Fermi Renders

[Martini1991]

tbh the reason for my comment was cuase of all the people slaming Nvidia and the way they are in trouble etc... and how Ati are the better company etc.

but yet this better company lose millions every year as they sell stuff for less than it cost to make... anyone could do this.

Also with the whole WIMTBP surely if nvidia are paying money to help these games being made they should get a benefit,

you dont here sony saying Forza should be out on ps3 or microsoft saying GT5 should be on xbox? so why do ATi have such a issue with it?

Just because ATI doesn't have ATI branded on games, doesn't mean they don't help.

Doh, they are photos, try getting a clue in this thread.

You *can* get traced renders that look like that, I didn't read a page of people, if it's photo's, then fair do's, but that type of rendering is definately a reality, but not real time.

 

[RavenXXX2]

They have Dirt 2 and there are many more future DX11 titles that will have their name behind them according to ATI.

You *can* get traced renders that look like that, I didn't read a page of people, if it's photo's, then fair do's, but that type of rendering is definately a reality, but not real time.

Am I debating that??? no, nabs are claiming they are renders when they are photos...Capiche

 

[Martini1991]

They have Dirt 2 and there are many more future DX11 titles that will have their name behind them according to ATI.

Well, Nvidia cant exactly help with DX 11 right now can they?

 

[madindehead]

No he means AMD, AMD lose billions every year, buying ATI was a smart move (as prosumedly they make a profit) but all it's done is prolonging the death of AMD. Quite how they've managed to last this long I don't know, I suspect nobody in the banks has the balls to write off $8billion of debt.

Ah ok. My apologies Jokester and to markiejt. I didn't know they were in that kind of situation.

From the way the post was written, it sounded as if he meant to say Nvidia (just from all the Nvidia bashing that has been going on).

 

[Martini1991]

Am I debating that??? no, nabs are claiming they are renders when they are photos...Capiche

Chill your beans.
I said "If they're photo's then fair do's".

 

[RavenXXX2]

Chill your beans.
I said "If they're photo's then fair do's".

They're not photo's.
It's high end lighting rendering, but it'll NEVER be used in game with a fermi LOL.

Try reading the thread before you make false statements.

 

[Owenb]

No he means AMD, AMD lose billions every year, buying ATI was a smart move (as prosumedly they make a profit) but all it's done is prolonging the death of AMD. Quite how they've managed to last this long I don't know, I suspect nobody in the banks has the balls to write off $8billion of debt.

You have no future in business! AMD paid $5bn plus interest for ATI. It also spent hundreds of millions on restructing. During a good year ATI might make $50m. So if ATI have 100 good years, AMD might break even on the purchase! Of course the real reason for buying them was to intergrate a GPU into a CPU to create much faster CPU's(making them market leaders, which equals $$$) but AMD underestimated how difficult that would and it looks like they don't know how to do it.
However when AMD go bust ATI will just be sold off to pay some of the debt, so they will be safe. Their are plently of rich chip companies out there that would take them on.

 

[Martini1991]

Try reading the thread before you make false statements.

You pick my first statement, which was corrected by you, miss out my second where I said if it's photos then fair do's...

 

[arc@css]

I think its something like 80+% of the market for Intel with AMD having less than a 5% (probably less) slice of the cake.

 

[drunkenmaster]

tbh the reason for my comment was cuase of all the people slaming Nvidia and the way they are in trouble etc... and how Ati are the better company etc.

but yet this better company lose millions every year as they sell stuff for less than it cost to make... anyone could do this.

Also with the whole WIMTBP surely if nvidia are paying money to help these games being made they should get a benefit,

you dont here sony saying Forza should be out on ps3 or microsoft saying GT5 should be on xbox? so why do ATi have such a issue with it?

You don realise ATi make cheaper cards, that make a profit, and Nvidia in matching them have been selling more expensive cores at a loss. AMD have not sold a card for no profit at all yet, Nvidia stopped production on the GTX260-285 because they couldn't make anything but a loss on any of them, previously they had been making a loss on the 260 alone, but that was also the massive majority of its sales.

As for ATi, ATi haven't posted a loss in some time, ATi/AMD as a whole posted a loss, and infact this quarter did exceptionally well. Not making a profit short term, doesn't make a company worse.

Currently Nvidia's market makeup is 90% graphics core sales, 5-6% chipsets, and 3-4% GPGPU, they've stopped selling high and mid end cards for the moment till Fermi is out, they won't have midrange till months and months later, their current low end is more expensive, slower with worse features than their ATi competition, none of which will be replaced with competitive products till likely Q3 next year.

They are heavily going after that GPGPU market, which made them almost no profit and very little of their revenue, given up on chipsets entirely for good and the graphics market is looking in poor shape and worse with every day they don't have a competitve part outside of the £0-60 market, a top end Fermi won't get them market share, they need something in the 5850's price range, which doesn't seem likely for a long time now.

