-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Nvidia preparing new Geforce with GK110
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Fixed that for you
No you didn't. ..
what I said was true.
AMD have the Fastest CARD.
If nvidias make a CARD that fits one pci-e slot faster then I will buy it
Caporegime
No you didn't. ..
what I said was true.
AMD have the Fastest CARD.
If nvidias make a CARD that fits one pci-e slot faster then I will buy it
And how I replaced it is also true
And what if my only game was F1 2012? 
Soldato
Is down to customers, how well they know what they buy. Most will spend 15 minutes on a shop and buy what they want on their own price bracket, with only "brand" names on their head.
Someone like you and me, going to spend weeks looking for benchmarks, forums and waiting for the correct bargain price to spend their money on. (as happened now with the 7950 and FX8350).
Good example, Athlon Tbird, XP, MP, were absolutely superb in price and power. Still intel was selling more celerons, at ludicrous prices.
Then AMD64 came out, people still buying 32bit P4 for years.
AMD64X2 came out, still people were buying 32bit Pentium dual cores. (at pretty low speeds also).
Also over the last 15 years, I have never see an AMD ad on TV either (both Greece and UK). Always Intel or products powered by Intel. They made a brand and put money to keep it.
Even yesterday, someone complained about a game performance that he had on an intel T1400 laptop, with Intel gpu series 4 and 64mb dedicated ram. What game he complained about, giving him low fps? Total War Rome 2.
(can provide link if needed)
Permabanned
Panos yup
Even if amd would make card with titan performance for 250f. People would still buy NV.
NV got marketing power and thats it.
Only chance for amd is going:
We power both new consoles and we design our cards so they work best with new titles from new consoles.
And with marketing like that they got chance of pushing more % of market.
Even if amd would make card with titan performance for 250f. People would still buy NV.
NV got marketing power and thats it.
Only chance for amd is going:
We power both new consoles and we design our cards so they work best with new titles from new consoles.
And with marketing like that they got chance of pushing more % of market.
The proof is in the pudding they say..
Let's watch how many people switch from Nvidia if the 290X is faster than the Titan, only to return to the green team when they take back the performance crown.
Most gamers (Me included) are a fickle bunch and go where the performance is. Nvidia market to these people both consciously and unconsciously, and they do it better than AMD.
Why do you guys think AMD are going on a full on marketing attack, pushing AMD as a 'gaming' brand everywhere gamers are likely to see it. Consoles, PC's deals with publishers, Battelfield. AMD want the 'mindshare'. "AMD is Your Core of Gaming".
Come on guys, half the battle is having the best hardware, the other half is the best marketing. Atm Nvidia has the edge, with the Titan and mindshare, if the 290X is fastest single GPU and AMD's advertising starts to set in peoples minds, then of course AMD could tip the scales in the future. This is exactly why Nvidia won't sit back and let it happen. Faster GPU's, deals with the biggest publishers. They will fight for the top spot, and the fastest single GPU regardless of cost will keep Nvidia in the spotlight.
Let's watch how many people switch from Nvidia if the 290X is faster than the Titan, only to return to the green team when they take back the performance crown.
Most gamers (Me included) are a fickle bunch and go where the performance is. Nvidia market to these people both consciously and unconsciously, and they do it better than AMD.
Why do you guys think AMD are going on a full on marketing attack, pushing AMD as a 'gaming' brand everywhere gamers are likely to see it. Consoles, PC's deals with publishers, Battelfield. AMD want the 'mindshare'. "AMD is Your Core of Gaming".
Come on guys, half the battle is having the best hardware, the other half is the best marketing. Atm Nvidia has the edge, with the Titan and mindshare, if the 290X is fastest single GPU and AMD's advertising starts to set in peoples minds, then of course AMD could tip the scales in the future. This is exactly why Nvidia won't sit back and let it happen. Faster GPU's, deals with the biggest publishers. They will fight for the top spot, and the fastest single GPU regardless of cost will keep Nvidia in the spotlight.
LOL sorry, this is al wrong, the only part I agree with is that AMD wants the gamers to think AMD when thinking of games. Everything else you say is not true at all. You really don't know what is going on at all, at the top end of stuff, damn all people know about it and couldn't care less. It's only a small few on forums that care about the top end hardware and smaller number of those actually buy the top end.
You go out to the average gamer on the street and ask him would he buy a titan or a 290x most wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about.
Foxeye has it right. The example he used was a good with the Athlon CPU, amazing CPUs, but Intel outsold them all the time even though the P4 at the time was totally useless.
And look at when ATI had two of the best cards on the market the 9700 and 9800, Nvidia still outsold them.
Most people know Nvida and know Intel, they have never heard of AMD. And that's why Nvidia sells more.
Man of Honour
I still don't think the R9 290X will beat the Titan even though it will get close, as to my Titans they are here to stay.
As to NVidia releasing a Titan with all 15 SMX modules enabled, all this will give is another 3% or 4% performance. If I were to use 4 of these it would be no faster than what I have now. The problem with using 4 Titans is the CPU is just not fast enough on the benchmarks to get the most out of them.
They outsold AMD because big companies like Dell/HP/IBM were putting Intel in their machines, however when it came to retail CPU sales and local computer shop systems AMD were as competitive as they have ever been as they had the best chips and the word was basically "Athlon XP's beat faster P4's that cost more"
Ignoring the fact that the 9800 was the replacement for the 9700, I personally remember the 9700 Pro storming onto the scene and dominating all, nobody with any sense bought the 4600ti (later rebranded as the 4800ti) after that as ATi were cheaper, more powerful and had DX9. Until the FX5800 Ultra reclaimed the performance crown, which was then taken by the 9800 Pro, FX5900 Ultra, 9800XT, FX5950 Ultra, and the wheel rolls on.
HA, HAHA, HAHHAHAHAHAHHAA
WAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah seriously, even the purple shirts push AMD and have done for years, anyone buying a computer will either know AMD/Intel or neither.
Whatever dude, You still don't get it, the people on the streets don't know AMD, that's a fact and they didn't know ATI or AMD back when the 9700 pro was around or when the good Athlon CPU's were available.
I worked in retail back then, you think just because tech guys on forums knew that the 9700 pro was the best card that people bought more ATI cards at the time? Nope it didn't happen, nvidia cards still outsold ATI cards 2:1 easy. It's what people knew and asked for. The same goes for CPU's. AMD had probably their best years of existence but yet Intel still outsold them. When people came in asking for a computer, the question was always has it intel inside? It took a lot of persuading to get people to change to AMD.
Heck the fact that the 9700 pro dominated so completely in performance and Nvidia still sold more cards should prove Fox one's point. ATI didn't gain market share that year or anything in discrete gpu's but they did really well in the mobile market.
Don't judge the general public the same as people on these and other forums.
Just wanted to throw in a quote about the markets at the time.
"Nevertheless, judging by the results of the first fiscal quarter of 2003 voiced by Mercury Research, NVIDIA keeps the lead, the sixth quarter in a row. Its current share makes 31%. The second position is after Intel with 29% of sales in this sector, while ATI has reached only 19%.
In production of discrete graphics for desktop PCs the throne also belongs to NVIDIA which owns 64%, while ATI can boast of only 28%. At the same time, ATI possesses 60% of the market of discrete graphics chips for portable PCs, while NVIDIA is left with 31%. The analysts at Mercury Research were quite surprised seeing no growth of ATI's share on the market of desktop discrete graphics though the company released several successful solutions."
Its all about brand recognitation. Nvidia have it, AMD/ATI don't.
Last edited:
Associate
AMD have never been close to a position where it could supply enough product to out sell intel, so the comparison is flawed.
Lol, you do realize that before Nvidia was the big bad dominant GPU company it as 3DFX, and before that ATi?
And when The Athlon XP was king everyone who had any clue about PC's knew AMD was in "the game", to those that didn't the name Intel was just as alien. And FYI when the 9700 Pro was king was about 5 minutes after when 3DFX was king and ATi/Nvidia was both second tier wannabes.
Lol, you do realize that before Nvidia was the big bad dominant GPU company it as 3DFX, and before that ATi?
And when The Athlon XP was king everyone who had any clue about PC's knew AMD was in "the game", to those that didn't the name Intel was just as alien. And FYI when the 9700 Pro was king was about 5 minutes after when 3DFX was king and ATi/Nvidia was both second tier wannabes.
We are not arguing about who was king. We are talking about does having the fastest GPU make much difference to how many cards you sell.
As shown, the one time in recent history where AMD/ATI had the most powerful card by far. The 9700 pro was the best card, no arguments, Yet ATI still didn't sell more cards than Nvidia.
3DFX were out of the game before 2000, their decision not to use directx was a big factor in their downfall.
And you just proved my, "anyone who had any clue about PC's knew AMD was in "the game" Exactly what I have been saying. And 80% of the people don't have a clue, they buy intel and nvidia because they have heard of them.
AMD might be a bit (lot) better known these days but melmac is correct - when I worked for a similiar company to OcUK the man off the street came in asking for Intel or nVidia whether they'd heard of AMD (or ATI) or not - up until fairly recently for your average joe if they'd heard of AMD it was percieved somewhat in the way as of Windows V Linux. Its only really off the tail end of the 5000 series that AMD became pushed more into the public mind and its still something thats establishing itself.
(Might not be what some people want to hear).
(Might not be what some people want to hear).
No but they sold a truckload more than they normally did because having the top card elevated their profile, they couldn't sell more than Nvidia as they were producing less.
lol no you still don't get it do you? Having the top card did nothing for them. How many more ways do I have to put this before it gets through to you?
Joe public does not care who has the top card. Joe public buys on brand name recognition.
But lets follow your reasoning, you say they sold a truckload more cards than they normally did because the top card elevated their profile? Have you any evidence to support that? As I said I worked in retail back then, and I am telling you it didn't happen. A few more PC enthusiasts and tech savy gamers bought the 9700 pro over the Geforce4 Ti 4600, but that's about it. The high end market is so small that it doesn't really influence market share at all.
As for your second point about producing less than Nvidia and that's the reason they didn't sell more cards? LOL, ATI couldn't sell what they had out already. Why produce more when they were in stock available everywhere.
But as I said, if you can show any evidence that they sold tons more cards than please do. I know they sold a ton more mobile grahics cards than nvidia, but in the desktop market they didn't. Or maybe you can explain how ATI sold a truckload more cards yet didn't increase market share at all?
Soldato
I'm calling it. 790GTX or similar. I like others find it extremely unlikely they'll release a fully unlocked card dubbed Titan Ultra so close / before an inevitable price drop to the current line up.
No it doesn't. They make obscene profit margins on the Tesla cards based on the same chip, which is where almost all of their bottom line comes from.
They'd be cutting their nose off to spite their face.