Fascinating Story on the RV770

[chizow]

Considering it was an article about the hardware, based on a discussion with the hardware engineers, it's thread crapping. Knock it off.

-ViRGE

There was also PR and Production Managers involved, so its not all hardware discussion. Its fine, if people don't think drivers are worth mentioning I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

But back to hardware, it would've been nice if Anand brought up early promises of the 4870X2 and CF sideport eliminating microstutter. I would've been interested in hearing how AMD was going to improve multi-GPU going forward now that they've adopted it as their high-end solution.

 

[josh6079]

I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Last time I was really involved with graphics cards was when the X1900's were in full swing and G80 was on everyone's mind. The history told in the article helped bring me up to pace as to what has transpired since I stopped gaming as much. I can remember how the Video card section used to be here on the forums with the trolls and constant flames. Two camps of people cheered on for one or the other competitors instead of realizing that they should be cheering for competition itself.

Great job ATI, Nvidia - what's next?

 

[soybeast]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: akugami
Economies of scale. I can make $200 from a $500 MSRP product but I can only sell one of them per 1000 people or I can make $50 per product with a $350 MSRP and sell 10 of them per 1000 people. Just because AMD (or nVidia) is making less per individual product does not mean they are making less money overall. Business 101 FTW.

I guess they didn't teach you in Business 101 that your $500 MSRP part and $350 MSRP are THE SAME part before some self-imposed neutering. The article covers this as well, except they call it "Harvesting" or "Binning" rather than "self-neutering". Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market. This simply isn't an option for AMD if they price at $350 to begin with, the only option is to dual-GPU for a similar high-end part.

I've read through all the comments in this thread and I have to say Chizow, you really sound Nvidia slanted. Both sides make good arguments, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. I don't understand why some people would argue so passionately about something that's part speculative (profit margin per part? unknown to outsiders), and part simple economics. You can only state the facts and let them speak for themselves. What else is there to say? Unless you're a Nvidia investor and want to see your stocks go up.

People being so passionate about a corporate entity that they have no (stated) stake in doesn't make any sense to me. Making unfounded statements like the following also doesn't make any sense to me. Reminds me of why I've mostly stopped reading forum posts about video cards.

"Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market."

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Very nice article, stayed up an extra 20 minutes last night to read it.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Chizow man just stop it, you should be glad that today you can buy a GTX 280 at around $400 instead of $650 or whatever it was. ATI released a winner, GREAT READ ANAND

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
This isn't a financial thread, guys. If you want to argue over who's profitable take it to another thread.

-ViRGE

Not having read the thread, but having read the article. Seemed to me the whole thesis was the financial risk that paid off big time?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
You know this reminds me of nVIDIA who openly spoke about NV30 and its road to failure (with the launch of the NV40).

Link

However its a fact that ATi has always failed to deliver on the $200 front for sometime. They have always been lackluster in performance with the initial parts and had very late replies. (6600GT, 7600GT, 9600GT, 8800GT etc etc). Im just surprised that it took them years to finally release a bang per buck card in awhile.

edit - Its strange how market perceptiveness has changed from the days of G71/R580. G71 was strikingly similar to the R580. nVIDIA chose to pursue a similar goal like ATi did with RV770. Instead of 32 pipeline monolithic monster, they went for a smaller die, lower transistor part while maintaining higher performance through higher clocks and faster GDDR3 modules available at the time. Yet the halo effect from the X1900XTX still had many consumers thinking that ATi was the dominant leader at the time. Same goes for G92.

Actually looking back at nVIDIA's development cycle they have brought both the bigger die and performance "RV770" approach. I think AT focused too much on the former and forgot about the latter.

NV45 -> NV42 (Remember the 6800GS outperforming the 6800ultra variants?).
G70 -> G71 (7900GT/GS etc bringing 7800GTX performance for the cheap)
G80 -> G92/G92b (8800GT performing on a similar level to the 8800GTX)

That approach is similar, but it's not the same. The 6800GS, 8800GT, and 7900GT were all derivatives from an existing design. They were lower-performing and lower-priced variants of a big brother. With RV770, AMD's goal was to be a lower-priced part, right out of the gate, on a new architecture.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: soybeast
I've read through all the comments in this thread and I have to say Chizow, you really sound Nvidia slanted. Both sides make good arguments, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. I don't understand why some people would argue so passionately about something that's part speculative (profit margin per part? unknown to outsiders), and part simple economics. You can only state the facts and let them speak for themselves. What else is there to say? Unless you're a Nvidia investor and want to see your stocks go up.

People being so passionate about a corporate entity that they have no (stated) stake in doesn't make any sense to me. Making unfounded statements like the following also doesn't make any sense to me. Reminds me of why I've mostly stopped reading forum posts about video cards.

"Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market."

I've clearly stated numerous times I have a preference for Nvidia GPUs because they consistently offer the best product for my needs, often at the best price. I only argue so "passionately" because I get tired of the same garbage being posted on a forum I view as heavily biased against Nvidia. I am in no way affiliated with Nvidia outside of being a hardware enthusiast that buys the best parts that suit my needs.

As for my comments about profitability and margin, I'll leave you with this. Take a look at the article and the page that has all the little die sizes lined up on a timeline. Take this away from it: Nvidia has been profitable throughout and ATI/AMD has not. That's all you really need to know when it comes to speculation about margins and profitability. Is that being biased? Not in my opinion.

Also, I've been critical of Nvidia's self-neutering of chips and artificial performance throttling in the past, but the benefit is that it can create incredible value for consumers with high-end performance at a much lower price point (see GTS 640 and GTX 260).

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't think this forum is biased at all, but if it does come off that way it's probably because many of the realitively neutral people get tired of focus group members as well as the usual cast of Nvidia characters crapping up AMD/ATi threads... take this thread as an example. An article about a 2 hour interview with some of the guys who were responsible for designing an AMD GPU has been turned into you bringing up bad financials and driver problems.

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't think this forum is biased at all, but if it does come off that way it's probably because many of the realitively neutral people get tired of focus group members as well as the usual cast of Nvidia characters crapping up AMD/ATi threads... take this thread as an example. An article about a 2 hour interview with some of the guys who were responsible for designing an AMD GPU has been turned into you bringing up bad financials and driver problems.

You got that right, lol No matter what a benchmark says they find a way to say how AMD is not better, hehe Who the hell cares. ATI has a winner period with the 4800 series. SO much so it caused Nvidia to slash its prices in a HUGE way. Hell if it was me I would be pissed knowing Nvidia pice-gouged me the entire time.

Both companies make damn good cards period. ATI wins some benchmarks in some games and Nvidia wins some in others at the end of the day.

 

[Leyawiin]

The fact that ATI isn't an independent company anymore is testament to Nvidia's success with the 8800 series. It was completely game changing and ATI had no counter for it. They probably wouldn't have survived to release the HD 4000 series without the "merger". I know many ATI fans are crowing and doing the happy dance now, but Nvidia isn't sitting on its laurels. Its product line is very competitive (something ATI's wasn't for a year and a half after the release of the 8800 GTX) and they aren't taking a beating with no clue what to do next. ATI introduced a price war variable into this product cycle along with a compelling product (something they haven't really had in years). Its a double edged sword though and the consequences won't be known for a while.

We've seen this back and forth between the two for almost a decade. Both companies made miscalculations that allow the other to have a leg up for a couple of quarters or a year. Nothing new about that. The past six months hasn't been anything close to some of the stumbles we've seen (Nvidia's 5800 series, ATI's 2000 series).

And Nvidia didn't "gouge" me when I bought an 8800 GTX. I used the card for almost two years before upgrading - and it was still performing very well when I retired it. Longest time I've ever gone without an upgrade. Worth every penny. And so is the EVGA GTX 260 "FTW" Edition I bought for $280 this fall. Yes, I've owned two Nvidia cards in succession. Prior to that was an 9600 Pro, X800 XL and X850 Pro (flashed to an XT). I can appreciate both companies and these forums, while objective for the most part, do have a slight "reddish" tinge.

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin
ATI introduced a price war variable into this product cycle along with a compelling product (something they haven't really had in years).

I think Anand stated it well, GT200 was simply overpriced. To me that's total greed...

