GT200 is apparently already taped out and Waiting for r700!

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: v8envy
If NV was Microsoft they could certainly 'present' the pre-alpha hardware 6 months early in hopes of killing the competition's high end sales. So either they don't see the benefit of selling vaporware, don't have the vapor, or are just ethical enough not to do that.

And as others pointed out, taped out != chips ready to ship in volume to board partners.

apoppin, another thing you're overlooking is the allergy enthusiasts have built up to multi-GPU solutions since the days of the first sandwich cards. SLI is no longer a symbol of status, it's more a symbol of flakiness and extreme cost for little benefit. You would stand to make more money at less risk just making a volatility bet in the stock market -- although you wouldn't get to 'enjoy' a sandwich card in your rig for the effort.

I think that they're just too ethical to try any dirty tricks.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I would like to see both Nvidia and ATI give some attention to their mobile product lines. It took Nvidia over a year to get any mobile 8 series chips into the notebook arena, and longer to get a high end 8 series 8800M GTX into notebooks. ATI hasn't refreshed their high end mobile part since the Mobility 1900, which wasn't exactly a high volume part.

As notebook sales continue to rise and continue to outsell desktops, I think it'd behoove the graphics heavy weights to give the mobile market a little more focus.

On another unrelated side, I'm still going to pick up a 38070X2 this weekend. Worst case scenario, the 48070X2 launches and makes the 38070X2 look weak in June-Aug time frame. And when I do my next major rebuild, I'll be sure I go with a Crossfire capable motherboard.

If the 8800M is 65nm, that might account for the delay. Just speculating. a 90nm 8800 would have been very difficult to cool. I'm certain a 8800M 65nm is no picnic either in a lappy.

my 8800M is an 80mm. It's a G86.

 

[Wreckage]

This thread cracks me up. NVIDIA already has the best cards on the market but clearly they are with holding better ones. With ATI's track record of delays and paper launches, I doubt NVIDIA is just going to sit around and wait for the next disappointment.

The R600 was the most disappointing hardware launch in the history of computers and the R700 is probably just another pipe dream or "stream processor" dream. Ha!

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


The R600 was the most disappointing hardware launch in the history of computers and the R700 is probably just another pipe dream or "stream processor" dream. Ha!

Wow, harsh. What about the GF FX series, or the Pentium 4, the AMD Phenom, the Savage 2000, or one of the many many other hardware failures.

The Radeons are solid cards.

 

[bryanW1995]

clearly you have never heard of phenom.

rv670 was not disappointing at all, in fact it caught nvidia by surprise and forced them into rushing out their g92's before they were ready. r680 is STILL the performance leader (for another day at least). Nvidia's upcoming 9xxx refresh is unlikely to steal many amd customers or convince many nvidia loyalists to upgrade for that matter since it's nothing nothing more than a slight refresh of its already strong 8xxx series.

why do you think that the r700 launch will be more like the r600 launch than the rv670/r680 launches? did a little birdie tell you that hector ruiz was going to personally supervise it? if so then I completely understand your concern, otherwise please provide some more compelling evidence.

edit: beat me to it, bateluer!

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Wow, harsh. What about the GF FX series, or the Pentium 4, the AMD Phenom, the Savage 2000, or one of the many many other hardware failures.

The Radeons are solid cards.

The FX series recovered very quickly and sold well, just as the P4s did. Phenom did have a mistake but it's to soon to call it. the R600 however has caused ATI to lose significant market share and AMD to lose a ton of money.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995


edit: beat me to it, bateluer!

I remember getting psyched about the FX launch. Biggest PC related let down I've experienced.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Wow, harsh. What about the GF FX series, or the Pentium 4, the AMD Phenom, the Savage 2000, or one of the many many other hardware failures.

The Radeons are solid cards.

The FX series recovered very quickly and sold well, just as the P4s did. Phenom did have a mistake but it's to soon to call it. the R600 however has caused ATI to lose significant market share and AMD to lose a ton of money.

