Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Says New GPUs Won't Be Available For a 'Long Time' (pcgamer.com)
Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang said this week at Computex that people should not get their hopes up for any major GPU upgrades in the company's lineup in the foreseeable future. From a report: When asked when the next-gen GeForce would arrive, Jensen quipped, "It will be a long time from now. I'll invite you, and there will be lunch." That was it for discussions of the future Turing graphics cards, but that's hardly a surprise. Nvidia doesn't announce new GPUs months in advance -- it will tell us when it's ready to launch. Indications from other sources, including graphics card manufacturers, is that the Turing GPUs will arrive in late July at the earliest, with August/September for lower tier cards and custom designs.
Graphics have been "good enough" for max settings in 1080p gaming since at least the 7-series and nothing is driving 4K adoption.
If you're making a series of things, each replacing the last in the market, and your current one is selling at a high rate, and there's nothing that's going to cause it to spoil... you don't bring in the next item in the series.
You save it for when sales drop off, after you've been forced to drop prices, so the new item can be the new high-price thing.
If prices aren't falling, there's no room for the new replacement.
So yeah, until the stamp collecting, I mean the random-number-sifting coin market cools down - any new video cards won't have any actual payoff for NVidia.
Which is actually fine for me. Having game developers compete on actual content and ideas more instead of graphics churn is actually more to my liking. Well, except for when the accountants/managers also have time to toy around with recurring payment concepts, or DRM ideas.
Ryan Fenton
Computer, bring up Celery Man.
What's the point of making a new product if some group of people (will just buy them all)? That will only result in more money. What's the point of money if all it does is purchase things you want?
"No GPUs for a long time. .forseeable future..."
"Late July..."
Consumer electronics is more development cycle-compressed than ever.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You just failed business 101.
New cards should be held back as long as current cards are selling well and there's no serious competition. Anything else is throwing away R&D money.
(because you'll immediately be forced to start spending money on the next generation card)
No sig today...
Nvidia released the Gegfoce 8800 GTX in 2006 and that was effectively the fastest card until around 2010.... they just milked the archtecture, re-re-released the architecture under different names. I had the 8500 which was released a year later as the 9500.
Then the 200/300/400 series, 5/6/7/8/900 series, finally they're at the 1040/50/60/70/80 series. Expect the cards to be warmed-over next spring wit hthe 1140/50/60/70/80... their product cycle is years long, this has been true for decades.
moox. for a new generation.
and take a good chunk of the gaming GPU market away from both Nvidia and AMD in 2019/2020
LOL. No.
The fledgeling hardware raytracing movement is cool to watch, but it's nowhere near replacement of rasterization. Even now it exists as a hybrid solution with numerous enough problems that adoption is nil.
Ultimately, it's game developers that will drive hardware raytracing. Awesome hardware without the game industry targeting your hardware leads to dead ends. How *is* your 3dfx gpu doing, anyway?
and they're once again, however briefly, forced to compete.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just because you haven't rolled out Generation 3, doesn't mean you can't start the work on generation 4. It just means you can take more time to make sure they are GOOD, or you complete the design for gen 4, and start on gen 5. If you CAN be several generations ahead of your competition, and are ready for surprises, you should be. An example of where this did NOT happen was with Intel vs. the most recent generation of AMD chips. AMD came out stronger than anybody expected, and Intel didn't have a set of designs to put to the fab yet that would compete.
Having taking Strategic Business Analysis I think it was Business 630 or something.
Both methods have merit and costs.
Being on the leading edge and keeping a strong lead from your competitors can make sure you are holding a solid lead in your market. However it could cause a lot of expense in reworking your manufacturing process over and and over again. A lot of R&D expense isn't as much on how to make a newer and faster chip. But to product it at a price people are willing to pay for it. (This is the model that Intel seems to be following for its iX chips, with a new generation and updates all the time.)
Then you have a strategy of making a product selling it for as long as you can, then come up with a much more advanced upgrade. This lets you sell what is popular for a long time, reduce risk in making an unpopular product, and not having to make a new wheel every few months. However there is a risk that someone can catch up in this time. (This is common method that Apple does)
As with any strategy there is a point where you can go too far. We need time for us have faith in the product, we also need the product to be better then our last upgrade.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
An example of where this did NOT happen was with Intel vs. the most recent generation of AMD chips. AMD came out stronger than anybody expected
Well thats bullshit. It was known ahead of time that AMD was moving to a smaller node and would thus make up the entire difference. Anybody that didnt know, doesnt know shit and should never be listened to on these subjects. Seriously. Apparently that includes you.
.. its bullshit. Intel are the ones that invented lying about process size and their old 14nm 3D tri-gates are not as good as anyones current 14nm or 16nm processes, which is why Intel had to switch back to the traditional transistors designs everyone else is using that require fewer lithography steps.
Additionally, Intel did move several generations ahead with their Core architecture, even getting to 14nm while the competition was still on 28nm. Intels failing was not neglecting to seize the moment, but in the very point on the table. Intels R&D failure was in trying to get their lucky ahead-of-its-time 14nm 3D tri-gates into the realm of practicality at 10nm, which is so apparently not possible that Intel has completely abandoned their 3D tri-gate effort, the very thing that put them so far ahead to begin with.
Not only is Intel at best at equality, they will be a node behind by this time next year.
And before people start saying "but Intels 14nm is better than others"
"His name was James Damore."