J. Dzhugashvili writes "Is Nvidia worried about the advent of both CPUs with graphics processor cores and Larrabee, Intel's future discrete graphics processor? Judging by the tone adopted by Nvidia's CEO during a financial analyst conference yesterday, not quite. Huang believes CPU-GPU hybrids will be no different (and just as slow) as today's integrated graphics chipsets, and he thinks people will still pay for faster Nvidia GPUs. Regarding Larrabee, Huang says Nvidia is going to 'open a can of whoop-ass' on Intel, and that Intel's strategy of reinventing the wheel by ignoring years of graphics architecture R&D is fundamentally flawed. Nvidia also has some new hotness in the pipeline, such as its APX 2500 system-on-a-chip for handhelds and a new platform for VIA processors."
Ray vs raster. The reason we have so much tech in Raster is because processing was not sufficient to do ray. If it had been we'd have never started down the raster branch of development because it just doesn't work as well. The results are not as realistic with raster. Shadows don't look right. You can't do csg. You get edge effects. There are a thousand work-arounds for things like reflections of reflections, lens effects and audio reflections. Raster is a hack and when we have the CPU to do the real time ray tracing rendering raster composition will go away.
Raster was a way to make some fairly believable (if cartoonish) video games. They still require some deliberate suspension-of-disbelief. Only with raytracing do you get the surreal Live-or-memorex feeling of not being able to tell a rendered scene from a photo, except for the fact that the realistic scene depicts something that might be physically impossible.
This is true to some extent, but raster will never completely go away- there are situations where raster is completely appropriate.
For instance, modern GUIs often use the 3d hardware to handle window transforms, blending and placement. These are fundamentally polygonal objects for which triangle transformation and rasterization is a perfectly appropriate tool and ray tracing would be silly.
The current polygon model will never vanish completely, even if high-end graphics eventually go to ray tracing instead.
I don't buy the 'raytracing is so much better than raster' argument. I do agree that it makes it algorithmically simpler to create near-photorealistic renders, but that doesn't mean that raster's only redeeming quality is that it's less burdensome for simpler scenes.
The results are not as realistic with raster. Shadows don't look right.
As John Carmack mentioned in a recent interview, this is in fact a bonus, for shadows as well as other things.
The fact is that "artificial" raster shadows, lighting and reflections typically look more impressive than the "more realistic" results of ray tracing. This alone explains why raster will maintain its dominance, and why ray tracing will not catch on.
Raytracing doesnt magically get you better image quality. EXCEPT for shadows, the results look just like rasterization. As usual, people mix up raytracing with path tracing, photon mapping, radiosity, and other GI algorithms. Note: GI can be applied to rasterization as well.
So, which "benefits" are left? Refraction/reflection, haze, and any kind of ray distortion - SECONDARY ray effects. Primary rays can be fully modeled with rasterization, which gives you much better performance because of the trivial cache coherency and simpler calculations. (In a sense, rasterization can be seen as a cleverly optimized primary-ray-pass). This is why hybrid renderers make PERFECT sense. Yes, I know ray bundles, they are hard to get right, and again: for primary rays, raytracing makes no sense.
"Suspension of disbelief" is necessary with raytracing too. You confuse the rendering technique with lighting models, animation quality and so on. "edge effects" is laughable, aliasing WILL occur with raytracing as well unless you shoot multiple rays per pixel (and guess what... rasterizers commonly HAVE MSAA).
Jeez, when will people stop thinking all this BS about raytracing? As if it were a magical thingie capable of miracously enhancing your image quality....
Raytracing has its place - as an ADDITION to a rasterizer, to ease implementation of the secondary ray effects (which are hard to simulate with pure rasterization). This is the future.
There must be a conspiracy behind that. There's no way big-budget studios with seven and eight figure budgets and virtually limitless cpu cycles at their disposal could be releasing big-screen features that are regularly shown up by video games and decade old tv movies. Maybe it has something to do with greenscreening to meld the cgi with live action characters, perhaps it's some sort of nostalgia, or the think that the general public just isn't ready to see movie-length photo-realistic features, but ther
The reason we can so easily tell the difference between CGI creatures and real creatures is not the photorealism of it, but the animation. Evaluate a screen cap of Lord of the Rings with Gollum in it, and then evaluate that entire scene in motion. The screen cap will look astonishingly realistic compared to the video.