No, the FX series took until the GF 6k series arrived, what was that, 18 months later? The 5900 and 5700 were stop gap measures at best. The P4s solid very well because of Intel's marketing dollars, nothing more.

The R600 wasn't the cause of AMD's problems. AMD bought ATI at a poor time, when their product line was at its weakest and Intel's was strong.

Edit - I thought the GX2 and 9800GTX launched on the 25th, not the 17th?

Edit 2 - Oh, I haven't read this entire thread, just the leaked benchmarks.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

No, the FX series took until the GF 6k series arrived, what was that, 18 months later? The 5900 and 5700 were stop gap measures at best. The P4s solid very well because of Intel's marketing dollars, nothing more.

The 5900.5700 and 5200 sold well. In fact they milked the 5200 for a long time and it was listed as one of the top GPUs in the steam survey. Although the 6 series did put them firmly on top again and they have yet to slip.

The R600 wasn't the cause of AMD's problems. AMD bought ATI at a poor time, when their product line was at its weakest and Intel's was strong.

They bought ATI at the wrong time because they thought the R600 could actually compete. Once they found out how bad it was they released a statement saying they "overpaid" for ATI.

ATI may just be the iceberg to AMD's Titanic.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Wow, harsh. What about the GF FX series, or the Pentium 4, the AMD Phenom, the Savage 2000, or one of the many many other hardware failures.

The Radeons are solid cards.

The FX series recovered very quickly and sold well, just as the P4s did. Phenom did have a mistake but it's to soon to call it. the R600 however has caused ATI to lose significant market share and AMD to lose a ton of money.

"phenom did have a mistake but it's to (sic) soon to call it"????? where have YOU been? phenom was supposed to launch in summer 07, ready to rock and roll. It's mar 16 2008, and the DAMN THING IS STILL BROKEN!!!!! ok, ok, according to the mar 12 AT article it's finally fixed...at least it's fixed well enough to not suffer a 10% or greater performance hit that it could ill-afford. The best phenom currently available can't hold a candle to a Q6600, a processor that intel released OVER A YEAR AGO!!!!! In fact, intel released the QX6700 in nov 06, so AMD is currently 16 months behind. THAT is a spectacular, company-destroying failure. How many people HERE wanted phenom to be a success and kept waiting for it to happen? Is there anyone but the most blatant amd fanboy who is still hoping for great things from this "phenomenal" piece of crap? /rant

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

No, the FX series took until the GF 6k series arrived, what was that, 18 months later? The 5900 and 5700 were stop gap measures at best. The P4s solid very well because of Intel's marketing dollars, nothing more.

The 5900.5700 and 5200 sold well. In fact they milked the 5200 for a long time and it was listed as one of the top GPUs in the steam survey. Although the 6 series did put them firmly on top again and they have yet to slip.

The R600 wasn't the cause of AMD's problems. AMD bought ATI at a poor time, when their product line was at its weakest and Intel's was strong.

They bought ATI at the wrong time because they thought the R600 could actually compete. Once they found out how bad it was they released a statement saying they "overpaid" for ATI.

ATI may just be the iceberg to AMD's Titanic.

Selling well does not necessarily make the product good. The Radeon X1900s outpaced the Nvidia 7 series until the launch of the 8 series, thats common knowledge, Wreckage.

People give the R600 a bad name. It was priced competitively and performed well in that price range. The 3850s and 3870s are very solid products in their price ranges as well, and the 3870X2 is very competitively priced and will likely be even more competitive in the next couple of weeks.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Bateluer

No, the FX series took until the GF 6k series arrived, what was that, 18 months later? The 5900 and 5700 were stop gap measures at best. The P4s solid very well because of Intel's marketing dollars, nothing more.

The 5900.5700 and 5200 sold well. In fact they milked the 5200 for a long time and it was listed as one of the top GPUs in the steam survey. Although the 6 series did put them firmly on top again and they have yet to slip.

The R600 wasn't the cause of AMD's problems. AMD bought ATI at a poor time, when their product line was at its weakest and Intel's was strong.

