Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
I can't believe somebody took time to reply to my post point-by-point. It must have been good... or you're just an AMD fanboy.
Actually, I have always had a vehement hatred for AMD. I'm an Intel fan. I was quite disappointed when they acquired ATI.
Quote:
Quote:
The high-end gamer market isn't growing, but it isn't shrinking either. It has never BEEN a large market, and the majority of sales by both manufacturers has always been the low and mid-level cards.
Which is exactly why the success of Fermi really means little to Nvidia. I also disagree that the market isn't shrinking. With the majority of recent PC games simply being ported from the XBox, there is little to stimulate the PC gaming market. These ported games don't stress graphics hardware and even mid-range cards display them at playable framerates running max detail at 1680x1050.
X-box ports are a given. The device is PC hardware. That was the entire idea behind the X-box; to allow console and PC game development to have common-ground. This has been beneficial. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, some are simply "ports". And these are sometimes poorly done. And so the controls when setup for the PC are "lacking" to say the least.
Quote:
Now, if Fermi really does bust open GPGPU like Nvidia says it will, well...
Quote:
Have you played Crysis?
I have and anymore it remains more of a synthetic benchmark than anything else. "Will it play Crysis?" has become a general guideline for a particular machine's graphical prowess. Nobody actually plays the game, they just use it for benchmarking. I haven't played it in at least a year.
We routinely LAN-party Crysis-wars actually. There are still gamers out there
Quote:
Quote:
AMD does actually.
We're both wrong. Intel holds the laptop graphic solution crown with a 45% share.
Intel dominates the mobile PC market, there is no denying that for sure. But of the two, between ATI and NVidia, because ATI is also AMD, they do have a larger mobile presence than NVidia.
Quote:
Quote:
That is completely incorrect. I have sold numerous notebooks with Intel CPU's and ATI graphics. The most recent being last week.
I should have edited this. ATI is *almost* exclusive to AMD. A quick trip through Newegg will show that, yes, ATI does have graphics solutions for Intel machines, but they are of the minority when compared to Intel's own integrated graphics and Nvidia's solutions.
I disagree, as that's a pretty gross generalization. I've sold hundreds of laptops, and because of the market I deal with, I am exposed to a LOT of machines with both ATI and NVidia graphics. I will not sell AMD CPU notebooks BTW.
And while Intel's integrated solutions are by far the most prominent in terms of notebook graphics, between ATI and NVidia, offerings have been very comparable over the years.
What I'm seeing right now is the beginning of a lot of Intel core-i series Notebooks coming out with ATI 5-series graphics on them. The list is not huge at this moment, but it is growing. For the Core2 stuff, there were a LOT of NVidia offerings, but due to the licensing issues with Core-i, Intel and NVidia, I think we are going to see that reversed with the Core-i notebooks.
A quick glance through my current ASUS pricelist shows:
G51JX: NVidia - Core-i7
K42F: Intel - Core-i3
K42JR: ATI - Core-i5
K52JR: ATI - Core-i3
M60J: NVidia - Core-i7
N61JA: ATI - Core-i5
N61JQ: ATI - Core-i7
ATI: 4
NVidia: 2
Intel: 1
It will be interesting to see what the next few months bring.
Quote:
Quote:
And Ion has absolutely nothing on Atom. Nvidia lacks the resources to compete with Intel in this market.
Atom and Ion are not competitors. Ion is a compliment to Atom, offering a higher performance alternative to Intel's integrated graphics, be it GMA or Pinetrail. Without Atom, there is no Ion. Again, a large and growing market with no ATI or AMD presence.
Sorry, I was thinking about Tegra, which is NVidia's competition to Atom. Err on my part.
Quote:
I didn't intend in getting into an ATI vs. Nvidia debate. I simply was listing reasons why Nvidia isn't going anywhere. They have a significant presence across multiple platforms. All their eggs are not in the Fermi basket. Counting out Nvidia now would be like counting out Intel when the Pentium 4 was being beat up by Athlon.
I wouldn't go quite that far
Intel has always had a larger market presence than AMD. The Athlon was crippled by [censored] chipsets from VIA, SIS and ALI. Even NVidia's offerings weren't that great when they came to the table, but were at least much better than the other three.
Intel's solid chipsets have always been an ace in the hole for them. I've never run anything else in any of my systems or the systems I build.
I think ATI is in a better position than NVidia right now. That doesn't mean I have to like AMD
Quote:
If I were in the market for a video card today, I would likely pick up a 5850. Then again, my GTX260 hasn't struggled with any of the recent releases, so there's not much motivation to upgrade. I go back to the fact that many ported games, like Left 4 Dead 2 and Modern Warfare 2, will play great on mid-range hardware at max detail on any reasonable monitor resolution. At $310 for a 5850, that's 75% of the cost of an entire Xbox. To play ported games? Even less incentive to pay for expensive graphics hardware.
Meh, to each their own. I'd rather spend $300.00 on a video card than waste it smoking or drinking. We all have our vices; the money some on this site spend on oil should be indication enough of that.
