GeforceFX=surprisingly slow

[Ilwrath]

I'd hardly call the GeForceFX pre-release boards slow...  It does trample the current fastest graphics card on most tests, and comes very close on the few it loses...  

However, what DOES concern me is the power consumption and the personal tornado generator that nVidia calls a cooling unit on the thing.  THAT, to me, looks like a sign of desperation.  Much like the wacky things 3dfx was trying shortly before they went belly-up.  (Trying to stuff 4 GPUs on a single consumer-level card, anyone?)  

Hopefully nVidia will manage to turn things around, though.  For the most part, they've shipped quality products in the past, and have done some wise things with drivers, etc...  Of course, if they don't it'll just be ATI's turn to run with the lead for a while...  

Nothing much changes except for the names and the locations of the bugs...   :-D

[Ilwrath]

...there are no problems with nVidia’s financial future since they have branched to other market segments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they said the same things about Enron... (Great growth, corporate diversification, etc...)  Of course, they were blatently cooking the books, where nVidia was only investigated, with no charges brought.  Take that for what it's worth.

In today's microcomputer market, it only takes one botched product cycle to put you in pretty deep trouble.  Personally, I'm a bit worried that through all their other 'market segments' such as mediocre chipsets and XBox alliances, they lost sight of what got them to the top... making a good Graphics Processor.

[Ilwrath]

@Hammer

Ilwrath's claim was 1 market segment = success. This case was not true for 3DFX.

No, that wasn't at all my claim.  My claim was don't neglect the market you're good in for a chance to try your hand in a market you're not so good in.

Pre-expansion nVidia prided itself on making shipping dates.  Huang (nVidia's CEO) quote -- straight from Wired magazine

Fact is, Huang knows there's little room for even one mistake in his business, much less the same one twice. It's the nature of the graphics-chip industry: A company rises to leadership only to miss a delivery window and rolls over for an upstart with a better technology. Cirrus Logic, 3dfx Interactive, Pseng Labs, s3, Rendition, Chips and Technologies - they once were all leaders; now they're all gone.

Nvidia has sidestepped the boom-and-bust cycle by hewing to a simple philosophy: Technology matters, but the production calendar rules. "The first breath of success for Nvidia came when we recognized that the PC market has a pulse that's regular and predictable," says chief scientist David Kirk. PC manufacturers ship machines to resellers twice a year - in April and August. That means Nvidia has to have a new chip ready each February and June.

(For the rest of the very good interview, go to
Wired's nVidia interview - July 2002 - It's worth a read)

Now, for a review of the facts of what's happened:
1) they're blowing ship dates.
They're late on the Feb ship date for the NV30, (Feb 03) and neglected to put anything interesting out for the June 02 ship date.  

2) While the NV30 is powerful, it's more of only a tweak above the 9700Pro, rather than the generation jump that was originally marketed...

3) Their financial security is highly debatable.  While they have diversified, it's cost them money.  Money they may not have, or that they SHOULD have applied to shipping the NV30 faster / better.

[Ilwrath]

@hammer -

Are you implying “nForce 2” chipset is not competitive with VIA KT class chipset?

No...  I'm implying that they gave up the clear-cut lead in the fairly high-margin GPU market to create that chipset.  Basically the nForce is a good chipset, but it was a poor business decision, and the fact that it's horribly mis-marketed surely can't help matters.

First off, chipsets don't have the profits of high-end graphics processors.  Especially not chipsets that only work with AMD processors, which are currently suffering because very few OEM companies are producing computers supporting them.  In fact, about the only way to get a computer with an AMD processor is to purchase the poorest of the HP offerings -- which wouldn't use an nVidia chipset, or go white-box or self-built. White box and self-built machines don't sell in the same quantities (as say Dell) and have even LESS of a profit margin.

So, from that we can assume that nVidia is targetting the white-box and self-built market.  That market is mostly budget workstations and gamers.  The chipset still doesn't make sense, though.  The high-end version with firewire support has a semi-poor built-in sound card that no gamer would want.  All versions sport the on-board GeForce4MX, which isn't a good fit for gamers or graphics workstations, either.  (Gamers would rather have a GeForce4Ti, workstation users would rather have a Quadro, so they're certified with ACAD, Catia, etc.)

Exactly what market is nVidia trying to hit?? :-?

From recorded history, fab companies has missed their time schedule during their shift to .13 process.

Hmm...  Perhaps, but then again, if they were counting on this as the boost, then it wasn't the best of planning, either...

If they weren't as busy with other less profitable markets, they could have had a contingency plan for problems with the new manufacturing process, and been able to push the .13 process back to the next shipping round, while still delivering a quality update in the meantime.

I recall, their official comparison was with the GeForce 4-4600 TI. Majority of the so-called hype was magnified by the press.

Very good point.  I don't think nVidia ever did make that comparison, but it was what was expected of the card.  Releasing a graphics card that falls far short of expectations is never a good thing, even if those expectations are higher than you meant to set them.