Originally posted by SurfMonkey
I guess the distinction that people are making is that ATi bought ready made technology and shoe horned it into a PC chip. nVidia, on the other hand, bought the rights to a whole load of theoretical technologies and had to do their design from the ground up.
And that's a false distinction.
ATI didn't "buy the technology and shoe horn it into a PC chip;" they bought the group of engineers that designed it, and they then designed the R300. No doubt they used knowledge gained from the Flipper Chip in the design of the R300, but isn't that just good engineering practice? Are you saying that since NVIDIA designed the NV30 "from the ground up" that they didn't use any knowledge gained from the NV2A and NV20?
I don't understand how people can see the two situations as different.
Group A engineers designed a console chip, then designed a PC chip, and both were on time.
Group B engineers designed a console chip, then designed a PC chip, and the latter is significantly late. (Assuming group B designed both... we know group A did).
That each group probably had input from other engineers and use previously gained knowledge from past designs is a given, and completely irrelevant (besides, it's the same for both sides, so even if it wasn't irrelevant... it still would be