Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :

 
Search
 



Latest News


- Outdoor Life: Panasonic Puts 3G Wireless Into Rugged Notebooks
- Averatec Launches Lightweight Turion 64 X2 Laptop
- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 Motherboard Review
    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: ATI vs NVIDIA in the year 2001 - whos gonna win?

    ATI vs NVIDIA in the year 2001 - whos gonna win?
    By BobTheSlob January 06, 2001, 01:38 PM

    Who do you think is going to come out the champion on 2001? ATI or NVIDIA? I firmly believe NVIDIA will stay on top. Their GeForce2 line of cards is undoubtedly more popular than the Radeon, and they have never missed a product release. Anyone have a varying opinion?

    By Elxman January 06, 2001, 02:07 PM

    I think nvidia already missed a product release instead of nv20 last yr fall they made that overclocked gts

    By EvilTwin January 06, 2001, 02:35 PM

    True the gf2 does have more fanboys BUT ATI is HUGE they have massive relations with oems and etc. That is what led to the demise of 3dfx had incredible trouble cracking the oem market . Im not sure who will come out on top when ati releases unified drivers their biggest Obstacle will be removed right there .

    By AMD_Forever January 06, 2001, 02:54 PM

    this depends on if the average gamer can stop being focused on speed (which we have enough of already) and start respecting the image quality and features of ATI over the brute speed of Nvidia. quite frankly im not too happy that 3dfx didn't have the speed necessary cause they certainly had better features and stability ('cept their lack of T&L). To most people it's all about speed, and If 3dfx had had more of it, they wouldn't be dead. and if ATI doesn't improve their drivers, they'll die too. look at nvidia, at the radeon launch radeon beat the gts, a few weeks later the gts is winning again due to a simple driver update.

    By BobTheSlob January 06, 2001, 04:04 PM

    quote:Originally posted by AMD_Forever:
    this depends on if the average gamer can stop being an idiot and start respecting the image quality of ATI over the brute speed of Nvidia. if the average gamer gets smart enough to realize that ATI is the better choice, the world will be a happier place. quite frankly im pissed off that because of all those freaks who wanted their extra 50 fps (when they're already at 100) 3dfx had to die even though 3dfx has a superior (in stability and features) product. its all about speed to the masses of idiots out there and until ati has a speed advantage no one except the smart people will support them.

    How many times have you gibbed some ass online and stopped to think "ooh, look at the pretty blood"? i have never done that. BUT, when my computer chokes at a critical second and i GET gibbed, then i am pissed. for most of the games that need 3d cards, FPS is more important. and besides, i strongly disagree with you that radeon looks THAT much better. given, i have only seen screenshots.

    By Buttalova January 06, 2001, 04:05 PM

    I don't understand the people who bring down the Geforce series for bad image quality.
    It is not bad.
    And ATi and nVidia are similar in size, one is bigger in certain areas than the other, and vice versa.
    They are similiarily positioned firms and the clear winner will not be known for a while.

    Where tha ladies at?

    By blppt January 06, 2001, 04:09 PM

    quote:Originally posted by BobTheSlob:
    Who do you think is going to come out the champion on 2001? ATI or NVIDIA? I firmly believe NVIDIA will stay on top. Their GeForce2 line of cards is undoubtedly more popular than the Radeon, and they have never missed a product release. Anyone have a varying opinion?

    I dont think anybody really expects ATI to beat Nvidia in performance next generation, especially since they now have rampage technologies to use, but it would be nice for ATI to scare Nvidia a little bit.

    By Willy-Willy January 06, 2001, 04:10 PM

    I agree that this year will have no clear winner, ATI and nVidia is on the same road - make faster chip, I think the clock speed of the graphic chip will up to 500 MHz by the end of 2001!!

    By pompadorean January 06, 2001, 04:25 PM

    Nvidia.

    Who ever said that nvidia has bad quality picture? it looks fine to me.

    By BuggyLoop January 06, 2001, 04:47 PM

    ATI, why? cause they learned alot with nintendo/ibm/nec/panasonic with the console, if you look at the nv2a (modified nv20 for the xbox) its 256bit (same as geforce), the flipper (ATI gamecube) a nice whooping 512bit.

    I think ATI now have the knowledge of 3d, the radeon was their "First" 3d card sort of speak, just like nvidia first real 3d card was the tnt2, get ready to see ATI warm up this year.

    By LordZordec January 06, 2001, 05:03 PM

    nVidia is already huge, but now they have the 3DFX technology behind them. I think they will destroy ATI in 2001 UNLESS ATI pulls out something big. I dont think a lot of gamers really pay that much attension to image quality. Its important, but the bigger factors like frame rate will mean more, and the geforce has the advantage there. I actually hope ATI DOES come out on top to keep nVidia humble...competition is always a good thing.

    By BobTheSlob January 06, 2001, 05:07 PM

    I am kind of curious to see what ATI will do. I think the first company to release some actual NEW TECHNOLOGY, not just better the old stuff, will take it. Look at NVIDIA? New tech = T&L. Now they the kings.

    By BuggyLoop January 06, 2001, 05:08 PM

    sigh, guess what peoples, once you will get 1600x1200 fsaa 2x (we'll see that this year) there is NO point in speed anymore, at that point guess what counts? image quality.

    By Emilee January 06, 2001, 05:14 PM

    Nvidia has never missed a product release? HAHAHAHA! Thats a good one.

    By BobTheSlob January 06, 2001, 05:35 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Emilee:
    Nvidia has never missed a product release? HAHAHAHA! Thats a good one.

    Explain

    By jagojago12 January 06, 2001, 07:10 PM

    Wasn't NV20 supposed to be released last year? Instead we got an Ultra to play with.

    By Hey Yoda January 06, 2001, 08:18 PM

    quote:Originally posted by AMD_Forever:
    this depends on if the average gamer can stop being an idiot and start respecting the image quality of ATI over the brute speed of Nvidia. if the average gamer gets smart enough to realize that ATI is the better choice, the world will be a happier place. quite frankly im pissed off that because of all those freaks who wanted their extra 50 fps (when they're already at 100) 3dfx had to die even though 3dfx has a superior (in stability and features) product. its all about speed to the masses of idiots out there and until ati has a speed advantage no one except the smart people will support them.

    Yo man, who's being the IDIOT now?? You're clearly blind and cannot see that nVIDIA has a VERY good product! The difference in image quality is soooo close as to be almost indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the difference is there. I bet if you asked 10 gamers, 9/10 wouldn't be able to tell the difference, unless you spend your whole time looking at the sky in quake3. Personally, I'd rather have the speed than that tiny little bit of image quality. Besides, given the extra speed of the nVIDIA cards, cranking up the resolution yields a sharper/crisper image... ie, better image quality.

    Fact is, Radeon and Geforce2 are both excellent cards and I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing one or the other. Like yourself though, I get pissed off when somebody thinks one product is obviously far superior to the other. This simply isn't true. What pisses me off even more though is hypocrites like yourself who chastise others for being idiots, when you yourself are an idiot for thinking that nvidia cards suck. SPEED is important!! And don't go saying that it doesn't matter beyond 100 fps, because who actually plays in 640x480???

