Thursday, 23 September 2010 20:55

Nvidia is 65 percent Parallel company

Written by Fuad Abazovic
nvidia

GTC 2010: Only 30 for Visualisation

Jen Hsun Huang had some astonishing news today, something that caught even the knowledgeable people inside Nvidia off guard. He said that today Nvidia is a 65 percent parallel company, some 30 percent visual and the rest I guess goes to mobile aka Tegra. This is not entirely correct as in its previous breakdowns Jensen reminded us many times that Tegra and ARM are Nvidia’s future.

This is how Jensen divided the importance and Nvidia’s involvement in its three pillars of the company; parralel computing, visual computing and mobile. This explains a lot and why Nvidia let the Fermi fiasco happen, as you can see that a lot of engineering and especially software talent nowadays cares more about CUDA and rarallel computing than about games.

This is a huge commitment to something that still has to make some serious money or should we say any serious money. Just to remind you, Nvidia currently lives from its visualisation (Geforce and Quadro) money and the rest of the revenue is quite insignificant to its financial performance, so 65 percent commitment better score some serious results or otherwise Nvidia’s might be in big trouble.

We are sure gamers won’t be happy about it, but this is Nvidia’s long term strategy, that is what the boss is telling us.
Last modified on Thursday, 23 September 2010 21:17
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+16 #1 NickThePrick 2010-09-23 21:40
If the GPUs' are targeted at parallel computing, moreso than gaming, I believe a 50% price drop is due, at least for the GeForce family. Cause I just dont see myself or anyone else for that matter spending $500 every year to enjoy the speed at which my movies compress.
 
 
+12 #2 Bl0bb3r 2010-09-23 22:22
What dear leader was actually doing is throwing a blindfold over the investors' eyes to cover up the failure he has cause.

But as fufy failed to put things into perspective, this didn't really explain anything but dear leader's utter lack of competence to run a company.

Also, I wouldn't worry about them not committing to gamers, he might say this to fool the investors and press by "explaining" why fermi is a failure, but a day after that it's back to gamin business, they'll continue to offer free support to gaming devs to lock out competition from the game's code (see Eidos legal vs dev dep in the Batman game), they'll still offer updated drivers, mainly for fermi as GT200 is apparently too old and continue to screw their customers like no other.
 
 
+5 #3 nasrudin 2010-09-23 23:14
Wait, have you actually read the fiscal reports on NV's earnings?

Why on earth would you think visual computing (or at least more specifically games) still makes most of their money?
 
 
+4 #4 Bl0bb3r 2010-09-24 01:42
Because graphics chips are sold to millions of OEM'ed computers, laptops and consoles.

That they made this year a lot of earning on non-VC, fine... but don't expect this trend to last.

Gaming outfits have to shell out a lot of cash for the dedicated hardware, never-mind the software... but they do it only at the initial investment, from there on, the companies in question can go bankrupt and release the game, barely float to be successful, or get bought.

Just remember that that hardware will not land in dumps. It will be resold and reused, and another reinvestment will be done once they will become relatively hard to work with, ie obsolete, given their price.
 
 
0 #5 Bl0bb3r 2010-09-24 01:50
This is more like the over-population vs need-of-workforce issue.

Once we weren't that many, and there was enough work on the entire planet, but we started to overpopulate our Earth and things changed.

Take the south-americans which are "shipped" to US for work, leaving US nationals to find whatever they can or fight the issue.

In the same way, companies pop-up, they buy hw, some of them don't make it and disappear, while some more pop up. The hardware on the other hand doesn't disappear... and here starts the "over-population" issue, ie the overflooding of the market with pricey Quadros.
 
 
+6 #6 Bl0bb3r 2010-09-24 01:57
Then there's also that APU issue... AMD has SP and x86 in one package and is about to launch a shitload of GPGPU-friendly CPU's which will be cheaper to maintain and upgrade than some graphics cards, given their compact form. Intel has Larrabee on trial, devs can play with it, for now it's to complex but the future looks good even for them.

Where does nvidia fit in all of this?

They might get graphics cards that can do GPGPU alongside... what?... on AMD platforms it will be pointless. Intel processors maybe? What do you know about Intel's on-chip GPUs? Will they remain un-programmable even in the future? Will Intel incorporate some of Larrabee into a successor of Ivy Bridge? That would sure hurt nvidia even more.
 
 
-10 #7 Squall_Leonhart 2010-09-24 01:59
Quoting Bl0bb3r:
-snip-






And you're just a dense wanka who probably only started following the gfx industry in the last 2 years, not having seen amd/ati be in the exact same position not once, but 3 times.

Jens lead nvidia from TNT to Geforce 4 with substantial growth, and hell even through the NV30 flop, that growth didn't stop. 1 flop every 6 generations ain't bad. Considering ATI had 3 flops in a row from its x800 to HD2xxx series, and AMD has had 4 and a half years of Phenom failures with far lower performance to intels offerings in raw ipc.

Just stfu and go back to your idiot corner, you don't understand this hardware market. Only hobbyist investors jump at the first sign of trouble.
 
 
+9 #8 The_Countess 2010-09-24 05:32
Quoting Squall_Leonhart :
Considering ATI had 3 flops in a row from its x800 to HD2xxx series


how was the x800 a flop? or the x1800, or especially the x1900 (which you forgot about it seemed)?
and if they were, they are not even in the same league at the Fermi flop.
and with their 2013 outlook slide they are basically telling us they are going to do more of the same!

your comments on phenom and 4.5years of 'flop' are basically ludicrous. offering better price perform almost across the board isn't a flop.
 
 
+5 #9 spede 2010-09-24 07:13
What is this "rarallel computing"? :P
 
 
+2 #10 Jaberwocky 2010-09-24 10:04
Yes but i want to know what it Matrox going to do about all this :D
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments