ATI x1800 XT to be clocked past 600/1400

[Sentential]

I honestally do not think that the XT will be the lynchpin for alot of people here. The card(s) to watch here are the PRO and XL and how close they come to the GT and GTX respectivly.

If the core speed can scale on all 3 cards as high as 750mhz or so that is fantastic news for ATi. Why you ask? because they will be the only ones selling a cut-down that isnt pipe-disabled.

While the difference in memory speed will never be achievable, so long as the core is I think ATi has the ability to alot of money. Especially when they use 512MB of RAM vs nVidia's 256.

This could potential force nV to force the price of its older 256MB cards down.

 

[M0RPH]

I can give the cliff notes for this thread without even reading it:

(NF = Nvidia Fanboy)

NF#1: Boy, ATI is in big trouble.
NF#2: Yep, now they need to clock their card to 700MHz just so they can beat the Sander benchmarks.
NF#3: Yeah, those Sander benches were golden, baby. That guy's my hero.
NF#1: And this info comes from THe Inquirer so you know it's true.
NF#2: Yep, ATI sure is in trouble.
NF#3: Even if their XT card is any good, it'll be a phantom edition that will cost $600.
NF#1: No doubt, man. I'm so happy I bought ny 7800GTX.
NF#2: Me too.
NF#3: Me too 🙂


(Ok, I know I said I wasn't gonna reply to this thread but what can I say, I got bored)

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Rollo, You do know that the money is in the low end right? You think Ferrari made much money when producing the Enzo? They made the money on royalties and the 360. Selling hundred of thousands of $100 chips (and making $75) for the low end VS thousands of $400 (making $250) for the high end. Which makes the company more money? These are just guesses on what they really get for profit on each chip, so if anyone can find what the profit margin on the cards are, you can figure out which truly makes the money.

No, I think you're wrong. I think higher average cost per chip is what AMD, Intel, ATI, and nVidia all strive for.

You're thinking of total cost per card, which is FAR above the GPU cost. ATI isn't dominating the $100 chip market, ATI is leading in the $5 chip market.

That is why they lost millions last quarter while gaining market share, and nVidia had record profits while losing market share.

Dominating in the $100 chip market doesn't sustain a company, just ask ex-3dfxer's how that worked out for 3dfx.... they had a lock on the highend for many years but failed because they had no mainstream parts and OEM marketshare. Certainly ATI's profits (you call it a loss.. but it was only a loss when stock options were taken into account... something nVidia will also have to do next quarter) were hit because of margins but high end is not the only segment of the GPU market that's critical.

Even things like SLI or Crossfire will probably never make back their costs in engineering... those things are just for marketing appeal and chest pounding.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I suspected this would have to be done.

Quote: "Such cards might not be in the stores at launch date, the plan is to have them two to three weeks after the launch, but ATI will hace X1800XL cards at the time of its announcements."

So, I am guessing (this means I'm guessing 😉 ) That the X1800XT will be the 600/1400 part. Then the X1800XTPE will be the 700/1400+ part that most of us will never have the priviledge of seeing except on ebay. Kind of similar to the X800XTPE.

This (to me) adds some credibility to the Sander benches at 600/1400. Why would ATI need to ramp up speed if 600/1400 was sufficient enough to best a 7800GTX? It is my opinion (this means this is just my opinion 😉 ) , that they would not.

Keys.

hmmm.... so another xt "Press Edition"? or is that "Phantom Edition"? it's all so confusing....

Please direct us to whatever has you guys assuming that Ati will not have better production this gen, just as Nivida has? Or are we back to the inquirer with 32 pipes?


edit: A little bit more of some dubious info link posted by serenity on b3d. edit: oops just discovered this on vr zone so probably wildy inaccurate.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Rollo, You do know that the money is in the low end right? You think Ferrari made much money when producing the Enzo? They made the money on royalties and the 360. Selling hundred of thousands of $100 chips (and making $75) for the low end VS thousands of $400 (making $250) for the high end. Which makes the company more money? These are just guesses on what they really get for profit on each chip, so if anyone can find what the profit margin on the cards are, you can figure out which truly makes the money.

No, I think you're wrong. I think higher average cost per chip is what AMD, Intel, ATI, and nVidia all strive for.

You're thinking of total cost per card, which is FAR above the GPU cost. ATI isn't dominating the $100 chip market, ATI is leading in the $5 chip market.

That is why they lost millions last quarter while gaining market share, and nVidia had record profits while losing market share.

Dominating in the $100 chip market doesn't sustain a company, just ask ex-3dfxer's how that worked out for 3dfx.... they had a lock on the highend for many years but failed because they had no mainstream parts and OEM marketshare. Certainly ATI's profits (you call it a loss.. but it was only a loss when stock options were taken into account... something nVidia will also have to do next quarter) were hit because of margins but high end is not the only segment of the GPU market that's critical.

Even things like SLI or Crossfire will probably never make back their costs in engineering... those things are just for marketing appeal and chest pounding.

3DFX had other problems as well. They went from supplying chips to OEMs (like nVidia) to buying an OEM (STB) and cutting off all other outlets for their product. It was a bad decision. (much like it would be if ATI or nVidia sold only self branded products)

I don't call it a loss, ATI calls it a loss.

http://forums.sudhian.com/messageview.cfm?catid=74&threadid=79221

According to ATI, the quarterly results were well below corporate expectations for gross margin and revenue, apparently partially pulled down by lower revenues on mainstream and budget OEM wins.

 

[g3pro]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
I can give the cliff notes for this thread without even reading it:

(NF = Nvidia Fanboy)

NF#1: Boy, ATI is in big trouble.
NF#2: Yep, now they need to clock their card to 700MHz just so they can beat the Sander benchmarks.
NF#3: Yeah, those Sander benches were golden, baby. That guy's my hero.
NF#1: And this info comes from THe Inquirer so you know it's true.
NF#2: Yep, ATI sure is in trouble.
NF#3: Even if their XT card is any good, it'll be a phantom edition that will cost $600.
NF#1: No doubt, man. I'm so happy I bought ny 7800GTX.
NF#2: Me too.
NF#3: Me too 🙂


(Ok, I know I said I wasn't gonna reply to this thread but what can I say, I got bored)

AF#1: woot! The R520 is going to have 32 pipes! That's definitely going to blow the 7800 away.
AF#2: those nVidia tools are going to get pwned! More pipes = more performance.
AF#3: I'm so glad I bought my X850XT. I'm going to buy the R520 once it hits the stores in July.

AF#1: Did you guys hear the latest news? The R520 only has 16 pipes.
AF#2: This doesn't change anything, I've been saying that pipe diameter is all that counts, and the R520 obviously has the fattest pipe. Man, I'd love to have my mouth around that.
AF#3: LOL, the nVidia part is only clocked at 400mhz, and it has tiny pipes. The R520 will pwn!

AF#1: Did you guys see the latest benchmarks? They showed ATi behind nVidia, so I know it's not true. [covers ears] I'M NOT LISTENING!!! ST00PID, ST00PID, ST00PID!!![/covers ears]
AF#2: Benchmarks in reviews don't say anything about real-world performance. On top of that, the people who made the benchmarks (AIB partners) are full of it and are liars! ATi is always on top.
AF#3: I have a forum post from dipsh*t.org that says the original benchmarkers were women. So that means I can discount them as lies.

AF#1: Man, I can't wait for the R520. It'll really help get nVidia back off its butt and actually make a product. When was the last time they released a product, April 2004? *snicker*
AF#2: LOL, nVidia can't ever get a product to market, and when they do, it's worse than the Rage 128!
AF#3: LOL, nVidia sux0rz teh big one!!!11

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Rollo, You do know that the money is in the low end right? You think Ferrari made much money when producing the Enzo? They made the money on royalties and the 360. Selling hundred of thousands of $100 chips (and making $75) for the low end VS thousands of $400 (making $250) for the high end. Which makes the company more money? These are just guesses on what they really get for profit on each chip, so if anyone can find what the profit margin on the cards are, you can figure out which truly makes the money.

No, I think you're wrong. I think higher average cost per chip is what AMD, Intel, ATI, and nVidia all strive for.

