Anand's ATI RD580: Dual x16 Crossfire Preview

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If you're going to put things in quotation marks and call them "lies", then yes, I do expect you to have something to back them up with. More than "yeah, come on, you remember that, don't you?"

Well, I'm not goign to work that hard. (unless you want to pay my consulting rate for the research? )

My bad- I meant the original paper launch of the X1800 on October 5th. (they actually beat the Nov5 XT date by a few days)

So... now it's "lying" if they say when the card will be released and then actually have it ready on that date? I don't recall them saying the card would be out on October 5th.

Yep.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2550

Will we add October 5 to the list of memorable dates of 2005 - at least with regard to products launching and shipping on the same day? All vendors we've interviewed tell us that there will be no new ATI SKUs on their warehouse floors on the morning of October 5.

because they're about the same speed, and that's the card it was designed to compete with?

Interesting logic there. So if ATI puts out a card next June that is their best, and it's the same speed as a 512MB GTX, but nVidia has a faster card out then, ATIs new card was meant to compete with the 512MB GTX? I see.
(and totally disagree, and before you say "that's different!, try and think of a way you can say it is)

That's not "honest" at all, it's PR bullsh*t. Just because your best product gets stomped by your competitors best product, you don't get to say "Well you can't compare our best product to their best product. Just because they launched within 2 weeks of each, have the same amount of RAM and similar MSRPs, we'd prefer you to compare to our competitors LAST best product, because we can win some of those benches! We'll release a card someday to compete with this one!" :roll

Again, WTF. And I'm not seeing how this is "lying".[/quote]
How about more accurately it's asking reviewers not to compare you best to your competitors best because your inferior part cannot compete?

You've got to admit that the fact they just paid about a million in fines for insider trading and have many pending lawsuits for the same sort of ties in to the "honesty" slant of the discussion?

I think they have one pending lawsuit for the same. And I'm not sure that it ties into the discussion to the extent that stock sales would influence whether ATI can hit launch dates. It's not like the CEO is doing the engineering work.[/quote]
Last I heard it was six?

Great deal if any of ATs hints come true sometime soon , but I think most of us have seen time and time again that ATIs business model is just to promise great things, show a few review cards behind closed doors, then retreat to try and develop the product?

they couldn't possibly be turning things around. And the 9700Pro and the X800 generations were just flukes?

Pretty much. They bought a good company, it's employees, and their design and sold it for three years.

k. All I'm saying is that ATI deserves a fair chance to redeem themselves. Yeah, they've sucked this year in terms of execution, but NVIDIA's hit rough spots in the past too. :beer:

Sure. ATI owned them from Sept 2002>June 2003, at which point they released a card that may not have been quite as good as the 9800Pro, but it was pretty close.

All I'm saying is that ATI has been doing this to us for a long time now- you have to take their PR spin for what it's worth- nothing. Ship product and we can discuss it?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If you're going to put things in quotation marks and call them "lies", then yes, I do expect you to have something to back them up with. More than "yeah, come on, you remember that, don't you?"

Well, I'm not goign to work that hard. (unless you want to pay my consulting rate for the research? )

Okay, but then you should expect people to point out that you're just slinging mud.

My bad- I meant the original paper launch of the X1800 on October 5th. (they actually beat the Nov5 XT date by a few days)

So... now it's "lying" if they say when the card will be released and then actually have it ready on that date? I don't recall them saying the card would be out on October 5th.

Yep.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2550

That's not something from ATI. If you're going to accuse ATI of lying, you need to show that they said the cards would be available on October 5th. Not that people were hoping they would be out on that day and were disappointed.

because they're about the same speed, and that's the card it was designed to compete with?

Interesting logic there. So if ATI puts out a card next June that is their best, and it's the same speed as a 512MB GTX, but nVidia has a faster card out then, ATIs new card was meant to compete with the 512MB GTX? I see.
(and totally disagree, and before you say "that's different!, try and think of a way you can say it is)

Because they put out a card that, until about three days ago, was as fast or faster than NVIDIA's best product. There's not much they can do about the fact that NVIDIA just launched a faster product on top of theirs. Do you want them to just roll over and die? They all but said they have no direct competition to the 7800GTX"Ultra".

