| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:03 T.O.P. wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2ag5f8k.png) Yes, the 200 series is the reason why Nvidia is falling behind. I don't think i get the focus of your post. That graph shows the market share of nVidia getting raped in 2008, which is when they released the gt200 series, which is when their market share started falling... | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:01 nttea wrote: i don't know for sure, but if ATI is like AMD in this case they are the one selling with a low profit margin, and nvidia is still earning money even though their graphic cards are performing worse per dollar, and losing market shares. it does make sense giving their respective positions too. No, ATI is the one selling with the high profit margin because the die size of their gpu is small. Nvidia is selling with low profit margin because their die size is big. Die size big = high failure rate. | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:05 ghermination wrote: That graph shows the market share of nVidia getting raped in 2008, which is when they released the gt200 series, which is when their market share started falling... Exactly the point I wanted to make. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11556 Posts
Nvidia makes up for the high cost of the process by inflating the cost of their GPUs. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:06 T.O.P. wrote: No, ATI is the one selling with the high profit margin because the die size of their gpu is small. Nvidia is selling with low profit margin because their die size is big. Die size big = high failure rate. Not necessarily. For example, the gt200 which was and still is very large had around a 60% yield rate, which isn't the best but it's respectable. To put it in perspective, the rv770 and rv870 cores have both had around 70% yields. Cores that are damaged/faulty are often rebinned as lower performing cards, but the big problem for nvidia is that they can't get away with rebinning their gt300 cards because they're on an entirely new and untested process. | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
| ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
Here's a good article. But it's written on October 14th, 2009 | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:11 T.O.P. wrote: We don't even know how fermi's gonna be like. Talking about fermi is like talking about SC2. I was talking about how the 200 series is hurting nvidia. I was responding to the part where you said "die size big = big failure rate." Also: I don't think we've seen the end of delays for fermi. I mean, even if they were to suddenly dump all of the cards that exist on the market, that would only be a couple hundred. At this rate how are they ever going to produce enough of them to make them below the cost of the Asus Mars gtx295? + Show Spoiler + that's a really geeky joke but the mars was made with two GTX285's instead of two gtx260's, making it like $1000+ | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
 Last I'd checked it was Intel + nVidia >> AMD + ATI. Glad things are evening up now. I remember hearing something ~4 years ago about the limit of our current chip fabrication technology being about 45(?) nm, because anything smaller runs into serious problems, such as heat dissipation. I'm surprised nVidia would commit themselves to a smaller size without sufficiently testing it first. Then again, bad management knows no bounds. =P | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:06 T.O.P. wrote: Die size big = high failure rate. No, it's the opposite. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11556 Posts
but atm ATi > nVidia. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:17 Bill307 wrote: Thanks for the informative post, ghermination. Last I'd checked it was Intel + nVidia >> AMD + ATI. Glad things are evening up now. I remember hearing something ~4 years ago about the limit of our current chip fabrication technology being about 45(?) nm, because anything smaller runs into serious problems, such as heat dissipation. I'm surprised nVidia would commit themselves to a smaller size without sufficiently testing it first. Then again, bad management knows no bounds. =P Actually, the physical limit our technology can reach is 12nm. Samsung has even demonstrated a transistor fabricated at the 22nm process. While i'm no physicist, at that size we run into a problem called quantum tunneling. Although i don't fully understand the process, you can look it up on wikipedia if you're actually interested. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
 Damn old mobo!!! | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:18 FragKrag wrote: Well Intel is still >>>> AMD but atm ATi > nVidia. The C2D and Q series are great, guess even the Quad is just too low for today's standards. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11556 Posts
| ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:22 Disregard wrote: The C2D and Q series are great, guess even the Quad is just too low for today's standards. Not necessarily. The core architecture offers amazing performance, and if you look at the new 32nm i3 and i5's that were just released they have some pretty impressive clocks. I believe the best dual core i5 part is at 3.46ghz, and can easily be overclocked to 4.5+. New fabrication processes are amazing. Also, they're fairly cheap. Once the 22nm hexa-core sandy bridge parts come out (~q1-q2 2011) we should see a huge price drop on the older i7 and i5 processors, considering intel will probably be abandoning lga 1155 at that time and will begin to phase out lga 1366 at that time (according to their roadmap and statements made at CES they plan to phase out lga 1366 by 2012) | ||
|
zeroimagination
18 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:24 ghermination wrote: Not necessarily. The core architecture offers amazing performance, and if you look at the new 32nm i3 and i5's that were just released they have some pretty impressive clocks. I believe the best dual core i5 part is at 3.46ghz, and can easily be overclocked to 4.5+. New fabrication processes are amazing. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=109322 | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On January 09 2010 18:06 T.O.P. wrote: No, ATI is the one selling with the high profit margin because the die size of their gpu is small. Nvidia is selling with low profit margin because their die size is big. Die size big = high failure rate. ok thanks! i shouldn't speak out about stuff i know jack shit about but then again it doesn't seem to stop anyone else around here (: | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
Edit: Smoking a bowl for ATI. Go red team!. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