You're thinking of total cost per card, which is FAR above the GPU cost. ATI isn't dominating the $100 chip market, ATI is leading in the $5 chip market.

That is why they lost millions last quarter while gaining market share, and nVidia had record profits while losing market share.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=134&type=expert

Both NVIDIA and ATI know that the real profit margins in the GPU business doesn't lie in the hands of enthusiasts that buy $500 graphics cards. Instead it is in the hands of the multiple OEMs that buy thousands and thousands of cards for systems being built; and those cards tend to lean in the direction of budget GPUs.

 

[mindgam3]

"AF#2: This doesn't change anything, I've been saying that pipe diameter is all that counts, and the R520 obviously has the fattest pipe. Man, I'd love to have my mouth around that. "

As lame as that post was I gotta admit that cracked me up!

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06

Rollo, You do know that the money is in the low end right? You think Ferrari made much money when producing the Enzo? They made the money on royalties and the 360. Selling hundred of thousands of $100 chips (and making $75) for the low end VS thousands of $400 (making $250) for the high end. Which makes the company more money? These are just guesses on what they really get for profit on each chip, so if anyone can find what the profit margin on the cards are, you can figure out which truly makes the money.

$600,000*400= $240,000,000. Trust me Ferrari maid an ass load of money on the Enzo, also not the greatest theory anyways. Ferrari sell only expensive cars the question is how many of each do they sell. Now if Ferrari sold a Neon and almost all of their margin came from that, then you would be correct.

The Fact is you sell 75 million $5 chips and make $1 on them, then you only make 75 Million dollars. The money is made on the mid to high end area where the chips are selling for $100 or more. This area is also affected greatly by the status of the Uberhigh end.

So cheap Trailer trash hardware good for market share bad for profits. Uber Ferrari hardware good for Profit bad for market share. Trailer trash Ferraris good for profit and market share.

People Tend to give way to much to market share. Its worthless if gained by cheap no profit part. The reason they do this it to keep their name in the system. High end graphics is a cut throat business. If a company spend more then a gen or 2 behind their competitor they tend to lose lots of business. Without those sales on the low end their is no way to help sustain them while they try recover those lost highend sales (ala 3dfx).

The Low end is what is helping to keep ATI alive but that isn't what makes them successful.

 

[vision33r]

The margin for mid to highend vidcard is much more profitable than low-end cheap ones.

Factor in that the labor and mfg costs are marginally the same for highend and lowend chips, the only difference is the process used and materials are different.

A low-end chip can sell for $15 while a highend sells for $50. The goal of all chip vendors is to sell higher avg priced chip in limited batches vs selling high volume as that can overly saturate a market and kill off demand and lower prices.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ddogg

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

not at all. this type of speculation is completely warranted. back with the xt pe was released, i had 4 cards "pre-ordered" from 4 different vendors (i ended up having to purchase a PRO, and later an XT, neither of which i still have). i never could get one. while a very small % of those who ordered cards received them, the availability was so ridiculously poor these were being sold on ebay for over TWICE the suggested MSRP.

while the speculation could certainly prove wrong, questioning price and availability is well within reason given the paper launches by ati last generation, especially given the retapes and delays with getting r520 to market so far.

QFT

Yes but just stating that ATI cards will likely be Phantom editions when they release without stating that they might be wrong, and ATI could be supplying us with the cards like Nvidia did is pure fanboyism. Speculation is OK, but one sided speculation is fanboyism.

i'm not sure anyone stated as fact there would be no/limited availability.... however given the retapes, poor yields, and the fact that (and my ppl ranting seem to forget this part) ati themselves stated the high end parts would follow a month or so AFTER the XL and PRO are released, scepticism on the availablility can hardly be questioned.

sure, they could be available in reasonable quantity, yet recent ati history would make us all fools to assume this, especially if they ramp up clock speeds beyond 600mhz as some sources have been suggesting....

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I suspected this would have to be done.

Quote: "Such cards might not be in the stores at launch date, the plan is to have them two to three weeks after the launch, but ATI will hace X1800XL cards at the time of its announcements."

So, I am guessing (this means I'm guessing 😉 ) That the X1800XT will be the 600/1400 part. Then the X1800XTPE will be the 700/1400+ part that most of us will never have the priviledge of seeing except on ebay. Kind of similar to the X800XTPE.

This (to me) adds some credibility to the Sander benches at 600/1400. Why would ATI need to ramp up speed if 600/1400 was sufficient enough to best a 7800GTX? It is my opinion (this means this is just my opinion 😉 ) , that they would not.

Keys.

hmmm.... so another xt "Press Edition"? or is that "Phantom Edition"? it's all so confusing....

Please direct us to whatever has you guys assuming that Ati will not have better production this gen, just as Nivida has? Or are we back to the inquirer with 32 pipes?


edit: A little bit more of some dubious info link posted by serenity on b3d. edit: oops just discovered this on vr zone so probably wildy inaccurate.

ugh....

ok, no sarcasm at all this time. while i was poking fun at the PE, it certainly seems ppl have selective memories.

after what, 3-4 tape outs, constant chip yield problems, 6 months delay, paper launches by ati last gen, talk of possibly ramping up clockspeeds.... you expect a smooth launch with good availability?

while it could certainly happen, it's not like there is no basis for skepticism...

/rant

i'm so tired of all the "fanboy" comments (as well as the fanboys themselves, and it seems those from the ati camp far outnumber those from nv). i've been around here a while, and while at times i am quite opinionated, and most who've been here sometimes know i am not a particular fan of either vendor. as a matter of fact, i no longer have my x800 cards, my ati cards outnumber my nv cards 3:1....

not all, but most ppl here who have been a bit hard on ati have been for good reason - recent history. the majority of the discussions are based on speculation, and logic follows that ati hasn't show itself in the best of light recently. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

but just because someone is not riding the ati bandwagon does not mean they are nv fanboys. i'll buy whatever suits my needs best regardless of who the company is, and more often than not i will have high end products from more than 1 company..

but getting back to all this, ati has basically been full of their own PR for some time, and it's time for them to shut up and "put up". if they deliver on all fronts, and ppl still bash.. then it would certainly be legitimate to call those ppl nv fanboys, or at least label them as "anti ati", but until then, taking their PR BS with a grain of salt does not an nv fanboy make...

/rant off

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
The Fact is you sell 75 million $5 chips and make $1 on them, then you only make 75 Million dollars. The money is made on the mid to high end area where the chips are selling for $100 or more. This area is also affected greatly by the status of the Uberhigh end.

So cheap Trailer trash hardware good for market share bad for profits. Uber Ferrari hardware good for Profit bad for market share. Trailer trash Ferraris good for profit and market share.

Originally posted by: vision33r
The margin for mid to highend vidcard is much more profitable than low-end cheap ones.

Link for proof? Sounds more like an opinion than fact.


http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/

High-end cards, on the other hand, are more a matter of prestige than profit. The low quantities in which they are produced simply don't offer enough of a margin to get by on.

 

[Topweasel]

Everyone needs to remember that 7800GTX is an Oddity, I was manfuctered as more of a mid uber high end instead of a uber high end. This has allowed it to constantly be instock and the price to lower so much on it. The Way Nvidia is making it I wouldn't doubt that they could make a 550MHz Dual slot card if they wanted to. But the Performance of it is so high anyways there is absolutely no reason to do that. This is the good and bad side to competition, Nvidia can avoid making a super low yield version since its performance is high enough. This sucks for some of us because with greater competition we would at least have a faster version of the GTX available.

Now on the other hand believing that ATI is doing the same thing both them and Nvidia has done in the past, especially after all the re-tappings, disabled/removed Pipelines, Overall clock speed, and low yield rumors, is completely understandable. I am not going put ATI down for this, they went with the flow. Nvidia should be congradulated for the way they manipulated the market this round and hope that ATI and Nvidia can keep this going.

 

[g3pro]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Topweasel
The Fact is you sell 75 million $5 chips and make $1 on them, then you only make 75 Million dollars. The money is made on the mid to high end area where the chips are selling for $100 or more. This area is also affected greatly by the status of the Uberhigh end.

So cheap Trailer trash hardware good for market share bad for profits. Uber Ferrari hardware good for Profit bad for market share. Trailer trash Ferraris good for profit and market share.

