Have always been interested in ATI and ran across an article detailing the history. Also found a good review of the X800 Pro card.
 
History of ATI - http://www.gamergod.com/article_di [...] cle_id=166
 
X800 Review - http://www.gamergod.com/hw_review.cfm?hw_id=40

Interesting reading thanks... nice to see the pioneer spirit still exists..
 
Da Worfster  
 
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Thanks?
 
Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

<A HREF="http://www.gamergod.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=166 " target="_new">http:// http://www.gamergod.com/article_di [...] cle_id=166 </A>
 
<A HREF="http://www.gamergod.com/hw_review.cfm?hw_id=40 " target="_new">http://www.gamergod.com/hw_review.cfm?hw_id=40 </A>
 
<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

Thanks Rich.
 
__________________
<A HREF="http://www.moviewavs.com/MP3S/TV_Shows/Simpsons/flanderssong.mp3" target="_new">Audio Sig</A>|<A HREF="http://community.tomshardware.com/images/logo_black_xmas2.gif" target="_new">I made this!</A>

The history of ATI was a good read - but it is one of the worst articals I've ever read    
 
Who wrote it, a 10 year old?!
 
__________________
<A HREF="http://www.moviewavs.com/MP3S/TV_Shows/Simpsons/flanderssong.mp3" target="_new">Audio Sig</A>|<A HREF="http://community.tomshardware.com/images/logo_black_xmas2.gif" target="_new">I made this!</A>

They just put up a history of Nvidia, too. Interesting to compare the two companies and see how they were constantly trying to 1-up each other.
 
<A HREF="http://www.gamergod.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=167" target="_new">http://www.gamergod.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=167</A>

Although the article is interesting, it is truly unprofessional on the author's part to not even get his facts straight. 2004 the year of the geForce 4?
 
Not to mention, the FX serie was officially released in February 2003, not November 2002!
 
--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/bl3t" target="_new">THGC Photo Album</A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.

Hi, This is Thyhammerr.  
Just wanted to say this:
1: Yes i am 18 Yrs old. , besides that English is not my native Language.  
2: A guy above said that article says: Year 2004 Year of Geforce 4. Then he should also read what is said above the line:  
 
"Year 2002: Geforce 4, Codename NV25(Ti) & NV17(MX)
 
Year 2004, marked the launch of Geforce 4, the product launched in 2 flavors, Ti Series and MX series. The Ti series being the dominant over all in the category, came in 4200, 4400, 4600 and 4800 flavours. The Video Ram was as high as 128 MB in these cards."
 
If you cant read it, then i ll read it for you. It says Year 2002. Then 2004. It's just a typo not a mistake on my behalf . I did my research, and the only reason i am posting here because of the fact that I did my research here, Tomshardware.com.  
 
2: They guy above says, FX Series was released in Feburary 2003. Then i think You should read this page:  
http://www4.tomshardware.com/busin [...] index.html
 
wait i ll highlight it for you:
November 19, 2002
Comdex Fall 2002 Day 1: Nvidia Launches GeforceFX
Is this the final throes of the greatest show on earth? Comdex ain't what it used to be, but while there's a Las Vegas, there's always some gutsy company betting on maing a killing in the technology market. We bring you Day 1 of Comdex Fall 2002. Nvidia, ATI, AMD, Dell Axim, Palm's cheapy, Enermax, CPUMate and the heaviest graphics board in western civilization.
... Fall Comdex 2002 - Day 1 - Nvidia Launches GeforceFX Day one of Comdex was like no other than we have experienced. Attendance looks to be down since ...
 
I hope this answer your question.  
 
-Thanks

Then you should fix it if you haven't, it's misleading and does not quite give you credibility. Just a tip on my part.
 

I didn't disagree with the fact it launched back then. However it was officially reviewed and "released" starting February 2003, where reviewers detailed its features and benchmarked it, and it also started becoming available for purchase. THAT's what I meant.
On second thought, I guess you just meant to show when it was announced, and not when it became available. Nevermind, my bad.
 
--
The <b><font color=black><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/bl3t" target="_new">THGC Photo Album</A></font color=black></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 12/30/04 01:51 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Eden's been there done that, but I was (still am 'till Tuesday) on Vacation and didn't see this until now. And I'm suddenly compelled to comment because of your reply to Eden.
 
First, it's been done, and better by others, so nothing new here other than being able to comment up to more recent cards. Interesting but you should fix the errors as pointed out. It's been how long since this was brought to your attention (at the very least, baring everyone else not caring, since the 28th of December) and still it's unchanged.  
 
Second, your idea of a 'LAUNCH' is really and ANNOUNCE/Introduce not a complete launch (which was even paper when it happened the following January [true 'LAUNCH' date). Included in that you should reword your whole sentence because it gives the impression that any of the cards came in 2002.
 

 
 
At first, the 5800 and 5800Ultra were AVAILABLE in 2003.... Later other variants cam along, including... (btw you missed both variants of the FX5600U, and I've never seen an FX5950UE DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO A REVIEW OR PRODUCT?). Then in 2004 they launched/sold/ there appeared the 5500, 5700, 5950....
 
And since you want to quote Lars' work to back up your 'research', how about his review at the <A HREF="http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html" target="_new">ACTUAL Launch</A>, which mentiones the following opening line:  
<font color=green>"After NVIDIA introduced its new GeForceFX GPU at Comdex in Las Vegas in November, anticipation levels were very high. However, the company was not able to live up to its announced intention to release first samples as early as December. So it's all the more astonishing to see the hectic pace at which NVIDIA has finally launched its cards. We were given just about three days to test the card - not enough time to test all aspects of the card in full detail, but enough to bring you an extensive overview of the chip's performance. "</font color=green>
 
Now I'd say that confirms Eden's statement and makes yours incorrect. I say that based on <i>'NVIDIA has finally launched its cards.'</i> being somewhat indicative of the perception of announcement / launch / release / availability. Sounds more like an 'introduction' as was mentioned.
 
Of course if there's another authority that's fine, but if this is where you did your research (did you acknowledge Lars?), best to check all the info he provided.
 
I'd say an update is in order. Of course if it's just another thing to add to the list of 'published' works, I guess it doesn't really matter if there's errors in it or not.
 
Just some other items to potentially correct;
 
<font color=purple>"Some of these series of cards are PCI-E compatible, like 5900 Ultra,"</font color=purple>
 
Can you show me an FX/PCX5900U that is PCIe? I have checked my sources and I see only the PCX5950 (non ultra).
 
You also mention a 6600Ultra in the GF6 series, however that's not an official card either.
 
The following statement is also incorrect;
 
<font color=purple>"These cards are supposed to be for PCI-E architecture, but since the PCI-E mobos are getting cheaper, these PCI-E versions of cards (good ones) are getting extinct. "</font color=purple>
 
The GF6800 are first AGP, and the GF6600 are firstPCIe, only afterwards are their other iterations a factor, so the one you're a fan of is not PCIe. Also you may want to look deeper into the reasons there are card shortages it's not the sudden surge adoption of PCIe because they are in any way significantly 'cheaper'.
 
Also you say the GF6 is (peak) 16 pixel per clock, but IIRC with just just point+colour (no Z) it can do 32. Of course I may be wrong, but then again I'm not publishing it.
 
Also SLI is not unique as you say, ALX was announced before (I even guessed at SLI before it's introduction thanks to ALX's laying the 'announcement' groundwork). Also saying this technology is the future of ATI overstates it's importance, saying that there will be a similar technology in ATI's future plans would better match reality.
 
Also your conslusion is so full of bluster, mistakes, and simple oversimplification that you should re-write it so it at least matches reality better. nVidia can beat anyone, if they learned anything from 3Dfx itr'd be that anyone (nV or ATI) can be toppled from top dog. so keep working to stay on top. Definitely NOT that they can defeat anyone.
 
As for top level gaming, you'd have to back that up for it to be anything more than a fanboi statement, which is something that shouldn't be found in a serious review/article.
 
 
- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK  

heh..
anywayz, First Sorry Eden, If you got offended or something.  
 
I did sent the list of changes to poster, but the thing is this and the other article did not get in hand of the reviewers, so there are lots of mistake. did the whole article in 2 days.  
 
ok  
so first you said about 5950 UE Edition. hmm... uh wait your right.. .. I thought that 5900 Ultra of EVGA was marked as E.. anywayz.. thanks for the heads up .. i am editing the review.  
 
and have fixed the things you have roperted now mailing the article to poster..  
 
Thanks..  
 
these were my first article, and i had to do it in short time. I did saw a proper benchmark on 5800 and 5800 Ultra in an Interview dating November 20, here at THG.  
 
I learned about introduction, announce and Launch when i was doing a history on Intel, (which is also coming soon)..  
 
I have an SLI: First Look article up too .. Please take a look and let me know what you think..  
 
 
-Thanks

Nah hehehe, you'd have to say a lot more than that to get me offended.    
 
One other error, and a common one too: to my recollection, there is no, and has never been a geForce 4 MX 400. People keep making that error, and frankly it's starting to get annoying (no offense meant). Yes there was the 4000 which from what I remember is a renamed MX440 (I might be wrong), but the MX 400 was strictly a GF2 product, that's it.
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I rarely get my history dates wrong...especially technology ones.    
 

That could likely have been the DOOM III teaser benchmark from nVidia. Again big time PR.
The whole launch (which isn't necessarily release date either, hence a paper launch), introduction and release date thing is indeed confusing. I am not sure anymore which counts as the "true" date of a product's public appearance and how to classify it in history articles.
 
 
EDIT: Ok whoops, I seem a bit hypocritical here, I did get my history dates wrong for the review date of the GF FX 5800 Ultra. My bad, again!    
--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/bl3t" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 01/03/05 11:51 PM.</EM></FONT></P>