Computers are catching up to the computational challenges of rendering scenes, but humans haven't quite yet figured out how to program every muscle movement living creatures make. Attempts for complete realism in 3D animation still fall somewhere in the Uncanny Valley [wikipedia.org].
...
In other news, Aston Martin makes better cars than Hyundai!
In light of the often facetuos nature of any sentence containing the words, "British Engineering", the Comparison of Aston Martin's reputation for reliability with Hyundai's, and the comparison of their current parent company's reputations and stock prices... My word! That is news, indeed!
nVidia beating Intel in the GPU market would indeed be news. Intel currently have something like 40% of the GPU market, while nVidia is closer to 30%. Reading the quote from nVidia, I hear echoes of the same thing that the management at SGI said just before a few of their employees left, founded nVidia, and destroyed the premium workstation graphics market by delivering almost as good consumer hardware for a small fraction of the price.
nVidia should be very careful that they don't make the same mistake a
What AMD should really try to do is start combining their cpu technology and their graphics technology and make some multi core GPUs. They might be better positioned to do this than Intel or Nvidia.
Until Intel can show us Crysis in all it's GPU raping glory running on it's chipset in 1600x1200 with all settings to Ultra High Nvidia and ATI will still be kings of high end graphics.
Then again, if all Intel wants to do is create a sub standard alternative to those high end cards just to run Vista Aero and *nix Beryl then they have already succeeded.
If Intel is right, there won't be much of an effect on existing games.
Intel is focusing on raytracers, something Crytek has specifically said that they will not do. Therefore, both Crysis and any sequels won't really see any improvement from Intel's approach.
If Intel is right, what we are talking about is the Crysis-killer -- a game that looks and plays much better than Crysis (and maybe with a plot that doesn't completely suck [penny-arcade.com]), and only on Intel hardware, not on nVidia.
Oh, and Beryl has been killed and merged. It's just Compiz now, and Compiz Fusion if you need more.
Some of the comments made were very interesting. He really slammed someone that I take was either an Intel rep, or otherwise associate. The best was when that rep/associate/whoever criticized Nvidia about their driver issues in Vista, and the slam-dunk response that I paraphase, "If we [Nvidia] only had to support the same product/application that Intel has [Office 2003] for the last 5 years then we probably wouldn't have as many driver issues as well. But since we have new products/applications that our dr
IMHO, Nvidia is stuck as the odd-man out. When integrated chipsets and GPU-CPU hybrids can easily handle full-HD playback, the market for discrete GPUs falls and falls some more. Sure, discrete will always be faster, just like a Porsche is faster than a Toyota, but who makes more money (by a mile)?
Is Creative still around? Last I heard, they were making MP3 players...
I, for one, don't want a GPU which requires 25W+ in standby mode.
My Mac mini has a maximum load of 110W. That's the Core 2 Duo CPU, the integrated GMA950, 3GB of RAM, a 2.5" drive and a DVD burner, not to mention FireWire 400 and four USB 2.0 ports under maximum load (the FW400 port being 8W alone).
Granted the GMA950 sucks compared to nVidia's current offerings, however do they have any plans for low-power GPUs? I'm pretty sure the whole company can't survive on the FPS-crazed game players revenues alone.
They should start thinking about asking intel to integrate their (current) laptop GPUs into intel CPUs.
Actually nVidia is working a new technology called HybridPower which involves a computer with both an on board and discrete graphics card, where the low power on board card is used most of the time (when you are just in your OS environment of choice), but when you need the power (for stuff like games) the discrete card boots up.
Of COURSE they do, in fact they already HAVE low power offerings. I'm not sure why people seem to think the 8800 is the only card nVidia makes. nVidia is quite adept at taking their technology and scaling it down. Just reduce the clock speed, cut off shader units and such, there you go. In the 8 series they have an 8400. I don't know what the power draw is, but it doesn't have any extra power connectors so it is under 75 watts peak by definition (that's all PCIe can handle). They have even lower power cards
If I understand them right, they're claiming that integrated graphics and CPU/GPU hybrids are just a toy, and that you want discrete graphics if you're serious.
