NVIDIA has lost a fanboy (rant)

[Zinn]

Edit: To clarify, I don't give a fuck about DX10.1, but NVIDIA just shows how lazy and unwilling to innovate they are by not including it in G92.

In the last three years, I have owned a 6800GT, two 7800GTXs, two 7800GTs, a 7600GS, a 7600GT, two nForce 4 motherboards, a 680i motherboard, and an 8800GTS. I bought so many of NVIDIA's damn products that they sent me a customer appreciation pack with stickers and junk like that in the mail (I shit you not). As someone who was really enthusiastic about their products, I've recently become pretty disappointed with NVIDIA as a company.

Point #1: 680i launch. Enough said.

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

I'd rather buy two slightly slower cards that together will give me more performance and more features for cheaper than NVIDIA's ancient "flagship" card. The flagship card that they won't be bothering to replace with something significantly faster like they should have this month, since they can just milk money out of their current outdated technology.

That's how NVIDIA does business. The bare minimum. I'm aware that it make sense from a financial standpoint. But for a former enthusiast like me, that's a real kick in the balls.

 

[veritas7]

So you're going to go to ATi which has been giving their fanbase a huge time waiting for their Spider generation, but turned out alright, not the nVidia killer like they hoped to be?

I'd still say stick to nVidia - we'll see what's up their sleeve this December with the new GTS/GTX cards in the 9000 series.

And you never know, they'll have maybe 10.1 supported this time

I agree with the 680i boards... ugh, was that an experience for my first time, lol... and I wish they'd improve upon the SLI technology to utilize fully both of the cards :\

 

[pxc]

I understand the 680i complaint, but not the cheaper cards complaint. DX10.1 is a minor update and it's going to be a while for it to be supported in games. That shouldn't be a problem for someone who upgrades fairly often.

By the time there are DX10.1 games, there will be a new generation of ATI and nvidia cards anyways.

 

[NowhereMan]

DX10.1 is currently useless and not used in any games that you are going to play this year so who freaking cares?

 

[Zinn]

So you're going to go to ATi which has been giving their fanbase a huge time waiting for their Spider generation, but turned out alright, not the nVidia killer like they hoped to be?

Never said I'm "going" to ATI. I'm just not a staunch NVIDIA fan anymore. As it is, I have a graphics card that works and there's no reason to replace it currently. But there should be.

I understand the 680i complaint, but not the cheaper cards complaint. DX10.1 is a minor update and it's going to be a while for it to be supported in games. That shouldn't be a problem for someone who upgrades fairly often.

By the time there are DX10.1 games, there will be a new generation of ATI and nvidia cards anyways.

I don't give a shit about DX 10.1. I do give a shit about NVIDIA not innovating because they think they don't have to.

 

[Slade]

I choose "being a nvidia fan, or hardware fan is stupid" for $1000...

When dealing with computers or anything for that matter, "brand loyalty" is just another marketing gimmick. To think that the enthusiast is high on the list of any company is a joke. We're simply free PR for them, when we get awesome high end crap, we usually pimp out their lower end stuff (which is a higher profit for them) to our friends and family because we know they don't need or use that.

If you currently enjoy being their "tool" for free, go right ahead. I and many others will always run what gives us the best bang for the buck, be it performance or ease of use, one of those is always a major deciding factor for my purchases. Since dx 10.1 does jack for anything right now and in the near future, why go cry over milk that hasn't been spilled?

 

[echn111]

Never was a fan of nVidia or ATI for that matter.

nVidia needs to be careful. I don't care much for their platform solutions - I buy nVidia for their GPU's not their motherboards and the only reason I'd buy one of their boards is if I'm forced to (or if they are clearly superior - which they aren't). If they start to waste resources in areas outside their core product market, this can backfire. Look at what happened to that other company that decided to expand beyond it's core product market.

Their decision to restrict SLI to their own platforms may backfire, especially as many high end buyers are looking at x38/48.

If AMD ever comes out with a truly scalable, energy efficient, dependable solution that outperforms a single high end card, nVidia will have a real fight on their hands. All those people who have one GPU thanks to using a non-nVidia platform and are itching to upgrade just might do so - to a non-nVidia solution.

