NVIDIA Responsible for the Most Vista Crashes

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

fanboi-ism gets no one anywhere please stop it.

 

[phanbuey]

The aricle shouldnt be titled "Nvidia Responsible for most Vista crashes."...

better name is "Crappy vista crashes most on machines with Nvidia hardware!"...

Nvidia is not responsible for microsoft's ineptitude. If its WHQL certified, and Vista crashes... thats MS's fault, if the drivers were bad, why the F&^* did you certify them?

 

[Scrizz]

.. this thread's a mess..

 

[candle_86]

agreed.

 

[Urlyin]

.. this thread's a mess..

Yes ..spiraling down ... down .. down ... soon to be closed ... stay on topic and leave the fanboi comments at the door ..

 

[Mussels]

about the beta drivers: most of them were 9 series only. people modded them (its not hard) to work with 8 series again.

9600GT is cheaper than 8800GT becauise of changes to the PCB - they reduced the amount of layers in it. the card IS cheaper to make, and they probably did reduce their profits a bit too. who cares, its cheap and fast.

 

[Widjaja]

Anyone remember when performance started to go down hill?
To my recollection it was about 05'?

Thats when I started to see stuttering anyway.

And then Vista came out and it was even worse!

 

[Mussels]

what stuttering are you talking about?

 

[DarkMatter]

about the beta drivers: most of them were 9 series only. people modded them (its not hard) to work with 8 series again.

9600GT is cheaper than 8800GT becauise of changes to the PCB - they reduced the amount of layers in it. the card IS cheaper to make, and they probably did reduce their profits a bit too. who cares, its cheap and fast.

Hmm I've been searching because I thought they had reduced the layers for 8800 GT, it seems they didn't or I can't find anything to confirm one way or the other. I know Nvidia wanted to do so and I supposed they finally did. I thought that all the 8800 GTs released lately, with the new cooler for example, had reduced layers and that they had a PCB similar to the simpler 9600 GT.

Anyway I still think it doesn't make for $50 price difference. And even so, it's not cheaper enough, nor better enough in price/performance to throw away all 8800 GT stock.

 

[newtekie1]

NVidia never required that the number of layers be lowered, they just suggested it to their partners to help reduce costs and hence retail prices. I don't know if they ever actually did it though.

 

[Mussels]

from what i've learned, the 8800GT was optional, but the 9600GT had the reduced layers from the start, thus the lower price.

 

[BumbRush]

off topic, sorry, but im not vid brand bashing, so least thats good lol.

BumbRush, whered you get that opera skin from?

on topic, haha i bet that microsoft came second because idiots (i swear ive seen people try to do this) install office XP onto vista, then say just like the dumb idiots they are 'why isnt my program working properly, der der der'
poor microsoft, im sure all their current software could probably run ok'ish on their bloaty shiney os, too bad that end users still want to use programs that are over 5 years old on it.

the opera skin gallery, look for TTTskins, had to spell his name tobias or something, his skins rock, also check out the retro dos skin

 

[candle_86]

not sure on layers but the core is alot cheaper to make, its not a G92 with half turned off, its a G94 with everything turned on

 

[btarunr]

not sure on layers but the core is alot cheaper to make, its not a G92 with half turned off, its a G94 with everything turned on

A G92 (as in 8800 GT) isn't a 'G94 with everything turned on'.

 

[DarkMatter]

NVidia never required that the number of layers be lowered, they just suggested it to their partners to help reduce costs and hence retail prices. I don't know if they ever actually did it though.

from what i've learned, the 8800GT was optional, but the 9600GT had the reduced layers from the start, thus the lower price.

That was my fault, I thought they had reduced them, and thus even if slightly different, they couldn't be much more expensive to make.

not sure on layers but the core is alot cheaper to make, its not a G92 with half turned off, its a G94 with everything turned on

I think that I didn't explain my point well. The GPU core is cheaper to make, that's true, but what matters in the end is the price of the final product. Example:

8800 GT sells for ~$200
9600 GT ~$160

From this price we have to take away the profit for (r)etailers, transport and partners. Each link in the chain wants his part and they always think in porcentual gains. Let's say $50 for the 9600 GT and $70 for 8800 GT.

8800 GT - $130*
9600 GT - $110*

If we take away the cost of the packages, cooling solution, stickers, cables, etc.

8800 GT - $110*
9600 GT - $90*

Take away the cost of 512MB of memory

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=55539&page=2

8 x $4,5 = $36

8800 GT - $74
9600 GT - $54

That's the price for the core, PCB and capacitors, resistors, etc. Usually those things (except the core) are on partners hands. Let's say it's half of the price:

8800 GT - $37*
9600 GT - $27*

Those are the numbers Nvidia will get. As you can see the difference is huge (remember you have to think percentual on business) compared to the final retail price, or the price once we take away retailer's profit. Now what price is important when it comes to selling cards? Retail price.
What is better for Nvidia? It depends on the deal with the partners, but the closer that those two cards get in retail prices the better it is for Nvidia to sell 8800 GT more, because since both cards share so much they are closer in final price, but difference in the GPU core is maintained.

*Maybe those numbers are wrong, but are orientative and I have based them on logic and based on my experience working for a retailer.