what ati did with x800xl - wouldn't wiping $100 or so off nv40's price have been a good move?

I hope you don't consider the X850 a new chip.

Why not, it is one. Plus, x800xl is as well and its achieving what it needs to.

 

[Pozer]

The pressure is on ATI because Nvidia is the market leader in terms of features/performance. ATI has milked the r300 core for too long. I don't think console GPUs are gonna be make/break for either complany except how they may slow down one company in the PC marketplace. (like what happened to nvidia during the nv2a/chipset development)

 

[trinibwoy]

Nvidia didn't refresh because there was no reason to do so. Even with ATI's refreshes, faster process tech and higher clocks the original NV40 is still competing very well.

Thats the excuse, but then they didn't need to from gf3 all the way to gf4 when the competition was non-existant, why isn't it "needed" now when they need to hammer home the "advantage" they have?

The only "advantage" Nvidia has is their support for SM3.0 and FP blending. A refresh was not required to maintain this advantage.

I don't buy there was no reason to - look what ati did with x800xl - wouldn't wiping $100 or so off nv40's price have been a good move?

The x800xl was born out of the fact that ATI had an inferior product to go up against the GT. The only reason it is $300 is to undercut the GT's momentum in the marketplace. It is doing a good job of that but Nvidia has no need to respond since the GT is still selling very well.

You are asking why Nvidia didn't refresh as if it is an omen of doom for them. However, I can ask why ATI felt the need to refresh. Was it to solidify some advantage or was it out of necessity?

I hope you don't consider the X850 a new chip.

Why not, it is one. Plus, x800xl is as well and its achieving what it needs to.

The x800xl (R430) is a die-shrunk R420. Not exactly a new chip. If a 20Mhz (3.8%) overclock of the x800 core qualifies as a new chip in your eyes then more power to you. I guess Nvidia should release an Ultra at 415Mhz - that will surely excite the masses.

 

[jvd]

Hmmm.

Ati has the single fastest graphics board on the market (x850) . I"m sure ati will sell more of these than nvidia sells sli rigs . Not to mention that some times the x850 is faster than a 6800ultra sli rig


Ati has a sm2.0 (ps2.0b + g.i) part and will be releasing a new chip in a few months that may or may not be more feature rich than the nv40 . Nvidia is currently rumored to be putting out nothing more than a refresh of the nv40 .


Ati will be launching a unified shader board . They may have 3 unified shader chips out on the market before longhorn even comes out . Giving them more than enough experiance with it .


For nvidia they don't have the performance crown fully to themselves as even with sli they are beaten sometimes by a single ati card . That card is also faster than nvidia's card in single card set ups . They've had only about 12 months so far of having the most feature rich card but not the single fastest card . Before that for almost 3 years it was ati with the faster card and more feature rich card

So as I said . Def nvidia has more pressure

 

[London Geezer]

Define "under pressure".

To me, ATI are gonna be under a lot of pressure, since they'll have to come up with 3 chips that shoul dbe different from each other (Xbox2 GPU, PC GPUs and Rev GPU).

Nvidia only has to worry about their PC and PS3 parts, and Sony is giving them a big hand in the PS3 part anyway, with the fabbing and all...

But maybe you meant another kind of pressure.

 

[Teasy]

quest55720

I'd be very suprised if the ATI GPU in Revolution isn't more advanced then the ATI GPU in XBox 360. Considering the difference in release date and time in development. So XBox 360 vs PS3 probably isn't the best comparison to make for ATI vs Nvidia next gen console GPU's.

 

[trinibwoy]

Ati has the single fastest graphics board on the market (x850) . I"m sure ati will sell more of these than nvidia sells sli rigs . Not to mention that some times the x850 is faster than a 6800ultra sli rig.

True but it just doesn't have enough mystique to push the ATI brand on its own. The XL is doing a much better job of that. There are also enough high-profile titles were the Ultra is on top for Nvidia to not be panicking. Remember it was ATI who felt the need to refresh its high-end.

Ati has a sm2.0 (ps2.0b + g.i) part and will be releasing a new chip in a few months that may or may not be more feature rich than the nv40 . Nvidia is currently rumored to be putting out nothing more than a refresh of the nv40.

Not sure how this applies since we don't know anything about what Nvidia is doing. It is obviously some kind of NV40 refresh since they don't need to do much on the feature front but how big a refresh is going to be key.

Ati will be launching a unified shader board . They may have 3 unified shader chips out on the market before longhorn even comes out . Giving them more than enough experiance with it .

This equates to more pressure, not less. This is the first time that they've had to come up with something new since the R300 so things were pretty easy for them over the past few years in comparison. ATI has several areas where they need to execute well, more so than Nvidia does so that translates to more pressure on them.

For nvidia they don't have the performance crown fully to themselves as even with sli they are beaten sometimes by a single ati card .

In which SLI supported game does an X850XT/PE beat out a GT or Ultra SLI setup when not CPU limited? edit: nevermind found one - EQII :?

That card is also faster than nvidia's card in single card set ups . They've had only about 12 months so far of having the most feature rich card but not the single fastest card . Before that for almost 3 years it was ati with the faster card and more feature rich card.

That may be true but what does that have to do with the pressure of coming up with something in next couple months? Both companies have something to prove. Nvidia has to demonstrate that NV30 was an anomaly and ATI has to show that R300 was not.