Too bad AMD, which is significantly larger than nVidia, appears to be unable to offer decent competition to nVidia (or Intel). They are a multi-billion dollar company. Where is all that R&D money going?

 

[Nemik8800]

Maybe you should be happy to posses a card so great even its creator has problems competing with it. Nah, but shit Nvidia rules the high end atm, and they are going to keep rolling in it as long as the 8800's are selling like hotcakes.

 

[Atech]

^^
I also buy NVIDA for their GPU's, I wouldn't touch their chipsets again.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

DX10.1 is currently useless and not used in any games that you are going to play this year so who freaking cares?

DX10.1 isn't even out yet. It won't be out until Vista's SP1 gets put out, so I agree, at this point DX10.1 support is merely a bulletpoint and wholly irrelevant.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

So you think NVIDIA isn't going ever to have anything to replace the 8800 Ultra or GTX? Just because they didn't put it out this month, you think they are somehow shafting the "community"?

Hmm.

 

[hawtrawkr]

^^
I also buy NVIDA for their GPU's, I wouldn't touch their chipsets again.

Im the same way only replace never again with not in the foreseeable future.

 

[Dan_D]

Point #1: 680i launch. Enough said.

Fair enough.

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

This is rediculous. DirectX 10.1 support is meaningless currently. It's a minor update at best, and beyond that, NVIDIA didn't need to release a better high end card because ATI still has nothing that remotely competes with the GTX or Ultra. NVIDIA will release a better card when it has one ready to go and when they feel the need to do so. They are making business decisions that will prove the most profitable to them. There are always people who will whine about this or that, but the fact is with the exception of Crysis, there really is no need for a higher end card at present.

I'd rather buy two slightly slower cards that together will give me more performance and more features for cheaper than NVIDIA's ancient "flagship" card. The flagship card that they won't be bothering to replace with something significantly faster like they should have this month, since they can just milk money out of their current outdated technology.

Again, their "ancient flagship card" kicks the crap out of ATI's latest and greatest. They have no need to throw a new card out there just yet. It sounds like you've just got the upgrade itch and you can't wait to scratch it and you are bitching about NVIDIA because you have nothing to scratch with. When your products are unequalled, there is no reason to release another. Right now due to ATI's lackluster products, NVIDIA can release their next high end parts on their terms and not have to rush product in response to anything ATI does in the forseeable future.

That's how NVIDIA does business. The bare minimum. I'm aware that it make sense from a financial standpoint. But for a former enthusiast like me, that's a real kick in the balls.

They didn't need to release the 8800GT or the Ultra, yet they did exactly that. The 8800GT is a card that competes well with higher end cards and they are selling it for far less than they could. They are certainly throwing all the mid-range card buyers a bone with a card that performs up to par with the big boys. Yeah, that's doing the bare minimum.

 

[kuyaglen]

In the last three years, I have owned a 6800GT, two 7800GTXs, two 7800GTs, a 7600GS, a 7600GT, two nForce 4 motherboards, a 680i motherboard, and an 8800GTS. I bought so many of NVIDIA's damn products that they sent me a customer appreciation pack with stickers and junk like that in the mail (I shit you not). As someone who was really enthusiastic about their products, I've recently become pretty disappointed with NVIDIA as a company.

Point #1: 680i launch. Enough said.

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

I'd rather buy two slightly slower cards that together will give me more performance and more features for cheaper than NVIDIA's ancient "flagship" card. The flagship card that they won't be bothering to replace with something significantly faster like they should have this month, since they can just milk money out of their current outdated technology.

That's how NVIDIA does business. The bare minimum. I'm aware that it make sense from a financial standpoint. But for a former enthusiast like me, that's a real kick in the balls.

Awe...sad panda.

 

[Zinn]

They are certainly throwing all the mid-range card buyers a bone with a card that performs up to par with the big boys. Yeah, that's doing the bare minimum.

The bare minimum to compete with ATI.

