R600 and ATI's Future-The cold hard facts

blade85

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2006
1,426
0
19,280
and you are???

also the very first bit: "ATI was already the distant 2nd place finisher for 3 generations running (6800, 7800, 8800)"

sooo what was the x1900xt doing?? i agree with the 8800 being superior...but the 7800 and 6800 to the x1900???

what planet are you living on?
 

No1sFanboy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2006
633
0
18,980
TBH I haven't yet read you're whole post. I got far enough to read the incorrect statement about ATI being behind for 3 generations and you're credibility was lost at that point.
Yes I'm disappointed in ATI right now but I absolutely believe they can turn that around.
 

asdasd123

Distinguished
May 22, 2006
71
0
18,630
I really doubt Ati/Amd would fall waaay behind competition. They're still making sales in the mid and low end segment of the market where all the money's at. And I hear the reason for the development delays is cos they're too busy with the xbox360 graphics chips.
 

slashzapper

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
737
0
18,980
i agree :lol: this is a funny post hahahaha

i mean dude , this guy dosent know shit about the computer industry hahahah

and oh yeah ..STFU AND DIE TOAD :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
ATi actually had the superior product in comparison to the Geforce 6 and 7 series, but they've never been as good as marketing their product the way Nvidia does.
 

Farhang

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2007
549
0
18,980
The problem with competitive technology industries like GPUs is that when you fall behind consistently, you tend to keep falling behind and may even fall further behind. It's just not that easy to suddenly reverse course and switch gears, if you have a bad design, you might be stuck with it awhile. Just look at how long Intel was stuck with P4/Netburst, it took them years to follow up with Core 2. Intel was the dominant market leader and had all the OEMs to themselves, so they could afford to be screwed for years on end and have the time for developing a competitive design.

DAAMIT do not have that luxury. ATI was already the distant 2nd place finisher for 3 generations running (6800, 7800, 8800) mainly because they were so late with a competitive part all 3 generations. Nvidia doesn't have any interest in slowing down and waiting for ATI to catch up, so they are happily developing G90 which is rumored to have 192 SPs and be in the 700-800mhz range in clockspeed at 65nm. Nvidia might even stick with GDDR3 if they can get it up to 1200-1300 (2400-2600 DDR) as the new architecture that started with G80 is not particularly memory bandwidth intensive.

ATI is now in a very deep hole. Their part is highly inefficient and provides very poor performance per watt, especially when you consider that G80 is still at the 90nm process node and still runs cooler and uses less power even though it is a bigger die size than R600. Nvidia has delivered a part with a very innovative design that runs the SPs at a much higher clock than the core, resulting in needing fewer SPs and therefore their transition to 65nm will result in a smaller die than ATI's, improving yields further. Nvidia's part has a very efficient render backend and ROP/TMU design that gives essentially free trilinear and anistropic, which ATI's part is struggling with, and at a higher IQ. ATI also need to fix whatever problems they are having with their ROP/TMU design to bring MSAA back on board where it should be, instead of sapping performance by being done in shaders.

Overall Nvidia is in a very good position, as they pretty much hit every performance and IQ goal they had with the G80 design. ATI has a lot of work to do at the drawing board, which will result in further delays and put them further behind. At this point they might not have the R6x0 refresh part out before Nvidia has an entire new generation out in G90, and being a whole generation behind could be a deathblow for DAAMIT as they are also struggling to get Barcelona out and have it be competitive with Penryn.

The big advantage that R600 theoretically had over G80 was the enormous shader transistor budget. G90 is rumored to have a ton of shader power increase over G80 if the 192 SP thing is to be believed, which will negate the only big theoretical advantage R600 had outside of the completely unnecessary and probably expensive excess memory bandwidth. R600 is so much weaker than G80 in basic rendering design such as geometry setup, actual fillrate (even though the 512-bit memory bus and 1024-bit ring bus gives it a massive theoretical advantage), texture filtering, and AA that it's almost unbelievable that DAAMIT would have released it in the state it got released in except that we know that DAAMIT was already 6 months late and had to get something, anything out the door, plus financially DAAMIT is staring into the abyss.

