Originally Posted by -=DVS=-
This is debatable , other companys with total failure also support and sell cards that doesn't make them winers ! XGI sell they cards even if they are crap
(Noone specifyed what is a Failure)
So yes you can say none of the cards is a failure they do run games , maybe even at playable 30FPS or more + , but if competition runs it twice as fast its pretty obvious one is better.
Situation is same when we compare Nvidias FX series with Atis R300.
Both cards can run games at acceptable 30FPS in any DX9 games so does that make them both winers ?
1 != 2 , there can't be two winers one must be Successor other a Failure
see my point Chris
Its realy easy to compare FX to R300 , would be harder with X800 and 6800.
I'm sure you can find all sorts of XGI cards for sale DVS, Go find me one for sale. Who said this was about winning or losing? You seem to be under this false premise that success verses failure has anything to do with winning and losing.
The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends
To achieve victory or finish first in a competition
To not achieve victory or finish first in a competition
(obviously there are multiple meanings in the english language but these are the most relevent)
The FX series fits into the category of a loss to the competition. Not as a "failure". You keep clammering on about ATIS success and recording Nvidias loss as a failure. It's just doesnt work that way. Your argument is not really relevent DVS because you are trying to compare two different semantics to an obviously different issue.
I dont think you will find many people here arguing that the FX series was superior to the r300 in every concievable way, Tho some might argue there a few points about the FX series that were. They sold, And they have sold fairly well. They are still selling. They are well supported by the Nvidia driver team. I hardly call that a "Failure"