NVIDIA should have clobbered ATI since they have the tech. They might as well do it before Intel stomps them.

And yes, I have upgrade itch. Can you blame me? It's been a year, where's my next generation graphics card?!!

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips.

DX10.1 is meaningless. It's little more than a clarification. No one will use anything 10.1 has to offer for years. The only interesting part of the specs is way to intensive to run on current hardware.

 

[Zinn]

DX10.1 is meaningless. It's little more than a clarification. No one will use anything 10.1 has to offer for years. The only interesting part of the specs is way to intensive to run on current hardware.

Like I've said, I don't care at all about DX10.1 in terms of features. But when a new spec is released well before a hardware launch, it should be included in the revision. That simple. NVIDIA is just being lazy because they can.

 

[Dan_D]

Im the same way only replace never again with not in the foreseeable future.

I think the 680i SLI's bad reputation has already put many people off to the 780i SLI before it's even been released.

So you think NVIDIA isn't going ever to have anything to replace the 8800 Ultra or GTX? Just because they didn't put it out this month, you think they are somehow shafting the "community"?

Hmm.

Clearly the original poster is angry, and isn't thinking very clearly.

^^
I also buy NVIDA for their GPU's, I wouldn't touch their chipsets again.

This is what you would call the opposite reaction to product/brand loyalty. It's equally unproductive. What would you do if NVIDIA's next chipset was everything the 680i SLI should have been? What if it competes well against Intel's products? Would you simply miss out on a great chipset/board simply because you hated the 680i SLI?

I seriously doubt there are a lot of people that have been burned on the 680i SLI chipset based boards as badly or as often as I. I seem to burn up a 680i SLI motherboard every month or so these days. Still NVIDIA has proven that it generally listens to feedback from the community and from their customers. I think there is a good chance that NVIDIA will fix everything or most everything that was wrong about the 680i SLI in the 780i SLI chipset based reference designs. Most people tend to ignore the rest of the 600 series, but they were all quite excellent. It's only the flagship 680i SLI boards that seem to have all the problems. The 680i LT, 650i SLI, and 650i Ultra are all great overclockers and are all very reliable.

Maybe you should be happy to posses a card so great even its creator has problems competing with it. Nah, but shit Nvidia rules the high end atm, and they are going to keep rolling in it as long as the 8800's are selling like hotcakes.

Right. Making money is the name of the game. There is nothing wrong with that and making money isn't evil. Right now Geforce 8 series sales are strong, and they dominate ATI's products in the high end areas with ease. This allows NVIDIA the time they need to follow up on the 8-series the way they need to.

Never was a fan of nVidia or ATI for that matter.

GMA950 fan are we? How about the Kyro chipsets? I can understand disliking both of those companies as they've both done some annoying things and have had some terrible products here and there. Even so when it comes to high end video cards, there hasn't been anything better from any other companies since the late 90's.

nVidia needs to be careful. I don't care much for their platform solutions - I buy nVidia for their GPU's not their motherboards and the only reason I'd buy one of their boards is if I'm forced to (or if they are clearly superior - which they aren't). If they start to waste resources in areas outside their core product market, this can backfire. Look at what happened to that other company that decided to expand beyond it's core product market.

Their decision to restrict SLI to their own platforms may backfire, especially as many high end buyers are looking at x38/48.

I don't think so. I think it's the only way NVIDIA can actually sell chipsets for Intel processor based machines. The only way it could backfire is if their next chipset turns out to be worse than the 680i SLI.

If AMD ever comes out with a truly scalable, energy efficient, dependable solution that outperforms a single high end card, nVidia will have a real fight on their hands. All those people who have one GPU thanks to using a non-nVidia platform and are itching to upgrade just might do so - to a non-nVidia solution.

AMD only needs to release cards that out perform their competition. The other things are secondary goals. Enthusiasts would like a more energy efficient solution that produces less heat, but few people would discount buying an AMD/ATI card that out performed a comparable NVIDIA card on the basis of it's energy efficiency and heat output. Though there are few exceptions such as HPC use, but generally speaking, I don't think those two things would hugely impact sales. Performance and price sells cards more than anything.