How about more accurately it's asking reviewers not to compare you best to your competitors best because your inferior part cannot compete?

All I can say is you're reading an awful lot into their statement.

they couldn't possibly be turning things around. And the 9700Pro and the X800 generations were just flukes?

Pretty much. They bought a good company, it's employees, and their design and sold it for three years.

I've heard this theory before, and basically I don't buy it. You're not giving them enough credit for all the work they have done refining and extending that design -- even if you assume that they were basically handed the 9700Pro (which they probably were not, at least not in that form).

Sure. ATI owned them from Sept 2002>June 2003, at which point they released a card that may not have been quite as good as the 9800Pro, but it was pretty close.

I see you've wiped the entire GeForceFX debacle from your memory.

All I'm saying is that ATI has been doing this to us for a long time now- you have to take their PR spin for what it's worth- nothing. Ship product and we can discuss it?

I agree they need to put their money where their mouth is. But if your response to negative ATI news is "ha! I told you they suck!" and your response to positive ATI news is "ha! They're lying as usual!", you're not exactly being... how do you put it... 'fair and balanced'?

Edit: Fixing quotes/missed a thing to respond to.

 

[GOREGRINDER]

damn people get vicious over gpu manufacturers,..lol

heres what i think if i may (?)


i like nvidia,..period

i like ATI's cards,...nothing more


theres a big difference

nvidia has a sense of humor even on thier mistakes,....that says alot about a company imo,.check out this vid,....it came out right after the FX series cards and it still makes me laugh a bit ...and they even thank all nvidia enthusiasts at the end ,...so its obviouos they care about what we think,..add in thier hard launches and on time releases the SAME day,...thats trust in my eyes,..so i genuinly get the feeling that they felt they let us down a bit with the geforceFX,..and it wasnt even that bad

nvidia has humor even about thier OWN cards

 

[Steelski]

For the next 6-9 months.......
I see

ISEE
ISEEEEEEEEEEEE
A withering E-willy for someone.
The problem with most people is that just because they own a FX5200 and that Nvidia are selling a 512MB GTX, they think that their card is the bees knees.
Or alternativley that their GTX 256MB card is faster that a X1800XT.
Yes i know lots of people have SLI but with this there wouldent be a great deal to talk about.
The point of the article is that the future looks very nice for all who like ATI.

 

[nRollo]

Matthias:
There's a difference between not wanting to Google and do forum searches on a multitude of statements and "slinging mud"- this is all stuff I've provided citation for in the past and don't want to go to the work to dig it up again.

If you don't want to believe it now, that's your perogative, on the other hand you I could as easily say that you're the one "slinging mud" as apparently you don't have enough interest to sift through my old posts either and are just assuming they're false?

The Geforce FX wasn't a debacle, at least the nV35 wasn't. It benched as fast or faster than it's competition, the 9800Pro. The "DX9" argument doesn't wash due to the lack of DX9 titles at the time and the fact that by the time DX9 titles DID arrive the 9700Pro/9800Pro were woefully slow at running DX9 titles in DX9. Like I said at the time, "sucking less" still sucks.

If you want to belive ATIs PR press release, good for you. Personally, I've seen too many in the last couple years where the products didn't show up on time, as expected, or at all.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Steelski
For the next 6-9 months.......
I see

ISEE
ISEEEEEEEEEEEE
A withering E-willy for someone.

I sure hope you're not talking about me. If ATI had a better product, it would be in my box. I can afford any video card, so I try to buy what suits my needs best at the time. Brand loyalty is not a factor, I'd have BitBoyz in my box if they were best at the time I was looking for a card. Beyond that, I'm not dumb enough to equate my computers relative position in the scheme of things with "E-willy", unless you're REALLY wealthy, someone always has a much better computer than you do.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If you're going to put things in quotation marks and call them "lies", then yes, I do expect you to have something to back them up with. More than "yeah, come on, you remember that, don't you?"

