Nvidia overtake ATi in Graphics Market.

LoadsaMoney · 31 Jul 2007 at 12:43

http://www.techpowerup.com/?36292

Only to be expected i suppose seen as they had a 6 month head start, and the G92 will have a pretty good head start on them as well by the looks of it.

I still say AMD should have left well alone.

Darkwave · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:02

Ouch, nearly double market share in the desktop market too.

sunlitsix · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:30

growth of 82.9% :eek:

psychas · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:32

no worries we will see what will go on with r700 and g92 r800 comes bofore g100
and ati going with multicore gpu nice nice

MystaEB · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:38

What?

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:02

LOL, the ATI guys love to get in a comment.

I read that a few days ago and it was the mobile market, they always have had desktop lead but nearly lost it a few times esp with FX5000's POS series.

paradigm · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:23

To be honest I really couldn't care either way. The majority of those figures will be made up from integrated chips and low end cards, not the 8800 vs 2900 battle that everyone in that link seems to think it is.

Intel still have the lead overall and look at their offerings at present. Infact this again highlights the temptation for intel to use their PvR tech and do something constructive with it. They have the money, they have the tech, and they have the market share.

Gerard · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:31

Since when did intel have 3dfx tech considering nvidia owns all the patents etc?

Darkwave · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:34

paradigm said:
To be honest I really couldn't care either way. The majority of those figures will be made up from integrated chips and low end cards, not the 8800 vs 2900 battle that everyone in that link seems to think it is.

Do you believe that the HD2900 will catch up to the 8800 in sales before the next round of cards?

Also, integrated or not, nearly double the market share in the desktop sector is a big deal.

paradigm · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:34

Sorry, I meant PowerVR, not 3dFx. doh

Ulfhedjinn said:
Do you believe that the HD2900 will catch up to the 8800 in sales before the next round of cards?

I'd like to think that driver revisions and especially newer games will see the 2900XT pretty much beat the GTS in any given scenario. I personally feel the GTX will remain either ahead or on par with the 2900.

Darkwave · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:55

paradigm said:
I'd like to think that driver revisions and especially newer games will see the 2900XT pretty much beat the GTS in any given scenario. I personally feel the GTX will remain either ahead or on par with the 2900.

Who knows, it's not outside the realm of possibility, but what does that have to do with sales?

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:04

Nothing, and the 2900 will never overall be on PAR with a GTX, even if it was who cares, there is no shame in that as the GTX is nearly 1 year old tech now so is Ultra, its only a revised Core (Rev3).

Clairvoyant · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:27

The graphics card market is like a roller coaster. Both sides have ups and downs.

People swap makes quicker than they do partners. lol

Darg · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:55

It amazes me that nVidia fanboys are still saying "My GTX beats your 2900XT haha u suxors". Of course it does you nimwits. It cost you £100 more!

I don't think the 2900XT will equal the GTX in performance. I do think It will beat the 640MB GTS by a large enough margin to deserve the extra £5 or £10 expenditure.

That is the important thing. The 2900XT was never set to beat the GTX that's why it's cheaper.

And no I am not an ATi fanboy. I have used a 9800Pro, a 7600GT, a 6200LE, a X600 and a 7900GS in the last year. I obviously don't care which make a card is as long as I think it's the best value for money card out.

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:59

I dont think they are.

The Nvidia card is old in GPU terms, the ATI card was supposed to be against the GTX until it all went wrong, same as Nvidia got it all wrong with FX5000's.

Darg · 31 Jul 2007 at 16:03

helmutcheese said:
I dont think they are.

The Nvidia card is old in GPU terms, the ATI card was supposed to be against the GTX until it all went wrong, same as Nvidi got it all worng with FX5000's.

If the nvidia card is old then why is it still £100 more? We have to look at them as they are now. If the GTX was the same price or atleast only £40-50 more then I'd recommend it more.

Darkwave · 31 Jul 2007 at 16:05

Darg said:
If the nvidia card is old then why is it still £100 more? We have to look at them as they are now. If the GTX was the same price or atleast only £40-50 more then I'd recommend it more.

AMD would be having a laugh if they sold such a late card with such teething problems for that price.

In fact, they'd just be doing Nvidia a big favour really and boosting GTS sales.

Darg · 31 Jul 2007 at 16:08

Ulfhedjinn said:
AMD would be having a laugh if they sold such a late card with such teething problems for that price.

In fact, they'd just be doing Nvidia a big favour really and boosting GTS sales.

Which is why they didn't. That's not my point. Why is the GTX still £300+? Why not lower it to bring it closer to 2900XT prices?

At their current prices I'll always recommend the 2900XT to save the £100. The increased performance of the GTX just isn't worth it unless you're going all out on a spec.

Value for money the 2900XT is better then the GTX.

Darkwave · 31 Jul 2007 at 16:08

Darg said:
Why is the GTX still £300+?

Lack of competition.

Darg · 31 Jul 2007 at 16:13

Ulfhedjinn said:
Lack of competition.

I agree.. which is why I hope that as the 2900XT increases in performance as we can see it's doing with driver releases nVidia will drop their GTX prices down.

But to get vaguely back on topic, comparing the 2900XTs performance to the GTX and claiming victory because the GTX beats it is pointless. That's all I was saying.