Too bad AMD, which is significantly larger than nVidia, appears to be unable to offer decent competition to nVidia (or Intel). They are a multi-billion dollar company. Where is all that R&D money going?

Last I checked NVIDIA and ATI were of similar size. AMD has enough problems trying to handle Intel. If you think about it, there are many logical reasons why AMD/ATI are behind Intel/NVIDIA.

 

[Zinn]

Clearly the original poster is angry, and isn't thinking very clearly.

I agree.

After putting many thousands of dollars into NVIDIA video cards over the last few years, it starts to feel like they "owe" me a fabulous new product around the one year mark so I can burn through another $500. I'm like a junkie who needs to graduate to larger doses in order to get his fix.

Can't you see how NVIDIA is abusing me?!

Since this is still Thanksgiving weekend, I might add that I'm thankful that this is one of the biggest problems I face right now. Things could be a lot worse.

 

[Dan_D]

The bare minimum to compete with ATI.

No, the bare minimum would have left the 8800GT, and Ultra's off the table. Probably would have left out the 320MB GTS's too. Those weren't really needed to dominate ATI this last generation the way they have.

NVIDIA should have clobbered ATI since they have the tech.

I can't agree with this. We don't know for sure what NVIDIA has that hasn't been released. A post like this is making a huge amount of assumptions.

They might as well do it before Intel stomps them.

So you really think that Intel is going to destroy NVIDIA and ATI in the discreet graphics market?

If you really think about it Intel is actually the largest supplier of graphics solutions as it is today. They are trying to expand their reign slightly, but I think it will be a number of years at the earliest before Intel could even launch a product that would crush anything ATI or NVIDIA could put out between now and then.

And yes, I have upgrade itch. Can you blame me? It's been a year, where's my next generation graphics card?!!

If it weren't for Crysis, I wouldn't be at all worried or even interested in upgrading my system. There is little point to it. It sounds like you just want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. NVIDIA doesn't need to hurry, and lashing out because you are angry about still using the card you have is not only silly, but pointless. You'll see new high end NVIDIA cards soon enough I'm sure.

 

[Atech]

This is what you would call the opposite reaction to product/brand loyalty. It's equally unproductive. What would you do if NVIDIA's next chipset was everything the 680i SLI should have been? What if it competes well against Intel's products? Would you simply miss out on a great chipset/board simply because you hated the 680i SLI?

I had problems on nForce2, which put me off BIG-TIME, then there are the various bugs with nForce4 and as you mention the 680i chipset, it's not a isolated incident.
Besides, I plan to go with Intel CPU's until (if) AMD catches up and based on experince I would say that Intel makes the most stable chipset for Intel CPU's, no questions asked.

I am not pro- or anti-NVIDIA, but I have had(and by what I have gathered on the web) better experiences with Intel chipset.

 

[Zinn]

It sounds like you just want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading.

Seeing my highly overclocked GTS crawl in Crysis at high details sucked. I'm not even going to buy the game until I have a card that can really make it shine. With a 24" monitor I need all the GPU power I can get.

 

[matrix563]

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

if i remember correctly, ati didn't support shader model 3.0 on the x850xt, only nvidia did

minor enhancements to graphics cards really. just a checkbox to be honest.

nothing to get upset over

 

[bangmal]

The 8800GT thing was rushed out because nvidia knew the ATI 3800 series would kick their balls and nvidia decided to rush the things out claiming "yo see i am da first".

Now the sucker got stuck in between no one buying the GTS crap and not supplying enough GT

 

[echn111]

The bare minimum to compete with ATI.

NVIDIA should have clobbered ATI since they have the tech. They might as well do it before Intel stomps them.

And yes, I have upgrade itch. Can you blame me? It's been a year, where's my next generation graphics card?!!

I can understand the fustration - it has been a while since it was worth upgrading. 2006 was a great year for enthusiasts. There were some major breakthrough products for enthusiasts. Core 2 Duo. Then the Quads. Then the 8800. All these breakthrough products were significantly more advanced than anything the competition had.