Well, I'm not goign to work that hard. (unless you want to pay my consulting rate for the research? )

Okay, but then you should expect people to point out that you're just slinging mud.

My bad- I meant the original paper launch of the X1800 on October 5th. (they actually beat the Nov5 XT date by a few days)

So... now it's "lying" if they say when the card will be released and then actually have it ready on that date? I don't recall them saying the card would be out on October 5th.

Yep.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2550

That's not something from ATI. If you're going to accuse ATI of lying, you need to show that they said the cards would be available on October 5th. Not that people were hoping they would be out on that day and were disappointed.

because they're about the same speed, and that's the card it was designed to compete with?

Interesting logic there. So if ATI puts out a card next June that is their best, and it's the same speed as a 512MB GTX, but nVidia has a faster card out then, ATIs new card was meant to compete with the 512MB GTX? I see.
(and totally disagree, and before you say "that's different!, try and think of a way you can say it is)

Because they put out a card that, until about three days ago, was as fast or faster than NVIDIA's best product. There's not much they can do about the fact that NVIDIA just launched a faster product on top of theirs. Do you want them to just roll over and die? They all but said they have no direct competition to the 7800GTX"Ultra".

How about more accurately it's asking reviewers not to compare you best to your competitors best because your inferior part cannot compete?

All I can say is you're reading an awful lot into their statement.

they couldn't possibly be turning things around. And the 9700Pro and the X800 generations were just flukes?

Pretty much. They bought a good company, it's employees, and their design and sold it for three years.

I've heard this theory before, and basically I don't buy it. You're not giving them enough credit for all the work they have done refining and extending that design -- even if you assume that they were basically handed the 9700Pro (which they probably were not, at least not in that form).

Sure. ATI owned them from Sept 2002>June 2003, at which point they released a card that may not have been quite as good as the 9800Pro, but it was pretty close.

I see you've wiped the entire GeForceFX debacle from your memory.

All I'm saying is that ATI has been doing this to us for a long time now- you have to take their PR spin for what it's worth- nothing. Ship product and we can discuss it?

I agree they need to put their money where their mouth is. But if your response to negative ATI news is "ha! I told you they suck!" and your response to positive ATI news is "ha! They're lying as usual!", you're not exactly being... how do you put it... 'fair and balanced'?

Edit: Fixing quotes/missed a thing to respond to.

Do you really believe that it's all ATI vs. NV in here? Well, it isn't. It's forum member against forum member one-upmanship. At least as far as I can tell.
Matthias, I would like to see if you would post any "lies" ATI has done. Also post "lies" Nvidia has done. This way, we are all on the same page. If you honestly can sit there in good faith and say you can't think of any, not cool.

 

[Steelski]

Hello Rollo,

What i said was a joke. So dont take it to heart. As i see that you havent bought a 512GTX SLI setup yet then i wont dig in as i am still on a 9800Pro and dident care too much for the gen after and am begining to caree less about this gen too. (I am paying for a wedding really.)
I am pretty proud of my decision to stick with my card at the moment as it fits my needs aswell although i am not maxing out my monitor.
I too would look for the best card available at the time of upgrading but i do remember wishing that ATI had something to match Nvidia in the motherboard department when i went for my third nforce 2 motherboard.
I hate crappy ATI products
I would never buy a 9600 x600/700 or a X1600. Like i wouldent buy a crappy Nvidia product. some products are just sub par to me.
Although i am not really interested in the crossfire capabilities at the moment, the fact that in the future things will be more balanced with respect to motherboards and capabilities is a real plus for people that would prefer ati products.
The reason that i have stuck mostly to ATI was because of my 64DDR radeon VIVO which had the best image quality at the time. and because they had the 9X00 series when i wanted to really play farcry. I had a geforce 3 TI500 (great card at the time) when i upgraded And i was satisfied because it really did look nice and it still does.