    You saying that 3DFX had a better product really makes me laugh. The Voodoo5 was decent. But unless you needed FSAA, I couldn't see any reason to buy one over a Radeon or Geforce2.

    As for who will come out on top in 2001, I think it'll be interesting to say the least. I see the 2 titans (nvidia and ATI) trading blows in a close match throughout the year. Honestly though, I'd put my money on nvidia. They've been delivering consistently high quality products since the days of the TNT and I have the utmost of confidence in them. ATI's performance on the other hand has been very sketchy. They have good products every now again, but they put out a lot of crap too. Whether they can deliver on with the quality of the Radeon remains to be seen....

    By AMD_Forever January 06, 2001, 08:28 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Hey Yoda:
    Yo man, who's being the IDIOT now?? You're clearly blind and cannot see that nVIDIA has a VERY good product! The difference in image quality is soooo close as to be almost indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the difference is there. I bet if you asked 10 gamers, 9/10 wouldn't be able to tell the difference, unless you spend your whole time looking at the sky in quake3. Personally, I'd rather have the speed than that tiny little bit of image quality. Besides, given the extra speed of the nVIDIA cards, cranking up the resolution yields a sharper/crisper image... ie, better image quality.

    Fact is, Radeon and Geforce2 are both excellent cards and I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing one or the other. Like yourself though, I get pissed off when somebody thinks one product is obviously far superior to the other. This simply isn't true. What pisses me off even more though is hypocrites like yourself who chastise others for being idiots, when you yourself are an idiot for thinking that nvidia cards suck. SPEED is important!! And don't go saying that it doesn't matter beyond 100 fps, because who actually plays in 640x480???

    You saying that 3DFX had a better product really makes me laugh. The Voodoo5 was decent. But unless you needed FSAA, I couldn't see any reason to buy one over a Radeon or Geforce2.

    As for who will come out on top in 2001, I think it'll be interesting to say the least. I see the 2 titans (nvidia and ATI) trading blows in a close match throughout the year. Honestly though, I'd put my money on nvidia. They've been delivering consistently high quality products since the days of the TNT and I have the utmost of confidence in them. ATI's performance on the other hand has been very sketchy. They have good products every now again, but they put out a lot of crap too. Whether they can deliver on with the quality of the Radeon remains to be seen....


    How many users had problems with the Voodoo 4/5 line of cards on athlon platforms? How many had problems with a Nvidia card in the exact same system. 'nuff said. The point is, Nvidia seems to focus a wee bit too much on brute speed. They sacrifice everything for it. They give up rock solid compatibility for everything that isn't intel. They give up things that are "nice to have" like FSAA and pretty much all of the fancy wiz bang features the Radeon has that the GeForce line doesn't. They give up any consideration of cost as well. Nvidia should just slow down a little and start focusing on features like FSAA and better texture compression so that we don't have to buy cards with the most expensive DDR Ram available. Primarily though my complaints with nvidia are based on their total disregard for the VIA chipset user, which is everyone who has an athlon. Just yesterday I had to disable fast writes to be stable in a game like Red Alert 2. Maybe Nvidia should change the product cycle to 8 months instead of releasing buggy, incompatble products every 6.

    And yes, I probably am over reacting with the bit about buggy and incompatible, but why does Nvidia insist on having no consideration for the athlon user? Hell, I remember the athlon launch with the 750 chipset when the fastest thing was the GeForce DDR. Because the GeForce DDR had problems in 750 systems, suddenly the 750 was a bad chipset when in fact it was Nvidia's hell bent focus on intel only that lead to the problems.

    AND I'm not an idiot, I own an nvidia card. It's really nice and it's really fast. But when I play Red Alert 2 and have all kinds of graphical screw up with fast writes on or when I try to use FSAA in Diablo 2 and it fails due to shoddy FSAA implementation on Nvidia's part, I become a little more unhappy. Nvidia just keeps releasing faster and faster stuff to CRUSH the competition, and speed is what most people want. But why can't nvidia just spend 2 more months in development for every product to ensure 3rd party chipset compatibilty and make sure their features like FSAA work?

    By Hey Yoda January 06, 2001, 09:32 PM

    quote:Originally posted by AMD_Forever:

    How many users had problems with the Voodoo 4/5 line of cards on athlon platforms? How many had problems with a Nvidia card in the exact same system. 'nuff said. The point is, Nvidia seems to focus a wee bit too much on brute speed. They sacrifice everything for it. They give up rock solid compatibility for everything that isn't intel. They give up things that are "nice to have" like FSAA and pretty much all of the fancy wiz bang features the Radeon has that the GeForce line doesn't. They give up any consideration of cost as well. Nvidia should just slow down a little and start focusing on features like FSAA and better texture compression so that we don't have to buy cards with the most expensive DDR Ram available. Primarily though my complaints with nvidia are based on their total disregard for the VIA chipset user, which is everyone who has an athlon. Just yesterday I had to disable fast writes to be stable in a game like Red Alert 2. Maybe Nvidia should change the product cycle to 8 months instead of releasing buggy, incompatble products every 6.

    And yes, I probably am over reacting with the bit about buggy and incompatible, but why does Nvidia insist on having no consideration for the athlon user? Hell, I remember the athlon launch with the 750 chipset when the fastest thing was the GeForce DDR. Because the GeForce DDR had problems in 750 systems, suddenly the 750 was a bad chipset when in fact it was Nvidia's hell bent focus on intel only that lead to the problems.

    AND I'm not an idiot, I own an nvidia card. It's really nice and it's really fast. But when I play Red Alert 2 and have all kinds of graphical screw up with fast writes on or when I try to use FSAA in Diablo 2 and it fails due to shoddy FSAA implementation on Nvidia's part, I become a little more unhappy. Nvidia just keeps releasing faster and faster stuff to CRUSH the competition, and speed is what most people want. But why can't nvidia just spend 2 more months in development for every product to ensure 3rd party chipset compatibilty and make sure their features like FSAA work?

    Well, I also have an nvidia card (mx) and a via chipset (KT133). Frankly, I've found it to be a very reliable card. I've had 2 major problems with it:

    1) Every 3d application in win2k would crash. I'm not sure who's fault this is, but I tend to blame Microcrap as it's reported to be a known issue on Microsoft's support page, and they've got several solutions available to try. Regardless, downgrading to win98 has solved those problems.

    2) When starting up win98se I'd sometimes crash and get a green line at the top of my screen. Again, I blame this on Microcrap because the issue was resolved by renaming (??) two obscure files burried in some windows subdirectory.

    I've played Red Alert 2 and it ran flawlessly on my machine. My room-mate had some troubles with his Matrox G400 though.

    I haven't used FSAA too much on my card. I did play through a fair bit of Escape From Monkey Island with it on, and it didn't give me any crashes or glitches, but the image was rather blurry. It's definately the worst implimentation of FSAA available.

    Prices are high on nvidia cards, but I still think they're reasonable considering the performance they give. The geforce2 mx is always available for the value conscious and is a great card for an awesome price.

    So although nvidia cards certainly aren't perfect, I think they're pretty damn good! Radeon has lots of problems too, so they're not perfect either. On the 3dfx side, I had a Banshee, and the first one (Guillemot) would crash on every direct3d game. The second one (Diamond Monster Fusion) wasn't even close to stable, though better than the Guillemot. The most annoying thing about this card though was that it made Windows crash frequently when doing a cold boot. The net result was that I could NOT turn off my computer! If I did, then I'd have to try around 30 boot attempts before I could get it to start again.

    So of those 3 cards, my geforce2 mx is definately the LEAST buggy of any cards I've owned. I'm very happy with it and have very little complaints.

    I guess when you get burned by a card it does tend to leave a sour taste in one's mouth, but all I can say is I've got a sweet sweet taste in MY mouth!

    By slipgun January 06, 2001, 09:50 PM

    quote:Originally posted by AMD_Forever:
    this depends on if the average gamer can stop being focused on speed (which we have enough of already) and start respecting the image quality and features of ATI over the brute speed of Nvidia. quite frankly im not too happy that 3dfx didn't have the speed necessary cause they certainly had better features and stability ('cept their lack of T&L). To most people it's all about speed, and If 3dfx had had more of it, they wouldn't be dead. and if ATI doesn't improve their drivers, they'll die too. look at nvidia, at the radeon launch radeon beat the gts, a few weeks later the gts is winning again due to a simple driver update.

    That has a lot of truth in it. Games nowadays run fast enough for anyone... you're blessed if you notice any difference between 90 and 160 FPS in a game. CPUs have developed way more than video cards, which is why you get the same FPS with say, a P3800 and P31GHz using similar video cards.

    Of course, games will continue to be more complicated and require more video power, so ATI and nVidia better start upping their speeds if they expect to keep up with future games, but it isn't a big deal right now.

    But, like you said, FPS is all that matters with most gamers. If it is 20% slower but with way better image quality, they would still buy the faster card.

    Stability, drivers and of course, image quality, are what nVidia and ATI can continue to develop in the near future while working on the speed boosts we can really afford to wait for...

    By slipgun January 06, 2001, 09:53 PM

    It's more of a personal preference, really. For all your deathmatchers out there, image quality is second to performance. RPG-ers like me like to admire the scenery.

    But in the long run, a card with faster FPS will definitely last longer...

    By slipgun January 06, 2001, 09:57 PM

    When I mean image quality, I mean 4x BUG-FREE FSAA. ATI and nVidia should lock horns to see who can pull it off with respectable FPS. And don't tell me the GeForce2 has FSAA, that is just loaded with bugs

    By Vaggeto2k January 06, 2001, 10:01 PM

    Well, I cna see no difference with ATI Radeon and Geforce2 GTS quality... just change 1 line of coding and it takes away ALL of the bad compression in Quake... you get pretty skies and walls again. Both cards look almost exactly the same and 1 has over a 30% increase in speed, I'll let you guess who.

    By jagojago12 January 06, 2001, 10:49 PM

    I think nVidia will win IF they use that awesome Gigapixel technology. Gigapixel's GP-1 released back in the mid-90's can whoop even an Ultra.

    By Doward January 06, 2001, 11:15 PM

    Maybe BitBoyz will release something!

    Seriously, maybe S3 might do *something*, stress the might...

    I'm kinda upset that 3dfx sold out, but maybe that technology will go somewhere. It better!!

    By James_Emerson January 06, 2001, 11:40 PM

    I'm bet NVIDIA will come out on top!
    I think their next generation card will be a combanation between Geforce and Voodoo technology, so there you have it.

    By dBLiSS January 07, 2001, 12:06 AM

    quote:Originally posted by jagojago12:
    Wasn't NV20 supposed to be released last year? Instead we got an Ultra to play with.

    Don't you know why it was Delayed? Because DirectX 8 was delayed..

    By Snoop Dogg January 07, 2001, 01:29 AM

    As much as I hate to admit it I bet nVidias NV20 will win along with the follow up NV20 Ultra

    By Snoop Dogg January 07, 2001, 01:31 AM

    BTW Ya'll nVidia does miss product dates...umm GeForce 2 GTS Ultra was a month or two late. GeForce3/NV20 is already 2 months late so nVidia better get there arse in gear soon! They are supposed to release final specs on NV20 this month and early next release the product itself.

    By BobTheSlob January 07, 2001, 02:41 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Snoop Dogg:
    BTW Ya'll nVidia does miss product dates...umm GeForce 2 GTS Ultra was a month or two late. GeForce3/NV20 is already 2 months late so nVidia better get there arse in gear soon! They are supposed to release final specs on NV20 this month and early next release the product itself.

    The only delays were because of DX8. That is really not NVIDIAs problem. If they released it without DX8, then that would be stupid for them, and they would release an inferior product, which they havent done in a LONG time.

    By DRYNDRYN2 January 07, 2001, 03:15 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Doward:
    Maybe BitBoyz will release something!

    Seriously, maybe S3 might do *something*, stress the might...

    I'm kinda upset that 3dfx sold out, but maybe that technology will go somewhere. It better!!

    Thats right, maybe S3 will make something realy good this time


    Paramount graphics core:
    - Single pixel, trilinear, dual texture, single cycle 3D pipeline
    - 150MHz+ Engine Clock
    - 64-bit DDR memory Interface
    - Improved Motion Video Architecture
    - DuoView+ Capability
    - Advanced LCD Panel Support
    - Integrated TV-out solution
    - Advanced Power Management
    - Process : 0.18 micron
    - Will be available as mobile integrated solution (code name JV8M) and integrated CPU+NB (code name JV200); and discrete mobile solution (code name Paramount)
    - Engineering samples - Q3'2001

    Zoetrope graphics core:
    Improved 3D Engine:
    - 166+ MHz, 2 pixels/ clock, 2 texels/ pixel
    - Full Transform & Lighting support
    - ~5M triangles/ s (lit and transformed)
    - DX7 Environment bump mapping support
    Enhanced Video/ Display Features:
    - Dual channel LVDS, TV Out & 12 bit digital interface
    - DuoView
    - IDCT, Median Filter
    - Integrated TMDS
    Software Compatibility
    Process : 0.15 micron, 1.3- 1.5V
    Will be available as mobile integrated solution (code name JV-NG) and desktop integrated solution (code name JV-NGD); and discrete mobile solution (code name Zoetrope)
    Engine samples - Q2'2001

    Columbia graphics core:
    All new 3D Engine supporting:
    - Quad pipe, dual texture
    - Full DX8/ 9 support from View frustrum clipping down (Pixel shader, anisotropic filtering, cubic environment mapping, 3D textures, point sprites, Hierarchial Z and deferred rendering, Pixel rate of 1.2 GP/ s w/ 2UV, trilinear filter)
    300MHz Engine Clock
    128-bit DDR @ 300MHz DDR
    Process: 0.13 micron
    Engine samples - Q2'2001

    Got it from: http://www.digit-life.com/news.html#978684911


    I thnk i'll wait to see how this Columbia thing will do, before geting anything from ATI or nVidia.

    By Adisharr January 08, 2001, 10:18 AM

    quote:Originally posted by BobTheSlob:
    Who do you think is going to come out the champion on 2001? ATI or NVIDIA? I firmly believe NVIDIA will stay on top. Their GeForce2 line of cards is undoubtedly more popular than the Radeon, and they have never missed a product release. Anyone have a varying opinion?

    I really don't care - as long as they both stay in business. It would be a bad thing if one of them dissappears.

    It seems as if both cards are solid - Nvidia has 3dfx with them now and ATI is just a HUGE company with practically unlimited resoiurces.

    Hopefully they will both release good future cards we can all enjoy..

    $ .02

    By Frostbite January 08, 2001, 10:45 AM

    I don't think either company is going to disappear anytime soon. If the opinions I've seen posted here are any indicator of the market at large (and I believe they are), then each maker has a diehard customer base that will keep each busy making cards for a long, long, time. At least, as long as each makes an attempt as providing innovation and driver support, which both appear to be doing at the present time.

    By joeweeze29 January 08, 2001, 11:19 AM

    my prediction is that one of those bad boys will be bought out my microsoft eventually and whoever it is will be the ultimate winner. Microsoft didn't sent Nvidia a check for $120,000,000+ for the xbox video card just because they felt like it.

    By FMCharon January 08, 2001, 11:40 AM

    I own a Voodoo 5500 and I'm occaisionally disappointed in it's framerate . However, if framerates are bareable, I will take visual quality anyday. I simply cannot bear jagged edges anymore and I don't have to with my current card.

    I know that will not always be the case as newer, visually complex games are released. I will have to upgrade eventually. What will I buy?

    I am hoping that Bitboys will FINALLY have come out with hardare, as they are claiming to do by May of this year. If their card performs well and costs less than the competition, I will give them a try. If Bitboys do not deliver (again), I will probably go with ATI, since I hear rumors that the NV20 will cost in the neighborhood of $800!

    Who does Nvidia think they are and who do they think we are? They must think their new chipset is already on par with Pixar's parallel slave solution.

    So, for me, it will be one of these three.

    ATI, since their Radeon is already an excellent product that can probably still improve through new drivers.

    Bitboys, since I think they may really be onto something that's cost-effective and powerful.

    Kryo, because, in spite of the current visual imperfections, this card renders in a truly revolutionary fashion, with almost no performance hit for FSAA. If they can clean up the screen a bit, I might jump to them. The price seems to be right. Now, if I could just find a place that actually sells their cards.

    By Azuth January 08, 2001, 12:37 PM

    A few years ago Nvidia found an awesome nitch and kicked 3dfx's butt. This was partially 3dfx's fault because they were the current king of 3D and decided to expand their empire by buying STB and making their own boards. This eventually hurt them too much and they could no longer keep up with their competitors. They were trying to do too much.

    Is Nvidia going down that same road? Nvidia is trying to go head to head with ATI in the mobile market. If they end up losing money there or expend too many resources trying to do this it might effect the entire company.

    The same could be said for ATI. They are the king of mobile and OEM sales, but now they are expanding more and more into the 3D market. It might effect them in the same way as Nvidia.

    I don't think their relative positions will change much in the next generation of cards. ATI will push their cards with better image quality and more features while Nvidia will crank out a few more FPS and have drivers that work great in all games.

    By Sol January 08, 2001, 01:23 PM

    I am curious, what exactly are they racing for? you ask who is going to win.... I am sorry but does there have to be a clear winner? what if they both release great products and make $?

    By SlartyB January 08, 2001, 02:46 PM

    Sorry, this is a duplicate of post I made in another thread, but it is actually more relavant to this thread, so here goes ....


    This is just the beginning of the end. The end of a new technology every year. The end of consumer choice. The end of healthy competition.
    You see, when 3dfx actually gave nVidia some healthy competition - nVidia *HAD* to hit their execution dates in order to survive. They did it so well, that not only did they survive - but they triumphed.

    However, this year they screwed up. They are obviously having real problems getting NV20 to work. Microsoft has even conveniently lowered the spec. on the Xbox chip (which is now likely to be NV20 - not a dedicated variant), just so that nVidia actually have a chance of hitting the spec. and being able to say to the world "see, we did it". Yeah, right!

    Luckily for nVidia, 3dfx was having terminal financial difficulties, otherwise they would have had something to really worry about come spring time (Rampage).

    None of this matters now, because 3dfx has gone. There is no competition any more. Please don't mention ATI - they won't be around much longer, with the aquisition of 3dfx's IP, nVidia now holds *ALL* the cards. What this means for consumers is less choice and a much slower pace of change.

    3dfx was set to introduce some revolutionary technology (beyond Rampage), but you will all have to wait for nVidia to decide when it wants to introduce this technology to the market. You have all been "robbed" of the opertunity of seeing that technology, probably for another 2 years.

    As for NV20 - who knows when nVidia are finally going to get their act together. Who cares ? They can take as long as they want now.

    They should re-name this discussion board from "Video cards" to "nVidia cards".

    By Azuth January 08, 2001, 02:58 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    None of this matters now, because 3dfx has gone. There is no competition any more. Please don't mention ATI - they won't be around much longer, with the aquisition of 3dfx's IP, nVidia now holds *ALL* the cards. What this means for consumers is less choice and a much slower pace of change.

    I wouldn't discard ATI if I were you. Already the Radeon has smarter tech than the Geforce(ie. lower power consumption and more features supported with hardware). Its also offered at a much lower price. I'd be willing to bet that ATI has a stronger financial backbone than Nvidia also.

    Lets not forget those underdog companies either. Remember Nvidia was the underdog not that long ago. Companies like the one that made the Kyro will leap at the opportunity to fill in any gaps Nvidia will leave.

    Nvidia still has PLENTY of competition so there isn't much need to worry about any kind of graphic card monopoly.

    By leoku January 08, 2001, 03:30 PM

    quote:Originally posted by slipgun:
    That has a lot of truth in it. Games nowadays run fast enough for anyone... you're blessed if you notice any difference between 90 and 160 FPS in a game. CPUs have developed way more than video cards, which is why you get the same FPS with say, a P3800 and P31GHz using similar video cards.

    Of course, games will continue to be more complicated and require more video power, so ATI and nVidia better start upping their speeds if they expect to keep up with future games, but it isn't a big deal right now.

    But, like you said, FPS is all that matters with most gamers. If it is 20% slower but with way better image quality, they would still buy the faster card.

    Stability, drivers and of course, image quality, are what nVidia and ATI can continue to develop in the near future while working on the speed boosts we can really afford to wait for...


    Ha, this hits bull's eye. What difference can 90 fps make from 100 fps at 1024x768x32 ? Can anyone tell me ? I think the difference is that somebody pays hefty bucks for no difference but the mind of showoff. I have a Voodoo 3 3000 AGP o/c 195, and use it in Windows 2000. The MDK2 Demo without hardware TL is between 47 to 49 fps. All parameters set to highest but the resolution is set at 1024x768x16. Speed freaks will laugh at this since I do not have GF2. I laugh since I spend less than 100 bucks and run opengl games fast enough without losing a bit of detail, comparing those forks out 300 bucks for faster frame rate and still think he's got a good deal. My voodoo3 is almost one year old, can still run the latest games without hardware TL at the frame rate of 45 fps or more, at 1024x768. In terms of value, GF2 is non-comparable in this regard. Originally I plan to keep this card until it can no longer run the games at satifactory frame rate (jumpy, blocky, stuff like that). Now since 3dfx has bitten the dust and no new driver on the horizen, I am waiting and waiting for the card with the most reliable driver. To my sadness, none exists today. GF2 has too many problems with VIA chipset and Windows 2000, ATI is still doing the GameCube and no intention to fix driver bugs. I personally favor ATI since I prefer smart solution to technology instead of brute force, but ATI has a driver worse than NVIDIA's, so I am on hold. I will not take steps unless the timing and driver maturity is close enough. In this case, ATI Radeon is my favorate.

