If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I dont see that nvidia is "finished"...
And please dont get me wrong, i really dont want to upset the people in this
group after they spent so much time helping me with some issues i have had in the past week with my hardware, and giving me some good info on radeon cards. i dont think that the current "scandal" with nvidia will kill that company, and i think that nvidia saw this coming a mile away... it seems that nvidia has done quite alot of diversification in the past, making chipsets for the xbox, making motherboard chipsets, etc... it seems as though somewhere down the line they said "enough with this high end gaming business, we can make far more money by pandering to the middle range consumer". and that is what they did. Its like 3dfx and nvidia years ago. 3dfx decided to go after a certain market, while nvidia catered to a high end market. in this case, you could compare call it nvidia going for that middle range market and ati going for the high end. The problem that 3dfx had was releasing way to many cards at the same time in a desperate attempt to regain market share... a problem that nvidia doesnt have. years ago ati wasnt a contender for high end, then the radeon 7500 and 8500's changed all that, and nvidia was faced with competetion for the first time ever. If this is the result (these bad benchmarks with HL2) of nvidia having competetion, then it marks a turning point for the company, and hopefully they can stop and change direction and gt back on track, just like 3dfx was NOT able to do. Still, this doesnt spell out the end for nvidia. If they have cards that cost less, and which run games, that is what about 80% of the market will tolerate. Admit it... 8/10 gamers could care less about what we here care about, and that mass market is what keeps hardware and software companies in business. It costs less to make Geforce4 cards than the new 5900 cards, and if nvidia sold enough geforce4 cards to still turn a huge profit, they would never complain. they got themselves in trouble with behcnmarks, they should have shut up about 3dmark, and i am sort of grinning at my own decision to get a 9600 pro card now, but i dont want nvidia to die. in fact, no one here should want nvidia to die. Why did ati become so good in the 3d game? it was because they were trying to compete with nvidia. if one company has a monopoly for a market, its never a good thing. still, i dont think nvidia is dying by any means, they are just at a point where they have to decide if they want to go mass market only, or seriously work on making great cards, and ignoring little squabbles like whether or not someone optomizes cards for benchmarking. thats my opinion. worth what you paid for it btw ;-) thanks for reading. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I replaced a clients Ti4600 with a Radeon 9600Pro (the Ti4600 died just
after a year!) for allot less then the cost of the Ti4600 new and still less after all this time. Client reports back that the 9600p seems faster, feels smoother and looks better in 3D. They are very happy with the switch. Apparently it 'benches' less then it actually performs in the real world. Cost of the 9600p was under $150 including S/H. System is an XP2000+ on a VIA KT333 board with 512Mb DDR running WinXP Home. I battled with a wide variety of NF2 boards and all were disappointing in the end although I did get nice performance with them and a damn good overclock. My current Intel based machine is a league or two beyond the AMD/NForce2 stuff. Basically nVidia couldn't get a consistent yield of chips and didn't get there ducks in line with the motherboard makers, leading to lots of unhappy buyers. I was happier with the nVidia of yesterday. My two cents. "Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote in message news:T388b.115651$kW.28901@edtnps84... And please dont get me wrong, i really dont want to upset the people in this group after they spent so much time helping me with some issues i have had in the past week with my hardware, and giving me some good info on radeon cards. i dont think that the current "scandal" with nvidia will kill that company, and i think that nvidia saw this coming a mile away... it seems that nvidia has done quite alot of diversification in the past, making chipsets for the xbox, making motherboard chipsets, etc... it seems as though somewhere down the line they said "enough with this high end gaming business, we can make far more money by pandering to the middle range consumer". and that is what they did. Its like 3dfx and nvidia years ago. 3dfx decided to go after a certain market, while nvidia catered to a high end market. in this case, you could compare call it nvidia going for that middle range market and ati going for the high end. The problem that 3dfx had was releasing way to many cards at the same time in a desperate attempt to regain market share... a problem that nvidia doesnt have. years ago ati wasnt a contender for high end, then the radeon 7500 and 8500's changed all that, and nvidia was faced with competetion for the first time ever. If this is the result (these bad benchmarks with HL2) of nvidia having competetion, then it marks a turning point for the company, and hopefully they can stop and change direction and gt back on track, just like 3dfx was NOT able to do. Still, this doesnt spell out the end for nvidia. If they have cards that cost less, and which run games, that is what about 80% of the market will tolerate. Admit it... 8/10 gamers could care less about what we here care about, and that mass market is what keeps hardware and software companies in business. It costs less to make Geforce4 cards than the new 5900 cards, and if nvidia sold enough geforce4 cards to still turn a huge profit, they would never complain. they got themselves in trouble with behcnmarks, they should have shut up about 3dmark, and i am sort of grinning at my own decision to get a 9600 pro card now, but i dont want nvidia to die. in fact, no one here should want nvidia to die. Why did ati become so good in the 3d game? it was because they were trying to compete with nvidia. if one company has a monopoly for a market, its never a good thing. still, i dont think nvidia is dying by any means, they are just at a point where they have to decide if they want to go mass market only, or seriously work on making great cards, and ignoring little squabbles like whether or not someone optomizes cards for benchmarking. thats my opinion. worth what you paid for it btw ;-) thanks for reading. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote in message news:T388b.115651$kW.28901@edtnps84... And please dont get me wrong, i really dont want to upset the people in this group after they spent so much time helping me with some issues i have had in the past week with my hardware, and giving me some good info on radeon cards. i dont think that the current "scandal" with nvidia will kill that company, and i think that nvidia saw this coming a mile away... it seems that nvidia has done quite alot of diversification in the past, making chipsets for the xbox, making motherboard chipsets, etc... it seems as though somewhere down the line they said "enough with this high end gaming business, we can make far more money by pandering to the middle range consumer". and that is what they did. No-one is suggesting it will "kill" the company, it's just a scandal that the customers are going to suffer. Those middle ranging customers are going to get a shock when they try to use their brand new Nvidia cards on new games it is supposed to handle well and doesn't, they will end up having to upgrade even sooner than before, especially if devwelopers just say no to optimising their coding to allow geforce cards to run due to time constraints etc. Then Nvidia could well just say that the games are just poorly made, great news for a new developer no? :s Its like 3dfx and nvidia years ago. 3dfx decided to go after a certain market, while nvidia catered to a high end market. in this case, you could compare call it nvidia going for that middle range market and ati going for the high end. The problem that 3dfx had was releasing way to many cards at the same time in a desperate attempt to regain market share... a problem that nvidia doesnt have. It's nothing like 3dfx and nvidia years ago, 3dfx produced decent cards, in fact superb cards, they just made a mistake with the voodoo 5 (and note, there are rumours that this new fx range was based on the plans of the voodoo 6, so not sure if this is true or not, but the curse lives on) years ago ati wasnt a contender for high end, then the radeon 7500 and 8500's changed all that, and nvidia was faced with competetion for the first time ever. No, the Radeon DDR changed it, before the 7500... If this is the result (these bad benchmarks with HL2) of nvidia having competetion, then it marks a turning point for the company, and hopefully they can stop and change direction and gt back on track, just like 3dfx was NOT able to do. I doubt they will get back to the same as before, you realise how much money Nvidia have lost in last 8 months? First the 5800 embarassment and now this, there is no turning back....And it isn't just Half Life 2 mate, it's any DX9 game with pixel shaders, nothing to do with half life 2, if it was, Nvidia could easily squeeze out of this hole they are in by saying that it's all a concoction by Ati and Valve seeing as they are both promoting each other, but it isn't, Doom 3, 3d Mark 03 and the last Lara Croft all brought these issues to light, no doubt we will see far more as more and more dx9 coded games come out. Still, this doesnt spell out the end for nvidia. If they have cards that cost less, and which run games, that is what about 80% of the market will tolerate. Admit it... 8/10 gamers could care less about what we here care about, and that mass market is what keeps hardware and software companies in business. It costs less to make Geforce4 cards than the new 5900 cards, and if nvidia sold enough geforce4 cards to still turn a huge profit, they would never complain. Of course gamers care about this, they have just shelled out £100+ for a new card, you think everyone is made of money? Do you think people shell out money for 3d cards if they won't use them? Don't be mad. The only reason it costs more to produce the 5900 is because of the marketing costs.....I'm sure they have made enough of them now to rectify any problems with production, and they have the 5600 and 5200 cards, any bad cards are turned into these anyway. they got themselves in trouble with behcnmarks, they should have shut up about 3dmark, and i am sort of grinning at my own decision to get a 9600 pro card now, but i dont want nvidia to die. No-one thinks they will die, as above they have just hit a bad spot and one I doubt they will really get back to the "old" days over. Times have now changed for Nvidia. in fact, no one here should want nvidia to die. Why did ati become so good in the 3d game? it was because they were trying to compete with nvidia. if