NVIDIA is a huge chip design company, controlling an even larger slice of manufacturing, and all we need from them is rather literally more cores glued on the same card.
Pimax is a small company, and we need(ed) them to squeeze more pixels per inch over existing consumer chips through a legacy DisplayPort interface.
The difference between these cases bears no comparison.
They are in business to make money like any tech company. This is why tech release is done slowly to ensure stake holders are happy.
Pimax needs to do the same with releases. Pimax main change was the screens many of there staff seem to suggest were being put into the og 8k.
8kX+ is more understandable as new DP standard is only being ready for bigger deployment.
Not that different. Remember like Nvidia; Kevin said pimax has some nice things in the lab. Only difference is that one could try and color it that Nvidia cam afford to release earlier. Except like Intel and Amd they have stakeholders that have profit gain requirements. Pimax on that regard has R&D costs to recoup before rolling new products out and to clear old skus.
Sorry to be blunt, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
NVIDIA is almost entirely a commodity business. They write some HDL code, and the fabs churn it out. And like any commodity business, it is wise not to let your customers starve, then feed them rot. Marketing machine overdrive only makes sense in this context to the very desperate (like Intel which has at least been transparent lately), or the very stupid (probably NVIDIA from lack of transparency)
Pimax is assembling commodity parts made by other companies, and perhaps occasionally fabricating prototypes. I of all people know how much more can occasionally be spun up in the lab - I can grind my own mirrors by aligning their edges to a faceting machine - than what can be produced in quantities of even a few hundred.
NVIDIA being notorious for this sort of behavior, is a long pattern indicative of bad management. Even in the enterprise sector, everyone seems keen on avoiding NVIDIA at all costs (eg. Google TPU, Tesla making their own chips, etc).
There Enterprise Customers are not starving. Atm the consumer is Starving for availability of cards. Only small pockets(sorry) are starving fir more blunt force performance gains.
Which is why they need to keep money flowing with new hardware releases. Which is starved by there manufacturing capabilities.
And yet folks keep them in business in all sectors. Hardly seema to be heavy avoidance. Sure many are manufacturing there own chips.
Case in point what is your gpu in your PCs?
Only true because the enterprise software is not yet (AFAIK) as heavily dependent on realtime performance, or anything single-GPU.
Pimax probably just needs to manufacture more 8kX units. And as you point out, that is limited by manufacturing, which does not apply to NVIDIA, or the fabs that supply NVIDIA.
Because only companies with the longest-term applications of high-performance computing (HPC), like Google or Tesla, care.
Probably the most aggressive attempt to replace third-party chips in history, only really comparable to companies trying to replace Qualcomm.
I did everything possible to go AMD, even taking a few hundred dollar loss from having to resell the hardware. I still go AMD for my workstations, and as soon as possible, I will be going all AMD.
Or focus on more sales of there more affordable cards that will be bought by folks whom cannot afford top GPUs.
Did you forget the chip shortages limiting Card supplies on both Nvidia and Amd. So yes they are limited by there output and components 3rdparties need to build the cards to sell.
Doesn’t that contradict your whole; they are making there own chips? Obviously the needs of what is needed cannot be produced internally.
Doesn’t even remotely seem to be that way or working.
Which is the point you are stuck with Nvidia until there is something that will satisfy your requirements for things like DCS.
Not really. The relevant fabs have been able to cheaply supply near double demand during mining peaks, while making NVIDIA/AMD GPUs and their own products on the side as usual.
Google’s TPU has drastically fewer features than NVIDIA, and does not seem to be much less expensive to produce, all for a probably rather large capital cost invested. The only adequate justification I can think of for this is to not be dependent on NVIDIA or AMD.
I think we just need to accept the Tech industry with companies that sell products is driven by economics not advancement.
DCS and other like programs will need to wait on brute force tech or optimizing and modernizing there code base. A race if turtles to see whom will win the race.
Just accept? Like, just suppose all companies in the tech industry, and presumably their products as well, are basically the same, with the same results, and don’t occasionally grow or shrink?
I think it’s a fair assessment that there are some meaningful differences.
You already accepted as many did when they bought there Nvidia Graphics cards and other pc components and peripherals.
Otherwise you, myself and others in high volumes would boycott supporting these companies by pressing the complete purchase button.
As long as there quarterly sales and year end sales do not suffer significantly nothing will change. So if you feel as strongly as you claim. Lead charge and don’t buy.
Temporarily.
A purchase is a purchase unless your planning on refunding it and not simply reselling it.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.