Originally posted by: vision33r
The margin for mid to highend vidcard is much more profitable than low-end cheap ones.

Link for proof? Sounds more like an opinion than fact.


http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/

High-end cards, on the other hand, are more a matter of prestige than profit. The low quantities in which they are produced simply don't offer enough of a margin to get by on.

Tom has a degree in economics? :disgust:

Please, just use your brain. $200 in profit on 100,000 cards is $20,000,000 in profit. $2 profit on 1,000,000 chips is 2,000,000 in profit. Obviously the numbers aren't real, but Tom's idiotic notion of margin should never be "quoted for truth".

Hmmm, ATi has less profit, but sells more cards. I think it should make sense to you now.

 

[Duvie]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/r520-preview.html

Link from another thread...good read for both ATI fans and NV fans....They also seem to say similar things to what Cainam, Keys, and I have stated...

<<X1800 series: XT will most likely be a card for the press, at least for the first several months. Enthusiasts will get the XL card (if all goes well). The PRO modification will be the main card, as always. Partially defective chips with one locked quad will be used in the LE modification, more or less available to a normal user, not a gamer. By the way, top solutions are subject to overheating and take up two slots (due to their cooling system).>>

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jasonja
Even things like SLI or Crossfire will probably never make back their costs in engineering... those things are just for marketing appeal and chest pounding.

Are kidding me?!?!

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050512_191846.html">
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050512_191846.html</a>

Santa Clara (CA) - The dual-graphics solution SLI is becoming a visible growth factor for Nvidia: With almost one million units shipped, nForce SLI is aimed at every performance PC, the company said during its Q1 conference call. Nvidia also delivered a solid financial result, increasing its earnings by more than 200 percent. [/L]

If you think selling a million SLI chipsets in the first 5 months of availability doesn't put nVidia on track to make a profit on SLI, not to mention all the card sales of people who bought two cards, LOL.

You should really check into these things before you post.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: jasonja
Even things like SLI or Crossfire will probably never make back their costs in engineering... those things are just for marketing appeal and chest pounding.

Are kidding me?!?!

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050512_191846.html">
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050512_191846.html</a>

Santa Clara (CA) - The dual-graphics solution SLI is becoming a visible growth factor for Nvidia: With almost one million units shipped, nForce SLI is aimed at every performance PC, the company said during its Q1 conference call. Nvidia also delivered a solid financial result, increasing its earnings by more than 200 percent. [/L]

If you think selling a million SLI chipsets in the first 5 months of availability doesn't put nVidia on track to make a profit on SLI, not to mention all the card sales of people who bought two cards, LOL.

You should really check into these things before you post.

Nice post... I learned something new :thumbsup:

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=134&type=expert

Both NVIDIA and ATI know that the real profit margins in the GPU business doesn't lie in the hands of enthusiasts that buy $500 graphics cards. Instead it is in the hands of the multiple OEMs that buy thousands and thousands of cards for systems being built; and those cards tend to lean in the direction of budget GPUs.

While you're right that the very top end doesn't account for the majority of anyones revenue, what does is the mid to upper mid range for nVidia:

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050512_191846.html

Not as much attention is paid to the integrated graphics (IGP) market, where Intel is gaining significant market share every quarter. Huang said that Nvidia will "target the most profit-rich segments" first before looking to IGPs.

If nVidia's CEO agrees with me, I don't really care what "PCPer" says? My point stands: nVidia is making their money on the GF6 series, not ultra bargain stuff:

Being about a year into its life cycle, the GeForce 6 family now also accounts for a majority of desktop graphics processor shipments. Huang said that the series now brings in more than two thirds of the GPU revenue.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Rollo
If nVidia's CEO agrees with me, I don't really care what "PCPer" says? My point stands: nVidia is making their money on the GF6 series, not ultra bargain stuff:

Being about a year into its life cycle, the GeForce 6 family now also accounts for a majority of desktop graphics processor shipments. Huang said that the series now brings in more than two thirds of the GPU revenue.

revenue =! profit

But nVidia is making huge strides with the success of NF4 (what with Dell actually using a non intel product with their adoption of the NF4 SLI x16), they can push even further if they can tap that IGP niche as well.

