Originally Posted by sunilraman
Nah mate, Nvidia and ATI have struggled with their GPUs for years now... Regardless of how accurate this story is, the truth is that in the mobile and tablet space PowerVR and ARM have eaten their lunch (and dinner).
They struggle no more than any other chip maker. PowerVR has been doing very well but that has more to do with NVidia and AMD not focusing on the markets. Point in fact head rolled at AMD recently because they missed the portable market completely. That however had nothing to do with their technology.
In the laptop space nothing comes close to Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge power and efficiency for mainstream computing.
Again this is simply wrong most people would be better off with an AMD Llano due to its far better GPU.
All that's left for Nvidia and ATI is the higher-end PCs and even then they've struggled for far, far too long... Driver issues, endless updates, chip failures, fabrication issues all the way back to 90nm, let alone <20nm, and so on.
You really can't be serious when companies like Intel have had the very same issues. As for ARM all you are hearing about is their success stories, they have had some pretty dramatic failures in the market also.
While not doomed, they are relegated now to the niche, when just 3 years ago they were poised to truly be revolutionary with tech, GPGPU and so on. Suffice to say now we rely on phone graphics to power most of our games, phone graphics that will soon dominate console graphics, and "CPU" aka Intel graphics that will in a few years obliterate discrete graphics from mainstream computing.
Why do you think that AMD bought ATI and further why did ATI not resist the take over? It was because it was obvious in the industry that SoC technology was and is where the industry is going. This move has given AMD a significant advantage in certain markets.
My Nvidia 320M is a very capable graphics device, but the fact I can't play an age-old game like Psychonauts (literally, it's impossibly laggy), and almost NO GPGPU applications aside from Apple and others...
There are also plenty of games not playable on iOS devices. You made a bad buying decision in going with the 320M, crying in the forums about it does not help support your position.
As to GPGPU acceleration, it is used by almost anybody that can benefit from it. Seriously I'm not sure why people can't grasp this, GPU acceleration is only of value if there is a fit with the application. If you look at things like Safari there is partial us of GPU acceleration there.
Their time has come. The blame game of developers, Apple, Windows, drivers, OS X, OpenGL, etc. etc. is no longer acceptable. When I can get a superb once-in-a-lifetime experience with Mass Effect 3 on obsolete hardware (Xbox360), Nvidia and ATI... Today I say goodbye. (Yes, I know Nvidia/ATI are used in consoles, but that's almost the last time they did anything fantastic)
So what you are saying is that you can't get good results on PC hardware for gaming? Many would argue with you there. I on the other hand would say who cares, I'm running a Mac which has no share of the gaming market. That however does not mean that I don't need a decent GPU on any machine I buy. Like it or not a decent GPU has a huge impact on system performance or feel.
One other thing related to GPGPU computing, OpenCL has been extremely successful for an Apple initiative. Adoption has been fairly massive, so please don't squeak about the lack of OpenCL based programs.