Nvidia designed a powerful, efficient, balanced architecture with G80 and they can easily ride it for the next 2 years just with die shrinks and slapping more SPs onto it and clocking it into the stratosphere. ATI is in a big hole here, not unlike the big hole AMD is staring at with Barcelona versus Penryn, and they need to do something and it needs to be miraculous if they want to catch up with Nvidia now. Being a whole generation behind is the worst thing imaginable in the technology industry.
...And who the F.U.C.K. are you?
Lets take a look at previews generations:
X1900/X1950series > 7900/7950series (except that for 7950GX2 at high-resolutions!)
X800/X850series > 6800series (BTW it's not fair cause X800/X850series does not support Shader Model3.0 but i rather have an X850XT PE than 6800Ultra)
9800series > FX series
What planet are you living on?
On a planet called ROB & Friends!
...This guy doesn't know **** about the computer industry...
Obviously he doesn't know the difference between popcorn & graphics cards!
 

sstteevvee

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2007
26
0
18,530
I seem to remember the geforce 6 series being far and away better than the initial lineup of ati cards. I remember the 6800gt wiped the floor with even the best ati card in doom 3 for example and if you wanted to get good performance out of doom 3 and half life 2 which were the big games at the time, ati seemed to be suggesting you should use different drivers for the different games which having just spent ages trying to install drivers for an x1950 might have been even more awkward than it sounds. And i think the 6600gt was also a lot better than anything ati had competing with it for ages.

Of course, this is before Ati flooded the market with so many different models with different and seemingly random combinations of letters that i lost track, and i believe they carried on developing and releasing that series of cards longer than nvidia did with the 6 series so they were probably better in the end (by which i mean essentially when they were no longer the latest generation), but certainly not to begin with when i was researching what to buy (about 6months after gf6 launched).

And from what i have read i would agree that the geforce 7900s were probably weaker than the x1900, but i seem to remember the 7800 pretty much got away without much competition for a long time.
 

sstteevvee

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2007
26
0
18,530
i believe the x850xtpe was released a long time after the 6800ultra and the 6800u was better than the card it was launched alongside - the x800xt and a more limited (edition wise) x800xtpe which should perhaps be compared with the 6800u extreme if any of those were ever actually made in the end. and with a real comparison like this even the 6800gt beat the best ati card in some games (doom 3 for example)

comparing the 6800u to an x850xtpe is like comparing a 7800 to an x1900

edit: i should probably add though that i also stopped really listening after this "statement of fact" wording about the 3 generations even though i only really disagree with the middle generation, and that the post in general seems a bit... flamey (and a bit borrowed)
 

Belinda

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2004
245
0
18,680
ATi actually had the superior product in comparison to the Geforce 6 and 7 series, but they've never been as good as marketing their product the way Nvidia does.
I'll agree to that. Intel had their ding ding ding intel inside, which sold them a bundle of duff chips for a few years. Nvidia has their catchy out of breath "Nvidia" thingomebobwhatchamecallit, which also sells a bundle. Ati have a sticker for cases and errr Amd have errr also a sticker.
Just goes to show spending millions on advertising on tv etc can turn into good sales.
Can't see the average parent going to the PC shop with the Ati and Amd names stuck in their minds from seeing stickers on PC cases.
 

snowysnowcones

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2006
55
0
18,630
ATi actually had the superior product in comparison to the Geforce 6 and 7 series, but they've never been as good as marketing their product the way Nvidia does.
Yup, totally correct. And being late doesn't help much either. Infact, I almost dare to say, you'd be better off releasing a slightly inferior product that's 4-6 months ahead of the competition, because it's the best at the time, and that's what people buy for. Most people don't card if there will be a card that out performs it by 10% 5 months from the competitors release.
 

sstteevvee

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2007
26
0
18,530
i dunno though, ati got their big red badge at the start of hl2 didnt they? I was thinking about all the hl2 fans who would have been impressed by that, but then i remembered about all the cs nerds too :eek:

j/k though, i generally agree about the marketing, especially intel. somehow they've taken it so far that other people stop right in the middle of their own adverts to advertise for intel!
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
I seem to remember the geforce 6 series being far and away better than the initial lineup of ati cards. I remember the 6800gt wiped the floor with even the best ati card in doom 3 for example and if you wanted to get good performance out of doom 3 and half life 2 which were the big games at the time, ati seemed to be suggesting you should use different drivers for the different games which having just spent ages trying to install drivers for an x1950 might have been even more awkward than it sounds. And i think the 6600gt was also a lot better than anything ati had competing with it for ages.