    By alanschu January 08, 2001, 04:25 PM

    quote:Originally posted by BobTheSlob:
    How many times have you gibbed some ass online and stopped to think "ooh, look at the pretty blood"? i have never done that. BUT, when my computer chokes at a critical second and i GET gibbed, then i am pissed. for most of the games that need 3d cards, FPS is more important. and besides, i strongly disagree with you that radeon looks THAT much better. given, i have only seen screenshots.



    If you're only concerned about framerates, then don't get it. In any case, both cards should provide ample framerates, as most of the framerate junkies play at low res anyways. Would a 'hiccup' to 60 fps be that "critical choke" you were talking about?


    In addition, there is a whooooooooooooole lot more to 3D gaming that multiplayer frame-rates.

    Go and play Deus Ex at 1600x1200x32 with detail textures on, and all other detail settings set to max. It's like a completely different game. And I'm more accurate to boot, because everything is so much more precise.

    I'm playing No One Lives Forever right now, and the graphical detail is just amazing. Hooray for detail textures. The only thing missing now is EMBM.

    By alanschu January 08, 2001, 04:34 PM

    quote:Originally posted by dBLiSS:
    Don't you know why it was Delayed? Because DirectX 8 was delayed..

    DirectX 8 is out.

    Where's the NV20?

    By iamsostupid January 08, 2001, 06:53 PM

    we need DX 8 drivers buddy, the Detonator 4 (7.xx) are coming as well. sit tight. As well as nVIDIA vs. ATi, i believe image quality is much better, and if i can be supplied with 1600x1200x32 with 4x FSAA, with about 50FPS, with the picture quality that the app was intended to look like, i have no complaints, and neither should you.

    By dBLiSS January 08, 2001, 10:03 PM

    quote:Originally posted by alanschu:
    DirectX 8 is out.

    Where's the NV20?

    Yeah it's out now, that doesn't mean they can instantly finish the card the moment DX8 comes out, they have to run it through the standard tests and what not, not to mention the fact the probably had to intergrate new features into the card after DX8 came out. So, if you could make a video card of the same Quaility the NV20 will be then do it, otherwise stop yur bitch'in and wait. =)

    By The Grinch January 09, 2001, 01:30 PM

    If you ask me, nVidia can only burn the candle at both ends for so long before something gives. I work for a company in a fast paced environment. I've seen developers work miracles, miracles with a lot of bugs, but non-the-less they were great feats. I've also seen these same individuals make threats of walk-outs if they don't get a break from all the stress. Now nVidia has been on a mission, a mission that they've won. It's about time for them to relax a little and let their developers gather their thoughts.

    ATI on the other hand, has been vacationing for way too long. I predict some interesting products in the near future. The current Radeon is only the beginning.

    By alanschu January 09, 2001, 01:48 PM

    quote:Originally posted by dBLiSS:
    Yeah it's out now, that doesn't mean they can instantly finish the card the moment DX8 comes out, they have to run it through the standard tests and what not, not to mention the fact the probably had to intergrate new features into the card after DX8 came out. So, if you could make a video card of the same Quaility the NV20 will be then do it, otherwise stop yur bitch'in and wait. =)

    The way everyone made it seem, was that the NV20 was basically done, and they were simply waiting for DirectX 8. Integrate new features? I suppose.

    I think the NV20 just wasn't ready, and probably still isn't.

    How long would it have taken to do the standard tests and whatnot? After all, nVidia and Microsoft are pretty much bed-fellows here. Surely MS would've allowed them to build the NV20 with the help/consultation of DirectX 8 programmers, so that they could pretty much have the silicon done as soon as Direct X 8 was ready.

    By alanschu January 09, 2001, 01:52 PM

    quote:Originally posted by iamsostupid:
    we need DX 8 drivers buddy, the Detonator 4 (7.xx) are coming as well. sit tight.

    In any case, I would've thought that considering nVidia's relationship with Microsoft, the drivers probably could've been done the same day DirectX 8 was released.

    By SlartyB January 10, 2001, 02:14 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Azuth:
    I wouldn't discard ATI if I were you. Already the Radeon has smarter tech than the Geforce ....

    ... Lets not forget those underdog companies either. Remember Nvidia was the underdog not that long ago. Companies like the one that made the Kyro will leap at the opportunity to fill in any gaps Nvidia will leave.

    Sorry, but I don't care how much technology ATI have - it is nothing compared to what nVidia have now. If *anybody* tries to do what nVidia could do now - they will sue them for patent infringement. That is what I meant when I said they hold all the cards - all the really good IP cards.

    As for "underdogs" and newcomers - forget it. Have you no idea how much capital investment it would take to match nVidia ? Not to mention the IP that nVidia holds. It's GAME OVER.

    By SlartyB January 10, 2001, 02:18 AM

    quote:Originally posted by dBLiSS:
    Yeah it's out now, that doesn't mean they can instantly finish the card the moment DX8 comes out, they have to run it through the standard tests and what not, not to mention the fact the probably had to intergrate new features into the card after DX8 came out. So, if you could make a video card of the same Quaility the NV20 will be then do it, otherwise stop yur bitch'in and wait. =)


    What the f*&k are you talking about ? Microsoft wrote DX8 for nVidia! It was a mutual agreement. As for including new features *after* DX8 came out - that is rediculous. I am sure all the features in both DX8 and NV20 were decided upon months and months ago. The fact is, nVidia have missed one of their refresh cycles. The even sadder part is that there is no one around to fill the vacuum. They have been damn lucky.

    By BuggyLoop January 10, 2001, 03:28 AM

    Maybe nvidia is working on the xbox GPU, you have to remember they are under contract and have to finish that GPU in a time limit, maybe they are having problems? who knows.

    By BuggyLoop January 10, 2001, 03:34 AM

    Sorry, but I don't care how much technology ATI have - it is nothing compared to what nVidia have now. If *anybody* tries to do what nVidia could do now - they will sue them for patent infringement. That is what I meant when I said they hold all the cards - all the really good IP cards.

    Hmm? like what features the geforce have that radeon doesnt ? an overclocked overmilked product? oh yea nvidia win.

    ATI now own the artX team, remember those guys created the first 512bit GPU in the world for the gamecube console, a 205mhz GPU at 512bit would be faster than a 300mhz 256bit GPU (which is what nv20 is)

    you wonder how i know the nv20 is 256bit? well the xbox got Nv2a, an nv20 running at 250mhz, and its 256bit.

    Not saying nvidia wont be fast but, i think buying ArtX was their best decisions in a long time, ArtX was led by SGI, those who make the workstations for movies special effects and so on, they must learn alot of stuffs as we speak.