Ken Olsen famously said that "the PC is just a toy". When did you last use a "real" computer?
So, if you have a hybrid chip, why not put it on a motherboard with a slot for a nice nvidia card. Then you'll get all the raytracing goodness from intel, plus the joyful rasterbation of nvidia's finest offerings. The word "coprocessor" exists for a reason. Or am I missing something here?
Yeah, you're missing some money from your wallet. Most people won't waste their money on two different GPUs, just like they won't buy PPUs or Killer NICs.
"Huang says Nvidia is going to 'open a can of whoop-ass' on Intel..."
This is a VERY SERIOUS problem for the entire world. There are apparently no people available who have both technical understanding and social sophistication.
Huang is obviously ethnic Chinese. It is likely he is imitating something he heard in a movie or TV show. He certainly did not realize that only ignorant angry people use that phrase.
Translating, that phrase, and the boasting in general, says to me: "Huang must be fired. nVid
This is a VERY SERIOUS problem for the entire world. There are apparently no people available who have both technical understanding and social sophistication.
The problem is not that Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang made one stupid statement.
The problem is that he said many foolish things, indicating that he is not a
good CEO. Here are some:
Quote from the article: "Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang was quite vocal
on those fronts, arguing hybrid chips that mix microprocessor and graphics
processor cores will be no different from systems that include Intel or AMD
integrated graphics today."
My opinion: There would be no need for all the talk if there were no
chance of competition. Everyone knows there will be new competition from
Intel Larabee and AMD/ATI. Everyone knows that "no different" is a lie. Lying
exposes the Nvidia CEO as a weak man.
"... he explained that Nvidia is continuously reinventing itself
and that it will be two architectural refreshes beyond the current generation
of chips before Larrabee launches."
The entire issue is that Intel+Larabee and AMD+ATI will make Nvidia
irrelevant for most users. The GPU will be on the motherboard. Nvidia will
sell only to gamers who are willing to pay extra, a lot extra.
"Huang also raised the prospect of application and API-level
compatibility problems with Larrabee. Intel has said Larrabee will support the
DirectX 10 and OpenGL application programming interfaces just like current AMD
and Nvidia GPUs, but Huang seemed dubious Intel could deliver on that
front."
Intel, in this case, is Intel and Microsoft working together. Both are poorly managed
companies in many ways, but they are both managed well enough to insure that the Microsoft
product works with the Intel hardware. Sure, it is an easy guess that Microsoft will release several
buggy versions, because Microsoft has a history of treating its customers as though they were beta testers,
but eventually everything will work correctly.
'[NVidia VP] Tamasi went on to shoot down Intel's emphasis on ray
tracing, which the chipmaker has called "the future for games." '
Ray tracing is certainly the future for games, there is no question
about that. The question is when, because the processor power required is
huge. It's my guess, but an easy guess, that Mr. Tamasi is lying; he is
apparently trying to take advantage of the ignorance of financial analists.
"Additionally, Tamasi believes rasterization is inherently more
scalable than ray tracing. He said running a ray tracer on a cell phone is
"hard to conceive."
This is apparently another attempt to confuse the financial analyists, who often
have only a pretend interest in technical things. Anyone understanding the statement
knows it is nonsense. No one is suggesting that there will be
ray-tracing on cell phones. My opinion is that this is another lie.
"We're gonna be highly focused on bringing a great experience to
people who care about it," he explained, adding that Nvidia hardware simply
isn't for everyone."
That was a foolish thing to say. That's the whole issue! In the
future, Nvidia's sales will drop because "Nvidia hardware simply isn't for
everyone." Most computers will not have separate video adapters, whereas
they did before. Only powerful game machines will need to by from Nvidia.
'Huang added, "I would build CPUs if I could change the world [in
doing so]." ' Later in the article, it says, "Nvidia is readying a platform to
accompany VIA's next-generation Isaiah processor, which should fight it out
with Intel's Atom in the low-cost notebook and desktop arena"
Translation: Before, every desktop computer needed a video adapter,
which came from a company different than the CPU maker, a company like Nvidia.