I am not a fanboy as such but i do hate people critisizing ATI even though they are really looking futureproof with the next line of products.

People are saying that you shouldent compare the GTX and the XT. Why not? Ati are likley to release the 256MB version which will most likley perform as well and be cheaper and more inline with the GTX.

P.S. I like the way E-Willy sounds.
I am not too bothered that to many my card might look shabby. That is the secret of a great E-willy.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Do you really believe that it's all ATI vs. NV in here? Well, it isn't. It's forum member against forum member one-upmanship. At least as far as I can tell.
Matthias, I would like to see if you would post any "lies" ATI has done. Also post "lies" Nvidia has done. This way, we are all on the same page. If you honestly can sit there in good faith and say you can't think of any, not cool.

I actually agreed with Rollo about the X700XT. ATI provided preview hardware and benchmarks, but the card never materialized. Seems like it was a marketing ploy to me.

On the other hand, NVIDIA has done things like purposefully hacking up their drivers to cheat in 3DMark -- a lot worse than missing a launch date IMO. They also have displayed a tendency to get lazy when they feel they don't have real competition. Neither company is flawless.

I'm not trying to engage in some sort of 'one-upmanship' -- but when someone posts a blatantly one-sided attack (on any topic), and then refuses to back it up, they shouldn't be surprised to see someone point it out.

Rollo: turning around and pointing the blame back at me for not looking up your sources is a little ridiculous. If you have references for this stuff in earlier posts, it would not be hard to look them up.

Everyone: :beer:. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Acanthus]

The G80 always has been a unified design.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The Geforce FX wasn't a debacle, at least the nV35 wasn't. It benched as fast or faster than it's competition, the 9800Pro. The "DX9" argument doesn't wash due to the lack of DX9 titles at the time and the fact that by the time DX9 titles DID arrive the 9700Pro/9800Pro were woefully slow at running DX9 titles in DX9. Like I said at the time, "sucking less" still sucks.

Uhm no, lol. There were various DX9 titles available at the time and the FX sucked running all of them. For starters, there was TRAOD which was NVIDIAs TWIMTBP but ran faster on ATi cards (NVIDIA even went as far as getting the benchmark removed from the game). Then there was Farcry, running in SM1.x (DX8) on the FX cards and running SM2 on ATi cards. How about Half-life 2, sure it was a late arrival but the 9xxx cards could run it in DX9, the FX was limited to DX8/8.1. We already knew this a year before anyway.

The FX was a failiur, simple as that. I guess you should have kept your 9800s instead of buying those 5800s (3 was it?).

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The Geforce FX wasn't a debacle, at least the nV35 wasn't. It benched as fast or faster than it's competition, the 9800Pro. The "DX9" argument doesn't wash due to the lack of DX9 titles at the time and the fact that by the time DX9 titles DID arrive the 9700Pro/9800Pro were woefully slow at running DX9 titles in DX9. Like I said at the time, "sucking less" still sucks.

It takes a die hard Nv fan to claim the FX cards were not a debacle. The 5800u was slower than a 9700p that came out 6 months before, it cost more, and was as loud as a vacum cleaner. Even Nv abandoned it shortly after it was launched. The 5900u was a bit better, but it still suffered from many of the same problems: it was launched after the 9800p, was still slower than a 9800xt, still suffered from the IQ driver hacks, and still sucked at DX9.

The 9800p was still a decent card when DX9 games started appearing - it played HL2 and Farcry for example at 12x10 or 10x7 medium-high settings, and even AA/AF was a playable option at 10x7. That's not what I'd call sucking at DX9, unlike the FX cards which had to run in DX8 mode with inferior IQ in order to be anywhere remotely competitive. And if you're gonna claim that the 6800gt played those games way better anyway at 1600x1200, so the 9800 must suck, then the 7800gtx must suck as well because it cant smoothly run FEAR and COD2 at high settings 16x12.