Of course, this is before Ati flooded the market with so many different models with different and seemingly random combinations of letters that i lost track, and i believe they carried on developing and releasing that series of cards longer than nvidia did with the 6 series so they were probably better in the end (by which i mean essentially when they were no longer the latest generation), but certainly not to begin with when i was researching what to buy (about 6months after gf6 launched).

And from what i have read i would agree that the geforce 7900s were probably weaker than the x1900, but i seem to remember the 7800 pretty much got away without much competition for a long time.
The Geforce 6 series did outperform the X800 series in Doom3 by a decent margin, but the X800 series took Half-Life2, Far Cry, and just about every other Direct X9 game.
 

sstteevvee

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2007
26
0
18,530
i didnt like how farcry performed on my 6800gt actually, but i tried it again after the 4th patch had been released and it was a lot better. I think by that time it had made more use of the technologies that the ati cards didnt have. Just an aside though really since i can easily believe the x800s were better in farcry for a good while. So it would be unfair for me to count the performance boost which i think occured when those series of cards were old anyway.

for me there were really 2 games that needed to be looked at when deciding. nvidia was streets ahead in doom 3 and a little behind in hl2. Wanting to play both and the graphics being more important in doom3 since hl2 was a better game, i went nvidia. The extra technologies were mostly just a small bonus.
 

C26000

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2007
23
0
18,510
you are just running around the same point of previous generations why don't you discuss the point that he was trying to make with the current generation. I don't know anything about this so I don't have anything to say.
 

caskachan

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2006
260
0
18,780
Well, while i dont see ati going down as fast as the opening poster claims, i do find mytself discouraged against ATI , i currently work as hardware analist and reviewer here in my city, i work for 4 oem resellers, well not exactly work but they give me green flag on whatever hardware i want to test, and i review it and then i give them the rundown on price/performance so that they can sell the cheapest faster/ more reliable hardware as mainstream and also can sell the best fastest hardware at a better price (and avoid selling 9200 or mx440 at 80 bucks and rip ppl off)

so yeha im disapointed in the r600 as well, having followed its development, knowing they had to re code things in order for them to work and resort to old technologies its noticeable,

what is worse perhaps its that since last years Oems here in mexico stoped using ati products as mainstream, nvidia products are cheaper than ati down here, by a 10-20% margin, which makes oems buy nvidia products even more..

i do hope ati can pull itself together and release something soon, i know they wont go down and out of business, but it just feels they had a whole 2 years and came up with a faster version of their last gen cards
 

Farhang

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2007
549
0
18,980
i believe the x850xtpe was released a long time after the 6800ultra and the 6800u was better than the card it was launched alongside - the x800xt and a more limited (edition wise) x800xtpe which should perhaps be compared with the 6800u extreme if any of those were ever actually made in the end. and with a real comparison like this even the 6800gt beat the best ati card in some games (doom 3 for example)

comparing the 6800u to an x850xtpe is like comparing a 7800 to an x1900
Hey Steve, time does not have anything to do with the competitors!
As you can see the 8800GTS's competitor comes 6 months after that & 8800GTX's competitor hasn't born yet!(HD2900XTX or HD2950XTX i guess)
So i guess comparing X850 with 6800 is not like 7800GT to X1900. :roll:
And DOOM3 was designed for 6800series, so there is nothing special about outperforming the X800/X850 series in DOOM3 cause the X800/X850 series owned the 6800series in other titles such as FarCry,Half-Life 2,Need For Speed Underground II and etc.
and you joined here just so you could post crap, we do not need your kind on these forums. take your trash elsewhere.
Agree with SS. :trophy:
Spartas needs to go to ROB's Forums!
...However, in regards to what I was saying as to how things are now (in the Present) and how things could turn out in the future if ATI keeps slipping are 100% correct.
We don't need some "The-Future" thread in this forums. :roll:
BTW, There is no freedom of speach here!!!!!!!!!! :p
 

morerevs

Distinguished
May 19, 2007
373
0
18,780
Well sorry i didn't see the similarities in the names there. Faceless rebel... Spartas... easily mixed up. Don't know what i was thinking there :p
 

Arklon

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2007
92
0
18,630
"ATI was already the distant 2nd place finisher for 3 generations running"...? These aren't cold, hard facts, it's just nVidiocy.
 

oldscotch

Distinguished
May 28, 2007
90
0
18,630
and you joined here just so you could post crap, we do not need your kind on these forums. take your trash elsewhere.


I joined here to post my view. Freedom of speech anyone? :roll: If you cant handle the obvious facts and it brings you to such lows as telling me to PLEASE STFU AND DIE!!!!!! then I suggest you stop reading it.


Some of what I said about the past between Nvidia and ATI may not be 100% accurate as others have pointed out. However, in regards to what I was saying as to how things are now (in the Present) and how things could turn out in the future if ATI keeps slipping are 100% correct.

Only a die hard fanboy would say otherwise.

After lurking for so long, this thread finally brings out a post from me.

You titled the thread "the cold hard facts", and went on to post a lot of disinformation. Now you're trying to defend yourself by saying it's your "opinion". Freedom of Speech does not apply to slander. Did you honestly think that on a board for hardware enthusiasts that you'd not get called out on that, especially when you've provided nothing to back yourself up?
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Yawn. For a post that claims to have the hard facts, there's a whole lot of propeganda and spin going on there, lad.

If your flagrant assumptions were true, Nvidia would never have recovered from the dismal FX series with the successful 6x00 series. I could point out more inconsistancy, but why bother? From what I can see that was the crux of your argument, and I just put it in the crapper. Besides, people seem to have you pegged pretty accurately...
 

morerevs

Distinguished
May 19, 2007
373
0
18,780
You're confusing the r600, wich is the entire series based on this core, with the hd2900xtx, wich was going to be the topcard for this series.The hd2900XTX was meant to compete with the 8800GTX, While the currently released hd2900XT (note the missing X) is competing with the 8800 GTS
The XTX was a failure apparently and might be released at a later date likely on a 65nm core. Only then will ATI/AMD have released their topcard and not before.
 

sstteevvee

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2007
26
0
18,530
I know this is only a really minor part of the op, but time has everything to do with it. the 6800s had direct competitors at the time and the nvidia cards were better. the ati cards didnt own in hl2, they were just a little better, until hdr came along and then the 6 series was better in hl2 games too. however the 6 series was LOTS better in doom 3. A geforce 6800gt allowed me to play both games at 1280x1024 4AA8AF and be smooth. Even the top ati card wouldnt have allowed me to do this. Later on, when nvidia are making geforce 7 cards ati release some cards that will beat the geforce 6 cards, but of course they will, they should have been competing with the geforce 7 cards because like i said the nvidia cards already had direct competitors. While the geforce 6 cards were the latest, they were better than the competition, but then later on ati made some more cards and called them x850s or whatever. Thing is by this time the geforce 6 series was old. this is a big difference, otherwise you might as well compare things with 3dfx cards and say how crappy they were. When the cards were new nvidia > ati, but ati extended the lifetime of that range of cards so today most x850s you can find will be better than 6800s. So what, so the x series lasted longer than the 6 series, when they were both current, 6 series was better. I judging cards when they are relevant is a better judge of which series is better than taking a snapshot a year later when one side has just beefed up its range because its initial offerings were poor, and the other side has moved on already.

If nvidia had belatedly released a 5980 or something that's say slightly better than the best radeon 9800 was, while ati was releasing the x800s and nvidia was about to release the geforce 6 series, would the geforce 5s suddenly have been better than the 9000s as a series? Or for that matter nvidia could just release an 8600, call it a 7600xtxlsgto-PE++ or something, and all of a sudden the geforce 7 series was amazing!
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
Spartas,

Can you produce a document from ATI saying the R600 architecture isn't supposed to compete with the 8800GTX. To this point I have not read where ATI said that it wasn't meant to. The XTX, if it were to be released, would still be R600, and would be meant to compete with the GTX. The R600 XT is the card that is supposed to compete with the GTS, which it does, and at times, it competes with the GTX as well.

wes