By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), October 4, 2009 12:57 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no@email.com) on 10/3/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 10/2/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Anon (no@email.com) on 10/2/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>ROTFL, come on Linus, NVidia own the graphics high end (Quadro) where the money
>>>is - I know you refuse to see it, but ATI are a disaster >there.
>>
>>That's professional, not high-end necessarily.
>
>Interesting way of twisting words..
>I would say that as the prices are many times higher, that >makes it 'high end' by definition?
That's fair. I was thinking about it in terms of performance. Quite a bit of the pro market would be fine with IGP level graphics (e.g. financial traders).
Both are certainly valid ways to approach gpus.
>>>ATI have JUST retaken the high end gaming position for the >next 6ish months, good
>>>on them, but dont try and stretch that too far - NVidia >have held it for a long long time...
>>
>>I'm not sure you noticed, but they had that since RV770.
>
>Um, what?
>Have you used them? I have both GTX 295 and 4890 cards sitting here in machines
>that I regularly used, and can tell you that the GTX 295 >is definitely the faster card.
So what?
>Are you perhaps caught up in the insanity that 2 4890 cards versus one GTX 295
>is the 'fair' comparison? (yes, I have also tested twin GTX 295s, which is getting silly, but works fine).
>
>Just about any of the good old gamerz sites will review >them that way around, for just about any use.
Here's the thing - the market that matters is the $100-$300 market. That's the vast majority of the revenue and profits. Cards above $300 sell in such low volumes that they don't have a huge impact on the bottom line.
>RV770 has fantastic high end price performance for games, >but that price performance
>thing matters - the gaming high end is defined by stupid >prices (not quite as stupid
>as the 'professional' high end of course).
Sure, but that's such a small portion of the market as to be irrelevant. ATI has done very well in the $100-300 range, and that's what matters.
David
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 10/2/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Anon (no@email.com) on 10/2/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>ROTFL, come on Linus, NVidia own the graphics high end (Quadro) where the money
>>>is - I know you refuse to see it, but ATI are a disaster >there.
>>
>>That's professional, not high-end necessarily.
>
>Interesting way of twisting words..
>I would say that as the prices are many times higher, that >makes it 'high end' by definition?
That's fair. I was thinking about it in terms of performance. Quite a bit of the pro market would be fine with IGP level graphics (e.g. financial traders).
Both are certainly valid ways to approach gpus.
>>>ATI have JUST retaken the high end gaming position for the >next 6ish months, good
>>>on them, but dont try and stretch that too far - NVidia >have held it for a long long time...
>>
>>I'm not sure you noticed, but they had that since RV770.
>
>Um, what?
>Have you used them? I have both GTX 295 and 4890 cards sitting here in machines
>that I regularly used, and can tell you that the GTX 295 >is definitely the faster card.
So what?
>Are you perhaps caught up in the insanity that 2 4890 cards versus one GTX 295
>is the 'fair' comparison? (yes, I have also tested twin GTX 295s, which is getting silly, but works fine).
>
>Just about any of the good old gamerz sites will review >them that way around, for just about any use.
Here's the thing - the market that matters is the $100-$300 market. That's the vast majority of the revenue and profits. Cards above $300 sell in such low volumes that they don't have a huge impact on the bottom line.
>RV770 has fantastic high end price performance for games, >but that price performance
>thing matters - the gaming high end is defined by stupid >prices (not quite as stupid
>as the 'professional' high end of course).
Sure, but that's such a small portion of the market as to be irrelevant. ATI has done very well in the $100-300 range, and that's what matters.
David
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/09/26 01:46 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | none | 2009/09/26 02:27 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | jeff | 2009/09/27 04:06 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Michael S | 2009/09/27 04:29 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | none | 2009/09/27 05:01 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Howard Chu | 2009/09/27 09:39 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/27 06:03 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | jeff | 2009/09/27 07:00 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | a reader | 2009/09/27 07:17 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | David Kanter | 2009/09/27 07:37 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | a reader | 2009/09/27 07:46 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Mat | 2009/10/01 12:04 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/10/01 05:09 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | anon | 2009/10/01 07:19 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | RagingDragon | 2009/09/28 04:11 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/27 08:05 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | no thanks | 2009/09/27 03:47 PM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/28 05:22 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | ? | 2009/09/28 10:37 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | RagingDragon | 2009/09/28 04:22 PM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Megol | 2009/09/29 03:35 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Anders Jensen | 2009/09/28 10:50 PM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/29 06:44 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/29 08:58 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/29 09:30 AM |
3- and 4-issue in-order CPUs | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/29 10:06 AM |
3- and 4-issue in-order CPUs | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/29 10:29 AM |
3- and 4-issue in-order CPUs | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/09/29 11:35 PM |
3- and 4-issue in-order CPUs | Michael S | 2009/09/30 01:01 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | mpx | 2009/09/30 03:14 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Pun Zu | 2009/10/02 01:44 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | none | 2009/10/02 04:22 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/10/02 06:11 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | a reader | 2009/10/02 08:30 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/10/02 08:59 AM |
Moorestown | David Kanter | 2009/10/02 09:59 AM |
What's the difference between Moorestown and Pine Trail cores? | anon | 2009/10/03 07:37 PM |
Moorestown | none | 2009/11/03 03:34 PM |
Moorestown | Anon | 2009/11/04 02:17 PM |
Moorestown | none | 2009/11/05 12:38 AM |
Moorestown | David Kanter | 2009/11/05 03:45 PM |
Moorestown | IntelUser2000 | 2009/11/06 03:17 AM |
Moorestown | Anon | 2009/11/06 12:51 PM |