Now, the video adapters will be mostly supplied by CPU makers. In response,
Nvidia will start making low-end CPUs. It is questionable whether Nvidia
can compete with Intel and AMD making any kind of CPU.
NVDA was down 7% in the stock market today. As an Nvidia shareholder, that hurts!
If you don't believe Intel will ever compete with Nvidia, now is probably a good time to buy. NVDA has a forward P/E of 14. That's a "value stock" price for a leading tech company... you don't get opportunities like that often. NVDA also has no debt on the books, so the credit crunch does not directly affect them.
Intel is and always has been CPU-centric. That's all they ever seem to focus on because it's what they do best. Nvidia is focusing 100% on GPUs because it's what they best. AMD seems to have it right with their combination of the two (by necessity) because they're focusing on a mix between the two. I'm seriously stoked about the 780G chipset they rolled out this month because it's an integrated chipset that doesn't suck and actually speeds up an ATI video card if you add the right one.
Given, AMD isn't the fastest when it comes to either graphics or processors but at least they have a platform with a chipset, CPU, and graphics that work together. Chipsets have needed to be a bit more powerful for a long-ass time.
The non-serious gamer market it TOTALLY a big hit. And the benefit of this chipset for many users is that you get decent 3D performance with a motherboard for the same price you would pay for a motherboard without the integrated graphics.
And if you decide to bump it up a notch and buy a 3450 it operates in Hybrid Crossfire so your onboard graphics aren't totally disabled. Explain to me how that isn't cool?
Granted NVidia is way out ahead in graphics performance - but generally you can tell when that someone is getting nervous when they start in the belligerant bragging.
The risk for NVidia isn't that Intel will surpass them, or even necessarily approach their best performance. The risk is that Intel might start catching up, cutting (further) into NVidia's market share. AMD's acquisition of ATI seems to imply that they see tight integration of graphics to be at least cheaper for a given level of performance, or higher performance for a given price. Apply that same reasoning to Intel, since they certainly aren't likely to let AMD have that advantage all to themselves.
Now try to apply that logic to NVidia - what are they going to do, merge with a distant-last-place x86 maker?
Once upon a time the floating point was done on a seperate chip. You could buy a cheaper "non-professional" machine that emulated the fpu in software and ran slower. You could also upgrade your machine by adding the fpu chip.
...is that Nvidia is saying that Intel is ignoring years of GPU development.
Umm, wait. Isn't a GPU basically a mini-computer/CPU by itself that exclusively handles graphics calculations?
By making this statement, I think they've forgotten who Intel is. Intel has more than enough experience in the field to go off on their own and make GPUs.
Is it something to be scared of? Probably not, because as he correctly points out, a dedicated GPU will be more powerful. However, it's not something that can be ignored.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Having the GPU built into the CPU is primarily a cost-cutting measure. Take one low-end CPU, add one low-end GPU, and you have a single-chip solution that consumes a bit less power than separate components.
Nobody expects the CPU+GPU to yield gaming performance worth a damn, because the two big companies that are looking into this amalgam both have underperforming graphics technology. Do they both make excellent budget solutions ? Yes they certainly do, but for those who crave extreme speed, the only option is NVidia.
That said, not everyone plays shooters. Back in my retail days, I'd say I moved 50 times more bottom-end GPUs than top-end ones. Those Radeon 9250s were $29.99 piles of alien poop, but cheap poop is enough for the average norm. The only people who spent more than $100 on a video card were teenagers and comic book guys (and of course, my awesome self).
The large corporations and engineering companies that have *THOUSANDS* of high-end workstations need graphics hardware compatible with complex, specialized software. I'm talking Unigraphics, CATIA, Patran, Femap, etc. You need to use the hardware certified by the software publisher otherwise you don't get support and you can't trust the work you are doing to be correct. And the vast majority of the cards that are up to the challenge are nvidia cards.
I have done CAD/CAM for ages, and my P3-750 with a Quadro4 700XGL isn't noticeably slower than a P4-3.4 with a Radeon X300SE running Unigraphics NX 5. I have a P3-500 with a QuadroFX-1000 card that freaking flies running CATIA V5. Again, in contrast, my 1.8GHz P4 laptop with integrated Intel graphics sucks balls running either UG or CATIA.
Speaking for the workstation users out there, please keep making high performance GPUs, Nvidia.
ATI/AMD hasn't been competitive with NVIDIA for two product cycles. That doesn't look likely to change in the near future, either; ATI/AMD's next generation GPU architecture isn't looking so hot. AMD is in a world of hurt right now, with Intel consistently maintaining a lead over them in the CPU segment, and NVIDIA maintaining a lead over them in the GPU segment. They're doing some interesting, synergistic things between the CPU and GPU sides, but who knows if that'll pan out. Meanwhile, they're being for
> ATI/AMD hasn't been competitive with NVIDIA for two product cycles
Competitive enough anyway. Long as I'm still on AGP, I'm still getting ATI cards (nVidia's agp offerings have classically been highly crippled beyond just running on AGP). But sure, I'm a niche, and truth be told, my next system will probably have nVidia.
But gamer video cards aren't everything, and I daresay not even the majority. If you have a flatscreen TV, chances are good it's got ATI parts in it. Then there's laptops and integrated video, nothing to sneeze at.
Quite true. With the 8500 and 8600 models, and now the 9500, nVidia trounces AMD even on budget cards.
But, nVidia got pummeled prior to their acquisition of Yahoo!^H^H^H^H^H^H Voodoo, and the two were quite neck and neck for a long time. So it's more of "the tables have turned (again)" rather than "they have no competition."
Until AMD completely quits making higher-end video cards, nVidia will have to keep on doing something to stay competitive. Same thing with Firefox - I don't think IE8 would have l
I haven't, but I have heard of Carmack, and Carmack "seems to think that Intel's direction using traditional ray tracing methods is not going to work [slashdot.org]." I didn't understand anything in that article, but assuming that the blurb was correct (and Carmack didn't seem to refute it in the 3 times he replied to that story), then I'd say that they may not be "less and less interested" but maybe they are "less and less right about the direction to take." Take your pick.
CPU and GPU integration is quite logical progression of technology. There are things the GPU is not optimal and same goes to the CPU. It seems that when combined, they prove successful.
Let's examine this statement:
"Bus and train integration is quite logical progression of technology. There are things the plane is not optimal and same goes to the bus. It seems that when combined, they prove successful. So let's put wings on a bus."
Now, I think there are plenty of good reasons why CPU/GPU integration is a
Next you're going to tell me the sky is blue or that too much water can kill me. Onboard video isn't meant to be shiny, just to serve a basic need: being able to see what the hell you're doing. Rather than dismissing Intel because they (and many other board manufacturers) provide a bare-bones video solution, I'm interested in seeing what they'll pop out when they're actually trying. By the way, onboard video uses about as much RAM as a browser will use (And about as much as Win98 needs to boot in, but I digr
Intel? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, Aston Martin makes better cars than Hyundai!
Ray tracing for the win (Score:5, Informative)
Ray vs raster. The reason we have so much tech in Raster is because processing was not sufficient to do ray. If it had been we'd have never started down the raster branch of development because it just doesn't work as well. The results are not as realistic with raster. Shadows don't look right. You can't do csg. You get edge effects. There are a thousand work-arounds for things like reflections of reflections, lens effects and audio reflections. Raster is a hack and when we have the CPU to do the real time ray tracing rendering raster composition will go away.
Raster was a way to make some fairly believable (if cartoonish) video games. They still require some deliberate suspension-of-disbelief. Only with raytracing do you get the surreal Live-or-memorex feeling of not being able to tell a rendered scene from a photo, except for the fact that the realistic scene depicts something that might be physically impossible.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, modern GUIs often use the 3d hardware to handle window transforms, blending and placement. These are fundamentally polygonal objects for which triangle transformation and rasterization is a perfectly appropriate tool and ray tracing would be silly.