But 2007 was dismal. There was "nothing" really worth upgrading. No breakthrough products. There was only a bit of maneuvering on price by the major players (which the enthusiast will rarely care about) and some very basic upgrades (ultra? lol). (In fact, I got bored and upgraded my motherboard and case for no special reason...)

The company responsible for the lack of competition and innovation in 2007 was not nVidia, nor Intel - both had spent their R&D money wisely and delivered real results with some excellent breakthrough products at the high end.

Although I may incur the ire of the fanbois, the company at the centre of this lack of innovation/breakthrough products in 2007 (and 2006) was AMD. Where are all the breakthrough products of this multi-billion dollar company? Enthusiasts need them to do well, but so far, all they do is disappoint. So if you want to get annoyed at anyone, there's the right target.

 

[Zinn]

if i remember correctly, ati didn't support shader model 3.0 on the x850xt, only nvidia did

minor enhancements to graphics cards really. just a checkbox to be honest.

nothing to get upset over

I manufacture problems where there are none so I can feel like a crusader against a worthy cause, when in fact my life is drab and wretched by comparison to the characters in the games I play.

 

[Dan_D]

I had problems on nForce2, which put me off BIG-TIME, then there are the various bugs with nForce4 and as you mention the 680i chipset, it's not a isolated incident.

No it isn't, but NVIDIA has made quite a few excellent chipsets. I still think (outside of possibly the 790FX) that NVIDIA makes the best chipsets for the AMD platform. They haven't been doing Intel chipsets as long, but most of the 600 series is great. The 680i is was great, but not perfect. The main probloem seems to be board reliability.

Besides, I plan to go with Intel CPU's until (if) AMD catches up and based on experince I would say that Intel makes the most stable chipset for Intel CPU's, no questions asked.

That they do. Intel's chipsets are some of the best, if not the best out there. Believe me I wish I were running an X38 board instead of a 680i SLI board.

I am not pro- or anti-NVIDIA, but I have had(and by what I have gathered on the web) better experiences with Intel chipset.

This is true. If you think about it, it is not at all surprising that Intel would be able to make better chipsets for their processors than anyone else. If AMD's chipsets do the same for their processors, than I think NVIDIA's chipset business will be in real trouble.

 

[eric66]

The 8800GT thing was rushed out because nvidia knew the ATI 3800 series would kick their balls and nvidia decided to rush the things out claiming "yo see i am da first".

Now the sucker got stuck in between no one buying the GTS crap and not supplying enough GT

agree with that

 

[Arcygenical]

nVIDIA is a company, driven by money. We don't know the true reason for why they've failed to release a new high end flagship product, but we can assume it's a better business decision for them.

Why innovate if the financial numbers aren't in your favor? People need to stop personifying companies, and realize their true purpose, to be profitable. They don't owe their purchaser's anything, they don't have to innovate, and they shouldn't be viewed as good or bad for innovating or failure to do so.

 

[Atech]

No it isn't, but NVIDIA has made quite a few excellent chipsets. I still think (outside of possibly the 790FX) that NVIDIA makes the best chipsets for the AMD platform. They haven't been doing Intel chipsets as long, but most of the 600 series is great. The 680i is was great, but not perfect. The main probloem seems to be board reliability.

I see it the same way, I just don't want to take any chances, sorry

That they do. Intel's chipsets are some of the best, if not the best out there. Believe me I wish I were running an X38 board instead of a 680i SLI board.

I fully understand how you feel, hence my decision not to go NVIDIA chipset for Intel

This is true. If you think about it, it is not at all surprising that Intel would be able to make better chipsets for their processors than anyone else. If AMD's chipsets do the same for their processors, than I think NVIDIA's chipset business will be in real trouble.

Yup, but the funny thing is, that without NVIDIA where would AMD be today?
As much as I don't want to buy a NVIDA chipset, the VIA chipsets plainy sucked big time...AMD should really be happy for that NVIDA helped them, now that AMD seemed unable to make great chipsets for their own CPU's...kinda scary actually.

