How is ATI's Current situation diff then Nvidia's 2 years ago?

E

Elderblaze

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
212
Im getting pretty sick of everyone saying ATi's going down, they are gonna go outta business, they are losing stock and marketshare everday, oh noe's. From my perspective they are no worse off then Nvidia was when we had 9700 Vs FX5900. The 9700 stomped FX about the same degree that 7800 Stomps the current high end ATi solution. The 9700 was availible well before FX5900's as well. NVidia' dident go out of business, the sky did not fall. Why all the H8 for Ati lately.

My current graphics card is a 6800GT btw, before that was 9800>Geforce 2GTS, Riva TNT2 > Voodoo 3 > Voodoo 2> Rendition Verite 2100.

I have no bias, just an observation.

Regards,
Mike
 
As soon as the R520 is released, is equal or better in performance than 7800GTX, has more features (HDR&AA?), no shimmering issue's (like 7800 has), then everyone forgets all the "Ati misery" in a second.
Let's wait and see. :)
 
No you can´t compare. ATI:s video cards performs today the 5900 simply didn´t. nVidia have a bit of an edge especially in availability which is very important of course.

But both are here to stay certainly and I hope for a third player.
 
Then:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI bought theirs.

Now:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI didn't have a company to buy out.
 
I see nothing wrong with ATI's aqusition of ArtX. They where a 2D chip maker and did not have the talent/experiance to make a 3D card. They could try to spend years highering and developing their own or purchase a full staff of competent people to get the job done.. tough choice. Don't forget what Nvidia did to 3DFX and how they aquired much of their talent.
 
Elderblaze said:
I see nothing wrong with ATI's aqusition of ArtX.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who said it :p

They where a 2D chip maker and did not have the talent/experiance to make a 3D card. They could try to spend years highering and developing their own or purchase a full staff of competent people to get the job done.. tough choice. Don't forget what Nvidia did to 3DFX and how they aquired much of their talent.
Click to expand...

Didn't say there was anything wrong with that. What i posted was mere fact. ;)
 
I'm not worried about a thing. ATi isn't going anywhere. And by the time I decide to build a new rig with PCI-Express video ATi will have Crossfire and the r520 on the market not to mention Nvidia with their new offerings. Mean while I can enjoy my current rig which still does just fine.
 
Elderblaze said:
Im getting pretty sick of everyone saying ATi's going down, they are gonna go outta business, they are losing stock and marketshare everday, oh noe's. From my perspective they are no worse off then Nvidia was when we had 9700 Vs FX5900. The 9700 stomped FX about the same degree that 7800 Stomps the current high end ATi solution. The 9700 was availible well before FX5900's as well. NVidia' dident go out of business, the sky did not fall. Why all the H8 for Ati lately.

My current graphics card is a 6800GT btw, before that was 9800>Geforce 2GTS, Riva TNT2 > Voodoo 3 > Voodoo 2> Rendition Verite 2100.

I have no bias, just an observation.

Regards,
Mike
Click to expand...


Very valid points. Im not really concerned about ATI going out of business because with the XBOX 360 and Nintendo Revolution contracts, thats just not going to happen. But investor fraud can ruin the trust consumers have in a brand. So ATI may very well regain the performance crown again with the RV520 or RV580 but will it ever have the respect it once held?
 
Sly said:
Then:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI bought theirs.

Now:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI didn't have a company to buy out.
Click to expand...

ATi didnt buy the chip. From what I can remember, they helped mainly with drivers.

Its not like ATi didnt make a better chip before, with the 8500.
 
Sly said:
Then:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI bought theirs.

Now:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI didn't have a company to buy out.
Click to expand...


uh correct me if im wrong but wasnt the 6800 series the first time they actually used the 3dfx technology they had lying around.
 
IMO, ArtX was the key component for ATi.

If Nvidia bought out ArtX, I get the feeling ATi would be on its knees right now. I'm confused as to why Nvidia did not even put in a bid, Nvidia at the time was very cash heavy, spending say 600 million to acquire ArtX would not have hurt all that much.

Like the 9700 chipset, the R520 will probably have been built upon technology salvaged from ArtX. Rumors are an updated architecture not seen previously, we shall see...
 
uh correct me if im wrong but wasnt the 6800 series the first time they actually used the 3dfx technology they had lying around.
Click to expand...

I don't remember. I thought it was the FX series (name partially taken from 3dfx).
 
BigTaf said:
uh correct me if im wrong but wasnt the 6800 series the first time they actually used the 3dfx technology they had lying around.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 6800 series was very similar to NV3x. They basically took out one TMU per pipe, increased register space and improved the compiler (which was a biggie). The other changes were related to SM3.0/HDR etc.

Each NV40 pipe is actually a stripped down NV3x pipe. It's just that they're more of them in NV40 and the compiler is now much better.
 
Well for one NVIDIA is not being sued by it's investors.

I have a 5900 and don't find anything wrong with it. I performed on par with a 9700 \ 9800, even better in OpenGL games (ATI has never gotten this right).

The FX series exists there is still no R5xx series.

That's how it stands right now.

The FX series was not the big flop that ATI supporters make it out to be. It did start off bad, I agree but it finished just fine. I guess now that the R520 series is off to a bad start we can bitch about that for the next 3 years no matter what ATI puts out. :rolleyes:
 
PRIME1 said:
The FX series was not the big flop that ATI supporters make it out to be. It did start off bad, I agree but it finished just fine. I guess now that the R520 series is off to a bad start we can bitch about that for the next 3 years no matter what ATI puts out. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Doubtful that the R520 will be the "failure" that the NV3x was. These delays will be quickly forgotten IMO.
 
PRIME1 said:
The FX series was not the big flop that ATI supporters make it out to be. It did start off bad, I agree but it finished just fine. I guess now that the R520 series is off to a bad start we can bitch about that for the next 3 years no matter what ATI puts out. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess Anand is an "ATi supporter"? They wrote an article about the FX disaster after the 6800's launched. The fact is, the FX was a poor card compared to ATi's counter part at the time. How did it start off bad, and not end bad? Anyone with a FX card today, gets much, much slower performance in pixel shader heavy games than with a ATi card. Look at HL2, Farcry and more for evidence of this.
 
Sly said:
Then:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI bought theirs.

Now:
nVidia developed a new chip, ATI didn't have a company to buy out.
Click to expand...

ZenOps said:
IMO, ArtX was the key component for ATi.

If Nvidia bought out ArtX, I get the feeling ATi would be on its knees right now. I'm confused as to why Nvidia did not even put in a bid, Nvidia at the time was very cash heavy, spending say 600 million to acquire ArtX would not have hurt all that much.

Like the 9700 chipset, the R520 will probably have been built upon technology salvaged from ArtX. Rumors are an updated architecture not seen previously, we shall see...
Click to expand...

That's just a rationalization that nvidia fans have come up with for the success of the 9700/9800, IMO.

Think about it: if you're a fan of nvidia, and think that it's always been better than ATI, how do you explain the 9700/9800? Say that it's not really ATI's.

You also get the bonus delusion that ATI will never be able to create another competitive card, because they are incapable of making one on their own.

It's just revisionist history. Happens all the time on the forums.

Just like now that AMD64's are the fastest chips, some people say P4's were never the fastest.
 
ZenOps said:
IMO, ArtX was the key component for ATi.

If Nvidia bought out ArtX, I get the feeling ATi would be on its knees right now. I'm confused as to why Nvidia did not even put in a bid,
Click to expand...

they did, so did S3....but nvidia didn't have an Intel bus license and S3 was having problems...
 
fallguy said:
I guess Anand is an "ATi supporter"? They wrote an article about the FX disaster after the 6800's launched. The fact is, the FX was a poor card compared to ATi's counter part at the time. How did it start off bad, and not end bad? Anyone with a FX card today, gets much, much slower performance in pixel shader heavy games than with a ATi card. Look at HL2, Farcry and more for evidence of this.
Click to expand...

Ok fine, remember how much the rage fury cards sucked compared to the competition let's discuss that for the next 10 years :rolleyes: . ATI had one series that competed on the same level as NVIDIA. That's called a one hit wonder. They bought a core and rode it until it died, now they are months late trying to pull another rabbit out of their hat. They never really competed in the 3d market until after NVIDIA had put out the TNT, TN2, GeForce, Geforce2, GeForce3, GeForce4.

And while they were able to beat a dead horse and overclock their ArtX core to match the performance of the 6xxx series, it was miles behind in features.

Saying a X800 series card is just a fast as a 6xxx series card, is like saying a Chevy cavalier is as fast as a Cadillac. While yes, you could make a Cavalier as fast as a Cadillac. If they were both around the same price which would you buy?
 
PRIME1 said:
Well for one NVIDIA is not being sued by it's investors.
:
Click to expand...


this is the main reason anyone who is pro ATI should be somewhat leary.

the practices by ATI's upper eschelon over the past year should really make you think twice about their stability and overall quality in the near future.

ATi in my opinion will not retake any kind of lead this generation if they do make a legit run for the top like they did a few years ago it wont be till the step after this one say late 2006 or 2007.

assuming they dont crash and burn or change hands.

not that i predict that outcome but the news i read today on the investor alegations could prove huge if its really true for ATI in the near and long term.
 
The Rage fury sucked for 3Dgames, however the TNT1 and 2 sucked for 2D quality. The image was so blurry that some sites were saying the reason it looked so "good" in 3D was because it was so blurry it was like getting AA for free... I wish I kept those weblinks.

There was no clear winner back then, your best bet was actually a Rage pro/128 for clear 2D and a 3DFX card addin if you could afford it.
 
BigTaf said:
uh correct me if im wrong but wasnt the 6800 series the first time they actually used the 3dfx technology they had lying around.
Click to expand...

Huh? I always thought the stuff they got from 3dfx was the reason they always had good opengl support. :confused:
 
Even though ATi had the lead cards vs the FX series Nvidia still held the market in most sales. That's why no one screamed they were going out of business, because they HAVE all the business.
 
Well, the R520 might not stink. What your doing is like comparing the 9700 to the Ti-4800.


Most the cards Nvida sold were PCI Fx5200's.
 
I am no ATI fan. Quite very well Nvidia all the way. BUT i do know that the competition between the 2 gives us the consumers the better part. it gives us faster and better performance better quality and price. If one should go it can be bad for us all. Even with the dislikes we may have for one product manufacture we must realize they are both needed evil for one another. With that said....

The only thing LEFT from the 3dfx days are the OpenGL. which 3dfx was king at and now so is Nvidia. The FX series of cards started out poor. BUT by the end of the recycle/refresh of the card with better driver support they were ver close to and even with the ATI counterparts. As for the OP the FX5800 was actually the 1st FX card out of the gate for Nvidia and it was not all that late.(definitly not like the issues that ATI is having now and the last round) Even though all the issues that all have been claimed for Nvidia during those FX days the reasons for them NOT having major finacial trouble is that Nvidia for one is HUGE. ATI is alot smaller company. so the finacial impact wasnt felt by Nvidia like ATI is having it hit them now. Also at that time Nvidia had big contracts with the likes of MS for the Xbox. Also their Chipset divison for Mobo's is top notch and has been for a while by that time. So lots of other things to add in there why you didnt hear all that jazz for Nvidia at that time. ATI is still new to the chipset/mobo group so no real revenue from that just expense. It truely really does not help ATI that for 2 rounds (6800/7800) now that Nvidia has managed to keep hold the performance and avalibillity title. Alot of the recent stuff that ATI has promised (for about the last year or so) Has been major lies-Vapor-or- whatever ya wanna call it. The thing is it loses faith and trust in them. And its not just Vid cards its everything they do. Chipsets Mobos Crossfire....ect ect. Then lets throw in the stocks and investors and Bad possible bussiness practices. WOW now that one is the one that could very easily kill them. I have personally worked for a company that did this practice. IT caused them to file for Bankruptcy and they eventually sold off.. (hostile takeover to be exact) It can happen. Now dont all you ATI guys go bashing me cause you think im doing you or ATI wrong cause im not. Heck without them it effects me as well. Just my 2 cents anyhow on the subject.

Also for the poster that mentioned the "shimmering problem" you make it sound like the card was built with a hardware issue to cause this and its not fixable... Its very fixable and is being taken care of as we speak.
 
ZenOps said:
The Rage fury sucked for 3Dgames, however the TNT1 and 2 sucked for 2D quality. The image was so blurry that some sites were saying the reason it looked so "good" in 3D was because it was so blurry it was like getting AA for free... I wish I kept those weblinks.

There was no clear winner back then, your best bet was actually a Rage pro/128 for clear 2D and a 3DFX card addin if you could afford it.
Click to expand...

I can attest to this.

The best combo back then was a Rage Pro or 128 with a Voodoo2 single or SLI.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I can attest to this.

The best combo back then was a Rage Pro or 128 with a Voodoo2 single or SLI.
Click to expand...

how come you forgot about Matrox =( I had a marvle G200 and a Voodoo2 12mb!!! then got a G400 later =) I still love matrox cards, the difference in image quality was amazing back then.
 
Apple740 said:
As soon as the R520 is released, is equal or better in performance than 7800GTX, has more features (HDR&AA?), no shimmering issue's (like 7800 has), then everyone forgets all the "Ati misery" in a second.
Let's wait and see. :)
Click to expand...

HDR and the use of anti-aliasing isn't an issue with the cards, but the fact the way they are using the OpenEXR HDR
 
I predict 3D Labs and Matrox to join to create the worlds greatest card eva!!!!111oneone
 
NVDA = 5.1 billion USD
ATYT = 3.0 billion USD

Not that different.

Edit: especially when you consider ATI is at the bottom of its 52wk range and Nvidia is at the top of its range.
 
mrhemmy said:
HDR and the use of anti-aliasing isn't an issue with the cards, but the fact the way they are using the OpenEXR HDR
Click to expand...

Proof? Seems to me no one knows anything yet
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
how come you forgot about Matrox =( I had a marvle G200 and a Voodoo2 12mb!!! then got a G400 later =) I still love matrox cards, the difference in image quality was amazing back then.
Click to expand...

well back then I went with the Rage Pro and then the 128 because it did have 3D capabilities, in fact, it allowed 32-bit color in 3D, which was neat, and it had more 3D features, it just wasn't fast at them, heh, for my gaming I used the voodoo2 mainly, except for DX games
 
r0j said:
NVDA = 5.1 billion USD
ATYT = 3.0 billion USD

Not that different.

Edit: especially when you consider ATI is at the bottom of its 52wk range and Nvidia is at the top of its range.
Click to expand...

And market cap is a very fickle way of determining the size of a company, those numbers were switched around 2 years ago. It still doesn't change the fact that ATI has both more employees and is much older than Nvidia
 
animosity said:
Even though ATi had the lead cards vs the FX series Nvidia still held the market in most sales. That's why no one screamed they were going out of business, because they HAVE all the business.
Click to expand...

Dude whatever. So many idiots screamed and cried about Nvidia going under when they announced the failure of the 5800 series. People are doing the same now with ATi being a few months short on the r520. It's frickin' ridiculous really. To many kids with to many opinions and not enough to do.
 
ATI that for 2 rounds (6800/7800) now that Nvidia has managed to keep hold the performance and avalibillity title
Click to expand...

Perfomance in the 6800vsX800 series was pretty much the same with a slight advantage to ATI. Then Feature wise it went to Nvidia and Availability wise both companies had problems.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Perfomance in the 6800vsX800 series was pretty much the same with a slight advantage to ATI. Then Feature wise it went to Nvidia and Availability wise both companies had problems.
Click to expand...

You'll have a hard time selling the performance advantage. The only compelling card ATi had for a long time was the PE. At every other price point Nvidia was the performance leader.
 
ATI's delay isn't as bad as nVidia's was with the FX5800 vs. Radeon9700PRO.

I can pull out my invoice and show where I got my 9700PRO from ecost.com on August 28th. HardOCP didn't even get a reference sample for review (http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIx) of the FX 5800 until January 27th of the next year......thats 5months....its not been 5months yet since the 7800GTX was made available.
 
Heres the big Diffrence, back then, nVidia Released a card, and today ATi hasn't released a card :D serously thou, we don't know if the r520 sucks or not, for all we know 1 r520 could be the speed of 2 7800gtx's, or half the speed of a 9200/5200fx, and on to the artx comments, ATi DID buy Artx out BUT the core that Artx had developed was SCRAPPED, mostly the only thing that was carried over was TALENT, so ATi buying Artx was the equilent of nVidia buying 3dfx, mind you the staff ati got from artx, did develop the new core with the older staff, and they used BOTH companys designs and etc, so basicly it was ok this and this way of doing things on a gpu is better for 3d perf, and the "orginal" ati guys were like ok, this is how to fucking ausome 2d perf, and togther WE HAVE A WINER!!!!... Humm, isn't that basicly what nVIDIA DID WHEN THEY BOUGHT OUT 3DFX (not nessecerryly same order/etc)

//Elimi'Xed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top