Talk About Network

Google





Electronic Equipment > PC Hardware Chips > Re: Group dead?
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 63 of 141 Topic 2764 of 2812
Post > Topic >>

Re: Group dead?

by Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jul 19, 2008 at 06:40 PM

Robert Myers wrote:
> Something wrong with Via?  They're doing interesting things.
> 
> Or do you just get off on Intel and US-ba****ng?
> 
> HP is putting Via processors into subnotebooks.  Via is apparently
> doing what AMD did with some (fleeting) success, which is to exploit
> the op****tunities created by Intel's market segmentation strategies.
> 
> Plenty to talk about, just not much room for Intel-ba****ng.


Oh look, flaming discussions again on csiphc just like in the olden 
days, goodie! Oh what the hell, it looks like I can follow this one, 
I'll sit in on it. In the olden days, these "discussions" used to get so 
long, I couldn't follow them anymore.

Speaking of VIA, just a few weeks back Nvidia announced that they would 
sup****t VIA's new low-power processors with chipsets of their own. Then 
just a few weeks later it turned out they were just using VIA as a 
negotiating ploy against Intel, so that Intel will grant them an Atom 
chipset license; and they'd dump VIA overboard as soon as they got an 
Atom license. Now that makes Nvidia one ruthless mf'er!

Nvidia spurns Intel Atom for VIA, spurns VIA for Intel Atom? | Register 
Hardware
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07/08/nvidia_via_intel_atom/

Nvidia has been trying these ploys for ages now, and now they are 
getting their ***** burned. They had been refusing to give Intel or 
anybody else an SLI license so that multi Nvidia video card setups can 
run on anything but Nvidia chipsets. This was successful until the point 
when the latest AMD Radeon HD 4000-series (4850, 4870, 4870 X2) cards 
started showing up and providing competitive performance at lower prices 
than the latest Nvidia GTX 200-series (260, 280) cards. Intel which 
ironically has a license to produce AMD's Crossfire multi card 
technology now no longer needs Nvidia, thanks to AMD. So Nvidia had to 
abandon the negotiating ploy and just give in to Intel and make SLI 
available on Intel's upcoming chipsets.

Whoop-ass turns to groveling - The INQUIRER
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/14/whoop-ass-turns-groveling

Nvidia is also having to cut the prices on its video cards due to the 
competitive parity of the AMD cards now. However, Nvidia's GPUs are 
monsters compared to AMD's, at least twice as big, so it costs Nvidia 
more to make them than it does AMD. It's quickly shoving Nvidia into the 
red. This is exactly the sort of scenario that was predicted will 
eventually happen once the AMD & ATI marriage matured, and Nvidia found 
itself on the outside looking in. Nvidia still has the absolute 
top-performance cards, but not the best price/performance.

So it looks like AMD is making the ATI acquisition work for it a bit. 
It's not really challenging Intel yet, but it's starting to happen 
against Nvidia.

Techtree.com India > News > Hardware > Nvidia Slashes GTX 280 and 260
Prices
http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Nvidia_Slashes_GTX_280_and_260_Prices/551-91118-581.html

AMD is still suffering, but it seems to be a trailing indicator, as it 
sorts out the final acts of the merger, and moves forward. When AMD 
completes the Fusion processors, with the CPU and GPU integrated, then 
things will look up.

	Yousuf Khan
 




 141 Posts in Topic:
Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-15 16:10:02 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-07-15 09:55:32 
Re: Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-15 19:02:50 
Re: Group dead?
"Dale E. Pontius&quo  2008-07-15 13:48:59 
Re: Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-15 20:10:03 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-07-16 09:14:10 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-07-15 17:55:05 
Re: Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-16 00:25:14 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-07-15 18:59:28 
Re: Group dead?
"Dale E. Pontius&quo  2008-07-23 09:59:12 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-07-23 11:08:22 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-08-21 11:15:11 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-22 17:08:52 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-08-23 18:53:28 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-08-26 13:09:51 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-09-03 20:44:33 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-08-26 13:07:42 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-31 15:47:07 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-01 16:01:51 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-05 16:49:56 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-06 19:18:02 
Re: Group dead?
"Dale E. Pontius&quo  2008-09-04 13:08:45 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-09-04 17:22:44 
Re: Group dead?
"Dale E. Pontius&quo  2008-09-05 11:29:15 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-09-05 21:22:56 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-09-19 23:51:06 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-25 14:47:39 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-26 21:04:36 
Re: Group dead?
"Lee Waun" <  2008-10-06 16:39:49 
Re: Group dead?
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt  2008-07-15 18:08:24 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-30 09:48:30 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-31 17:20:24 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-30 11:35:13 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-31 17:57:37 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-04 12:02:42 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-05 22:33:52 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-04 12:28:10 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-05 22:42:55 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-26 14:48:38 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-29 07:56:53 
Re: Group dead?
aku ankka <jukka@[EMAI  2008-09-29 07:26:56 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-30 09:08:08 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-29 19:47:45 
Re: Group dead?
aku ankka <jukka@[EMAI  2008-10-01 01:02:39 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-07-15 15:37:34 
Re: Group dead?
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt  2008-07-16 10:01:40 
Re: Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-16 12:32:44 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-07-16 13:16:03 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-07-16 17:44:45 
Re: Group dead?
Trent <none@[EMAIL PRO  2008-07-16 07:06:13 
Re: Group dead?
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt  2008-07-16 12:00:34 
Re: Group dead?
"nobody@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-07-19 02:43:45 
Re: Group dead?
Murray Symon <firstnam  2008-07-19 17:02:24 
Re: Group dead?
"Jack" <Jack  2008-07-19 22:45:43 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-07-19 23:29:51 
Re: Group dead?
"Dale E. Pontius&quo  2008-07-23 10:01:51 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-07-24 12:28:09 
Re: Group dead?
"nobody@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-07-26 03:21:05 
Re: Group dead?
archmage@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-07-26 00:10:48 
Re: Group dead?
Sebastian Kaliszewski <  2008-08-06 16:41:59 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-08-06 19:40:22 
Re: Group dead?
archmage@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-08-07 10:11:30 
Re: Group dead?
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@[E  2008-07-19 18:40:10 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-07-16 07:39:16 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-07-19 17:20:52 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-21 19:24:45 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-22 17:01:44 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-27 10:39:06 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-08-27 18:10:20 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-08-28 11:22:51 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-01 10:17:39 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-02 18:29:07 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-09-03 20:30:59 
Re: Group dead?
"Dean Kent" <  2008-09-03 20:33:56 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-06 19:32:41 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-06 20:51:56 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-07 21:25:00 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-09-07 18:53:05 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-07 17:27:07 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-09-07 19:41:37 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-07 18:49:07 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-27 16:40:54 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-29 03:56:10 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-08-29 18:08:28 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-28 09:36:48 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-29 04:06:13 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-02 16:55:01 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-03 15:51:45 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-03 22:55:38 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-04 18:23:32 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-04 18:58:25 
Re: Group dead?
Sebastian Kaliszewski <  2008-09-05 10:56:29 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-05 07:02:18 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-28 22:57:38 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-30 16:33:47 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-28 23:02:36 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-30 16:49:27 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-03 10:16:25 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-04 18:19:23 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-03 11:11:02 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-04 18:31:21 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-29 18:24:16 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-08-29 20:38:22 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-08-29 20:31:21 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-08-30 16:25:18 
Re: Group dead?
krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-08-30 12:29:43 
Re: Group dead?
"nobody@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-09-01 00:51:51 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-20 10:55:56 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-21 19:19:58 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-26 15:00:52 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-28 16:19:11 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-25 08:16:20 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-30 09:25:49 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-30 15:00:52 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-10-01 12:30:20 
Re: Group dead?
aku ankka <jukka@[EMAI  2008-09-30 12:26:31 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-10-01 07:09:51 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-21 13:46:57 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-23 03:04:23 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-28 10:24:59 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-29 17:11:19 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-22 20:21:48 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-24 10:57:17 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-29 19:39:45 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-10-01 12:12:01 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-24 08:54:26 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-24 09:55:17 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-25 08:18:10 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-25 21:05:55 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-10-01 07:26:04 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-25 07:47:39 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-26 08:10:54 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-26 08:13:54 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-26 11:17:49 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-26 13:31:10 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-26 21:15:28 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-26 12:54:56 
Re: Group dead?
chrisv <chrisv@[EMAIL   2008-09-26 16:24:18 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Myers <rbmyersu  2008-09-26 15:22:53 
Re: Group dead?
Robert Redelmeier <red  2008-09-28 16:25:54 
Re: Group dead?
David Kanter <dkanter@  2008-09-28 18:37:28 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Wed Jan 7 18:26:35 PST 2009.