Slashdot Mirror
The Age of Nvidia
EyesWideOpen writes "There is an excellent (and lengthy) two part article (part 1, part 2) at Salon detailing the rise, and... rise, of Nvidia and how the company came to rest atop the 3-D graphics chip industry with a little help from Microsoft. The article discusses how Nvidia was able to persevere in the multi-billion dollar industry while other graphics chip companies, such as 3Dfx which was bought by Nvidia, did not fare as well."
Well, lets see, we could do a long long long analysis of why they're so successful, or we could just state the obvious.
They are the most successful GPU company because they make the best, highest-quality, fastest GPU's, and make a wide variety of them: models designed for gamers, for graphics designers, for businesses. Not to mention, they support a broad range of OS' very well: Windows, Linux, MacOSX, and at one time BeOS. Not only do they support other OS' such as Linux, but their drivers for Linux are actually damn good: benchmarks show that Nvidia Linux drivers operate about 99% as well as Windows drivers.
This isn't like MS where they're on top because of dirty business practices. They're on top plain and simple because they make the best products, from every angle imaginable. Best quality, best performance, best OS-support.
This isn't to say that they're infallible, or always make the right decision. Personally, I think its rather idiotic of them not to support Glide in their GeForce drivers, as Glide offers vastly superior performance in games which use it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I've owned about a half dozen different 3d accelerators. I still have a Riva128 based card laying around somewhere.
The 3d market was 3DFX's to lose.
What killed 3DFX was that their good cards rewuired a 2d card to run. They were 3d only. The Banshee, which did incorporate a 2d core was late and always seemed buggy.
By the time they got their act together with the 3000 series it was too late.
At least ATI is starting to provide some competition or the damn graphic cards will cost more than all the other components combined.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
I've had a GeForce 2 MX 400 in my machine for a year or two now, and I can't say I've ever had a complaint with it. The one thing I wish is that nVidia would roll out a card with a tv tuner and remote (a la ATI Radeon 8500DV). My friend has one of these, and after sampling it, I've come to the conclusion that "I want". But I also want a nVidia card. What I would personally like to see should nVidia attempt this is this idea, but on a GeForce 4 MX 440. This way, the price remains low enough to be competitive, and say what you will about the MX 440 not being a real GeForce 4, it's still a pretty nice card for a good price. But for now, looks like I'll have to make do with my (ATI) PCI input card.
Come on,
NVIDIA was able to make the fastest GPUs on the planet because of the engineers they have.
SGI was really not a very good place to be if you were interested in pushing the envelope w/regard to 3D hardware, so a new company was formed, and many extremely talented people from SGI went to work for it. That company was NVidia.
Its sad to see SGI in it's current state, but it is also good to see that SGI's technology, with the proper focus, marketing and pricing, is capable of breaking into almost every segment of the computing market.
Obviously, kudos to the NVidia management team, but lets not forget either the engineers and the company that built the foundatation of 3D graphics on the desktop.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
I think the author overstates the influence of DirectX (nee Direct 3D) on early 3D gaming. Glide was certainly influential -- not to mention the fact that it actually worked -- but worthy of at least as much credit was OpenGL.
The reason OpenGL was (and is) important is because that's what you had to have if you wanted to run 3D-accelerated Quake. And Quake was the undisputed king of first-person shooters. OpenGL support for Quake required downloading a new executable, but Quake2 shipped with it.
OpenGL's API, designed over the course of more than a decade by SGI engineers, beat the crap out of Micros~1's Hacked-Up Losing Kluge. Only now is DirectX starting to approach OpenGL's usability.
Things are a bit more flexible these days, but back then, if you wanted any hope of selling your 3D card, you had to run Quake. And to do that, you had to support OpenGL. Period.
Oh, and NVidia has always had the best OpenGL implementation out there. Funny how that worked out :-). (Permedia's might technically be better, but have you seen what those cards cost?)
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
> we could do a long long long analysis of why they're so successful, or we could just state the obvious.
:-)
Or even better, the not-so-obvious.
> They are the most successful GPU company because they make the best, highest-quality, fastest GPU's
They're the most successful for two reasons. First, unlike 3Dfx, they focused on quick turnaround of incrementally faster processors rather than spending a long dev cycle working on very advanced technology that was too complicated to fit into a 6-month product cycle. The 3D graphics world was *starved* for more horsepower, and quick to jump on the bandwagon of whoever could deliver more faster, rather than the long-term strategy 3Dfx got mired in when their tech missed a whole dev cycle. This was an excellent strategy on nVidia's part, since 3Dfx's Rampage technology was taking far too long to pan out and forced them to release a "stopgap" line of cards that was short on features and performance, in order to try to struggle on until their mythic Rampage chipset could produce working silicon. 3Dfx poured all their investment into a product which would have been groundbreaking, but was so long to market that nVidia was running rings around them with their incremental strategies.
Second, much like Enron, nVidia (allegedly) inflated their financial statements in a very unethical manner in order to draw in more investment due to steadily rising stock prices during the investment bubble. Honesty is punished by investors if it isn't all wine and roses; inflated financial statements draw more investment. In the case of Enron, the house of cards collapsed. In the case of nVidia, the tail wagged the dog--inflated financials drew more and more investment, which funded more and faster product cycles, which allowed nVidia to really pull ahead of 3Dfx, just as 3Dfx fell further and further behind thanks to their Rampage sinkhole. The high investment due to questionable financial statements is what allowed nVidia to fund its whirlwind snowjob, culminating in the purchase of its beaten and devalued old rival. There's been an SEC probe into these purported financial improprieties, and from everything I've seen, it looks like nVidia's creative accounting was their source of power, funding their product cycles--kind of like winning by cheating. No, *exactly* like winning by cheating...
This demonstrates a few principles we already know from much practical experience. In computers, short-term strategies which produce small gains *now* are much more likely to be successful than long-term strategies which would pay off big, but not in the near future. IA-64 is a prime example of this--Intel's roadmaps when Itanium first shipped showed it being adopted in droves by this point in time, yet it hasn't been; if an when it succeeds, it will be because of Intel's unusually deep pockets, but meanwhile x86-64 Yamhill has been developed "just in case" AMD's Hammer architecture captures the low-end-server and mainstream desktop markets, markets which Intel had *insisted* would eventually have IA-64 trickle down to without any interim architectures. This same principle was seen in the software world, with for example every single version of Windows that was built atop DOS rather than NT.
The second principle of success which nVidia's strategy illustrates is a financial one, illustrated well by Enron. People invest more money with companies which are already financially successful than with ones who really need the money, so that inflating the bottom line is rewarded immensely--and punishes companies which are honest, by giving fu7nding to their competitors. With Enron the bubble burst. With nVidia, the bubble carried them to the top, and funded dev cycles which neither 3Dfx nor Matrox nor for most of that period ATI could compete with. It's a gamble, and the dice rolled in nVidia's favor. That doesn't make their alleged financial improprieties right, but it makes them (if true) a *major* factor in nVidia's success.
> models designed for gamers, for graphics designers, for businesses.
3Dfx did the same, so nVidia is in no way unique there. In fact, high-end graphics maven Quantum3D was a 3Dfx spin-off intended by 3Dfx to be a major user of 3Dfx's highly scalable chip architectures (8-way Voodoo 2's and 16-way VSA-100's, for example, which *killed* everything else at the time for the high-end). For mainstream businesses, 3Dfx had their line of STB boards (following their STB buyout, which many see as a huge mistake, since they got into the board business instead of concentrating on just chips). And for gamers, obviously, the famous Voodoo lines. Low-end-professional 3D graphics wworkstations were the only market not really targeted, since Quantum3D boards compete in a higher-end space than Quadros did.
> Not to mention, they support a broad range of OS' very well: Windows, Linux, MacOSX
As did 3dfx, but 3dfx bettered nVidia in this respect by releasing a large chunk of code. nVidia has on the other hand been excruciatingly secretive with almost all code.
> This isn't like MS where they're on top because of dirty business practices.
Then why did there need to be an SEC probe into their financial (mis)statements? Again, if not for the funding attracted by reputedly "too optimistic" financials, nVidia could never have pulled off the quick incremental development cycles which kicked 3Dfx's ass.
> Personally, I think it's rather idiotic of them not to support Glide in their GeForce drivers
This is the one thing I agree with you about. Glide is rightfully dead--its limitations are well-known, and today DX and OGL are the clear choices. However, a "legacy Glide module" would have been *very* nice, as almost all older games with Glide support work much better in Glide, and some older games *only* work in Glide. This is precisely why I bought an old Quantum3D Voodoo2 X-24 dual-Voodoo2-on-a-single-card board as a secondary adapter for my gaming rig--it's the only way to have full compatibility with many older games. If nVidia were unwilling to spend their time writing it, the Open Source community would likely be glad to do it for them since many are avid gamers and fans of old classics--but nVidia refuses to release any code, even the obsolete Glide code.
Now, let me go play a round of Turok in asskicking Glide mode, courtesy of my dual Voodoo2 card, in honor of the dead.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus