http://www.tomshw.it/articles/20061024/8800%20GTS_7_PhbEyYpicNQ3_c.jpg
have seen that? im sure thats a heat spreader...but damn! its huge
have seen that? im sure thats a heat spreader...but damn! its huge
o rly?
sounds like bs to me; if the high end graphics market wasnt worth it and a loss then why have ATI made the last couple of generations of high end cards?
Despite the trolling, I voted in the poll as it's not too invalid.
Ignoring the specs since we know nothing about the resfreshes of G80, I voted for the refresh simply because I am skipping G80/R600 due to being careful about new tech. I prefer others to test the ice for me before I walk on it.
Ignoring the specs since we know nothing about the resfreshes of G80, I voted for the refresh simply because I am skipping G80/R600 due to being careful about new tech. I prefer others to test the ice for me before I walk on it.
especially if they got this kinda hot boards mounted under their shoes. (pardon my bad english :])
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 2,996
- 126
Another "wait for R600" vote, here. I may end up buying G80 in February, but, if I do, I want to wait until there's some competition to drive the price down. If there's a chance of Nvidia doing a 512-bit, DDR4 version of G80 before G81 comes out next Summer, that's also worth keeping a look out for.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 32
- 81
They didn't have a great deal of choice: they were a video chip/card company, so they either tried to compete on that basis, or they went under. Now, there are other options.
Besides, it isn't so much a question of the market not being there, as of ATI's ability to compete in it. ATI's products are great from a technical perspective but poor from a business perspective: they perform well, but they haven't been making a decent profit for a long time.
Here's another thing to think about: what's going to happen to Crossfire? Look at the RD600 motherboard chipset. Prior to the AMD/ATI merger news coming out, many motherboard makers intended to use it in their boards, because it looks set to be the best Core 2 chipset around when it launches. Now there is just one manufacturer left: DFI.
There are a number of reasons for this, but they all come down to the merger one way or another: AMD may not want to manufacture a product that helps Intel sell CPUs; Intel may put pressure on the board makers not to use AMD-sourced chipsets on Intel boards; Or the board manufacturers may independently drop it either because they doubt AMD/ATI's commitment to the product, or because they fear Intel reprisals. Whatever is going on, RD600 is virtually dead before it even launches.
So, how much of a chance is there that we will ever see any more Crossfire-compatible chipsets for Intel CPUs? The time is rapidly approaching when there is no longer any such thing as Crossfire on an Intel system. Any way you look at it, Intel systems will remain the majority and, while K8L may be good, it's unlikely to smack Core 2 Quad down into the dirt, so that means that, at best, only a minority of gaming systems (the AMD ones) can ever be Crossfire-compatible, while all of them (Intel and AMD) can be SLI-compatible. For practical purposes that means Crossfire is dying - the AMD market won't be big enough to make it worth supporting.
And how will ATI compete with Nvidia in the the high end card if they're having to pitch single-card systems against dual- or even quad-SLI rigs?
All in all, I think it's quite likely that R600 will be the last ever high-end chip to come out of ATI. I'd like to be wrong, but I am not optimistic.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 32
- 81
Okay, let's assume that ATI up until yesterday was a bunch of nerds with great videocard know-how but poor business know-how. Let's assume that AMD did their homework and knew this too.
Well, as of yesterday what has happened? ATI just got a parent that has lots of business know-how and they just got a MASSIVE infusion of R&D and cash resources. To a degree that NVDA could only dream of.
According to what has been said so far, AMD will keep the ATI and Radeon branding and ATI will simply be a division of AMD.
So I hate to disappoint you nVidiots, but not only is ATI going to stick around doing what it has been doing, it will be doing its job better than ever before with more resources than ever before.
nVidia is the company I would be worried about. They are now the little guy between Intel and AMD/ATI.
Well, as of yesterday what has happened? ATI just got a parent that has lots of business know-how and they just got a MASSIVE infusion of R&D and cash resources. To a degree that NVDA could only dream of.
According to what has been said so far, AMD will keep the ATI and Radeon branding and ATI will simply be a division of AMD.
So I hate to disappoint you nVidiots, but not only is ATI going to stick around doing what it has been doing, it will be doing its job better than ever before with more resources than ever before.
nVidia is the company I would be worried about. They are now the little guy between Intel and AMD/ATI.
Pecisely. I don't understand why people are peeing themselves with excitement and preaching "the death of ATI" when AMD themselves has said that ATI is going nowhere, Radeon is going nowhere, but both companies now have the combined experience of two very successful microprocessor designers and the resources of both to boot.
If anything, ATI and AMD are going to be stronger than ever. Nobody is falling out of the business, and nobody is dying. I think that the Nvidiots just feel threatened because, as you said, Nvidia are pretty much alone in their market now until more takeovers/partnerships happen.
well theres hardly any fear in his post
uncertainty yes
and a reasonable amount of doubt, though what he's posted he hasnt made up and has leeched it from some chinese dudes.
yes he has said this is ATi's last attempt, but its obviously not AMD's last attempt or first for that matter
AMD own ATI now, and i hope they are going to continue the high end gpu's....but obviously they wont be called ati
same game different name.
and your fighting fire with fire here GT, adding your own FUD about people having to worry about NV being the little guys in the middle.
Well of course they said that. There was never any possibility that they wouldn't say that, regardless of whether it is actually true or not! If they'd said anything else, ATI's current product line would have gone into instant meltdown, which would have made the AMD share price collapse, triggering a class-action lawsuit by AMD shareholders! The default line in any business announcement is always "everything is fine, don't worry". That doesn't mean you should believe it.
What you need to ask is: why was AMD interested in acquiring ATI? Was it because AMD wanted to get into the high-end graphics card market? The answer to that is emphatically "no". AMD isn't interested in video cards. They are very interested in selling more CPUs, however, and, in particular, they're interested in competing with Intel.
Compared to Intel, AMD has, up to now, been lacking two very important things: 1) the ability to turn out top-notch motherboard chipsets for their own CPUs; 2) the ability to produce reasonably good and cheap graphics chips for use in integrated-graphics systems.
Think back a few months before the merger. Do you remember an announcement from AMD saying that they were basically no longer interested in competing in the high-end consumer PC market, but were instead going to focus much more on corporate PCs? Their chances of doing that are looking quite good, what with the benefits of Opteron in multi-processor machines. Who would ever have guessed that Dell would start shipping AMD systems?
But to achieve the gains in the corporate market that AMD is looking for, they have to be able to compete on a more even footing with Intel, and that means they need motherboard chipsets, and they need integrated graphics. The reason they acquired ATI is that it was the simplest way to acquire both of those things. There are other benefits too: AMD/ATI is now beautifully positioned to produce a genuine "system on a chip" product - CPU and GPU on the same die. This (or any interim graphics chip based on Torrenza) cannot ever be a high-performance device because of the lack of high-speed dedicated video memory - but in price/performance terms it could be a killer. Not because it's fast - because it's cheap.
The high-end video card business, on the other hand, is a market AMD has no interest in. If the ATI high-end line had been highly profitable over the past few years then of course AMD would keep it going - they'd be idiots not to. But that's the problem: it hasn't been highly profitable over the past few years. And I really can't see AMD pouring vast resources and expertise into trying to improve an essentially unprofitable market segment that they have no direct interest in. They'll want to make as much as they can out of the products ATI already has, or is just about to have - again, they'd be dumb not to. But, when it comes to developing new, high-end ATI products, I just can't see why AMD would bother. ATI in isolation would have no choice but to go ahead with them, but I can't see the appeal to AMD.
Am I the only one that thinks the "information" in this thread is not only worthless, but agenda driven as well? Hello?? Is anyone awake out there? The op claims it came from dishonest chinese people, so it must be true...
On the contrary, I fully expect R600 will outperform G80. I don't know whether Nvidia will release a 512-bit bus, GDDR4 version of G80 to compete with R600 at the high end, or if they will wait till summer and launch those features with G81. Either way, the 512-bit/DDR4 Nvidia product stands a good chance of being competitive with R600. This version of G80 (assuming the R600 rumours are in any way accurate!!!) probably will not be.Originally posted by: tuteja1986
lol you really make ATI R600 look so bad
No, what I'm saying is that I suspect (as indicated in this thread) that R600 will be ATI's last high-end graphics product. It should be a damned good one. There just won't be any more after that.
apoppin
Lifer
FACT: nvidia IS the little guy now
and it looks like AMD and Intel will unite to destroy them when nvidia attempts their CPU .. . . which they are making which they must make.
Originally posted by: apoppin
FACT: nvidia IS the little guy now
and it looks like AMD and Intel will unite to destroy them when nvidia attempts their CPU .. . . which they are making which they must make.
well yeah they are the little guy
but whos to say that means theyre in trouble? some of the smallest companies in the world come up with the best idea's and products.
you can look at it in two ways. being small means you are at the mercy of bigger opponents with more money, better machines, more people.
but being in that position leads you on to having to think outside the box, come up with something innovative that the big coporation guys wont think of, and you often find smaller companies being more focused on tasks at hand.
yes nvidia are the little guys now, but thats not necessarily a bad thing.
i definately wouldnt be going round telling people to start worrying becuase nvidias going down.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
lol you really make ATI R600 look so bad
got anything to back that up?
nrb - I think your reasoning is very good concerning AMD/ATI's initial plans but I think you may be wrong on the long-term directionof the industry. While I agree that AMD bought ATI for both its IGP and Chipset intellectual property. I think they also bought ATI because they see the convergence of CPU/GUP/Chipset going much further than you are predicting.
Simply put, I do see high-end onboard or on-die multi-core solutions not all that far down the road (certainly less than 10 years, quite probably less than 5 years). While the lack of high-speed memory bandwidth may be an initial hurdle, it is by no means a long-term mountain.
I also think everyone is underestimating what companies must do: find new markets in which to compete as existing markets mature and find ways to better compete in mature markets.
I think the folks that believe that companies like Intel or AMD/ATI are just going to cede the high-end GPU market to nVidia aren't taking a really good look at how companies behave historically.
Most of Dell's income doesn't come on the high-end, single-user systems--it comes from the mainstream crowd. Hey, then why did Dell start making their own branded 'gaming' rigs (XPS) and then buy out Alienware? That doesn't make sense. Don't they know where they make their money?
Yes they do. Here's the thing about capitalist companies, however: they always are looking for more ways to make money. You do this in two fundamental ways:
1) As your core market matures and it becomes more difficult to squeeze profits from it, you look to new markets and try to get there first.
2) You also look for opportunities to become a major player quickly in a mature market that lacks serious competition.
The AMD/ATI merger does both, for both companies. For both AMD & ATI they can become players in the emerging convergence of GPU/CPU development, in which they both bring valuable intellectual capital. For AMD, in addition to exploring this potential new market, they get to jump into a very mature (but not particularly competitive) market: 'platform' sales (Chipset/CPU/IGP). For ATI, they get to leverage AMD's far greater resources, and hard-won cache in the enthusiast crowd, to try and reinvigorate their ability to compete in their own 'mature' market: discrete GPU sales.
Eventually ATI may give up discrete GPUs but, then again, I think the entire industry will eventually give up discrete GPUs.
Aside from Dell, look at Microsoft, what did they just do: launch Zune. Why? Because the digital music landscape is maturing rapidly but has only one dominant player, Apple. Microsoft sees an opportunity to leverage its assets to become an instant competitor in this very lucrative business. They did the same thing with Xbox.
This is what dynamic, successful companies do: rapidly adapt their goals and business models to take advantage of previously non-core markets. Dell has done it. Microsoft has done it. Why does everyone think that AMD/ATI wouldn't want to do it?
Simply put, I do see high-end onboard or on-die multi-core solutions not all that far down the road (certainly less than 10 years, quite probably less than 5 years). While the lack of high-speed memory bandwidth may be an initial hurdle, it is by no means a long-term mountain.
I also think everyone is underestimating what companies must do: find new markets in which to compete as existing markets mature and find ways to better compete in mature markets.
I think the folks that believe that companies like Intel or AMD/ATI are just going to cede the high-end GPU market to nVidia aren't taking a really good look at how companies behave historically.
Most of Dell's income doesn't come on the high-end, single-user systems--it comes from the mainstream crowd. Hey, then why did Dell start making their own branded 'gaming' rigs (XPS) and then buy out Alienware? That doesn't make sense. Don't they know where they make their money?
Yes they do. Here's the thing about capitalist companies, however: they always are looking for more ways to make money. You do this in two fundamental ways:
1) As your core market matures and it becomes more difficult to squeeze profits from it, you look to new markets and try to get there first.
2) You also look for opportunities to become a major player quickly in a mature market that lacks serious competition.
The AMD/ATI merger does both, for both companies. For both AMD & ATI they can become players in the emerging convergence of GPU/CPU development, in which they both bring valuable intellectual capital. For AMD, in addition to exploring this potential new market, they get to jump into a very mature (but not particularly competitive) market: 'platform' sales (Chipset/CPU/IGP). For ATI, they get to leverage AMD's far greater resources, and hard-won cache in the enthusiast crowd, to try and reinvigorate their ability to compete in their own 'mature' market: discrete GPU sales.
Eventually ATI may give up discrete GPUs but, then again, I think the entire industry will eventually give up discrete GPUs.
Aside from Dell, look at Microsoft, what did they just do: launch Zune. Why? Because the digital music landscape is maturing rapidly but has only one dominant player, Apple. Microsoft sees an opportunity to leverage its assets to become an instant competitor in this very lucrative business. They did the same thing with Xbox.
This is what dynamic, successful companies do: rapidly adapt their goals and business models to take advantage of previously non-core markets. Dell has done it. Microsoft has done it. Why does everyone think that AMD/ATI wouldn't want to do it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter