backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by z3R0C00L.. on Sep 13 at 11:07 AM


ATI RV570 Details

ATI Desktop Discrete PCIe transitions
New performance and mainstream offerings

During the recent Games Convention 2007 in Germany, we received a new roadmap that outlines ATI’s pre-R600 plans for its complete graphics card lineup. At the top of chain of ATI graphics cards is the previously released Radeon X1950XTX and CrossFire graphics cards. Slotted right below the Radeon X1950XTX and CrossFire cards will be the Radeon X1900XT 512MB which will be a carryover product. The Radeon X1900XTX is discontinued and being phased out. This completes ATI’s enthusiast offerings for the time being.

On the performance side of things is the previously released Radeon X1900XT 256MB. Slotted right below the X1900XT 256MB will be the unreleased Radeon X1950 Pro. The Radeon X1950 Pro replaces the current X1900GT. Radeon X1950 Pro will be based on the RV570 core, which is one of ATI’s first 80nm products. Specifications of the RV570 core include 12 pipelines and 36 pixel shaders with a 600 MHz core clock. Memory will be clocked at 1.4 GHz and have a 256-bit interface. Radeon X1950 Pro cards will be equipped with 256 MB of graphics memory and sport a single slot cooler. This will also be ATI’s first card with internal CrossFire compatibility for dongle-less CrossFire. Availability of the Radeon X1950 Pro is expected in October. ATI claims performance of the Radeon X1950 Pro will be faster than the 7900GT.

On the mainstream side of things is the Radeon X1650 Pro. This is based on the RV530 core and replaces the previous Radeon X1600XT. Joining the mainstream lineup later in September will be the Radeon X1650XT. The Radeon X1650XT will be based on ATI’s upcoming RV560 core that like the RV570 is an 80nm part. It will also have 8 pipelines with 24 pixel shaders and go up against NVIDIA’s GeForce 7900GS. Radeon X1650XT cards will have 256MB of memory on a 128-bit interface. Core and memory clock is unknown. Availability of the Radeon X1650XT is expected around the same time as the Radeon X1950 Pro.

ATI’s value lineup will consist of the Radeon X1300XT, X1300 Pro, X1300, X550HM and X300SE. The Radeon X1300XT is essentially identical to ATI’s previous mainstream offering the Radeon X1600 Pro while the other four products are simply carryovers.

Also mentioned in the roadmaps is ATI’s high definition video compatible mainstream part, the RV550 with ATI’s Universal Video Decoder. The UVD equipped RV550 is expected to start sampling in September and availability starting in December. It will be based on ATI’s R515 core, which is the equivalent of a Radeon X1300 series.

ATI plans to move most of its product lineup over to an 80nm fabrication process too. While the Radeon X1950 Pro and X1650XT will launch as 80nm products, the Radeon X1650 Pro, X1300XT and X1300 series are still based on a 90nm fabrication process. ATI will switch the RV530XT based Radeon X1650 Pro over to 80nm with the RV535XT while the RV530 Pro based X1300XT will switch over to the 80nm RV535 Pro core. ATI’s RV515 and RV516 value based products will switch over to the 80nm R505 variants as well.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By TacticalTrading on 8/28/2006 4:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
AGP isn't dead...yet...At least I don't want it to be.

Will pay $350 for a high end card, but Can't afford $1000 to upgrade to a PCIe Mobo, that upgrade will require new everything....

ATI, R U Listening....How about a ##1900## AGP




RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By noxipoo on 8/28/2006 4:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
why bother buying a $350 card for an old system. and no, it doesn't cost $1000 for a pcie mobo, cpu, and ram. and if you get slightly older socket, not even new ram.


By Missing Ghost on 8/28/2006 11:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
Who said old system? I can see some good reasons why you would have like an FX-55 with APG. Remember Nforce3. Upgrading to pcie would be a waste of money.


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By Fenixgoon on 8/29/2006 9:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
upgrading to PCI-E is cheap.

$50 mobo, $150 7600GT = $200.

good luck getting 7600GT power for $200 on AGP. X850's are rare and fetch quite the price premium, and the 7800 AGP is up there, too.


By littlebitstrouds on 9/5/2006 4:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that they don't want a $50 motherboard, if they have invested, at one time, in a FX-55. Asking for something to be placed in the market is not too much when you're a loyal customer. However expecting it to be there when the cost/sell point is nil, is a bit much sometimes.


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By RamarC on 8/28/2006 4:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
if you already have ddr-400 and a decent p4/athlon cpu, a pci-e mobo is only $90. if you need a cpu upgradeanother $470 will get you:

$90 biostar motherboard
+ $90 athon 3500+ cpu
+ $90 1gb ddr-400
+ $200 7900gs or x1900gt

why would you to buy over-priced hardware for an obsolete platform?


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By Pirks on 8/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By jebo on 8/28/2006 6:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
No offense but IMHO if you haven't re-installed Windows since the AGP days your Windows install is probably in pretty bad shape.


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By Pirks on 8/28/2006 8:25:25 PM , Rating: 1
No offence but I'm really tired of lamers getting their XP waxed in a year or two - how these people screw their Windows is beyond me. Please understand that there are OTHER uses for XP than to install a new malware/freeware/spyware/toolbar every day, hacking and "optimizing" registry, installing a couple of dozen of system monitos, extenders, protectors, defenders and of course Symantec antivirus wonders. People who do that can keep screwing their Windows, bash MS and do all the shit I observe on public forums everywhere - I am just one very rare happy guy who haven't reinstalled his XP for THREE YEARS. Recipe for you lamers - buy your nice pinky Mac who will do everything for you, or enjoy Linux where you can oprimize everything or whatnot. Tell me once more my XP needs reinstall since I put it on my PC in 2003, or someting like it - and get some very impolite words for me. You've been warned.


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By KingofFah on 8/28/2006 11:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
lol, i have to reply to this. though I don't like ms, and do believe their software to have a lot of problems, I agree with you for the most part. I almost never have to reinstall windows (2k pro), and I have no addition software to help "secure" windows -- just SP4 and intelligent usage.


By MrDiSante on 8/29/2006 11:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
Bit on the over-excited side there, but agreed more or less. I do have Norton Antivirus and Windows Defender on my XP SP2 system (don't think I've ever needed it though), and I've had it for... 3 years if you ignore the 6 months that it was running 98 SE (I upgraded), it's still perfectly stable and I haven't got any malware - though I'll admit that I've had to system restore once or twice. Intelligent usage power!


By Wwhat on 9/2/2006 7:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
I recently freshly installed xp, it ran smooth as butter, then I went to windowsupdate and installed all updates and after that it was as sad as my years old install...



By ElFenix on 9/2/2006 5:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
i went from an amd mobo to an nvidia mobo and didn't have to reinstall windows.


By JonnyBlaze on 8/28/2006 5:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
i agree. i have a 3 year old p4 3.0 system that i want to upgrade my 9800pro for. i dont consider it a waste because this whole system will go to my son when i build a c2d system.


By SyK on 8/31/2006 3:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
So get a 2nd-hand card!

You're using a 9800pro, for XXX's sake. There are any number of higher-performing cards up to a 7800GS available... (At least 3 generations!) and anything higher than that would be WELL and truly bottlenecked by a P4 in any case.

Please stop creating problems and excuses to not upgrade where they do not exist!


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By mrkkbb on 8/30/2006 1:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I have an S940 Opteron 150 with 2GB ECC-DDR. If I upgrade to either Intel or AM2 platform I will need to buy DDR2 ram, new chip and motherboard, and reinstall everyting. Why can't they give us a good AGP card? My system would just fly with a 7900GT or X1900?? But instead I must "cripple" it with an expensive 7800GS.


RE: Wish they would do one more High end AGP card
By SyK on 8/31/2006 3:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
A) An S940 Opteron 150 is hardly "Flying" by any modern definition...

B) If you choose to believe it IS, get DDR1/S940 with PCI-e! Nobody is stopping you!

You have even LESS reason to whine than most of the whiners!


By mrkkbb on 8/31/2006 9:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
True, I could get a PCI-e board to transfer stuff over. So, an S940 board will cost me about $200 then I would then need to spend another $200 for a PCI-E card. Not to mention the pain involved in moving over a Raid from one controler to another, i.e. its not just a plug'n'play thing. You are right, that a 150 is not the tops by today standards, but I don't think that it would be much of a bottle neck for a 7900 GT either. I would love to see some GPU/CPU benchmarks where we keep the same system and very the CPU.


RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/1/2006 5:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
On paper the 24 pixel shaders give it more raw power than the 20 the 7900GS will sport, but as usual the stupid TMU limitations that have single handedly halved ATI perfomance (from twice as big dies to the same performance as Nvidia half size dies) this gen will probably hold it back. But at least it's better than the ridiculous 4 TMU X1600XT.

Fucking stupid ATI. How dense can you be. Lets see, we'll intentionally criple all our chips by not putting enough TMU's. Smaaart. ATI could have been TWICE as fast as Nvidia in every segment this gen (after all, their chips are generally twice as big, so even equal efficiency, and they would have been twice as fast). Instead they just tied them and missed a golden opportunity.

Also it means ATI has just given up trying to compete with the 7600 GT, probably the most mainstream segment. Nice.




RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/2/2006 10:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well the X1650 XT using the RV560 core is pretty much designed to go against the 7600 GT, and with it's clock rates should defeat it.

However since Nvidia is refreshing the mainstream segement with the 7900GS, which is a 256Bit Card, with 20 Pipelines, the X1650 XT will lose against it for sure so, I think ATI will just shift this card down to a slightly lower MSRP, and let the X1950 Pro, which should be more powerful then the 7900 GT so it should win agains the 7900 GS take care of the 7900 GS at the 199US price point.

Though I hope Nvidia will make something that competes well against the X1950 Pro.

Well you have to remember, ATI is going for their high pixelshader to TMU ratio, we all know 48 Pixel Pipelines on the R580 would have won totally agains the 24 Pipe G71, but at what cost. The die size is already 80% bigger with only 2/3 of the TMU of Nvidia, if they increased it to 3 times the TMU the die size would grow to well over 400mm2.

Same idea for the RV560 vs G73. It's the same ratio as R580 vs G71. So expect the RV560 to do well against 7600 GT.

The reason their chips are so much bigger then Nvidia this generation is because of their increased featureset, better dynamic branching implementation, Angle Indenpedent AF, as well as OpenEXR HDR + MSAA and twice as many pixel shaders. All this extra stuff costs transistiors, there isn't really room for more TMU's as the dice are already quite expensive to make as is.

If the X1950 Pro is indeed 199US the 7900 GS is in trouble.

Now ATI has 1 die for each Quad Level of R580 based technology.

R580 4 Quads 48 PS 256Bit
RV570 3 Quads 36 PS 256Bit
RV560 2 Quads 24 PS 128Bit
RV530/RV535 1 Quad 12 PS 128Bit

The Breakdown is also fairly nice as well.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/4/2006 9:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Okay here's the bottom line:

When one GPU company is making chips TWICE as big as another, but only getting roughly the same performance, I dont care how they got there, that company's engineering sucks, and that product line is a failure, period.

Stop an think about what I said, if ATI's chips had the same efficiency as Nvidia's do, they would be TWICE as fast. Not 30% faster, not 50% faster, not even 70% faster, but 100% faster. If the Nvidia 7900 GTX got 100FPS on a given game, the ATI X1950XTX would get 200FPS on the same game, if they had equal efficiency.

Which funny thing, ATI's chips last gen were slightly MORE efficient. The X850 was SMALLER than the 6800 Ultra, yet FASTER too boot.


>>The reason their chips are so much bigger then Nvidia this generation is because of their increased featureset, better dynamic branching implementation, Angle Indenpedent AF, as well as OpenEXR HDR + MSAA and twice as many pixel shaders. All this extra stuff costs transistiors, there isn't really room for more TMU's as the dice are already quite expensive to make as is. >>

Well this is baloney, you're throwing the baby out for the bathwater.

The goal is to make FAST CHIPS. The limiter is the TMU's, it's not any of that other crap.

You and I dont know how much die area it would have takem too include more TMU's, but whatever it took than something else should have been cut to make room for them. Or at the very least, just made the chip a little bigger to include more TMU's. If making the chip 10% bigger by removing some of the TMU bottleneck made the chips, lets just say hypotheticaly, 40% faster, then ATI needed to do that.

You're saying "well the overall design of the ATI chips was so big it precluded more TMU's" too which of course the obvious answer is, "well then the design sucks and they fucked up". Because obviously whatever was making it so big wasn't making it faster.

Again, equal efficiency and ATI would have been TWICE as fast. That would have been, an absolutely unprecedented, unthinkable, victory on a level never before seen, even by 9700 pro. In all likelyhood, Nvidia may have gone out of business.

ATI had all that in it's hand, and threw it in the grabage by being stupid, and guess what, Nvidia isn't likely to give them the chance again.





RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/4/2006 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot have your cake an eat it too. You cannot be as efficient and have a better feature set, when both are using the same optical process.

I don't think your getting what I am saying, so I will have to spell it out for you. Implementing new features on GPU is a costly affair, hence why some consessions have to be made on the performance front in order to accomodate the increased feature set.

You will NEVER have the same efficiency, when 1 product has an increased feature set over the other.

Last generation the roles were reversed, the NV40 had a die size the same as the R480, actually while the R420 die was mildly smaller then the NV40, the R480 was slightly bigger to allow for the increased clock frequency and better yeilds, Nvidia has the better feature set obviously with OpenEXR HDR and Shader Model 3.0, so they made some consession on performance.

The roles are simply reversed this generation that is all.

The goal is to make a GOOD PRODUCT. A fast chip is only part of the equation, additional feature sets are a avenue to that as well as increased performance.

Well indirectly it is, if they hadn't added the additional features to the R580 feature set, then they would have had more room for TMU's but they chose the added feature set over additonal texturizing performance.

You and I have to agree on the fact that ATI engineers know what they are doing, if they felt increase feature set richness was the way to go over TMU's then we have to respect their decision.

And now your speculating in your favor on how much the space the TMU's will take huh, I think ATI engineers would have already done that and decided the additional die space required wasn't worth it. If it was, they would have increase the number of TMU's if the performance was impacted that much.

All your doing is going "SPEED SPEED SPEED" which isn't the only way to go.

And as I already covered, a product with greater feature set typically has worse efficiency in performance over a product that has lower feature set.

All you have told me is that you prefer speed over features, and that's fine, though ATI perfered the reverse this generation, with some consession to speed. Nvidia this generation has prefered efficiency and good cost over increase feature set. This typically flip flops from time to time.

The design doesn't suck it just emphasizes addtional features over pure performance, that's all.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/4/2006 7:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
You're still missing the point.

It's hard to get sales data for GPU's, but all the data we have is that Nvidia is CRUSHING ATI this generation. I'd guess Nvidia is probably selling 80% of discrete GPU's vs about 20% for ATI right now, that's a buttwhooping. I can get into where I get my numbers etc if you want to get long winded. For one example go to Tiger Direct or newegg and look at the top sellers lists. You might see one ATI card in the top 10, if you're lucky. The most recent steam survey and Nvidia's financial conference calls are two more points of evidence that ATI is getting destroyed in the market this go round.

So guess what? The majority of consumers, taking everything into account, prefer what Nvidia is selling over ATI. That's what makes THIS statement so erroneous:

quote:
You and I have to agree on the fact that ATI engineers know what they are doing, if they felt increase feature set richness was the way to go over TMU's then we have to respect their decision.


We dont have to respect their decision because ATI's job is to sell GPU's, and if the marketplace is rejecting what ATI's engineers are selling (which they are), they wont be in business much longer.

So I dont care what ATI's engineers want. I dont give a damn if they think "superior image quality" (at the expense of speed) is the way to go. Consumers have voted otherwise. It's not ATI's job to be politically correct and tell me what I'm supposed to prefer in a GPU. It's their job to find out what I and other consumers want and build me that. And what we clearly want is faster, not some minor image quality improvements.

I'm not even saying the IQ improvements aren't nice, or goal-worthy. What I am saying is they're damn sure not worth a twice as big GPU. ATI's priorities are clearly misplaced.

Even further, it's difficult to qauntify what ATI is better at in IQ. Nvidia seems to be better at just as many things. Meaning in the end it comes out equal anyway. Example: Nvidia may be a little better at 8XAA while ATI is a little better at 4XAA. Check out Firing Squad's latest image quality roundup. It should be on the front page. They conclude Nvidia wins many times. Where is ATI's superior quality?

I'd say a bigger deal to average consumers than minor IQ improvements (if they even exist) are things like: Stable SLI, stable drivers, speed, price. Things that NVidia wins. But the overall king is clearly speed.



>>Last generation the roles were reversed, the NV40 had a die size the same as the R480, actually while the R420 die was mildly smaller then the NV40, the R480 was slightly bigger to allow for the increased clock frequency and better yeilds, Nvidia has the better feature set obviously with OpenEXR HDR and Shader Model 3.0, so they made some consession on performance.>>


But in every past cast you're talking about small differences. 10, 15% on one side or another is not a big deal. If ATI's parts where 15% bigger than Nvidias, I wouldn't be arguing this. They're not 15% bigger, they're 100% or more bigger at a given performance sector, and that's unprecedented inefficiency.

If ATI's cards were 15% bigger, and had all the minor IQ and quality improvements you discussed, I might agree with you. Those minor things might be worth 15%. They're not worth 100%. For 100%, you better be damn faster than the other guy, and ATI just isn't.

What is the point of an increased feature set? The point is to be FASTER or nobody cares. That is, for the millionth time, why ATI is being stupid. They have superior dynamic branching. Ok..who cares? Is that making my games faster? Clearly not. SO WHY THE HELL IS IT IN THERE? What is it doing, sitting there, they built it in to waste silicon and sit idle? Apparantly so. About the best clai you can make is they're more future proof. Except that's weak. The 6800 ULTRA was more future prrof because it had SM 3.0 too. Is that a big selling point now? Hell no because you can get 7900 cards that are twice and more as fast for half the price today. 6800 ULTRA cannot keep up with even mid-range games anymore. That's how fast tech moves and that's how fast last gen cards are rendered irrelevant. That is why future proofing is a completely irrelevant strategy. ATI fails again.



RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/4/2006 10:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
The data you are getting is flat out incorrect then. I would like to see where your getting it and it better not be posts on forums by soem guy, or "The Inquirer".

For the 2nd Quarter 2006 these are Nvidia and ATI's discrete marketshares.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2006073...

Nvidia: 51.5%
ATI: 47.9%

There is no way in hell that would of shifted to 80 - 20 in any way shape or form, that just flat out doesn't occur. The majority of consumers?! Ha don't make me laugh.

Your figures are based on data from only certain online sites, and in terms of financials, no ATI isn't doing as well financially this round but that is another issue entirely. ATI's problems are that they don't have efficient mainstream GPU's on the market in the same segements as Nvidia. The X1900 Series are quite the performers in their own right.

No you don't speak for everybody, my statement still stands whther you like it or otherwise.

Yes it is, what I said stands, if you don't like what ATI is doing with their products you simply have the choice of going the Nvidia route, you get a cheaper to produce product, with a somewhat reduced feature set, and the associated benefits of going that route as well as some cons.

It's their company, if you don't like their products they are churning out either, fine don't buy them. Simple as that.

Stop putting your views as what "we" want. It's what you want, but you don't speak for everyone.

ATI's current GPU is fairly large weighing at 80% larger then the G71, but it's also faster, the X1900 XTX is in general faster at what games it was designed for, which are the pixel shader bound ones, that don't rely on texturing hardware. You don't feel an 80% increase in die size is worth it over the performance consessions and what they brought about, ATI's engineers felt otherwise, it's your money, don't buy ATI it's as simple as that.

Actually if you want to know, Nvidia SLI 8xAA is much slower then ATI's CF 8xAA becuase Nvidia's utilizes software, ATI has their compositing engine to help them out, ATI also has a 6xAA mode which is quite fast as well, not like the slow ass hybrid 8xS mode which has better image quality, but is way too damn slow to use in practically in the current generation of games. This generation Nvidia made consessions on IQ, as they focused on cost effectiveness, and that is fine, it's just a different strategy.

That's is simply your opinion of what you think consumers want, different strokes for different folks, some people actually perfer image quality and not have to put up with so many issues with Nvidia's AF this generation.

Well 80% larger die size, for Angle Indepedent AF, and OpenEXR HDR + MSAA, as well as assorted items may not be worth it IYO, but that doesn't make it a bad decision overall.

This is how I personally view things, since ATI made this generation so feature rich the jump to R600 shouldn't need to be too massive, since they can reuse alot of the tech implemented this generation. Nvidia on the other hand is in for an overhaul as NV4x based technology is now dated. ATI just made a huge leap this generation is all.

I actually personally like the fact ATI is giving us a different mix rather then just an emphasis on speed at any cost, I don't want a Nvidia clone thanks. You made your views clear, just buy Nvidia it's as simple as that.

You obviously still don't get it, Speed is not the only avenue to success, promoting feature set whether or not they make sense in reality, as long as you convince the buyers those features matter is what counts. Some beleive the idea of future proofing, though for video cards that is hard to do if your expectations remain high. Remember not everyone upgrades quickly to new hardware, so they have to make their purchase last.

ATI has very fast products this generation, the issue this generation they have are effective mainstream GPU's. They used the RV530 as a testbed for the 3:1 ratio used in R580, but that GPU wasn't much of an improvement performance wise over Nvidia 6600 GT so their mainstream suffered, though that wasn't suprising.

The X1800 XT was faster then it's competition but it came way late. X1900 line was good, but it only serviced the high end, which isn't where the money is to be made.

Nvidia has done it well not because they own the high end, they do currently again, but at greater cost then ATI since they are using 2 G71 GPU, as well as 2 256Bit PCB's.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/4/2006 11:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
>>ATI remained the second largest supplier in Q2 2006 but with an 8.4% sequential decline in shipments and decreased market share. Nvidia was the third largest supplier in Q2 2006, with a 2.0% sequential increase in shipments and increased market share.>>

From your own link..clearly ATI is stumbling.

The whole graphics market is big, and takes a long time to register changes, because a lot depends on OEM contracts. You have integrated, mobile phones, laptop GPU's, chipsets, all sorts of stuff. ATI getting their butts kicked will take longer to register in those segments..but it eventually will.


When I say discrete I may not even be using the term correctly, but I mean when somebody actually goes to buy a GPU to add in to their computer.

I'd venture Nvidia has 80% of that market right now. No exaggeration. ATI is absolutely getting DESTROYED.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/c...

At the upper right is top ten sellers. 9 are Nvidia. The unusual thing is there is actually one ATI card on the chart. That's rare, normally ten out of ten are Nvidia lately.

Go to HARDOCP and look at their forums. The ATI is a ghost town compared to Nvidia (and it's been that way for months).

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/14/latest_ste...

Steam survey, more not good results for ATI.

ATI used to brag about how great they were doing in laptops..that is falling fast and as usual, Nvidia is taking them over (then again, Nvidia is taking them over in every segment).

Derek Perez in an interview on ATI-AMD merger:


quote:
Derek Perez: We look at today’s news as a positive for the company and there’s a couple of reasons why. Ultimately this leaves us as the only GPU and platform company that will be able to support both AMD and Intel. That’s huge. There’s no other GPU company, no other chipset company that’s going to come close to what we’re offering and that puts us in a really good position right off the bat. If you look at those two pieces of business, GPU and platform technology we’ve got four strong brands, SLI, GeForce, Quadro, and nForce which we’re all right now winning versus ATI everywhere across the board and I think you guys will agree with that.




quote:
That's is simply your opinion of what you think consumers want, different strokes for different folks, some people actually perfer image quality and not have to put up with so many issues with Nvidia's AF this generation.


No it isn't my opinion. It's the majority's opinion given by the sales figures we've now gone over. ATI keeps losing and losing and losing in every single market segment.

Clearly consumers are speaking. They agree with Nvidia. They do not agree with ATI.

ATI's engineers work for ATI's shareholders. Their job is to maximize sales and profits. They are failing. ATI is losing, and likely will go out of business soon if trends continue.

Then you can be happy you supported, whatever stupid business decisions they made. Then you will have one choice, Nvidia.

quote:
Well 80% larger die size, for Angle Indepedent AF, and OpenEXR HDR + MSAA, as well as assorted items may not be worth it IYO, but that doesn't make it a bad decision overall


You think the average consumer knows what the fuck angle independant AF is? Or do they care about a fast card for a cheap price that looks great? Not too mention Nvidia's AF algorithm is superior in other areas to ATI's. HDR+MSAA..how many games is this? Nvidia does this fine on Half Life. I've heard Oblivion is so full of bugs on ATI cards with HDR+AA turned on it's not worth it. And so on and so on. You're talking about 2-3 games, and Nvidias next card due soon no doubt will support AA+HDR. Moot point.

So wow, you've got botched HDR+AA support for two buggy games, which isn't even related to die size, and you've got AF that may or may not have better qaulity than Nvidia's. No, sorry, I want 80% faster, and fuck the angle independant AF (whatever the hell it is anyway).

quote:
I actually personally like the fact ATI is giving us a different mix rather then just an emphasis on speed at any cost, I don't want a Nvidia clone thanks. You made your views clear, just buy Nvidia it's as simple as that.


Great. Sales say consumers dont agree with you. It's ATI's job to get sales, not please you or me.


quote:
the issue this generation they have are effective mainstream GPU's. They used the RV530 as a testbed for the 3:1 ratio used in R580, but that GPU wasn't much of an improvement performance wise over Nvidia 6600 GT so their mainstream suffered, though that wasn't suprising.


Exactly, one of the biggest factors of ATI's screwup is THEY HAVE NO MID RANGE PART! How fucking stupid do you have to be to leave that super important market segment EMPTY? VERY. FUCKING. STUPID. I dont care what you do, get a fucking mainstream card that works out.

The reason is the architecture sucks. The 4 TMU's handicap the shit out of X1600XT. The next option is to use R520 dies, which they tried with X1800GTO. Too bad Nvidia is so unbelievably much faster that a 7600 GT with a 128 bit bus and less than half as large destroys a X1800GTO. Not ties, not almost as good for half the size, no, destroys it. Now the 7600GT is selling for $130 and ATI's engineering sucks so bad they dont even try to compete at that market segment/price point, arguably the largest market segment. What a joke. Yeah tell you what guys, we'll just go ahead and leave the mid-range empty, because our architecture sucks so bad we can either use huge dies and lose our shirts financially, or we can use same size dies and get our asses kicked (what happened with X1600XT).

That's bad design, period.

ATI's best cards are still last gen, X800GTO's, X850XT's, those cards are lean and fast and cheap and still ATI's best values today. More proof ATI fucked up royally this generation.

And lets not even get into the huge dies mean a ATI counter to the 7950GX2 is impossible, because it would be so hot and expensive it's not even feasible for ATI. So they lose again due to bad architecture that burns power but doesn't give you extra performance for it.

Absolutely unbelievable.











RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/5/2006 1:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
>>In the discrete desktop segment, Nvidia held 51.5% share and ATI claimed 47.9% share during the period, a slight share increase for the Canadian company.

Your not reading are you?

Nvidia grew discrete mobile segment share from 25.0% in Q1 2006 to 36.7% in Q2 2006. ATI’s segment share fell from 74.6% in Q1 2006 to 63.1% in Q2 2006.

These are the 2 discrete sections which have the largest impact on discrete marketshare.

The terms discrete in my article does cover all GPU that go into a computer as a AIB, IGP's don't count as there Intel holds more marketshare then ATI or Nvidia.

Overall Nvidia and ATI are very comparable, 80% is way dreamed out figure and unless you provide a direct link it's all your guesswork and a very misleading one at that.

Again all the evidence you provide is worthless, HardForum represents mostly enthusiasts and people "in the know", so a small fraction of the market. Tigerdirect is only 1 online retailer.

And the steam survey? At least be consistent, that includes Intel IGP's so there are non discrete units in that share, and if you wanna use those, ATI wins by having 27.6% vs Nvidia's 20.3% with IGP included shares.

So none of what your provided is worth anything.

Of course a when your talking with a Nvidia representative he is going to say bad things about ATI merging with AMD, what did you expect exactly? I have read that link before so I know.

The majority of sales figures don't support your argument, they actually say for laptops it's ATI and for desktops, its Nvidia mildly, and overall it's going to be Intel if you include IGP's. So try again on that front.

Well with the merger to AMD, ATI is in a better financial position then before, but we will have to see on that.

Nvidia's AF algorithm is not as good as ATI's on the G7x generation, there are alot of issues, Nvidia typically takes large hits with AF, as well as having shimmering issues. There is nothing superior about Nvidia's AF this generation.

If you read my post before, Half Life doesn't count becuase of the way I worded my statement. Moving on, OpenEXR HDR + MSAA is quite useful on the games that can use it, it is worth it for the people who want it, as said just becuase you don't care for it doesn't mean other don't want it, ATI can do something now today, that Nvidia can't enhancing image quality, not even the faster 7950GX2 can do it.

Sales figures support my argument as you haven't provided any information that actually supports your argument. ATI is quite competitive in the discrete market, they hold a little less then half of the discrete desktop and a little less then 2/3 of the discrete mobile segement. ATI is still getting plenty of sales despite not doing all that good in the mainstream segement.

X800 GTO's and X850 XT's are pretty damn large dies themsleves, so I don't know if that is so great or whatever, as well they were doing a firesale on R4xx hardware to prepare for R5xx stuff, hence the low prices on that stuff.

They will survive, hence why they are addressing the midrange segement with new more cost effective GPU's based on the 80nm process with the RV570, RV560, RV535 and RV505. They aren't stupid they are aware of their issues and are working to fix them, like the X1950 XTX.

Depends the X1800 GTO was basically the only choice ATI had in the meantime with the dies they had available then the R580, R520 and RV530. They made a concession on the mid range GPU, to test out a high end configuration, and it bit them in the ass a bit when Nvidia introduced a mid range GPU which was 1/2 the G71 instead 1/4 of the R580 like the RV530 is. Luckily that didn't happen till after the X1900's were released.

I am saying some consumers perfer image quality over pure performance, ATI addresses that segement of the market.

You want 80% faster for 80% increase die space with increased feature set? Well sorry not going to happen your asking for the impossible you will not get increased featureset and maintain the same performance efficiency for die area, as a architecture with less. Yes the OpenEXR HDR + MSAA is related to die area, as the ROP's have to be enhanced in order to handle it. Features cost die space, it's a very simple concept. Again what you want isn't relevant, as what you ask can't be done as ATI is preparing for the future this generation.

Geforce 7950GX2 is not a major concern as that is a extreme high end product, so sales are fairly low in this segment. There is also no point this late into the game to do so, just bring in R600.

ATI has done pretty good in the high end this generation with the X1800 XT once it got there, and the X1900 XT and XTX, the mainsteam arenas are left to Nvidia for now.

Increased featuresets are expensive to implement and costs alot of transistors, so having more heat isn't suprising.

As said concessions to performance were made to increase the functionality of the architecture not only for the current generation but for future ones. It's not a bad design, just a design to lay the ground work for future generations is all.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/5/2006 2:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Nvidia grew discrete mobile segment share from 25.0% in Q1 2006 to 36.7% in Q2 2006. ATI’s segment share fell from 74.6% in Q1 2006 to 63.1% in Q2 2006.

These are the 2 discrete sections which have the largest impact on discrete marketshare.

The terms discrete in my article does cover all GPU that go into a computer as a AIB, IGP's don't count as there Intel holds more marketshare then ATI or Nvidia.

Overall Nvidia and ATI are very comparable, 80% is way dreamed out figure and unless you provide a direct link it's all your guesswork and a very misleading one at that.

Again all the evidence you provide is worthless, HardForum represents mostly enthusiasts and people "in the know", so a small fraction of the market. Tigerdirect is only 1 online retailer.

And the steam survey? At least be consistent, that includes Intel IGP's so there are non discrete units in that share, and if you wanna use those, ATI wins by having 27.6% vs Nvidia's 20.3% with IGP included shares.

So none of what your provided is worth anything.


You have points but also not point. The fact Hardocp is enthusiasts really doesn't mean anything, why does that make them anti-ATI? Unless you are saying people in the know prefer Nvidia by huge margins? And that's good why?

But I understand your point, I'm listing a bunch of anecdotal evidence. I agree, I am. But I already told you why: We dont have access to much else. When all the anecdotal evidence tends one way, it starts to get hard to imagine why it's all wrong.

Go look at the steam survey. Latest it's from March 06 to April 06. It's showing 28,000 7800 series cards and 2,000 X1800 and another 2000 X1600. Grand total of 4,000 X1k vs 28,000 7800 class. So in that case, Nvidia commands greatly more than 80% of this generation of cards. And that reporting period is almost done, this cards are head to head competitors for that time period past.

I dont care what your excuses are, how can you look at that discrepancy and not know in your heart ATI is getting killed?

I already told you my definition of discrete. What I mean are cards that somebody goes out and buys. Not IGP, etc. In THOSE CARDS (not sure what they're called, you tell me?) I sincerely believe Nvidia has 80% market share, and I think you probably know it too. And those are really the real battleground anyway, those are where people are making a choice (as opposed to locked into OEM contracts that take great time to shift) and also where profits are highest.

How about this "Nvidia has 88% of SM3 market"

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291...

Again, ATI's current gen numbers are just pitiful in that steam survey. Disgusting. You're going to sit there and tell me they aren't gtting their asses kicked? I'm not sure 80% for Nvidia isn't a low guess!

FACT: ATI's current gen architecture is a huge market failure in all areas. You even agree with me that they're sucking in IGP, mobile, etc. So we're not arguing that. Ad far as I can tell all we're arguing is my assertion that current gen cards Nvidia probably has 80% of the market in add in cards (again, the ones where consumers have a choice).

quote:
The majority of sales figures don't support your argument, they actually say for laptops it's ATI and for desktops, its Nvidia mildly, and overall it's going to be Intel if you include IGP's. So try again on that front.


How can you say this with a straight face? You and I both know ATI is losing momemtum big time in EVERY. MARKET. SEGMENT. Nvidia mildly in desktops..and gaining. ATI in laptops..and losing. Intel: completely irrelevant, please dont bring them up to try to make yourself look better. We're discussing ATI vs Nvidia and only ATI vs Nvidia.

quote:
Nvidia's AF algorithm is not as good as ATI's on the G7x generation, there are alot of issues, Nvidia typically takes large hits with AF, as well as having shimmering issues. There is nothing superior about Nvidia's AF this generation.


Yes, it is. Nvidia does not take a large hit with AF. All benchmarks are typically run with AF on and Nvidia competes very well, thanks. There is no large hit with AF on Nvidia cards. There are alledgedly some shimmering issues but apparantly, people still buy the cards in droves. The people have spoken. ATI has plenty of their own IQ issues. On balance you cannot say ATI has better IQ than Nvidia.

quote:
If you read my post before, Half Life doesn't count becuase of the way I worded my statement. Moving on, OpenEXR HDR + MSAA is quite useful on the games that can use it, it is worth it for the people who want it, as said just becuase you don't care for it doesn't mean other don't want it, ATI can do something now today, that Nvidia can't enhancing image quality, not even the faster 7950GX2 can do it.


What is your argument? That ATI is making the choices consumers dont want and losing market share in every segment? If so, then yes. Sales figures support your argument.


quote:
If you read my post before, Half Life doesn't count becuase of the way I worded my statement. Moving on, OpenEXR HDR + MSAA is quite useful on the games that can use it, it is worth it for the people who want it, as said just becuase you don't care for it doesn't mean other don't want it, ATI can do something now today, that Nvidia can't enhancing image quality, not even the faster 7950GX2 can do it.


Well, we already know it's buggy and irrelevant and only a couple games support it. Beyond that, we only know tha you like it, and that apparantly consumers dont find it a compelling feature in it's current incarnation (as I dont, it's simply not supported enough).

quote:
X800 GTO's and X850 XT's are pretty damn large dies themsleves, so I don't know if that is so great or whatever, as well they were doing a firesale on R4xx hardware to prepare for R5xx stuff, hence the low prices on that stuff.


They were 15% smaller than NV40 dies that they directly competed with, and were generally faster than. The polar opposite of ATI today in other words. How hard is this to understand? THE X850 was a DIRECT COMPETITOR VERSUS 6800 ULTRA. IT WAS SMALLER. IT WAS JUST AS FAST OR FASTER. DO I NEED A FRICKEN DICTIONARY TO GET ACROSS THE MOST BASIC OF FRICKEN CONCEPTS HERE.

quote:
I am saying some consumers perfer image quality over pure performance, ATI addresses that segement of the market.


Who says ATI has better image quality? Proof? Further, it really doesn't matter if MORE consumers prefer cards that are faster with lower IQ. Which we have established, they do by huge numbers.

I guess Ford should come out with a new car that runs very quietly but only gets ten miles to the gallon. Then when consumers stay away from it in droves, Ford can tell them what to think. That they should prefer a smoother ride and quieter engine instead of prefering a car that is still decent in those areas, but also happens to get 30 MPG.

That again and again is the crux of our debate. You are trying to tell me what is "right" or somehow "better" in GPU's. When it's bullshit and down to personal preference. FOR ME AND YOU BUT NOT ATI. ATI BETTER SELL CARDS.

quote:
Depends the X1800 GTO was basically the only choice ATI had in the meantime with the dies they had available then the R580, R520 and RV530. They made a concession on the mid range GPU, to test out a high end configuration, and it bit them in the ass a bit when Nvidia introduced a mid range GPU which was 1/2 the G71 instead 1/4 of the R580 like the RV530 is. Luckily that didn't happen till after the X1900's were released.


Blah blah. Everything I said is exactly correct. Why are you wasting your words? You cannot argue with the obvious truth: ATI doesn't have a good 7600 GT competitor. Because it's one more side effect of the fact their architecture sucks, and is too big to compete in that segment and be cost effective. Period. Please, stop talking about this.


quote:
You want 80% faster for 80% increase die space with increased feature set? Well sorry not going to happen your asking for the impossible you will not get increased featureset and maintain the same performance efficiency for die area, as a architecture with less. Yes the OpenEXR HDR + MSAA is related to die area, as the ROP's have to be enhanced in order to handle it. Features cost die space, it's a very simple concept. Again what you want isn't relevant, as what you ask can't be done as ATI is preparing for the future this generation


WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I'm going to scream.

Preparing for the future..so they'll be a lot faster than Nvidia in the future right?

FUCK NO.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO THEM?



RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/5/2006 3:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
Let me phrase it again.

I dont mean to yell but I'm so tired.

Anyway, lets say, does Nvidia not need to prepare for the future then?

Because it's either: ATI prepared for the future and is therefore a an advantage in the future (unlikely, I'm sure you'll agree) or, preparing for the future really isn't neccesary at all.

In fact, all rumors to date show Nvidia launching the next gen card before ATI. How is this possible if they weren't preparing for the future?

Honestly there are holes in your arguments ten feet wide.


RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/5/2006 10:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go look at the steam survey. Latest it's from March 06 to April 06. It's showing 28,000 7800 series cards and 2,000 X1800 and another 2000 X1600. Grand total of 4,000 X1k vs 28,000 7800 class. So in that case, Nvidia commands greatly more than 80% of this generation of cards. And that reporting period is almost done, this cards are head to head competitors for that time period past.


1. The steam survey doesn't represent sales of graphics cards, of Q2 2006. It represents what is used for Steam and that is all.

2. The figures I listed for discrete are more accurate for what is sold. That includes OEM and Retail sales for the Q2 of 2006, a 3 month segement.

That is only what is being USED during the month of Mar to Apr 2006, not surprising there are alot of 7800's as that has been on the market 10 month prior to the survey vs what 4 or 5 for the X1800 and X1600's. It isn't what is being sold during that month.

quote:
I already told you my definition of discrete. What I mean are cards that somebody goes out and buys. Not IGP, etc. In THOSE CARDS (not sure what they're called, you tell me?) I sincerely believe Nvidia has 80% market share, and I think you probably know it too. And those are really the real battleground anyway, those are where people are making a choice (as opposed to locked into OEM contracts that take great time to shift) and also where profits are highest.


And I already told you what I listed are discrete graphics cards. Your terminology is very poor then, your talking about retail, and that isn't where the most money is to be made, OEM contracts are very important for companies like ATI and Nvidia, as these keep good revenue coming in for both companies. Retail is only a small portion of their sales. It doesn't matter if Nvidia is winning in retail as that is not where most of the revenue is coming from. As long as ATI has revenue coming in from this source they are fine. OEM Revenue is important due to the volume sold there.
I am not going to go into discussing retail marketshare as there are no figures and that is all speculation, total discrete share makes the most sense as it represents sales of all the graphics processors both OEM and Retail.

quote:
How about this "Nvidia has 88% of SM3 market"


Well considering Nvidia has Shader Model 3.0 GPU's since the Geforce 6 Series, I don't find that surprising. This doesn't say anything on how well ATI is doing now though.

quote:
How can you say this with a straight face? You and I both know ATI is losing momemtum big time in EVERY. MARKET. SEGMENT. Nvidia mildly in desktops..and gaining. ATI in laptops..and losing. Intel: completely irrelevant, please dont bring them up to try to make yourself look better. We're discussing ATI vs Nvidia and only ATI vs Nvidia.


I can say this with a straight face because sales of all GPU's are important, actually ATI increased share from Q1 2006 for desktops, so I don't agree with you there, though they did lose some laptop share. I am not trying to bring up Intel to make myself look better, your the one who brought in the steam survey with Intel IGP's in it, in the first place. We are discussing ATi and Nvidia so maybe you should rmeember that and not bring in data that includes Intel like the Steam survey?

quote:
Yes, it is. Nvidia does not take a large hit with AF. All benchmarks are typically run with AF on and Nvidia competes very well, thanks. There is no large hit with AF on Nvidia cards. There are alledgedly some shimmering issues but apparantly, people still buy the cards in droves. The people have spoken. ATI has plenty of their own IQ issues. On balance you cannot say ATI has better IQ than Nvidia.


All benchmarks are typically run with AA and AF, so it's hard to isolate that, as well yes there is if you want to make Nvidia's AF look almost as good as ATI's with their HQ mode which drops performance. ATI does have better image quality in the sections where you can actually use it comfortably, Angle Independent AF and OpenEXR HDR + MSAA.

quote:

What is your argument? That ATI is making the choices consumers dont want and losing market share in every segment? If so, then yes. Sales figures support your argument.


They are making choices consumers want, just not what you want, and as I said ATI gained marketshare in desktops from Q1 to Q2 2006.

quote:

They were 15% smaller than NV40 dies that they directly competed with, and were generally faster than. The polar opposite of ATI today in other words. How hard is this to understand? THE X850 was a DIRECT COMPETITOR VERSUS 6800 ULTRA. IT WAS SMALLER. IT WAS JUST AS FAST OR FASTER. DO I NEED A FRICKEN DICTIONARY TO GET ACROSS THE MOST BASIC OF FRICKEN CONCEPTS HERE.


You need to get your information checked, X850 (R480) is not smaller then NV40. There is no 15% smaller or whatever.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x800xl...

"The R480 is about 18mm by 16.5mm, or 297mm2."
"The NV40 powering NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 cards is about 288mm2."

Overall it is about the same. Nvidia was more feature rich and mildly slower, while ATI was less feature rich and was faster. I already cover this before however.

quote:
Well, we already know it's buggy and irrelevant and only a couple games support it. Beyond that, we only know tha you like it, and that apparantly consumers dont find it a compelling feature in it's current incarnation (as I dont, it's simply not supported enough).


It's works just fine in the games that do support it and quite relevant as it offers a new level of image quality. We know that you don't like it, and some consumers do find it a compelling feature to buy ATI cards.

quote:
Who says ATI has better image quality? Proof? Further, it really doesn't matter if MORE consumers prefer cards that are faster with lower IQ. Which we have established, they do by huge numbers.

I guess Ford should come out with a new car that runs very quietly but only gets ten miles to the gallon. Then when consumers stay away from it in droves, Ford can tell them what to think. That they should prefer a smoother ride and quieter engine instead of prefering a car that is still decent in those areas, but also happens to get 30 MPG.

That again and again is the crux of our debate. You are trying to tell me what is "right" or somehow "better" in GPU's. When it's bullshit and down to personal preference. FOR ME AND YOU BUT NOT ATI. ATI BETTER SELL CARDS.


I don't have to proof image quality to you, as it's already known this generation Nvidia made consession in that department not including OpenEXR HDR + MSAA, as well as having shimmering with their AF.

And from the sales figures of all discrete GPU's I listed ATI is selling product.

quote:
Blah blah. Everything I said is exactly correct. Why are you wasting your words? You cannot argue with the obvious truth: ATI doesn't have a good 7600 GT competitor. Because it's one more side effect of the fact their architecture sucks, and is too big to compete in that segment and be cost effective. Period. Please, stop talking about this.


Everything I said is just fine as it is, I am not wasting my words at all, the Nvidia 7600 GT wasn't an issue till it was released in March of this year, so overall hasn't been around that long. I will continue talking as long as I see fit thanks. The architecture is just fine as it can offer new levels of image quality over Nvidia.

quote:
WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I'm going to scream.

Preparing for the future..so they'll be a lot faster than Nvidia in the future right?

FUCK NO.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO THEM?


You obviously don't understand, they implemented improved dynamic branching and their new ring bus memory controller, and a different ratio of TMU to Pixel Shaders, OpenEXR HDR + MSAA so they won't need to on the R600 and have less on their table to do, they already have alot of experience with it now. I am not saying they will be more competitive in the future as that has yet to be determine. It means they don't have to do as much on the jump to R600 and devote resources elsewhere. Well when you do something that is going to pay off in the future, it hasn't come to pass yet has it? So obvious it isn't going to be doing much now besides providing them with much needed experience in the matter, hence why it's called preparing for the FUTURE.

I think I am arguing quite well, and my arguments are not full of any holes, on the contrary, you seem to be talking but not receiving.

The G80 is rumored to be coming out, somewhat earlier, but is rumored to be less of a leap forward as they are going to a hybrid design, as opposed to R600 which will be a unfied design. We will have to see how it performs. R600 has more potential due to additonal time as well as what we have already seen implemented on R580, so they are free to do other things with it, less on their plate since alot of the work is already done.


RE: RV560=interesting
By littlebitstrouds on 9/5/2006 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I get it... If he posts a long post, and I post one longer, than my epeen must be larger.

No offense, and I love this stuff just as much as the other guy, but did we really need to type out THAT long of an arguement. Exchange numbers, call eachother, you're novel's are causeing firefox to take .15 more seconds to load this page.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/7/2006 7:03:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, here's to recap since we're not gonna change opinions:

R580 is 80% bigger than G71.

Yet it is only a few percent faster at best.

The limiting factor appears to be a stupid decision to not provide enough TMU's by ATI, thereby artificially crippling a MUCH faster card.

This further causes issues such as a severe gap in ATI's lineup at mid-range for months on end.

ATI is getting killed in all sales, particularly at retail.

In all past generations, both players were within a few percent of each other in size, yet ATI was often faster.

ATI should be at least 80% faster than Nvidia in all benchmarks if they simply approached past efficiency. This would have been a victory unprecedented in video card history and cause drastic market losses for Nvidia. However, ATI tossed that opportunity in the garbage by artificially crippling their own cards.

ATI was supposedly "preparing for the future", yet they will likely be tardy yet again with their next card relative to Nvidia, and nobody has any clue which will be faster either. Therefore, ATI's advantage by "preparing for the future" is likely zero. Therefore, they simply wasted tons of silicon, millions of dollars in sales, tens of percents of market share, by artificially and stupidly TMU limiting their cards because they were extremely shortsighted.

The end.






RE: RV560=interesting
By Soccerman06 on 9/11/2006 1:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Lets put it this way, if you make an engine twice as big as a 4 cylinder (V8 or I8, whichever) and only double the CU of the engine and gasoline intake, it wont have twice the HP. It wont go twice as fast, it wont get twice the economy, ect. Due to friction and other things you cant get that kind of performance.

There are other limiting factors when it comes to increasing performance with chip design. Dont you think that ATI would have thought about adding more TMUs if it would increase performance by "40%"? Things just dont end up that way.


RE: RV560=interesting
By z3R0C00L on 9/13/2006 11:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
Sharky.. stop acting like a retarded fanboi. You're acting like Sharikou PHd.

The reason for the large die size when comparing an x1900 series vs a 7900 series is more features and more pixel shading power.

7900 series is old, it's mainly just a 7800 card shrunk and it's clockspeed increased. It's one bonus is SLI which is better then Crossfire (save for when using AA and AF).

The ATi x8x0 series was inferior to the nVIDIA 6x00 series. It's not all about die size and it's not all about speed. There's more to it then that. I just wish kiddies would understand.

x19x0 sales have increased dramatically since the Core 2 Duo launch (thanks in large part to the x1900XT which is often twice as fast as a 7900GT despite being in the same relative price range).

Anyways.. it's irrelevant. Nobody should be buying anymore of these GPU's. Especially not an x1950XTX or the 7950GX2. DX10 is right around the corner.


horse cars
By barjebus on 8/28/2006 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
AGP on a high end card is like buying a Hummer and then using horses to move it around....a waste :P




RE: horse cars
By sotti on 8/28/2006 4:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
except that a highend card in an AGP system actually is just as fast.

who knew?


RE: horse cars
By lemonadesoda on 8/28/2006 5:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
I knew... ;-P

I'm running four s478 systems with AGP. Northwood, HyperThread, 2GB, x800 (Pro). No matter what people say, the cost of upgrading all 4, and the time involved in reinstalling 4 machines, is prohibitive. I would like 4 slot in solutions. Driver install. Job finished.

After reviewing published benchmarks, and doing my own analysis, it is also clear that in 99% of the cases, the limiting factor is the x800 performance, but not the AGP, not the memory, not the CPU.

What I would really like the market to offer is the following "legacy" AGP solution:

1./ 2 DVI outputs (for driving 2 TFTs)
2./ Dual link DVI (for driving a Hi-res TFT)
3./ More horsepower than the X800pro (and I'd be happy with the X1800 performance which is sufficient)

The nearest I've found that covers these specs is the ATI FireGL X3 (except for the extra horsepower). But they are devilishly expensive.


RE: horse cars
By GNStudios on 8/28/2006 5:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
AGP is not THAT bad...


RE: horse cars
By lemonadesoda on 8/28/2006 5:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
AGP vs. PCIe16?

While PCIe16 allows much higher bandwidth, most SLI solutions (apart from the lastest boards) work with 2 PCIe8 lanes, some even at PCIe4, which is only HALF the bandwidth of AGP!

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2814

It doesn't affect overall performance a lot? Why?

Because when you have 256MB+ on the card, most of the textures are already loaded into the card. The FPS limitation is based on RENDERING capability, and not the upload of coordinates, vertices and shader instructions via the AGP/PCIe.

The difference between AGP and PCIe16 is therefore only about the speed it takes to load new textures from mainboard RAM, to GPU RAM.

And guess what? Most of these textures, if not already in GPU RAM, ARE NOT in mainboard RAM either and need to be lifted from the HDD.

So the "stutter" you see during some game is not going to be improved, since the textures need to be pulled from HDD. The HDD to mainboard interconnect is the limiting factor.

Furthermore, for most CAD work, you will see no difference between AGP and PCIe16.

Although I think it is a shame there are no longer any decent AGP solutions out there, I'm not against PCIe. I think it is a significant step forward from a technology and cost-to-manufacture standpoint (much cheaper to produce, hence mainboards and products should be cheaper in the long run)


RE: horse cars
By lemonadesoda on 8/28/2006 5:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nice bandwidth comparison chart, FYI http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/3dws/product...


RE: horse cars
By dOOMYLEIN on 8/28/2006 6:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent reply! The bus itself doesn't have more than 5% contribution to playability. Main issue with PCI-E vs AGP is the fact that the fastest videocards released today are PCI-E only.


RE: horse cars
By KayKay on 8/28/2006 9:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
People who made the choice to stick with an AGP system should not be whining about companies not releasing new AGP cards, they made their choice and should understand the consequences of their choice


RE: horse cars
By lemonadesoda on 8/29/2006 9:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
You great big noodle . The next useless thing you are going to say is that HDD manufacturers should stop making IDE and SATA HDD's and only produce SATA2, and network cards, hubs and routers should not be compatible with 10/100 but all be 1000, and that all video cards should have HDMI outputs and stop using VGA and DVI connectors. And that all new TFT screens should accept HDMI only. And that all memory formats other than DDR3 should be banned. And that DVD burners should be incompatible with CD.

Yawn. What rubbish.


RE: horse cars
By SyK on 8/31/2006 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you say to a degree; I spend MOST of my time retro-engineering older ( COBOL/FORTRAN... -_- ) systems to be modern, and yes, reverse compatibility is always an issue.

However! You have to phase out the old eventually, correct?

And given that graphics cards are very much a high-end product (Or why would we not all be using on-board?) and that any non-most-recent-gaming-or-HD-video use really does not require anything more than a 4 or even 5 year old AGP card, and would require a system beyond the platforms capable of supporting such, where's the problem?

Yes, DDR (To an extent), DVD, 100Mb Ethernet, and SATA-1 all have their places, as do ALL legacy formats... (Even 10Mb, PATA and ISA have their places in places)

But AGP, as a slot for a card which was from the beginning optional and only designed for high-performance, has well and truly had its day, please let it die peacefully.


RE: horse cars
By SyK on 8/31/2006 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are making a HUGE assumption in assuming that most programmers are SHIT to the point of needing most textures to load from the HDD...

Please provide ANY evidence?


R600
By GNStudios on 8/28/2006 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
This is getting annoying. I've been waiting for the R600 for months now and they don't even mention it. Is two year old technology all the can offer?




RE: R600
By hwhacker on 8/28/2006 5:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
That that, good sir, I ask you about G80.

Where is it? When's it coming positively? What are the specs/clocks? Don't know? Me neither.
Now ask yourself how old is the GF7 series...June 2005, essentially when the R5xx generation was planned for had they not screwed up the tape out. They're the same age, so there really is no way you can complain at either company, as they seem to be on a fairly similar launch schedule (1 1/2 years).

As for the post a few above:

Well...The 7950 is essentially a replacement for both the 7900gt and 7900gtx by using a lower-clocked GTX at $300 (as the gx2 replaces the GTX's price)

The x1900pro is a x1900gt with slightly higher stock clocks, probably still using the same memory pushed to the edge, so think of it as just a cheaper-produced replacement for ATi overclocked at stock. Remember we still don't know if these 80nm chips overclock any better.

I don't think it's far-fetched to believe the 7950 will probably be a faster card, as the 7900gt, let-alone the gtx is faster than a x1900gt, but that's immaterial as they are $100 apart in price. The important thing to realize is that the x1900gt will bring high-level performance to the <$200 range, so now cheap-ass gamers can have a great card that includes HDR+AA, with perhaps being more efficient (power/heat-wise) than the x1900gt to boot.


RE: R600
By MrDiSante on 8/29/2006 11:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're the same age, so there really is no way you can complain at either company, as they seem to be on a fairly similar launch schedule (1 1/2 years).


I'll just complain at both companies if you don't mind.


RE: R600
By Sharky974 on 9/1/2006 5:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
I love how half the people in these comments complain that "they come out with a new video card every two months."

Then the other half complain that it's "two year old technology" (whatever that means).

How bout stop whining.


RE: R600
By Sharky974 on 9/1/2006 5:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
I know this because just last week it seems like I was telling a dailytech commentator that no, the X1950XTX is not really a new card, it's a minor revision of an old card. Because he was complaining about that.

Now here we see some guy complaining the reverse (wich isn't really true either, since R580 was a pretty massive change from R520).



RE: R600
By coldpower27 on 9/2/2006 10:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the R520 to R580 refresh, while better then a clockspeed bump is not a major refresh where the functionality of the units on the die are given a major overhaul.

All that happened on the R520 to R580 refresh is that the number of pixel shader units have been increased, which brought about a nice boost in performance, but no increase in fuctionality.

X1950 XTX is a clockspeed bump refresh of the X1900 XTX, with only memory clockspeed increase, the performance has increased a bit, but not awedropping alot. Like, the FX5900 Ultra to FX 5950 Ultra, or X800 XT PE to X850 XT PE, better then those but same idea.

Alof of people are waiting on the R600 and G80 generation as they should bring overhauls to the unit functionalities in additon to increased performance.

Though we will have to see how much performance increase they bring because functionality typically uses alot of die space, and while Nvidia has a decent bit to work with, ATI does not even with the shrink to the 80nm process.


If it's not DX10, keep it in your warehouse ATI
By FXi on 8/28/2006 8:54:35 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry but by the holidays there needs to be DX10. 1 month before Vista, I'm not buying last years news refreshed.

They will be sorely dissappointed if this is their only holiday lineup...




By splines on 8/28/2006 10:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I'm not sure how mind-blowing these DX10 cards are going to be. I'm sure they'll run DX9 games fine (with the usual linear increase in processing power and so forth) - but DX10 performance is going to be the selling point, and I can't see the first generation being all that fantastic. Give it six months to a year, see how Crysis performs (personally, I think it's going to murder just about anything that wants to really turn up the pretty, much like Oblivion has done to DX9 cards) and then consider the purchase.

I'm certainly not trading up from the GF7 series until the gains are worth the expense.


By biohazard420420 on 8/29/2006 12:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Ok here is something I have never understood. What is the point of moving to DX10 and Vista right when it comes out. First off in regards to any MS product (I am a windows only user no experience with Mac or Linux) I see NO need to move to a new OS with a year or several from its release. I don't care how "secure" Vista is supposed to be but I can probally safely say that XP will be more secure and stable than Vista for at least 6 months or longer.

There all always problems, hole, bugs whatever you want to call them with a new MS OS. Heck I didn't even upgrade to XP from Win 98 until 2003 or 2004 and then only because I had to get a new hard drive. New and forthcoming games will still work on XP for the foreseeable future (at least 2 to 4 years maybe with out all the super cool flashy stuff but they will still run with most if not all current flasy stuff)

And as far as DX 10 in concerened, again it is the same thing as before, the new flashy bells and whistles that come with a new API are not really that big of a deal IMO. Would I like all the new visual effects and "bling" if you will, but I also am not going to pay out the nose for it either. With the exception of a few games Halo 2 and Crysis the only 2 examples I can think of off hand alot of new games wont be 100% DX 10 optimized. And even so they will run in DX 9 fine without the new DX10 features and even if you get a new DX10 card and continue to run XP they will still run the new games and make them look good and maybe even a bit faster than on DX10 since your not computing the new "bling" in DX10

I have been running the same rig for about 5 or 6 years with the exception of a new vid card I got from a friend for cheap and the aformentioned HDD and it will run most current games just fine for me until I upgrade my pc with a total rebuild in the next 4 to 6 months.



By poohbear on 8/29/2006 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
the only thing i care about is a vid card that runs the unreal 3 engine well since there are 10+ games using that engine.


By coldpower27 on 9/2/2006 10:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its is very likely graphics cards from the R300 generation and up can run the Unreal Engine 3.0.

They jsut won't run the game at maximum levels. Sorta like how the source engine has pathways for DX7.0, DX 8.0, DX 8.1 and DX 9.0

Same thing here, Shader Model 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 pathways are likely going to be available.


DX10 cards?
By vailr on 8/28/2006 5:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I'm mistaken, ATI's position (as well as NVIDIA's) on DX10 cards seems to be: "We can't announce or release any DX10 cards until Microsoft finalizes Vista-RTM" (release to manufacturing); which won't happen until October, or even later. And, there'll be no DX10 update for WinXP.




RE: DX10 cards?
By RussianSensation on 8/28/2006 7:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
AGP users have been told for over 6 months and more on the forums to sell their hardware before it would significantly drop in price (not to mention adoption of DDR2 across all platforms would mean a demise for DDRI shortly). There also have been talks of Intel coming out with something really powerful to regain the lead for a long time.

I had an AGP system and I knew I had to act. In June, I sold my P4 2.6ghz, 512mb ram, Abit IS7 and Radeon 8500mb for $250 US, right before Intel announced massive price drops on their cpus, and AMD also followed with A64. Most average Joes have no idea about the computer market so selling P4 3.0ghz should have been a breeze given the ghz myth that still largely persists.

Now I can easily get A64 x2 4200+ and a PCIe motherboard for $250. Sometimes it's just smarter to take cut your losses and spend a little $ to upgrade as was the case with AGP to PCIe. It's just unfortunate that the adoption to PCIe was almost "forced" rather that due to tangible performance differences.


RE: DX10 cards?
By poohbear on 8/29/2006 12:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
or just buy the asrock dualsata2 mobo w/ agp & pci-e, best of both worlds. i still have my agp 6800gt and plan to upgrade in winter to a pci-e 7950gt.:) got my opty 144 overclocked to a sweet 2600mhz.:)


RE: DX10 cards?
By rcc on 8/30/2006 5:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did they actually get a full performance version of this feature working? The first boards released in a dual (AGP/PCI-E) configuration were nothing more that a 2x PCI slot reconfigured to look like AGP to the video board.


RE: DX10 cards?
By SyK on 8/31/2006 3:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
No.

There remains no way to get full-quality multi-platform performance at such low, low budgets.

But if you're desperate to save $50 whilst spending $1000+ on a new system there's nothing better than "ASRock"...


Higher perfromance than 7900GT
By hstewarth on 8/28/2006 4:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we know why NVidia has 7950GT for $300. It would be interesting to find out which one one is faster the 7950GT or this 1950Pro.




RE: Higher perfromance than 7900GT
By CrystalBay on 8/28/2006 5:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
The X1950Pro is slated for 199.00 and is 256MB, compared to the 300.00 550MGhz 512MB 7950GT.


RE: Higher perfromance than 7900GT
By hstewarth on 8/30/2006 11:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
I did not see any price mention for 1950pro. It is likely closer to 7900GS anyway.. the 7950GT has more memory and should be a lot faster. Of course NVidia could always come with slightly slower and lower memory 7950GS ( or something like that also ).


By coldpower27 on 9/2/2006 10:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
Or simply keep the 7900 GT around if need be.


DX10
By SixFour on 8/28/2006 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
No mention of DX10 support. Wil1 it even be possible for current gen cards to support DX10?




RE: DX10
By GhandiInstinct on 8/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: DX10
By Tsuwamono on 8/28/2006 7:29:04 PM , Rating: 1
Even though the R600 is going to demolish the G80.. i think the G80 will be released first mate. Isnt that the first full DX10 card that means?


RE: DX10
By GhandiInstinct on 8/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: DX10
By coldpower27 on 9/2/2006 10:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
We acutally don't know if the R600 will kill the G80 at all at this point, while it should be somewhat faster due to being release later, at this point it's too early to have performance expecatations.

Unified Shaders isn't a gurantee, that R600 will prevail.


RE: DX10
By Wolfpup on 9/7/2006 7:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Neither the 360 nor Playstation 3 have Direct X 10 GPUs.


WTH?
By Josh7289 on 8/28/2006 8:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Radeon X1650XT will be based on ATI’s upcoming RV560 core that like the RV570 is an 80nm part. It will also have 8 pipelines with 24 pixel shaders and go up against NVIDIA’s GeForce 7900GS.


The 7900GS is a $200 20 pipeline card and it is supposed to compete against the X1650XT, an 8 pipeline card? At the same price (since they [I]are[/I] competing), I don't care how high the clocks are on the X1650XT, I'm sure most people would agree that the 7900GS is the much better card.




RE: WTH?
By Anh Huynh on 8/28/2006 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
7900GS has 20 pixel shaders, not pipelines. The current generation of graphics cards are decoupled as in pixel pipelines and pixel shaders are no longer 1:1. The X1650XT has more pixel shaders.


RE: WTH?
By coldpower27 on 8/29/2006 5:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
You can't really compare ATI and Nvidia directly on pipeline counts any more.

The 7900 GS though is too powerful to go against the X1650 XT, that card was designed as a 7600 GT killer, which it likely will but not the 7900 GS, expect ATI to simply shift the X1650 XT downward and let the X1950 Pro defeat the 7900 GS.



My 2 cents in this ongoing flame war.
By aweigh on 9/11/2006 6:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've been using NVIDIA for years and I finally had it with their terrible IQ this generation of cards, specifically the issues with their AF, their texture crawling and shimmering. I want AF I can turn on that doesn't make my textures shimmer and crawl like crazy, so my next card is going to be ATI.

And, I also want HDR+AA, because it is fast becoming a common feature in games. A few so far are: Oblivion, Call of Juarez, Far Cry, Splinter Cell 3, and a few others. This is something I'm looking forward to once I get my ATI card, and no, games aren't "buggy" with HDR+AA turned on, that's just a myth propagated by blind NVIDIA fanboys.

I think "sharky" needs to take a step back and analyse his arguments a bit more.




By aweigh on 9/11/2006 6:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
There is one point I'll concede to sharky, and it's that ATI didn't push a mid-range $200 part this half-generation, and NVIDIA who dominated the last mid-range with the 6600GT is once again doing it with the 7600GT/7900GS.

However, if ATI prices their new X1950Pro at $199 - $225, then I take it back. And I'll buy it, of course. As it is right now, I'll probably go with the X1900GT as soon as I see it hit the below $200 mark, which should be just before the new parts arrive.


By TheBeagle on 8/30/2006 8:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
I would be interested in buying one of these new X1650 boards IF it will support MMC 9.15 software. I bought a Radeon X1300 board several months ago only to learn (the hard way) that MMC software will NOT load with that board installed. Does anyone know if that same problem will exist with these upcoming boards?




No DX10
By beepandbop on 8/30/2006 10:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
No mention of DX10 and if ATi's gunna pull what nVidia has and made power consumption turned into a hog. Though they probably have.
I haven't really see any true R600, as I believe that is the architecture supporting the DX10 card.




R600
By FXi on 9/5/2006 8:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yep notice the gap. No R600 till 2007 at the earliest. AMD and ATI make a good pair. They are late for everything.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles
Off to Games Convention
August 23, 2006, 4:07 PM
ATI Readies X1950, X1900XT 256MB
August 22, 2006, 1:13 AM
More ATI RV550 Details
July 31, 2006, 1:31 PM
ATI's Single-PCB Dual-GPU Plans
June 25, 2006, 12:31 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki