Let's see - we have the market-leading video-card company releasing a bunch of similarly-named cards that have extreme differences in their speed, functionality and capabilities. Then, they also drop the ball big-time on implementation of the de-facto standard for next-gen PC games and get taken to the hoop by an established, but not as popular upstart.
Poor, poor 3dfx... I mean Nvidia. Angel Stewart wrote: >Oh. >So now everyone just doesn't like Nvidia. >Including Nvidia themselves who have admitted their first DX9 card was >quite short of the stellar performer they touted it to be? > >I think they messed up. Either with the drivers or with the actual >silicone, and its now coming out as more DX9 games come to market. >And if the Source engine performs better under ATI then that's a HUGE >blow for Nvidia, because Source is the only current competitor to the >Doom 3 engine, and several new games are going to based on it. > >I think we will find that Nvidia has messed up, and they will try to >clean up their mess. Their silence on this issue is conspicuous. They >sent out an immediate response when 3DMark 2001 brought them up to task >for obvious and glaring driver optimisations for the 3DMark tests, even >though they were incorrect there too. > >I don't think the Browser analogy is a correct one at all. >Although if people had vociferously complained in the first place with >Microsofts Internet Explorer maybe it would now be standards compliant. > >Nvidia does not have the clout of Microsoft to force feed crap down >consumers' throats. > >-Angel > >-----Original Message----- >From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >First...the FX is dx9 compliant. Secondly, it could be argued that the >FX's 32/12/16 precision offers superior quality than ATI's 24 bit >precision. MS may step in with a precision definition for dx10...who >knows. It will be interesting to see if they will go with 24 or 32 bit. >My money would be on 32 bit if they do step in. > >Developers have known about this for a long time...and the ways to >optimize for each path are, according to the things I've read, pretty >straightforward and obvious. This all kind of reminds me of the Gravis >UltraSound. It had more memory and processing power...but it still lost >out to the Soundblaster in the long run. > >I think Kevin's analogy works...but even if I was working on amazon.com, >I'm not going to hold a press conference on why the site looks better in >one browser than another, unless there was an ulterior motive. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