one company has a monopoly for a market, its never a good thing. There are other makers out there, don't forget about them, S3 for instance have been on the OEM and onboard gfx for years, they are due a big boost and it could be time, they have a couple of chipsets that are looking good. still, i dont think nvidia is dying by any means, they are just at a point where they have to decide if they want to go mass market only, or seriously work on making great cards, and ignoring little squabbles like whether or not someone optomizes cards for benchmarking. Nothing to do with their positioning in the market, they are a gfx chip maker and always have been, they have just produced 4 bad chips on the trot and 2 of those are high end cards. thats my opinion. worth what you paid for it btw ;-) thanks for reading. No worries |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thank GOD I got a ATI and didn't continue with nVidia......(nvidia was good
too) -- Splitskull "methylenedioxy" wrote in message ... "Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote in message news:T388b.115651$kW.28901@edtnps84... And please dont get me wrong, i really dont want to upset the people in this group after they spent so much time helping me with some issues i have had in the past week with my hardware, and giving me some good info on radeon cards. i dont think that the current "scandal" with nvidia will kill that company, and i think that nvidia saw this coming a mile away... it seems that nvidia has done quite alot of diversification in the past, making chipsets for the xbox, making motherboard chipsets, etc... it seems as though somewhere down the line they said "enough with this high end gaming business, we can make far more money by pandering to the middle range consumer". and that is what they did. No-one is suggesting it will "kill" the company, it's just a scandal that the customers are going to suffer. Those middle ranging customers are going to get a shock when they try to use their brand new Nvidia cards on new games it is supposed to handle well and doesn't, they will end up having to upgrade even sooner than before, especially if devwelopers just say no to optimising their coding to allow geforce cards to run due to time constraints etc. Then Nvidia could well just say that the games are just poorly made, great news for a new developer no? :s Its like 3dfx and nvidia years ago. 3dfx decided to go after a certain market, while nvidia catered to a high end market. in this case, you could compare call it nvidia going for that middle range market and ati going for the high end. The problem that 3dfx had was releasing way to many cards at the same time in a desperate attempt to regain market share... a problem that nvidia doesnt have. It's nothing like 3dfx and nvidia years ago, 3dfx produced decent cards, in fact superb cards, they just made a mistake with the voodoo 5 (and note, there are rumours that this new fx range was based on the plans of the voodoo 6, so not sure if this is true or not, but the curse lives on) years ago ati wasnt a contender for high end, then the radeon 7500 and 8500's changed all that, and nvidia was faced with competetion for the first time ever. No, the Radeon DDR changed it, before the 7500... If this is the result (these bad benchmarks with HL2) of nvidia having competetion, then it marks a turning point for the company, and hopefully they can stop and change direction and gt back on track, just like 3dfx was NOT able to do. I doubt they will get back to the same as before, you realise how much money Nvidia have lost in last 8 months? First the 5800 embarassment and now this, there is no turning back....And it isn't just Half Life 2 mate, it's any DX9 game with pixel shaders, nothing to do with half life 2, if it was, Nvidia could easily squeeze out of this hole they are in by saying that it's all a concoction by Ati and Valve seeing as they are both promoting each other, but it isn't, Doom 3, 3d Mark 03 and the last Lara Croft all brought these issues to light, no doubt we will see far more as more and more dx9 coded games come out. Still, this doesnt spell out the end for nvidia. If they have cards that cost less, and which run games, that is what about 80% of the market will tolerate. Admit it... 8/10 gamers could care less about what we here care about, and that mass market is what keeps hardware and software companies in business. It costs less to make Geforce4 cards than the new 5900 cards, and if nvidia sold enough geforce4 cards to still turn a huge profit, they would never complain. Of course gamers care about this, they have just shelled out £100+ for a new card, you think everyone is made of money? Do you think people shell out money for 3d cards if they won't use them? Don't be mad. The only reason it costs more to produce the 5900 is because of the marketing costs.....I'm sure they have made enough of them now to rectify any problems with production, and they have the 5600 and 5200 cards, any bad cards are turned into these anyway. they got themselves in trouble with behcnmarks, they should have shut up about 3dmark, and i am sort of grinning at my own decision to get a 9600 pro card now, but i dont want nvidia to die. No-one thinks they will die, as above they have just hit a bad spot and one I doubt they will really get back to the "old" days over. Times have now changed for Nvidia. in fact, no one here should want nvidia to die. Why did ati become so good in the 3d game? it was because they were trying to compete with nvidia. if one company has a monopoly for a market, its never a good thing. There are other makers out there, don't forget about them, S3 for instance have been on the OEM and onboard gfx for years, they are due a big boost and it could be time, they have a couple of chipsets that are looking good. still, i dont think nvidia is dying by any means, they are just at a point where they have to decide if they want to go mass market only, or seriously work on making great cards, and ignoring little squabbles like whether or not someone optomizes cards for benchmarking. Nothing to do with their positioning in the market, they are a gfx chip maker and always have been, they have just produced 4 bad chips on the trot and 2 of those are high end cards. thats my opinion. worth what you paid for it btw ;-) thanks for reading. No worries |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:40:38 GMT, "SST" wrote:
I replaced a clients Ti4600 with a Radeon 9600Pro (the Ti4600 died just after a year!) for allot less then the cost of the Ti4600 new and still less after all this time. Client reports back that the 9600p seems faster, feels smoother and looks better in 3D. They are very happy with the switch. Apparently it 'benches' less then it actually performs in the real world. Actually, I think you've got this reversed. It's not that the 9600p benches less than it performs. It's that the Nvidia cards do the opposite. There's a reason for that. Crash7 remove x's from address to email |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In looking at reviews of current games, The Ti4200 actually beats the 9600p
in many places. It also seems to get beat out by many of the other competitive cards. However, in reality this is quite opposite!! (so reports the users) http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...n_9600-07.html Also, in new DX9 games like HF2 the 9600p outperforms nVidias $500 5900ultra, what's that all about? Their is going to be very many unhappy nVidia owners by years end. Get your ATI now before the demand goes up "Crash7" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:40:38 GMT, "SST" wrote: I replaced a clients Ti4600 with a Radeon 9600Pro (the Ti4600 died just after a year!) for allot less then the cost of the Ti4600 new and still less after all this time. Client reports back that the 9600p seems faster, feels smoother and looks better in 3D. They are very happy with the switch. Apparently it 'benches' less then it actually performs in the real world. Actually, I think you've got this reversed. It's not that the 9600p benches less than it performs. It's that the Nvidia cards do the opposite. There's a reason for that. Crash7 remove x's from address to email |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FWIW: Doom3 is OpenGL and is said to perform as well or better then any ATI
card. Problem is with DX9 video rendering, no? "methylenedioxy" wrote in message ... "Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote in message news:T388b.115651$kW.28901@edtnps84... And please dont get me wrong, i really dont want to upset the people in this group after they spent so much time helping me with some issues i have had in the past week with my hardware, and giving me some good info on radeon cards. i dont think that the current "scandal" with nvidia will kill that company, and i think that nvidia saw this coming a mile away... it seems that nvidia has done quite alot of diversification in the past, making chipsets for the xbox, making motherboard chipsets, etc... it seems as though somewhere down the line they said "enough with this high end gaming business, we can make far more money by pandering to the middle range consumer". and that is what they did. No-one is suggesting it will "kill" the company, it's just a scandal that the customers are going to suffer. Those middle ranging customers are going to get a shock when they try to use their brand new Nvidia cards on new games it is supposed to handle well and doesn't, they will end up having to upgrade even sooner than before, especially if devwelopers just say no to optimising their coding to allow geforce cards to run due to time constraints etc. Then Nvidia could well just say that the games are just poorly made, great news for a new developer no? :s Its like 3dfx and nvidia years ago. 3dfx decided to go after a certain market, while nvidia catered to a high end market. in this case, you could compare call it nvidia going for that middle range market and ati going for the high end. The problem that 3dfx had was releasing way to many cards at the same time in a desperate attempt to regain market share... a problem that nvidia doesnt have. It's nothing like 3dfx and nvidia years ago, 3dfx produced decent cards, in fact superb cards, they just made a mistake with the voodoo 5 (and note, there are rumours that this new fx range was based on the plans of the voodoo 6, so not sure if this is true or not, but the curse lives on) years ago ati wasnt a contender for high end, then the radeon 7500 and 8500's changed all that, and nvidia was faced with competetion for the first time ever. No, the Radeon DDR changed it, before the 7500... If this is the result (these bad benchmarks with HL2) of nvidia having competetion, then it marks a turning point for the company, and hopefully they can stop and change direction and gt back on track, just like 3dfx was NOT able to do. I doubt they will get back to the same as before, you realise how much money Nvidia have lost in last 8 months? First the 5800 embarassment and now this, there is no turning back....And it isn't just Half Life 2 mate, it's any DX9 game with pixel shaders, nothing to do with half life 2, if it was, Nvidia could easily squeeze out of this hole they are in by saying that it's all a concoction by Ati and Valve seeing as they are both promoting each other, but it isn't, Doom 3, 3d Mark 03 and the last Lara Croft all brought these issues to light, no doubt we will see far more as more and more dx9 coded games come out. Still, this doesnt spell out the end for nvidia. If they have cards that cost less, and which run games, that is what about 80% of the market will tolerate. Admit it... 8/10 gamers could care less about what we here care about, and that mass market is what keeps hardware and software companies in business. It costs less to make Geforce4 cards than the new 5900 cards, and if nvidia sold enough geforce4 cards to still turn a huge profit, they would never complain. Of course gamers care about this, they have just shelled out £100+ for a new card, you think everyone is made of money? Do you think people shell out money for 3d cards if they won't use them? Don't be mad. The only reason it costs more to produce the 5900 is because of the marketing costs.....I'm sure they have made enough of them now to rectify any problems with production, and they have the 5600 and 5200 cards, any bad cards are turned into these anyway. they got themselves in trouble with behcnmarks, they should have shut up about 3dmark, and i am sort of grinning at my own decision to get a 9600 pro card now, but i dont want nvidia to die. No-one thinks they will die, as above they have just hit a bad spot and one I doubt they will really get back to the "old" days over. Times have now changed for Nvidia. in fact, no one here should want nvidia to die. Why did ati become so good in the 3d game? it was because they were trying to compete with nvidia. if one company has a monopoly for a market, its never a good thing. There are other makers out there, don't forget about them, S3 for instance have been on the OEM and onboard gfx for years, they are due a big boost and it could be time, they have a couple of chipsets that are looking good. still, i dont think nvidia is dying by any means, they are just at a point where they have to decide if they want to go mass market only, or seriously work on making great cards, and ignoring little squabbles like whether or not someone optomizes cards for benchmarking. Nothing to do with their positioning in the market, they are a gfx chip maker and always have been, they have just produced 4 bad chips on the trot and 2 of those are high end cards. thats my opinion. worth what you paid for it btw ;-) thanks for reading. No worries |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I own an ATI card, but if NVIDIA goes belly up over this it would bad for
consumers and gamers in general. I'm happy that I made the right choice this time around with my 9700PRO--but we can only hope that the .50 det drivers for the NVIDIA cards can make up for the half-life2 performance gap somehow. In a few years or possibly less, when we are all starting to crave something to replace our current hardware, ATI's solutions will just be that much better(and cheaper) if they feel like NVIDIA is right on their heels. So, if you own an ATI card and are a half-life fan, breathe a sigh of relief but don't forget that competition in this market is what is best for GAMERS over the long haul. -G |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Gamer" wrote in message et... I own an ATI card, but if NVIDIA goes belly up over this it would bad for consumers and gamers in general. I'm happy that I made the right choice this time around with my 9700PRO--but we can only hope that the .50 det drivers for the NVIDIA cards can make up for the half-life2 performance gap somehow. In a few years or possibly less, when we are all starting to crave something to replace our current hardware, ATI's solutions will just be that much better(and cheaper) if they feel like NVIDIA is right on their heels. So, if you own an ATI card and are a half-life fan, breathe a sigh of relief but don't forget that competition in this market is what is best for GAMERS over the long haul. -G That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati would be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and demand. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"jaeger" wrote in message .. . In article , says... That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati would be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and demand. Ah, better go back to Economics 101. If only ATI made cards they could charge anything they wanted and consumers would have no choice but to pay it. The rules of supply and demand don't apply to monopolies. I think it would because in order to keep being the monopoly they would charge less to keep that market position making it extremely difficult for any company coming into the fold, they would be twice the price then |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pc problems after g card upgrade + sp2 | ben reed | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | November 30th 04 01:04 AM |
can someone look at this? | steve | General | 3 | March 1st 04 11:11 PM |
help?? | steve | General | 11 | February 11th 04 05:08 PM |
Tomb Raider AOD benches: Bad news for Nvidia | who be dat? | Ati Videocards | 33 | September 4th 03 10:35 AM |
Kyle Bennett (HardOCP) blasts NVIDIA | Radeon350 | Ati Videocards | 12 | August 13th 03 09:19 PM |