When a company invests most of their time effort and money on the part of their market thats only 3-4% of its business, somethings wrong. Even a massive 100% growth in the market segment, will do nothing for their profits and overall business. The fact they are so aggressively targeting such a miniscule part of their business, suggest their own direction and how badly THEY think THEY'll be doing in graphics over the next couple years.

Keeping in mind they've lost the low end/intergrated markets due to gpu's on die for Intel next year, and AMD the year after(their highest sales segment), its actually smart to try to expand the only market they can survive in for the future.

 

[markiejt]

i thought they increased there mobile gpu market as it is growing so much fater than any other market? so surely you would dump money into it.
also havent they just got the rights to the next nintendo DS? surely that is another reason to dump money as they will make them millions.

also wit mobile becoming more graphical than they were even 1 year ago surely that is a more profitable market at the moment as mobile phones for some reason are not affect by down turns in global markets.

Also I might be wrong but AMD/ATi not made profit for years (i am a fan of amd as you can see from sig had amd since athlon days) so i am not trying to knock them down but honnestly most agruments against Nvidia are getting stupid,

I know which one from a profit aspect I would prefer to own?

 

[drunkenmaster]

You have no future in business! AMD paid $5bn plus interest for ATI. It also spent hundreds of millions on restructing. During a good year ATI might make $50m. So if ATI have 100 good years, AMD might break even on the purchase! Of course the real reason for buying them was to intergrate a GPU into a CPU to create much faster CPU's(making them market leaders, which equals $$$) but AMD underestimated how difficult that would and it looks like they don't know how to do it.
However when AMD go bust ATI will just be sold off to pay some of the debt, so they will be safe. Their are plently of rich chip companies out there that would take them on.

What complete twaddle, firstly ATi are worth more than 50mil a year, secondly, I wouldn't be surprised to see an AMD chip and chipset inside the next Xbox along with the already secured graphics core. Which could easily mean 15million AMD systems in peoples homes with the next Xbox, which translates to lots of Xbox people knowing the AMD brand is a great "gaming" brand, so will be more likely to be an AMD PC next time around. It means AMD could stick its name out their on most games being released.

As for when AMD go bust, their biggest losses were in manufacturing, AMD actually posted fantastic numbers for their last quarter, no where near losing "billions a year".

It literally costs billions to retool a fab with new equipment, by splicing off manufacturing, to uber rich oil trillionaires the biggest loss AMD took, with 90% of their acrued debt over years coming from fab rebuilding, shifting to billionaires who can burn that kind of money without a care in the world, AMD's future looks incredibly strong.

In the next couple years, AMD will return to profitability, their debt is basically on hold till 2012 now, at which point GloFo owners, who own 45% of AMD and with AMD being 80% of its production, will simply pay off the debt with ease. At which point you get AMD< debtless, making money, with the strongest Graphics brand in the world(by then) with more financial backing than Intel, with the worlds most advanced fab up and running.

Without spending money to aquire ATi, they wouldn't have been a great "package" buy, the oil guys would see a company in debt with little viability to compete in the future, they wouldn't have bought AMD/ATi. That would mean no New York State 7billion dollar worlds greatest Fab being under contruction already. That would mean no paying off 2billion of debt already, it would mean AMD needing to come up with 2-3billion just to retool the Dresden fabs for 32nm which in this economy they might not have gotten. That would mean, no deep pockets to turn to in 2012 when some of the debt is due, it could well have meant the end of AMD in 2012, or at least bank taking ownership and parts sold off most likely.

So considering AMD's probably future pre ATi, and their future now, with quite literally the backing of a trillionaire group of investors, the ATi aquisition was a damn bargain.

 

[drunkenmaster]

i thought they increased there mobile gpu market as it is growing so much fater than any other market? so surely you would dump money into it.
also havent they just got the rights to the next nintendo DS? surely that is another reason to dump money as they will make them millions.

also wit mobile becoming more graphical than they were even 1 year ago surely that is a more profitable market at the moment as mobile phones for some reason are not affect by down turns in global markets.

Also I might be wrong but AMD/ATi not made profit for years (i am a fan of amd as you can see from sig had amd since athlon days) so i am not trying to knock them down but honnestly most agruments against Nvidia are getting stupid,

I know which one from a profit aspect I would prefer to own?

Problem being, you can sell 20million DS's with $3 gfx chips in that make a $0.50 profit, or you can sell 10million PS3's, with a $50 graphics core, that make a $5 profit.

its all well and good getting the DS contract, but other than volume, its very very low in profit. It might be a good extra/add on, but it looks like they've lost their Playstation business, and probably had to be ultra aggressive to get the DS contract, considering Nintendo like ATi. Meaning they probably had to go in with an ultra competitive contract. The profit from DS sales won't come close to offsetting the profits from the lost Sony business.

 

[markiejt]

What complete twaddle, firstly ATi are worth more than 50mil a year, secondly, I wouldn't be surprised to see an AMD chip and chipset inside the next Xbox along with the already secured graphics core. Which could easily mean 15million AMD systems in peoples homes with the next Xbox, which translates to lots of Xbox people knowing the AMD brand is a great "gaming" brand, so will be more likely to be an AMD PC next time around. It means AMD could stick its name out their on most games being released.

As for when AMD go bust, their biggest losses were in manufacturing, AMD actually posted fantastic numbers for their last quarter, no where near losing "billions a year".

It literally costs billions to retool a fab with new equipment, by splicing off manufacturing, to uber rich oil trillionaires the biggest loss AMD took, with 90% of their acrued debt over years coming from fab rebuilding, shifting to billionaires who can burn that kind of money without a care in the world, AMD's future looks incredibly strong.

In the next couple years, AMD will return to profitability, their debt is basically on hold till 2012 now, at which point GloFo owners, who own 45% of AMD and with AMD being 80% of its production, will simply pay off the debt with ease. At which point you get AMD< debtless, making money, with the strongest Graphics brand in the world(by then) with more financial backing than Intel, with the worlds most advanced fab up and running.

Without spending money to aquire ATi, they wouldn't have been a great "package" buy, the oil guys would see a company in debt with little viability to compete in the future, they wouldn't have bought AMD/ATi. That would mean no New York State 7billion dollar worlds greatest Fab being under contruction already. That would mean no paying off 2billion of debt already, it would mean AMD needing to come up with 2-3billion just to retool the Dresden fabs for 32nm which in this economy they might not have gotten. That would mean, no deep pockets to turn to in 2012 when some of the debt is due, it could well have meant the end of AMD in 2012, or at least bank taking ownership and parts sold off most likely.

So considering AMD's probably future pre ATi, and their future now, with quite literally the backing of a trillionaire group of investors, the ATi aquisition was a damn bargain.

omg where did you get that from???

if you are sure on all this I would sell your house and buy shares in AMD as in few years time they will be worth loads lol?

any way getting back to it... console market is huge i agree and everyone wants to get in to. but I would say if i asked all my family and friends who made the CPU in there ps3 or xbox or again what GPU they would have no idea.

they would just say sony or microsoft

 

[arc@css]

It wouldn't matter that much, AMD still will have at the very least secured the next GPU for the next xbox which would mean profits / figures. What it will be called I don't know, the 720?

 

[Jokester]

You have no future in business! AMD paid $5bn plus interest for ATI. It also spent hundreds of millions on restructing. During a good year ATI might make $50m. So if ATI have 100 good years, AMD might break even on the purchase!

The money spent on ATI is retained in the value of the company (and with ATIs current products and growth is probably worth more now). Sales aren't the only way of increasing the value of a company.

Also Intel will have a CPU+GPU on single chip solution out early next year. AMDs Fusion equivalent looks like 2011 at the earliest a full year behind, so that won't be a cash cow for them like you say. They need to do that purely to survive against Intel.

 

[arc@css]

Thought I'd read somewhere that AMD paid $5 billion + for the acquisition of ATI, just seems like a lot. Thought I must have got it wrong or something then saw it again on this thread. Thought more like $500 million though obviously not.

 

[kylew]

If I remember rightly you are very shortly going to go on about how the tone of the poster has disrespected you. LOL.

That was in fact ebilcake.

 

[entireweb]

Problem being, you can sell 20million DS's with $3 gfx chips in that make a $0.50 profit, or you can sell 10million PS3's, with a $50 graphics core, that make a $5 profit.

its all well and good getting the DS contract, but other than volume, its very very low in profit. It might be a good extra/add on, but it looks like they've lost their Playstation business, and probably had to be ultra aggressive to get the DS contract, considering Nintendo like ATi. Meaning they probably had to go in with an ultra competitive contract. The profit from DS sales won't come close to offsetting the profits from the lost Sony business.

First off Nvidia do not sell PS3 rsx chips to Sony. They dont make the chip. They sold the IP (intellectual property) rights for the chip to Sony. Sony makes the chip. No one know how much the deal was worth.

Secondly the aim of Nvidia is to break into the handheld, mobile computing business via, Zunes, DS's and smartphones etc.

These mobile markets are what silicon companies are fighting over. The potential profits are huge. Profits of graphics cards and PS3's etc dwarf by comparison.

It is due to the number of units and the profit per unit. The DS has sold 111 million units.

It is these numbers that are banded around silicon companies. I remember in one silicon company I worked for when we had our "100 million sold" party.

The profit per chip for Nvidia on Tegra is circa $4-$5 NOT 0.50$. So thats a potential of $500 million dollars profit if Nvidia get win the DS contract, assuming it sells like the last one.

But again its not the DS market they are actually after, its the mobile phone market. This is why they keep on showing up at the GSM world congress with there Tegra chip touting for business.

If Nvidia can get Tegra into major players in the handset market, eg EMP, Nokia etc etc, then they could potentially sell many more 100's of millions and make $billions in profit.

 

[Orangey]

I think the DS must have sold more than 111 million, everyone in Japan has a phat, a lite and a DSi for starters...