They bought ATI at the wrong time because they thought the R600 could actually compete. Once they found out how bad it was they released a statement saying they "overpaid" for ATI.

ATI may just be the iceberg to AMD's Titanic.

dude, wake up. the ati division is actually pulling its own weight again. unfortunately, it can't pull that huge anchor known as "phenom" forever. phenom can't keep up with a 65 nm c2d clock for clock and doesn't come close to clocking as high. intel is now on to their 45 nm high-k process and is steadily steaming towards nehalem as we speak... amd needs to get to 3gz NOW.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
This thread cracks me up. NVIDIA already has the best cards on the market but clearly they are with holding better ones. With ATI's track record of delays and paper launches, I doubt NVIDIA is just going to sit around and wait for the next disappointment.

The R600 was the most disappointing hardware launch in the history of computers and the R700 is probably just another pipe dream or "stream processor" dream. Ha!

i dunno, i wasn't disappointed at all .. but then i was expecting crap after the canceled launches and AMD's PR smokescreen

when Keys and i each reviewed our 2900xt vs 8800GTS/640M pair, last May - i had the OC ver. - we pretty much came to the same conclusion that they were "equivalent" GPUs with 2900xt having some disadvantages with Power consumption and immature drivers.

Anyway, i kept my 2900xt because i am not only cheap-ass - saving $70 over GTS and getting free Orange box - BUT i had this novel "dark horse" theory that largely proved correct: AMD supported their Dragon and it has always kept up with the GTS-640 - it's true competition. After 9 months i added another really cheap O/C'd 2900p for FrankenFire and i have performance in "ultra" territory - for $480 total [OB has been good to me also]

SINCE the r600's mess-up largely due to the acquisition of ATi by AMD, their launches have been on time and in good quantity - unlike NVIDIA's cards which are currently seen as "answering" AMD and in short supply after launch.

the future .. who knows? NVIDIA is not still competing with a Company that didn't have any clue about marketing at all - they are competing with AMD and soon .. intel. Good luck guys!

 

[Cookie Monster]

I dont know about you guys but its literally impossible for a company to release something new as soon after their competitors have launched their new product. The only case where it would be possible is when the product itself was ready around the same time as its competitor, or ready earlier then expected i.e can release it anytime they want. Basically now, theres probably two or three design teams working on future GPUs as we speak. And one of them its the GT200 or the next generation Geforce (after the 9 series).

Lead designs or ones from scratch usually take 3 years to 4 (The same team that designed NV40 was the brains of G80), while die shrinks still take as long as 6 months or more. Changes in logic/parts of the chip can add 6 more months or more. Thats why nobody is sitting on their butts. RV670 in this case was released earlier than expected (Q108 was the original date, but the A11 revision of RV670 was bug-free and i.e ready for primetime). This is a rare example of having your first taped out silicon actually working to its full capability. Im even more surprised by nVIDIA somehow rushing their G92 chip and somewhat blunted the HD38x0 series although this isnt the case with the introduction of the 9600GT. You can tell nVIDIA really rushed the 8800GT with its inefficient single slot HSF (or the fact that they intended the HSF for a much lower clocked G92 chip with 64SPs i.e 8700 series) that only got upgraded after the initial launch.

So its good news that there is rumours of nVIDIA's next gen GPU to be taped out. It means we can expect this chip in Q4 or if lucky at Q3. It seems like 512bit memory interface could part of the specs unless GDDR5 is used. So basically by the years end, we will have these new high end cards, while having 55nm G92 derivatives for the rest of the mid/high end market.

edit - just for food for thought, but the design team working on nehalem is the ex-prescott team . G80 was taped out early 06, and in hands of devs. These G80s were 256bit and somewhat slower than its final form at nov06 (something that ATi might have misjudged its performance relative to the R600).

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

If you can afford those heinously over-priced graphics cards, I doubt "investment potential" is really factoring into your decision.

I can afford them but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss my money away. I won't be touching the GX2 anyway because it's SLI based. A solution like that doesn't deserve my money, neither does ATi's X2 for that matter.

:S why did you have to go and mention ati? can you clarify?