 

[echn111]

GMA950 fan are we? How about the Kyro chipsets? I can understand disliking both of those companies as they've both done some annoying things and have had some terrible products here and there. Even so when it comes to high end video cards, there hasn't been anything better from any other companies since the late 90's.

Not being a fan is not the same as disliking. I'm a "fan" of whoever has the most interesting product at the time. And I'm quite happy with my nVidia purchase. If AMD were to come out with a better card, I'd be an AMD fan.

I don't think so. I think it's the only way NVIDIA can actually sell chipsets for Intel processor based machines. The only way it could backfire is if their next chipset turns out to be worse than the 680i SLI.

Agree that it's the only way nVidia can sell chipsets. However, it can backfire if people want non-nVidia chipsets and high end GPU power, even if they like the nVidia GPU's. For example, you cannot have the latest enthusiast chipset (i.e. X38) and the most powerful GPU setup around (i.e. 8800 running on a 680i chipset). Given that hard choice, IF AMD had something comparable, more people might choose the X38 solution with AMD graphics even if it offers a less powerful GPU solution to the nVidia platform.

AMD only needs to release cards that out perform their competition. The other things are secondary goals. Enthusiasts would like a more energy efficient solution that produces less heat, but few people would discount buying an AMD/ATI card that out performed a comparable NVIDIA card on the basis of it's energy efficiency and heat output. Though there are few exceptions such as HPC use, but generally speaking, I don't think those two things would hugely impact sales. Performance and price sells cards more than anything.

Yes. Too bad AMD isn't doing this at the high end.

Last I checked NVIDIA and ATI were of similar size. AMD has enough problems trying to handle Intel. If you think about it, there are many logical reasons why AMD/ATI are behind Intel/NVIDIA.

Still thinking back about all the claims about the synergies between ATI and AMD...

 

[HaMMerHeD]

if i remember correctly, ati didn't support shader model 3.0 on the x850xt, only nvidia did

minor enhancements to graphics cards really. just a checkbox to be honest.

nothing to get upset over

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Exactly what does that have to do with what you quoted?

 

[matrix563]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Exactly what does that have to do with what you quoted?

sorry i quoted the wrong post. i have too many chat windows open. i edited my post to make more sense now LOL

 

[Atech]

Agree that it's the only way nVidia can sell chipsets. However, it can backfire if people want non-nVidia chipsets and high end GPU power, even if they like the nVidia GPU's. For example, you cannot have the latest enthusiast chipset (i.e. X38) and the most powerful GPU setup around (i.e. 8800 running on a 680i chipset). Given that hard choice, IF AMD had something comparable, more people might choose the X38 solution with AMD graphics even if it offers a less powerful GPU solution to the nVidia platform.

I do hope you are talking about SLI, which is a really bad investment for the added preformance..because the 8800 will run fine on the X38?

 

[Battleneter2]

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

ROTFL Have you even researched DX10.1?, and I am not talking about those lame ATI slides.

DX10 is looking shakey for the next year or so and has offered us next to nothing so far. DX 10.1 is a minor version improvement for DX10 that we wont see implanted in games for at least 2 years, even where we do see it implemented it only have MINOR improvements over DX10.


Your post seems very Random. We are all assuming Nvidia have the next generation GPU up there sleeve and holding it back due to lack of competition, however that is pure speculation, there is not a shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[McCartney]

Edit: To clarify, I don't give a fuck about DX10.1, but NVIDIA just shows how lazy and unwilling to innovate they are by not including it in G92.

In the last three years, I have owned a 6800GT, two 7800GTXs, two 7800GTs, a 7600GS, a 7600GT, two nForce 4 motherboards, a 680i motherboard, and an 8800GTS. I bought so many of NVIDIA's damn products that they sent me a customer appreciation pack with stickers and junk like that in the mail (I shit you not). As someone who was really enthusiastic about their products, I've recently become pretty disappointed with NVIDIA as a company.

Point #1: 680i launch. Enough said.

Point #2: NVIDIA doesn't support Direct X 10.1 yet in their new products. For shame! We've known about this specification change for many months now and NVIDIA should have had time to add this to their new 65nm chips. Instead they went the lazy, bare minimum route (as usual) and released a card that slightly edges out ATI's card in performance but lacks in features. I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't come out with something that actually replaces the 8800 series like they should have. Why bother innovating when they don't have what they consider to be serious competition?

I'd rather buy two slightly slower cards that together will give me more performance and more features for cheaper than NVIDIA's ancient "flagship" card. The flagship card that they won't be bothering to replace with something significantly faster like they should have this month, since they can just milk money out of their current outdated technology.

That's how NVIDIA does business. The bare minimum. I'm aware that it make sense from a financial standpoint. But for a former enthusiast like me, that's a real kick in the balls.

You embarass us real nVidiots (Like me) who've been using nVidia since GeForce 256. You don't qualify as a fanboy you noob. You jumped on the bandwagon when NV recovered their crown on the 6 series, you didn't buy nvidia cards when they cost twice as much but performed a little less than their ATI counterpart (I bought a Gainward 5900 Ultra Golden Sample for 1K over a Radeon 9800 Pro for 600) so please don't rant here, you're not in the elite nvidiot club nor will you ever be.

In short, you were never something you claimed you were! To make matters worse you piss me off with your crap support of how "bad" nvidia is. The 680i is a legitimate argument but you lack any sort of nVidia card ownership chronology to whine.

Bye

 

[Zinn]

You embarass us real nVidiots (Like me) who've been using nVidia since GeForce 256. You don't qualify as a fanboy you noob. You jumped on the bandwagon when NV recovered their crown on the 6 series, you didn't buy nvidia cards when they cost twice as much but performed a little less than their ATI counterpart (I bought a Gainward 5900 Ultra Golden Sample for 1K over a Radeon 9800 Pro for 600) so please don't rant here, you're not in the elite nvidiot club nor will you ever be.

In short, you were never something you claimed you were! To make matters worse you piss me off with your crap support of how "bad" nvidia is. The 680i is a legitimate argument but you lack any sort of nVidia card ownership chronology to whine.

Bye

I said "in the last 3 years"

I had all sorts of NVIDIA shit before that, but I skipped the 5 series. No reason to upgrade from Ti 4600.

 

[eric66]

You embarass us real nVidiots (Like me) who've been using nVidia since GeForce 256. You don't qualify as a fanboy you noob. You jumped on the bandwagon when NV recovered their crown on the 6 series, you didn't buy nvidia cards when they cost twice as much but performed a little less than their ATI counterpart (I bought a Gainward 5900 Ultra Golden Sample for 1K over a Radeon 9800 Pro for 600) so please don't rant here, you're not in the elite nvidiot club nor will you ever be.

In short, you were never something you claimed you were! To make matters worse you piss me off with your crap support of how "bad" nvidia is. The 680i is a legitimate argument but you lack any sort of nVidia card ownership chronology to whine.

Bye

post of the year

 

[NowhereMan]

You embarass us real nVidiots (Like me) who've been using nVidia since GeForce 256. You don't qualify as a fanboy you noob. You jumped on the bandwagon when NV recovered their crown on the 6 series, you didn't buy nvidia cards when they cost twice as much but performed a little less than their ATI counterpart (I bought a Gainward 5900 Ultra Golden Sample for 1K over a Radeon 9800 Pro for 600) so please don't rant here, you're not in the elite nvidiot club nor will you ever be.

In short, you were never something you claimed you were! To make matters worse you piss me off with your crap support of how "bad" nvidia is. The 680i is a legitimate argument but you lack any sort of nVidia card ownership chronology to whine.

Bye

+1

Bye

 

[nobody_here]

who gives a crap about DX10.1 other than ATI marketing......it's all hype over nothing, it's not used hardly at all if at all, and by the time it is the G92 not supporting it and the HD3XXX's supporting it will mean squat

anyone remember SM3.0?

NV6 supported it but ATI's lineup did not, didnt matter, the NV6 line didnt have the horsepower to make good use of it anyways, by the time it was a big deal both NV6 and ATI's counterpart were worthless.....

useless rant i say