The current polygon model will never vanish completely, even if high-end graphics eventually go to ray tracing instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy the 'raytracing is so much better than raster' argument. I do agree that it makes it algorithmically simpler to create near-photorealistic renders, but that doesn't mean that raster's only redeeming quality is that it's less burdensome for simpler scenes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is that "artificial" raster shadows, lighting and reflections typically look more impressive than the "more realistic" results of ray tracing. This alone explains why raster will maintain its dominance, and why ray tracing will not catch on.
Re:Ray tracing for the win (Score:5, Informative)
Raytracing doesnt magically get you better image quality. EXCEPT for shadows, the results look just like rasterization. As usual, people mix up raytracing with path tracing, photon mapping, radiosity, and other GI algorithms. Note: GI can be applied to rasterization as well.
So, which "benefits" are left? Refraction/reflection, haze, and any kind of ray distortion - SECONDARY ray effects. Primary rays can be fully modeled with rasterization, which gives you much better performance because of the trivial cache coherency and simpler calculations. (In a sense, rasterization can be seen as a cleverly optimized primary-ray-pass). This is why hybrid renderers make PERFECT sense. Yes, I know ray bundles, they are hard to get right, and again: for primary rays, raytracing makes no sense.
"Suspension of disbelief" is necessary with raytracing too. You confuse the rendering technique with lighting models, animation quality and so on. "edge effects" is laughable, aliasing WILL occur with raytracing as well unless you shoot multiple rays per pixel (and guess what... rasterizers commonly HAVE MSAA).
Jeez, when will people stop thinking all this BS about raytracing? As if it were a magical thingie capable of miracously enhancing your image quality....
Raytracing has its place - as an ADDITION to a rasterizer, to ease implementation of the secondary ray effects (which are hard to simulate with pure rasterization). This is the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ray tracing for the win (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the limitation is in the ability of the humans to model the scene rather than the ability of the computer to render it.
Parent
Re:Ray tracing for the win (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason we can so easily tell the difference between CGI creatures and real creatures is not the photorealism of it, but the animation. Evaluate a screen cap of Lord of the Rings with Gollum in it, and then evaluate that entire scene in motion. The screen cap will look astonishingly realistic compared to the video.
Computers are catching up to the computational challenges of rendering scenes, but humans haven't quite yet figured out how to program every muscle movement living creatures make. Attempts for complete realism in 3D animation still fall somewhere in the Uncanny Valley [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't say that's necessarily a good thing, but I guess Ford wanted the money.
And yeah, Hyundais are better built than Astons. But Astons are better in many other regards of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nVidia should be very careful that they don't make the same mistake a
More Details On The Call, Here (Score:2, Offtopic)
Multi Core GPUs (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's Face It (Score:3, Insightful)
NOTHING to do with existing games. (Score:5, Informative)
If Intel is right, there won't be much of an effect on existing games.
Intel is focusing on raytracers, something Crytek has specifically said that they will not do. Therefore, both Crysis and any sequels won't really see any improvement from Intel's approach.
If Intel is right, what we are talking about is the Crysis-killer -- a game that looks and plays much better than Crysis (and maybe with a plot that doesn't completely suck [penny-arcade.com]), and only on Intel hardware, not on nVidia.
Oh, and Beryl has been killed and merged. It's just Compiz now, and Compiz Fusion if you need more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ATI and Nvidia do not. I know who I'm rooting for to come up with a good hardware...
Interesting comments in the call (Score:2)
Did anyone expect him to surrender? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Creative still around? Last I heard, they were making MP3 players...
He should be afraid (Score:5, Interesting)
My Mac mini has a maximum load of 110W. That's the Core 2 Duo CPU, the integrated GMA950, 3GB of RAM, a 2.5" drive and a DVD burner, not to mention FireWire 400 and four USB 2.0 ports under maximum load (the FW400 port being 8W alone).
Granted the GMA950 sucks compared to nVidia's current offerings, however do they have any plans for low-power GPUs? I'm pretty sure the whole company can't survive on the FPS-crazed game players revenues alone.
They should start thinking about asking intel to integrate their (current) laptop GPUs into intel CPUs.
Re:He should be afraid (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
For ultimate low power, there's the future VIA/Nvidia hookup: http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA%20Promises%20Powerful%20Sub45%20Processing%20Platform%20to%20Counter%20Intel/article11452.htm [dailytech.com]
Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
The PC is just a toy (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "nVidia needs a better top manager." (Score:2, Funny)
This is a VERY SERIOUS problem for the entire world. There are apparently no people available who have both technical understanding and social sophistication.
Huang is obviously ethnic Chinese. It is likely he is imitating something he heard in a movie or TV show. He certainly did not realize that only ignorant angry people use that phrase.
Translating, that phrase, and the boasting in general, says to me: "Huang must be fired. nVid
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: "nVidia needs a better top manager (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe he was out of chairs?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, them slanty-eyed furriners just can't speak English right, can they?
Huang is over 40 years old and has lived in the US since he was a child. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, here is more detail about why he is foolish. (Score:4, Interesting)
Quote from the article: "Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang was quite vocal on those fronts, arguing hybrid chips that mix microprocessor and graphics processor cores will be no different from systems that include Intel or AMD integrated graphics today."
My opinion: There would be no need for all the talk if there were no chance of competition. Everyone knows there will be new competition from Intel Larabee and AMD/ATI. Everyone knows that "no different" is a lie. Lying exposes the Nvidia CEO as a weak man.
"... he explained that Nvidia is continuously reinventing itself and that it will be two architectural refreshes beyond the current generation of chips before Larrabee launches."
The entire issue is that Intel+Larabee and AMD+ATI will make Nvidia irrelevant for most users. The GPU will be on the motherboard. Nvidia will sell only to gamers who are willing to pay extra, a lot extra.
"Huang also raised the prospect of application and API-level compatibility problems with Larrabee. Intel has said Larrabee will support the DirectX 10 and OpenGL application programming interfaces just like current AMD and Nvidia GPUs, but Huang seemed dubious Intel could deliver on that front."
Intel, in this case, is Intel and Microsoft working together. Both are poorly managed companies in many ways, but they are both managed well enough to insure that the Microsoft product works with the Intel hardware. Sure, it is an easy guess that Microsoft will release several buggy versions, because Microsoft has a history of treating its customers as though they were beta testers, but eventually everything will work correctly.
'[NVidia VP] Tamasi went on to shoot down Intel's emphasis on ray tracing, which the chipmaker has called "the future for games." '
Ray tracing is certainly the future for games, there is no question about that. The question is when, because the processor power required is huge. It's my guess, but an easy guess, that Mr. Tamasi is lying; he is apparently trying to take advantage of the ignorance of financial analists.
"Additionally, Tamasi believes rasterization is inherently more scalable than ray tracing. He said running a ray tracer on a cell phone is "hard to conceive."
This is apparently another attempt to confuse the financial analyists, who often have only a pretend interest in technical things. Anyone understanding the statement knows it is nonsense. No one is suggesting that there will be ray-tracing on cell phones. My opinion is that this is another lie.
"We're gonna be highly focused on bringing a great experience to people who care about it," he explained, adding that Nvidia hardware simply isn't for everyone."
That was a foolish thing to say. That's the whole issue! In the future, Nvidia's sales will drop because "Nvidia hardware simply isn't for everyone." Most computers will not have separate video adapters, whereas they did before. Only powerful game machines will need to by from Nvidia.
'Huang added, "I would build CPUs if I could change the world [in doing so]." ' Later in the article, it says, "Nvidia is readying a platform to accompany VIA's next-generation Isaiah processor, which should fight it out with Intel's Atom in the low-cost notebook and desktop arena"
Translation: Before, every desktop computer needed a video adapter, which came from a company different than the CPU maker, a company like Nvidia. Now, the video adapters will be mostly supplied by CPU makers. In response, Nvidia will start making low-end CPUs. It is questionable whether Nvidia can compete with Intel and AMD making any kind of CPU.
Parent
ouch (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't believe Intel will ever compete with Nvidia, now is probably a good time to buy. NVDA has a forward P/E of 14. That's a "value stock" price for a leading tech company... you don't get opportunities like that often. NVDA also has no debt on the books, so the credit crunch does not directly affect them.
I think AMD has a better plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if you decide to bump it up a notch and buy a 3450 it operates in Hybrid Crossfire so your onboard graphics aren't totally disabled. Explain to me how that isn't cool?