    By The Grinch January 10, 2001, 03:54 AM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    Sorry, but I don't care how much technology ATI have - it is nothing compared to what nVidia have now. If *anybody* tries to do what nVidia could do now - they will sue them for patent infringement. That is what I meant when I said they hold all the cards - all the really good IP cards.

    As for "underdogs" and newcomers - forget it. Have you no idea how much capital investment it would take to match nVidia ? Not to mention the IP that nVidia holds. It's GAME OVER.

    I think you are over estimating the situation. nVidia just can't slap on 3dfx technology to their chip. It doesn't work that way. If there actually is anything useful in the pile of paperwork and tech documents and designs that nVidia aquired, it will be a while before they can figure out how to implement the technology in a way that is compatable with their existing designs. It won't be anytime soon, at least not until AFTER the next generation of graphics chips.

    As for newcomers, if the technology is hot enough, investors will back them up. And if it grows into something close to amazing, a larger corp with deep pockets will gobble them up and exploit the hell out of it.

    By The Grinch January 10, 2001, 04:10 AM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:

    What the f*&k are you talking about ? Microsoft wrote DX8 for nVidia! It was a mutual agreement.

    What are YOU talking about? Microsoft did NOT write DX8 for nVidia. That's like saying Microsoft wrote DirectSound for Creative Labs. Everyone had their say in the creation of DX8. This is a discussion that was had here months ago. But if you are 100% sure of your MS claims, please provide us with a web link or news article so that we can read it for ourselves.

    By GodIsWired January 10, 2001, 04:26 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Azuth:
    I wouldn't discard ATI if I were you. Already the Radeon has smarter tech than the Geforce(ie. lower power consumption and more features supported with hardware). Its also offered at a much lower price. I'd be willing to bet that ATI has a stronger financial backbone than Nvidia also.

    Lets not forget those underdog companies either. Remember Nvidia was the underdog not that long ago. Companies like the one that made the Kyro will leap at the opportunity to fill in any gaps Nvidia will leave.

    Nvidia still has PLENTY of competition so there isn't much need to worry about any kind of graphic card monopoly.

    More financial backing than nVidia? ATI? I have one horrendous word for you, the word which strike the heart of engineers and programmers alike with a seering pain. Microsoft. Need I say more?

    And as for "that company that makes the Kyro". I bet you don't even know their name offhand. Well, another name that gives me a stabing pain. STMicro. Any of you who remember their first PowerVR chips will know the pain I'm talking of. Don't get me wrong, Kyro is a great chip. But they have I guess what you could call "Name Brand Recognition". Except they're recognized for broken promises and bad reputation. Lets hope NEC can do away with that brand of "Name Brand Recognition".

    I see a dismal future for the PC gaming community. We might be wasting our breath arguing about this, due to the upcoming xBox. The xBox is the first step of the elimination of PC gaming. This was Microsoft's attempt, and they even admitted it in the first press release. They want to eliminate it so they can push their xBox to everyone for 300 a pop. 2 years later, they'll start pushing their second generation of succubi, which we will dub the xBox2 (which will have gone under far less development than xBox), down our throat for another 300 bucks a pop. Personally, I don't like my hardware so standardized. I want to put it together, I want to troubleshoot, I want to tweak. Soon will be the gaming appocolypse.

    This puts Microsoft one step closer to world domination.

    As for S3 Graphics and Bitboys, blah. These two have lost my faith due to their lies and deceit. S3 has released batch after batch of smoldering ass upon us. Bitboys has been around for 2 YEARS and doesn't have a single thing to show for it.

    It is like someone else said. The beginning of the end. Bring out your dead.

    By Humus January 10, 2001, 05:47 AM

    SlartyB:
    One must search long before one find a greater pessimist than you. Look, I don't think it's close to a monopolistic situation and will probably not be close in the overseeable future. But even if there would be such a situation coming and nVidia tries to trash every newstarter with legal actions I'm quite sure that there will be legal actions coming from instances such a the government just as the case with M$ to remedy the situation.

    By Pakk January 10, 2001, 06:06 AM

    nvidia buying 3dfx was the worst decision they ever made. I mean what gain do they have with old 3dfx technology. The only thing I can think of is SLI and thats it.

    ATI will have more features with their Radeon2, but I think Nvidia will be faster in terms of raw speed.

    It should mbe one heck of a year, now that S3 (Sonic Blue) is entering the graphics department again.

    By Azuth January 10, 2001, 11:53 AM

    Gawd! Speaking of pessimists, I hope GodIsWired wasn't serious...

    Remember 3dfx was the king of the heap not that long ago. No one had heard of Nvidia. There wasn't any real competition. I would be willing to bet my PC that people were saying the same thing about 3dfx a few years ago. Where are they now?

    Sometimes I feel like I've been around computers for an eternity, but when I realize that its only been about 10 years, I find it amazing how quickly things can change. There is no reason to believe 3d cards will be any different.

    By SlartyB January 10, 2001, 12:11 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Pakk:
    nvidia buying 3dfx was the worst decision they ever made. I mean what gain do they have with old 3dfx technology. The only thing I can think of is SLI and thats it.

    Errrrm, one word - "GigaPixel".

    You have *NO IDEA* what those guys had (and I can't tell you ). Suffice it to say, when nVidia decide to incorporate that technology into their chips - there will be no competition. The only way they could possibly fail now is through their own internal mis-management.

    By SlartyB January 10, 2001, 12:17 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Humus:
    SlartyB:
    One must search long before one find a greater pessimist than you. Look, I don't think it's close to a monopolistic situation and will probably not be close in the overseeable future. But even if there would be such a situation coming and nVidia tries to trash every newstarter with legal actions I'm quite sure that there will be legal actions coming from instances such a the government just as the case with M$ to remedy the situation.

    Humus - you know me. I am not some crackpot. True, I have been a little pessimistic, but with good reason. I have seen things from the inside.

    As for the government controlling monopolies, I don't see Microsoft hurting any - except for a bit of bad publicity.

    By SlartyB January 10, 2001, 12:24 PM

    quote:Originally posted by The Grinch:
    I think you are over estimating the situation. nVidia just can't slap on 3dfx technology to their chip.

    Yes, you are correct. In fact, I estimate that it will be at least 18 months or 2 years before we actually see some of the technology they aquired on store shelves. I find this sad, because that technology would have been on the shelves a year earlier had 3dfx kept going. In the mean time, nVidia have more than enough "steam" to keep going until then.

    By DoGGx23 January 10, 2001, 01:11 PM

    Nividia All the way even though the took 3DFX out... They will take ATI out too... Dammm i sould've waited and got a Nividia card

    By Humus January 10, 2001, 01:14 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    Humus - you know me. I am not some crackpot. True, I have been a little pessimistic, but with good reason. I have seen things from the inside.

    As for the government controlling monopolies, I don't see Microsoft hurting any - except for a bit of bad publicity.

    No, you're no crackpot, but I think you pessimism is unmotivated. Sure, 3dfx leaving the arena has worsened the situation but it wasn't either like 3dfx was the only competitor. You're saying yourself that it'll take up to two years before 3dfx technology might get used by nVidia. That means that for at least the upcoming year or two the situation between nVidia and ATi will be pretty much unchanged of 3dfx death. That's a pretty long time in the graphics industry, much can happend during that time. Also, don't forget that ATi's has both more cash and engineerers than nVidia. And nothing prevents other companies such as Matrox to surprise us, just as they did with the G400.

    By SirXcalibur January 10, 2001, 02:22 PM

    I think a lot of people forget how big ATi is. They have a lot of money and have been around for a long time. Nvidia is the new kid on the block. They are doing very well and are providing some excellent video products. So is ATi. I think they will just compete in the market as usual and as big companies do and if one of them can't make it then so be it. Its all just business people, they are not of to "take out" the other company. Just enjoy your games, the best you can with what you have.

    By jimmt January 10, 2001, 07:07 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SirXcalibur:
    I think a lot of people forget how big ATi is. They have a lot of money and have been around for a long time. Nvidia is the new kid on the block. They are doing very well and are providing some excellent video products. So is ATi. I think they will just compete in the market as usual and as big companies do and if one of them can't make it then so be it. Its all just business people, they are not of to "take out" the other company. Just enjoy your games, the best you can with what you have.

    I agree, ATI does have alot of market. Nvidia is just popular. Also, think about this, ATI is not just a PC product, they are also a Mac product. I think the 3D market is going to be Real exciting. You have Matrox working on the 3D infustructer of the new Amiga. ATI working with Nintendo and continuing to be the WORLDS leader when it comes to graphic card sales. Also, since the intruduction of the Rage 128, they are doing pretty well with the Gamer community. Nvidia and thier pruchasing of 3Dfx. S3 and thier management changes, yes that is what they did when they migrated to Sonic Blue. Also, S3 has a strong OEM market to. Every server I have worked on from IBM to Dell has had an S3 graphics adapter in it. NEC is finally marketing thier PowerVR lines and correcting thier mistakes with the next gen cards. Look for them to be big with the arcade business. No matter how much you guys feel, thier will always be more than one Video card manufacture. Also, you have to think beyond gaming and tech sights.

    Jim

    By DRYNDRYN2 January 10, 2001, 08:55 PM

    quote:Originally posted by jimmt:
    I agree, ATI does have alot of market. Nvidia is just popular. Also, think about this, ATI is not just a PC product, they are also a Mac product. I think the 3D market is going to be Real exciting. You have Matrox working on the 3D infustructer of the new Amiga. ATI working with Nintendo and continuing to be the WORLDS leader when it comes to graphic card sales. Also, since the intruduction of the Rage 128, they are doing pretty well with the Gamer community. Nvidia and thier pruchasing of 3Dfx. S3 and thier management changes, yes that is what they did when they migrated to Sonic Blue. Also, S3 has a strong OEM market to. Every server I have worked on from IBM to Dell has had an S3 graphics adapter in it. NEC is finally marketing thier PowerVR lines and correcting thier mistakes with the next gen cards. Look for them to be big with the arcade business. No matter how much you guys feel, thier will always be more than one Video card manufacture. Also, you have to think beyond gaming and tech sights.

    Jim

    S3Graphic is in VIA hands now, SoniBlue makes only MP3 players and that kind of sh*t.

    SonicBlue and S3Graphics r 2 different companis.

    By GodIsWired January 10, 2001, 10:59 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Azuth:
    Gawd! Speaking of pessimists, I hope GodIsWired wasn't serious...

    I'm as serious as serious gets.

    By cracovian January 10, 2001, 11:32 PM

    You guys don't know nothing... I believe that whatever is left of 3DFX is going to come from behind, kick their asses and buy both of 'em out. Go Voodoo!!!

    By Pakk January 10, 2001, 11:47 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    Errrrm, one word - "GigaPixel".

    You have *NO IDEA* what those guys had (and I can't tell you ). Suffice it to say, when nVidia decide to incorporate that technology into their chips - there will be no competition. The only way they could possibly fail now is through their own internal mis-management.


    Why Gigapixel? What have they proved? I never seen a product they made...natta! Instead of acquiring 3dfx, they should acquire a company that has major experience with per pixel technology.....Imagination Technologies, formerly VideoLogic is what Nvidia should have bought, their povervr series 3 (kyro) chips do real well in high resolutions.


    By jamesavery22 January 11, 2001, 03:04 AM

    Ok ok I've heard alot of stuff about ATI having the image quality over nvidia and nvidia having the frame rates over ATI. But Image quality will make the difference once most cards have the fps at 1600x1200 past 50-60fps but also dont think nvidia wont work on that in the future. So who knows nvidia might start paying more attention to image quality maybe they wont. Right now I dont care about what will happen then but what will happen now. So what the hell will the NV20 come out? :-) I heard it was 3 months late when the ultra came out instead but when is it schedualed to come out now? Im sick of seeing all these geforce2 cards time to see somethin new :-) Oh yeah one more thing I dont think anyone has said anything about what ATI's main market is, Mobil graphics for laptops. Dont forget ATI has contracts with everyone from IBM to DELL for graphics in all their laptops and magically nvidia has come up with their mobil GPU for a little compition in that area. So Im sure ATI would concentrate alot more on the mobil market before they try to really compete with nvidia on the home PC graphics market.

    By SlartyB January 11, 2001, 04:45 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Pakk:

    Why Gigapixel? What have they proved? I never seen a product they made...natta! Instead of acquiring 3dfx, they should acquire a company that has major experience with per pixel technology.....Imagination Technologies, formerly VideoLogic is what Nvidia should have bought, their povervr series 3 (kyro) chips do real well in high resolutions.


    No, no, you misunderstand. The GigaPixel technology that nVidia aquired by buying the rights to all of 3dfx's IP is what is going to be so great. I can't discuss the details because my head would be on the chopping block, but it's hot. 3dfx were on the verge of making a comback *because* of the GigaPixel technology. Now it is in the hands of nVidia. That is why I am saying that when they decide to put that technology into their products, there will be no stopping them.

    By alanschu January 11, 2001, 04:59 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    No, no, you misunderstand. The GigaPixel technology that nVidia aquired by buying the rights to all of 3dfx's IP is what is going to be so great. I can't discuss the details because my head would be on the chopping block, but it's hot. 3dfx were on the verge of making a comback *because* of the GigaPixel technology. Now it is in the hands of nVidia. That is why I am saying that when they decide to put that technology into their products, there will be no stopping them.

    First, you seem to assume that technologically speaking, no other graphics card company will make any improvements.


    Next, what was your relationship with Gigapixel/3dfx that won't allow you to speak of anything?

    By mrwhite January 11, 2001, 05:13 PM

    Ive read the strangest, yet most truthfull things here and i partially agree with everything (except that GodIsWired is a pessimist, i disagree completely with that).
    Microsoft is goin for the take over of gaming industry but you and i all know that we probably wont see them do it in our lifetime. Look on these forums, i urge you, look! i dont see one person who would sacrifice their freedom to troubleshoot and tweak their systems for the xbox. So microsoft will never (or not in a long long time) conquer the Gaming or Pc industry. Remember People: It aint over till the fat lady sings, and we can say a lotta things about Mr. Gates but he aint fat and he sure as hell aint no lady.
    As for Nvidia Ati and Kyro i dont think there will be much difference from now. they all have development teams they all make new chips they all buy smaller (or less fortunate) companies. Come nv20, come Radeon 2 it makes no difference, there'll always be competition (even when the xbox rules manufacturers will compete for hardware in it) and there will always good video cards. and people who prefer ATI will stick with ATI people who like Nvidia will stick with Nvidia. And if ATI doesnt produce more crap stuff like the Rage chip and Nvidia stops missin release date after release date then they'll both do good and they'll stay competitive either way. the only way we lose is if the xbox prevails, and like i said, it probably wont in our lifetime, Just like the ozone layer wont be gone in our lifetime and there wont be nuclear disarmament in our lifetime. Microsoft will not rule the world. and we will be the people to stop them from doin it.

    By SlartyB January 11, 2001, 07:45 PM

    quote:Originally posted by alanschu:
    First, you seem to assume that technologically speaking, no other graphics card company will make any improvements.

    I think it's a valid assumption knowing what I know of the current state of PC graphics technology. It's not that other people like ATI won't innovate, it's just that the patents now held by nVidia will make it almost impossible for anyone to touch them performance-wise without doing something *completely* different - which I can't see happening because they would probably have to be more in-bed with Microsoft than nVidia are.

    quote:[/B]
    Next, what was your relationship with Gigapixel/3dfx that won't allow you to speak of anything?[/B]

    I worked for 3dfx.

    By email_atif January 11, 2001, 07:50 PM

    Wassup SharkyForum Readers,

    Hey, first off, I don't want to see anybody crapping on my thread, cause I WILL hunt you down like the sick dog you are and I WILL beat you like the bi-ch you are. Anyways, I think that people, in general, don't give credit where credit is due. I loved 3dfx as you can tell from my other posts. I don't hate nVidia, but I don't love them either. I've owned an ATi card before, not the Radeon, which I would love to use, however. I know that nVidia = Good Hardware, Consistent Driver Updates. 3dfx =ed (Notice the past tense) Solid Hardware, Game Support. ATi (Radeon) = Good Hardware, Finally Decent Drivers. I believe that ATi has been working on some excellent Video Cards, and, to the best of my knowledge, is currently testing the Silicone they have. The spotlight is currently off of ATi, as nVidia gained the speed crown with their overclocked GTS core video cards, the GeForce2 Ultras. ATi is currently hard at work, and WILL, in my personal opinion, push a solid, well supported, product out the door. Whether or not it is bought, this will mainly come down to: Did you think the Radeon was a better card than you'd expected or not. nVidia already has a seemingly flawless record. 3dfx is gone. ATi has a solid record in areas where gamers don't care. In 3D Gaming, ATi has only truly pushed one chip, the Radeon, out the door, to truly satisfy hungry 3D Gamer's FPS needs. Perhaps somebody's addressed the issue, I didn't read the entire thread, but nVidia will not/cannot use Rampage/3dfx-Gigapixel technology in the GeForce3, as they are too far in the development process at this point. The next chip from nVidia hopes to make use of 3dfx-Gigapixel's technologies, such as Enhanced T&L, Hidden Surface Removal, and 32-Bit Rendering with absolutely no performance hit. Until then, I'm gonna ride with ATi.

    Late

    By alanschu January 11, 2001, 08:27 PM

    quote:Originally posted by SlartyB:
    I worked for 3dfx.

    You see, now no disrespect, but don't you think that main taint your view of the situation?


    Working for 3dfx, the GigaPixel technology would've probably been the last hope of 3dfx (had they not fallen sooner), so naturally you're gonna have a natural high expectation for it. Perhaps you are putting a bit too much faith into it? If it was truly revolutionary, wouldn't it have been possible for 3dfx to show it behind closed doors to some outside investors, to get some extra funding to survive in the meantime?


    And like you said, it's probably gonna take 18 months before we see anything that contains any GigaPixel technology. A _LOT_ can happen in 18 months.

    Look what happened to ATI in a few short months. Prior to the Radeon, ATI was a value 3D game card, with no hope of ever reaching 3dfx or nVidia. The Radeon comes out and boom, suddenly they are right out there with the big guns with stuff that people had no idea ATI was gonna do.

    I would say the same with Matrox. Everybody knows that freeing up memory bandwidth is the next step, I honestly don't think that GigaPixel's technology is so far and ahead what anybody else can possibly dream of that no other company, in 18 months, as a chance in hell of beating out nVidia.


    What position did you work at 3dfx?

    By SlartyB January 12, 2001, 02:12 AM

    quote:Originally posted by alanschu:
    You see, now no disrespect, but don't you think that main taint your view of the situation?


    Working for 3dfx, the GigaPixel technology would've probably been the last hope of 3dfx (had they not fallen sooner), so naturally you're gonna have a natural high expectation for it. Perhaps you are putting a bit too much faith into it? If it was truly revolutionary, wouldn't it have been possible for 3dfx to show it behind closed doors to some outside investors, to get some extra funding to survive in the meantime?


    And like you said, it's probably gonna take 18 months before we see anything that contains any GigaPixel technology. A _LOT_ can happen in 18 months.

    Look what happened to ATI in a few short months. Prior to the Radeon, ATI was a value 3D game card, with no hope of ever reaching 3dfx or nVidia. The Radeon comes out and boom, suddenly they are right out there with the big guns with stuff that people had no idea ATI was gonna do.

    I would say the same with Matrox. Everybody knows that freeing up memory bandwidth is the next step, I honestly don't think that GigaPixel's technology is so far and ahead what anybody else can possibly dream of that no other company, in 18 months, as a chance in hell of beating out nVidia.


    What position did you work at 3dfx?

    You make some very good, valid counter arguments. Of course I am going to think that the technology that 3dfx / GigaPixel had was the best. I certainly can't discuss it because I signed an NDA when I joined 3dfx and nVidia would sue my sorry ass off if I said anything. For similar reasons, I would rather not tell you what position I held. I will only tell you that it was high enough that I was intimate with the technology.

    To be honest, it doesn't matter to anyone but the engineers at 3dfx who *KNOW* they would have kicked nVidia's ass. I just think that now nVidia own what 3dfx had - they would have to make some pretty big mistakes in the next 12 months to end up in second place.

    By Vilu January 12, 2001, 07:02 AM

    Are you talking about Mosaic, Fear or Hydra or whatever? Tile-based rendering, that's where we are heading. It's necessary, we just can't waste that fillrate. Kyro is half faster than it should be because of tile based rendering, thus, it's a nice technology.

    Dream Card Xmas 2002(as if!):
    16 pipelines, quad textured, each does anisotropic filtering.
    600 mhz core clock.
    256 bit memory interface, 600 mhz DDR(1200 mhz effective)(=38.4 gigabytes/s)
    256 mb of that stuff and 32 mb cache with bandwidth of 256 gigabytes/s.
    T&L capability of 600 million polygons/s with 4 phong lights on.
    Hidden Surface Removal.
    512 instruction programmability.
    DX10 support.
    Geometrystorage-on-card-support.
    AGP 8x
    How many transistors would this take? 300 million?
    hahhah! As if thats gonna happen!(okay, speculate here, please)


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright © 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46

    previous page
    next page




    HardwareCentral
    Compare products, prices, and stores at Hardware Central!


    Copyright © 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities