Thankfully he's stayed away since he was called out in a previous thread.
But, if you really want to, you can construct your own drunkenmaster post (if you have the stamina to write a little essay composed of two-line paragraphs). After all, you know exactly what he would say...
But, on-topic, I'll be interested to see what the Fermi refresh brings to the table. I doubt it will be able to compete with AMD in the efficiency stakes, and frankly, I will be (pleasantly) surprised if we see it this year. My completely subjective feeling is that AMD has things in the bag for the rest of this generation, but will have a mountain to climb to match nvidia in the next, given that nvidia has already taken a first iteration of their "completely new" architecture in Fermi. A switch to global foundries could potentially work to AMDs advantage in the next generation though.
Oh dear, I responded to a post on a first page(with my settings) then realise you're making a complete pratt of yourself. I went on holiday(ish), called out, I've never seen you make a post that makes sense, ever. As for Biased, I'm not, I'm typing here on an nvidia gpu, thats life.
Fermi as i've REPEATEDLY said, is a nice design, if you ignore all aspects of manufacturing, unfortunately 98% of a products success is its profitability, which stems 98% from its manufacturability. That is where Nvidia failed, MISERABLY. Have you seen a 512shader part GF100, or even a 384shader GF104, how many spins did it take before Nvidia admitted defeat.
As for not being predictable problems, I assume you'll now 280gtx is a 256shader card, oh wait, they ran into production problems and cut it down, it was late, used a lot of power and had lower yields than they'd have liked, and most of the series was sold for a loss, which largely all stemmed from the core being too big.
285gtx, still only a 240shader part, dropped from 65 to 55nm, took an incredibly long time to do the shrink, was still a huge core, still couldn't hit the targeted clock frequencies, and it was later than the 280, despite being vastly smaller, on a good process, being essentially a copied design, and having little else to do(mid/low end 280gtx derivitives didn't get in the way).
So thats 3 years of products that gradually followed the exact problems Fermi had, people all over the internet predicted EXACTLY what Fermi's/Nvidia's architecture/ignoring manufacturing would bring for Nvidia, half the industry predicted it, and publically stated it, and Nvidia waded into it.
This is the SAME problem AMD had with R600, something everyone saw happen, AMD adjusted and haven't fallen into the same problem again, nvidia saw it and walked right into it, in 3 separate architectures/process's in a row over 3 years and STILL haven't learnt.
I'd be happy for you to link to the thread i was "called out in" to rip whatever rubbish you wrote completely apart, again, and it will be because of the mood you put others in when you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in an incredibly biased manner while calling everyone else an idiot, for using logical reasoning in the way they post, using facts, common knowledge, common sense and a little educated estimation. (which by the way, my last estimate was a 6770 with 1280 shaders, about 3 weeks ago).
), but to dismiss it outright as a "miserable failure" is short-sighted. As I have repeatedly highlighted, GPU architectures are designed to scale over multiple generations. Dramatic reformulations are often unsuccessful in their first iteration (FX5800 / R600 for example), yet provide excellent results with minor tweaks on more refined manufacturing processes (NV40/G70, R700/R800). Only time will tell the success of the architecture, and to state its failure at the first iteration is premature and short-sighted; particularly when the reasons for the apparent shortcomings are not available to anyone outside nvidia's design team.