Can of Whoop Ass?? (Score:3, Interesting)
The risk for NVidia isn't that Intel will surpass them, or even necessarily approach their best performance. The risk is that Intel might start catching up, cutting (further) into NVidia's market share.
AMD's acquisition of ATI seems to imply that they see tight integration of graphics to be at least cheaper for a given level of performance, or higher performance for a given price. Apply that same reasoning to Intel, since they certainly aren't likely to let AMD have that advantage all to themselves.
Now try to apply that logic to NVidia - what are they going to do, merge with a distant-last-place x86 maker?
Just like the FPU (Score:5, Interesting)
Such FPU's do not exist today.
I think Nvidia should be worried about this.
The problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
CPU+GPU is mostly a cost-cutting measure (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody expects the CPU+GPU to yield gaming performance worth a damn, because the two big companies that are looking into this amalgam both have underperforming graphics technology. Do they both make excellent budget solutions ? Yes they certainly do, but for those who crave extreme speed, the only option is NVidia.
That said, not everyone plays shooters. Back in my retail days, I'd say I moved 50 times more bottom-end GPUs than top-end ones. Those Radeon 9250s were $29.99 piles of alien poop, but cheap poop is enough for the average norm. The only people who spent more than $100 on a video card were teenagers and comic book guys (and of course, my awesome self).
Meanwhile, in the corporate world (Score:3, Interesting)
I have done CAD/CAM for ages, and my P3-750 with a Quadro4 700XGL isn't noticeably slower than a P4-3.4 with a Radeon X300SE running Unigraphics NX 5. I have a P3-500 with a QuadroFX-1000 card that freaking flies running CATIA V5. Again, in contrast, my 1.8GHz P4 laptop with integrated Intel graphics sucks balls running either UG or CATIA.
Speaking for the workstation users out there, please keep making high performance GPUs, Nvidia.
Re:Not scared... no kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I know they got bought by AMD, but they still exist and they still make GPUs AFAIK.
And if your argument is that nVidia is better than ATI, let me remind you that ATI/nVidia and intel/AMD keep leapfrogging each other every few years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AMD is in a world of hurt right now, with Intel consistently maintaining a lead over them in the CPU segment, and NVIDIA maintaining a lead over them in the GPU segment. They're doing some interesting, synergistic things between the CPU and GPU sides, but who knows if that'll pan out. Meanwhile, they're being for
Re:Not scared... no kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Competitive enough anyway. Long as I'm still on AGP, I'm still getting ATI cards (nVidia's agp offerings have classically been highly crippled beyond just running on AGP). But sure, I'm a niche, and truth be told, my next system will probably have nVidia.
But gamer video cards aren't everything, and I daresay not even the majority. If you have a flatscreen TV, chances are good it's got ATI parts in it. Then there's laptops and integrated video, nothing to sneeze at.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite true. With the 8500 and 8600 models, and now the 9500, nVidia trounces AMD even on budget cards.
But, nVidia got pummeled prior to their acquisition of Yahoo!^H^H^H^H^H^H Voodoo, and the two were quite neck and neck for a long time. So it's more of "the tables have turned (again)" rather than "they have no competition."
Until AMD completely quits making higher-end video cards, nVidia will have to keep on doing something to stay competitive. Same thing with Firefox - I don't think IE8 would have l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't, but I have heard of Carmack, and Carmack " seems to think that Intel's direction using traditional ray tracing methods is not going to work [slashdot.org]." I didn't understand anything in that article, but assuming that the blurb was correct (and Carmack didn't seem to refute it in the 3 times he replied to that story), then I'd say that they may not be "less and less interested" but maybe they are "less and less right about the direction to take." Take your pick.
And while my little blurb may have been fund
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's examine this statement:
"Bus and train integration is quite logical progression of technology. There are things the plane is not optimal and same goes to the bus. It seems that when combined, they prove successful. So let's put wings on a bus."
Now, I think there are plenty of good reasons why CPU/GPU integration is a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, onboard video uses about as much RAM as a browser will use (And about as much as Win98 needs to boot in, but I digr