 

[Turtle 1]

When the availability issue was a percieved problem with the X800XT PE . My neighbor ordered 20 cards on April 20-21 we all had our cards byMay 4 . 2004 . All cards were lifetime warranity and as of so far. Zero problems. Although I now have a X850xtpe. I sometimes forget that. So he has 10 people wanting the X1800xt on release and I am betting he gets them right away. I will hold out for the R600 if it has SM4 or the R620 which ever. I kinda wish ATI would have just skipped the SM3 and went directly to the SM4.But we neededWGF2.0 for SM4.

 

[Turtle 1]

Many here really have missed the big picture here. ATI'S R520 & R580 are just fill in cards until vista and WGF2.0 and SM4 arrive in 2006. AS the R500 is in fact a unified Arch.ATI is way ahead of nvidia here . AS nvidia is reported to be having many problems with the unified arch. of the WGF2.0 and many are saying nvidia will be very late to the WGF2.0 SM4 party where as ATi will be producing its second generation of this card.So ya I see and understand why ATI is having problems with the R520 its just a stop gap between the last generation of VC to the next due out in 2006. I am sure many will buy both ATI and nvidia stop gap cards . I find this amusing but to each his own .

http://www.techspot.com/news/18126-nvidia-g80-uses-unified-shader-approach.html


http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14458

 

[ZobarStyl]

Is there any way you could go ahead and stop posting? If the best arguments you can make is that a magical friend of yours had a huge supply of x800XTPE's and that it means that the card wasn't completely unattainable for 4+ months after launch, and that we should be looking forward to a Microsoft OS being out within a reasonable period of time to use our new GPU's on, you may need to double check what your brain has misfiled as "logic." While you're looking, find the entry on "grammar" and give it a good once over as well.

 

[Turtle 1]

Just saying if New Egg doesn't have the card doesn't mean it isn't available. As for my neigbor . Whats your problem he is my hardware source.

http://www.ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?...8&sid=ced3fdd7ea4a1c6d0654e18fa41c1ccb

As is apparent from this article nvidia has no plans of bring unified shaders in the G80. If ATI has it right and the Unified shaders perform as specified. Nvidia well be playing catchup just like they did with the R300 . Great that ATI is going out and actually working on the next generation today. The Xbox 2 will demo this tech and I believe it will be spectacular. R 600 will be second generation doubling the performance of the R500.

The best part it is that it all happens at the same time . R600/ Windows Vista/Intel Conroe . Going to be a lot of upgrading going on.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Rollo
If nVidia's CEO agrees with me, I don't really care what "PCPer" says? My point stands: nVidia is making their money on the GF6 series, not ultra bargain stuff:

Being about a year into its life cycle, the GeForce 6 family now also accounts for a majority of desktop graphics processor shipments. Huang said that the series now brings in more than two thirds of the GPU revenue.

revenue =! profit

But nVidia is making huge strides with the success of NF4 (what with Dell actually using a non intel product with their adoption of the NF4 SLI x16), they can push even further if they can tap that IGP niche as well.

Revenue does not always mean profit. You can have more outgoing expenses than incoming expenses. nVidia, just like many companies go for a large profit margin, rather than high volume low profit margin. Both ways work fine, I mean, look at Walmart, largest company in the world and they make a tiny profit on all of their items, but because they deal so much product, it turns them a hefty profit at the end of the year. I am still astounded to see how large that company is. Last I checked, it did 220 billion in sales each year.

For the fiscal year of 2004... I found the following

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=WMT)) is the world's largest retailer and the largest company in the world based on revenue. Wal-Mart was founded by Sam Walton in 1962. In the fiscal year ending January 31, 2004, Wal-Mart had $256.3 billion in sales and net income of $8.9 billion (a 3.5% profit margin). Forbes magazine points out that if Wal-Mart were its own economy, it would rank 30th in the world, with a GDP (consumption + investment + exports - imports) right behind Saudi Arabia's GDP. It's the largest private employer in the United States. It holds a 8.9% retail store market share; in other words, $8.90 out of every $100 spent in American stores is spent at Wal-Mart.