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: chizow
Pretty good article, a bit disappointing as there wasn't much on how RV770 was so much better than its late and underwhelming predecessors. I would've been more interested in reading what specific areas of the GPU they fixed. I also agree that more info on RV870 would've been nice.

Didn't see much in there about pricing, as to why ATI didn't charge more for a high performing part, sounds like they just targetted price points without considering the competition's pricing. Sure its great for consumers, but it sure isn't helping AMD's bottomline and may ultimately hurt them in the long run.

Also no mention of ATI's very public driver problems. Considering both Anand and Derek have spent considerable space covering monthly driver issues, I'm a bit surprised he didn't directly confront them to affect change.

Does nVidia directly or indirectly pay you to post here? You sure do a good job of changing the topic of conversation in every thread you post to.

If you wish to accuse someone of being a shill, bring proof. Otherwise if you have no proof, why are you saying anything?

-ViRGE

edit: You are right. I was just a little perturbed because the thread was actually a good read until that post, at which point it went to crap. I generally avoid the Video section, but decided to take a look. I apologize for the inference. I doubt that I offended Chizow, as nothing I said was offensive, but I apologize to you as well.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: chizow
Pretty good article, a bit disappointing as there wasn't much on how RV770 was so much better than its late and underwhelming predecessors. I would've been more interested in reading what specific areas of the GPU they fixed. I also agree that more info on RV870 would've been nice.

Didn't see much in there about pricing, as to why ATI didn't charge more for a high performing part, sounds like they just targetted price points without considering the competition's pricing. Sure its great for consumers, but it sure isn't helping AMD's bottomline and may ultimately hurt them in the long run.

Also no mention of ATI's very public driver problems. Considering both Anand and Derek have spent considerable space covering monthly driver issues, I'm a bit surprised he didn't directly confront them to affect change.

Does nVidia directly or indirectly pay you to post here? You sure do a good job of changing the topic of conversation in every thread you post to.

I think its just 'that time of the month' and he's a little tetchy. :Q

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't think this forum is biased at all, but if it does come off that way it's probably because many of the realitively neutral people get tired of focus group members as well as the usual cast of Nvidia characters crapping up AMD/ATi threads... take this thread as an example. An article about a 2 hour interview with some of the guys who were responsible for designing an AMD GPU has been turned into you bringing up bad financials and driver problems.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion but this forum has always been anti-Nvidia and pro-ATI/AMD for as long as I've been here. I used to prefer ATI/AMD/3Dfx etc as well but there came a point where I got tired of spending the same money for inferior product.

Originally posted by: Martimus
edit: You are right. I was just a little perturbed because the thread was actually a good read until that post, at which point it went to crap. I generally avoid the Video section, but decided to take a look. I apologize for the inference. I doubt that I offended Chizow, as nothing I said was offensive, but I apologize to you as well.

Yep no offense taken, after 7 years of not being paid by anyone to post my opinions here, I'm quite used to negative reactions to unpopular views.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't think this forum is biased at all, but if it does come off that way it's probably because many of the realitively neutral people get tired of focus group members as well as the usual cast of Nvidia characters crapping up AMD/ATi threads... take this thread as an example. An article about a 2 hour interview with some of the guys who were responsible for designing an AMD GPU has been turned into you bringing up bad financials and driver problems.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion but this forum has always been anti-Nvidia and pro-ATI/AMD for as long as I've been here. I used to prefer ATI/AMD/3Dfx etc as well but there came a point where I got tired of spending the same money for inferior product.

You feel that a 4870 for $299ish would have been inferior to a GTX260 192 core at $400ish?

I don't really have a preference when it comes to video cards. Sure, I do prefer to use AMD cpus, but I've used both Nvidia and ATi GPU's and always been pretty satisfied with the product. But this round, AMD/ATi released a very good card at a very good price, I feel like Nvidia wanted to try and gouge customers... you can look at it as a good/bad business move on either companies part, the bottom line for me is AMD drove market prices down. I'd probably be equally happy with a GTX260 or 4870 in my system for my very average 22" monitor as far as performance goes, but I'm gonig to give my money to AMD this round because I appreciate what they've done to prices this round. 2 years from now if AMD wants $450 for their 'performance' card and Nvidia wants $300, and both are competitive, I'll probably go green again... but not this round.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
You feel that a 4870 for $299ish would have been inferior to a GTX260 192 core at $400ish?

I don't really have a preference when it comes to video cards. Sure, I do prefer to use AMD cpus, but I've used both Nvidia and ATi GPU's and always been pretty satisfied with the product. But this round, AMD/ATi released a very good card at a very good price, I feel like Nvidia wanted to try and gouge customers... you can look at it as a good/bad business move on either companies part, the bottom line for me is AMD drove market prices down. I'd probably be equally happy with a GTX260 or 4870 in my system for my very average 22" monitor as far as performance goes, but I'm gonig to give my money to AMD this round because I appreciate what they've done to prices this round. 2 years from now if AMD wants $450 for their 'performance' card and Nvidia wants $300, and both are competitive, I'll probably go green again... but not this round.

Nope, I've said the 4870 was a better buy at that price point and I probably would've bought one myself if it came out a few weeks earlier. I also probably would've regretted the purchase because it only has 512MB, a downgrade I've experienced before going from a 640MB GTS to 8800GT then to an 8800GTX. In the end I probably still would've ended up with a GTX 280 as the 4870 1GB took way too long to surface.

As for pricing strategies, I've already said my peace and apparently its OT so I'll just leave it as I started it: I think AMD missed an opportunity to really capitalize on the first winning part they've had in years.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin
And Nvidia didn't "gouge" me when I bought an 8800 GTX. I used the card for almost two years before upgrading - and it was still performing very well when I retired it. Longest time I've ever gone without an upgrade. Worth every penny. And so is the EVGA GTX 260 "FTW" Edition I bought for $280 this fall. Yes, I've owned two Nvidia cards in succession. Prior to that was an 9600 Pro, X800 XL and X850 Pro (flashed to an XT). I can appreciate both companies and these forums, while objective for the most part, do have a slight "reddish" tinge.

I think the price gouging is in reference to the prices of the GTX 280 and GTX 260. For what it's worth, my previous card was an 8800 GTS. I moved to a new card and for the money, the 512MB 4870 (1GB wasn't out yet, nor was the GTX 260 216) for $225 simply was the best performance for my cash. And comparing the 260 to the 4870 at the prices you and I paid, I have to say I got the better deal. But as for the price gouging...imagine how much it would have cost had ATI not been competitive?

As far as financials go, I posted a PM response to a certain nVidia advocate in this thread since the mods told us this is not a financial thread. No reply back...feel free to respond any time you have a valid counter post. Nevertheless, from helping my father start two successful retail stores as well as going to business school, I feel I have a decent grasp of why ATI priced their products the way they did and why it was a sound move.

I don't favor the green or the red team. What I favor is the green in my pocket. Video card prices have simply exploded and was leaving the average users behind. I'm glad ATI decided to scale things back and bring good performance for the dollar. I probably would have still had my 8800 if the 4870 wasn't such a good deal.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: chizow
NV on the other hand goes for the jugular when they have a killer part and does well even when they don't.


No, and no. No, Nvidia doesn't go for the jugular, they go for the wallets. OUR wallets. Personally, I'm just as glad AMD isn't as greedy as Nvidia. And no, Nvidia is not doing well with the GT200. They had to substantially cut their prices after the 48X0 series came out. And the GT200 is a big, EXPENSIVE, low yield GPU to make. Having to cut $150-$200 per card after the 48X0 cards came out is not "doing well".

AMD is definitely just as greedy as nvidia. At least, I hope they are for their shareholder's sakes. AMD just felt that their long term interest was better served with less profits per unit and more sales in this round. If they kick nvidia's ass again next round they could very easily turn the tables and run prices higher.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
It was completed after Q3, but I have no idea when money was counted or if it was counted yet. Also, the deal ended up being $141.5 million from what I saw mentioned.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=108&sid=1465970

Ah, well if that was completed in October then I don't think it would be counted in Q3. I think their Q3 ends at the end of September from the financials link above.

It was put in motion, or at least announced in Q3 I believe. So, when the money hit the books, I'm not sure. I really don't know much about corporate financials other then profit = good, loss = bad. So it is possible the money was in the Q3 report and the transition finished after, but maybe not... I don't know.

they would not be allowed to count it until the sale was completed.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: soybeast

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: akugami
Economies of scale. I can make $200 from a $500 MSRP product but I can only sell one of them per 1000 people or I can make $50 per product with a $350 MSRP and sell 10 of them per 1000 people. Just because AMD (or nVidia) is making less per individual product does not mean they are making less money overall. Business 101 FTW.

I guess they didn't teach you in Business 101 that your $500 MSRP part and $350 MSRP are THE SAME part before some self-imposed neutering. The article covers this as well, except they call it "Harvesting" or "Binning" rather than "self-neutering". Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market. This simply isn't an option for AMD if they price at $350 to begin with, the only option is to dual-GPU for a similar high-end part.

I've read through all the comments in this thread and I have to say Chizow, you really sound Nvidia slanted. Both sides make good arguments, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. I don't understand why some people would argue so passionately about something that's part speculative (profit margin per part? unknown to outsiders), and part simple economics. You can only state the facts and let them speak for themselves. What else is there to say? Unless you're a Nvidia investor and want to see your stocks go up.

People being so passionate about a corporate entity that they have no (stated) stake in doesn't make any sense to me. Making unfounded statements like the following also doesn't make any sense to me. Reminds me of why I've mostly stopped reading forum posts about video cards.

"Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market."

you should read more of chizow's posts. he's actually the least biased member of the video cards and graphics community. he never has an agenda, he just says whatever's on his mind.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't think this forum is biased at all, but if it does come off that way it's probably because many of the realitively neutral people get tired of focus group members as well as the usual cast of Nvidia characters crapping up AMD/ATi threads... take this thread as an example. An article about a 2 hour interview with some of the guys who were responsible for designing an AMD GPU has been turned into you bringing up bad financials and driver problems.

actually, most of the focus group members are ok. even rollo has behaved much better since he's come back. there are a few people who evidently WANT TO become focus group members who make discussions tiresome affairs, unfortunately.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: soybeast

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: akugami
Economies of scale. I can make $200 from a $500 MSRP product but I can only sell one of them per 1000 people or I can make $50 per product with a $350 MSRP and sell 10 of them per 1000 people. Just because AMD (or nVidia) is making less per individual product does not mean they are making less money overall. Business 101 FTW.

I guess they didn't teach you in Business 101 that your $500 MSRP part and $350 MSRP are THE SAME part before some self-imposed neutering. The article covers this as well, except they call it "Harvesting" or "Binning" rather than "self-neutering". Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market. This simply isn't an option for AMD if they price at $350 to begin with, the only option is to dual-GPU for a similar high-end part.

I've read through all the comments in this thread and I have to say Chizow, you really sound Nvidia slanted. Both sides make good arguments, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. I don't understand why some people would argue so passionately about something that's part speculative (profit margin per part? unknown to outsiders), and part simple economics. You can only state the facts and let them speak for themselves. What else is there to say? Unless you're a Nvidia investor and want to see your stocks go up.

People being so passionate about a corporate entity that they have no (stated) stake in doesn't make any sense to me. Making unfounded statements like the following also doesn't make any sense to me. Reminds me of why I've mostly stopped reading forum posts about video cards.

"Nvidia fully understands economies of scale when offering a high range part, which is why they have no problems selling a nearly identical part at a fraction of the price that caters to a broader market."

you should read more of chizow's posts. he's actually the least biased member of the video cards and graphics community. he never has an agenda, he just says whatever's on his mind.

Hmmm judging by what he wrote in this tread and many others i'm not so sure.

 

[AmberClad]

Guys, the last time I checked, the article being discussed in this thread is about the RV770, not Chizow .

- AmberClad

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Guys, the last time I checked, the article being discussed in this thread is about the RV770, not Chizow .

- AmberClad

So tell him to stop, we were doing just fine before he started posting in the tread. Your intervention should be right after he started it.

Let's be fair now, thx