Moorestown | none | 2009/11/07 06:07 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Anon | 2009/10/02 06:55 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | David Kanter | 2009/10/02 08:19 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | Anon | 2009/10/03 04:45 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | David Kanter | 2009/10/04 12:57 AM |
Cluebat for graphics | Anon | 2009/10/04 07:15 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | David Kanter | 2009/10/05 02:09 AM |
Cluebat for graphics | Anon | 2009/10/05 02:36 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | David Kanter | 2009/10/05 08:54 PM |
Cluebat for graphics | Anon | 2009/10/06 04:58 PM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | Linus Torvalds | 2009/10/03 05:58 AM |
OOO hw vs SW&in-order hw | slacker | 2009/10/02 08:11 PM |
Linux graphics drivers | RagingDragon | 2009/10/03 07:27 PM |
Linux graphics drivers | anon | 2009/10/04 06:15 AM |
Linux graphics drivers | none | 2009/10/04 09:12 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | jeff | 2009/09/27 05:31 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone | 2009/09/27 08:30 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | none | 2009/09/27 09:09 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/27 10:35 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone | 2009/09/27 10:55 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/28 01:08 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone | 2009/09/28 04:58 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | none | 2009/09/28 05:18 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone | 2009/09/28 06:35 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/28 07:25 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Michael S | 2009/09/28 10:02 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/29 12:35 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Chuck | 2009/09/28 06:15 PM |
samples | AM | 2009/09/27 10:20 PM |
samples | Wilco | 2009/09/28 12:51 AM |
samples | AM | 2009/09/28 03:16 AM |
Shrinks and process tech | David Kanter | 2009/09/29 12:22 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone | 2009/09/27 10:42 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | none | 2009/09/27 11:52 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/09/27 10:09 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | Ungo | 2009/09/28 04:34 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | a reader | 2009/09/28 09:15 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | anon | 2009/09/28 06:25 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/09/30 02:32 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | baxeel | 2009/09/30 07:25 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/09/30 10:12 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | Ungo | 2009/10/01 02:00 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/01 04:08 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | anonymous | 2009/10/01 04:33 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/03 06:24 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | Pun Zu | 2009/10/02 12:30 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | Ungo | 2009/10/02 12:11 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/03 06:22 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | Ungo | 2009/10/03 01:53 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/04 07:44 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | David Kanter | 2009/10/04 10:02 PM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/05 06:18 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | David Kanter | 2009/10/05 10:12 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | AM | 2009/10/06 03:51 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | anonymous | 2009/10/06 06:58 AM |
Do you have any proof? | David Kanter | 2009/10/06 08:58 AM |
Do you? | AM | 2009/10/06 10:30 PM |
Of course I do! | anonymous | 2009/10/07 04:58 AM |
Thanks :-) | AM | 2009/10/08 02:17 AM |
Thanks :-) | anonymous | 2009/10/08 04:52 AM |
Thanks :-) | AM | 2009/10/09 02:13 AM |
Thanks :-) | anonymous | 2009/10/09 05:03 AM |
Thanks :-) | Foo_ | 2009/10/09 05:47 AM |
Thanks :-) | AM | 2009/10/10 12:15 AM |
That's what I thought... | David Kanter | 2009/10/07 08:00 AM |
That's what I thought... | AM | 2009/10/08 02:26 AM |
That's what I thought... | anonymous | 2009/10/08 05:02 AM |
let's see... | AM | 2009/10/09 02:09 AM |
let's see... | anonymous | 2009/10/09 04:43 AM |
let's see... | AM | 2009/10/09 04:52 AM |
let's see... | anonymous | 2009/10/09 05:15 AM |
let's see... | AM | 2009/10/10 12:18 AM |
Atom to stay in-oder or go OoO? | someone | 2009/09/28 05:09 AM |
I call Troll | hobold | 2009/09/28 03:51 AM |
I call Troll | someone | 2009/09/28 05:15 AM |
OT: categories of motivation in a forum | hobold | 2009/09/29 05:01 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Michael S | 2009/09/28 09:43 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | a reader | 2009/09/28 03:12 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | someone else | 2009/09/28 11:25 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | hobold | 2009/09/29 06:20 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | someone else | 2009/09/29 09:57 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/29 05:09 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | hobold | 2009/09/29 11:38 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/30 05:49 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | hobold | 2009/09/30 06:46 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | none | 2009/09/30 06:56 AM |
Marvell Sheeva and plug computing | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/30 08:03 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | Michael S | 2009/09/30 09:07 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | none | 2009/09/30 09:40 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/09/30 11:43 AM |
ARM architectural license | David Kanter | 2009/09/30 04:57 PM |
ARM architectural license | a reader | 2009/10/01 06:25 AM |
ARM architectural license | Richard Cownie | 2009/10/01 07:21 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | slacker | 2009/09/30 06:12 PM |
ARM architectural license | David Kanter | 2009/09/30 06:16 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | Michael S | 2009/10/01 06:45 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | slacker | 2009/10/02 01:41 AM |
Why Cortex A9? | Richard Cownie | 2009/10/02 09:28 AM |
Questions... | David Kanter | 2009/10/02 09:56 AM |
Questions... | Richard Cownie | 2009/10/02 10:29 AM |
Questions... | Wilco | 2009/10/02 12:05 PM |
Questions... | slacker | 2009/10/02 07:51 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | slacker | 2009/10/02 07:44 PM |
Why Cortex A9? | David W. Hess | 2009/09/30 07:42 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/09/28 12:28 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/26 06:38 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/09/28 12:38 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Costanza | 2009/10/01 02:45 PM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | sylt | 2009/09/28 04:54 AM |
Thoughts and questions on the Cortex A9 | Wilco | 2009/09/29 12:15 AM |