 

[BFG10K]

why did you have to go and mention ati? can you clarify?

ATi's 3870 X2 is a multi-GPU solution like nVidia?s 9800 GX2.

 

[dadach]

yeah, but neither is gx2 released yet, and the rumored price is much more than ati x2...also, x2 in ccc shows up as a single card so, where there are some substantial differences from gx2

 

[BFG10K]

also, x2 in ccc shows up as a single card so,

That doesn't matter, it still relies on Crossfire so it'll always have disadvantages compared to a single card.

As for the GX2 not being released, that makes no difference to me because I know it?s SLI based.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: dadach
yeah, but neither is gx2 released yet, and the rumored price is much more than ati x2...also, x2 in ccc shows up as a single card so, where there are some substantial differences from gx2

Could you please elaborate on what those differences are Dadach?

As a guy perhaps using a 9800GX2, they elude me, other than perhaps the performance differences and greater driver flexibility of the NVIDIA part I'm using.

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: dadach
yeah, but neither is gx2 released yet, and the rumored price is much more than ati x2...also, x2 in ccc shows up as a single card so, where there are some substantial differences from gx2

Could you please elaborate on what those differences are Dadach?

As a guy perhaps using a 9800GX2, they elude me, other than perhaps the performance differences and greater driver flexibility of the NVIDIA part I'm using.

I was under the impression that the 3870X2 handled games as if it were a single card whereas the 9800X2 might handle it as an SLI solution If I'm wrong someone please set this issue correct?

 

[BFG10K]

I was under the impression that the 3870X2 handled games as if it were a single card

Sadly that isn't the case as it would be a dream come true if it was.

The X2 appears to the user (and perhaps Windows too) as a single card, but internally it still relies on Crossfire to run games.

That means it has multi-GPU issues such as equal to or worse performance than a single card in games that don't scale, input lag and micro-stuttering from AFR, profiles required for scaling in a given game, etc.

Quite honestly these multi-GPU solutions don't deserve my money because they aren?t robust enough. If they implement something like a Voodoo 5 which scaled like a single card in most situations without profiles I might consider them, but not as they stand now.

I think ATi made a big mistake ditching super-tiling. This technique provided automatic load balancing at the hardware level (so no profiles or driver load balancing were required) and while it might not be as fast or as efficient as AFR in all situations, it would be far more robust to the user and it?d behave like a single card in most situations. That and input lag and micro-stuttering wouldn?t exist since it isn?t AFR style rendering.

Furthermore it?s something nVidia don?t have which is another major bonus for it.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think ATi made a big mistake ditching super-tiling.

Why did they ditch it?

 

[bryanW1995]

probably because it's slower in benchmarks and was a pain in the ass to develop.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

dude, wake up. the ati division is actually pulling its own weight again.

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/14311

AMD lost significant marketshare to NVIDIA last quarter. Leaving them with less than 1/3 of the desktop market. If that's pulling their weight, they must not weigh much.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

when Keys and i each reviewed our 2900xt vs 8800GTS/640M pair, last May - i had the OC ver. - we pretty much came to the same conclusion that they were "equivalent" GPUs with 2900xt having some disadvantages with Power consumption and immature drivers.

Most reviews placed the 2900 between the GTS320 and 640. That meant their top card was in 4th place behind the Ultra, GTX and 640. In fact they still do not have a GPU that can top the original GTX. I won't comment on the noise, heat, powerdraw issues on top of that.

SINCE the r600's mess-up largely due to the acquisition of ATi by AMD, their launches have been on time and in good quantity - unlike NVIDIA's cards which are currently seen as "answering" AMD and in short supply after launch.

There is another thread on the front page here and on several other forums that show that NVIDIA cards are the best purchase in pretty much every market segment. The R600 was screwed up long before the AMD purchase.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2157274&enterthread=y

the future .. who knows? NVIDIA is not still competing with a Company that didn't have any clue about marketing at all - they are competing with AMD and soon .. intel. Good luck guys!

They keep posting record profits, so I doubt they are worried.