No New Graphics Architectures in 2008, says AMD

[Pocatello]

AMD+ATI is worth less than ATI alone when AMD took over. If you have a few $$ billions, the whole thing could be yours for a song.

 

[Acanthus]

The space is made now for XGI to come in and DOMINATE in 2008!

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Cheex
I guess it now goes to show that I'll be better of not upgrading now and just getting 'whatever-the-hell' Nvidia puts out in February.

sure the 'ultra' for $850


:Q

If you wanna have the top cards you gotta pay for it. You can thank ATI for not having a competitor in the marketplace.

I'm sorry but nvidia is to blame here. It's their product and they decide on pricing it.

 

[SLU Aequitas]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Cheex
I guess it now goes to show that I'll be better of not upgrading now and just getting 'whatever-the-hell' Nvidia puts out in February.

sure the 'ultra' for $850


:Q

If you wanna have the top cards you gotta pay for it. You can thank ATI for not having a competitor in the marketplace.

I'm sorry but nvidia is to blame here. It's their product and they decide on pricing it.

Again, Nvidia can price their high end at whatever the hell they want because there is zero competition in the ultra-high end market thanks to AMD/ATI/whatever. Prices go up when a product is uncontested/has a monopoly in its field. So, no, it is very much AMD's fault.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Cheex
I guess it now goes to show that I'll be better of not upgrading now and just getting 'whatever-the-hell' Nvidia puts out in February.

sure the 'ultra' for $850


:Q

If you wanna have the top cards you gotta pay for it. You can thank ATI for not having a competitor in the marketplace.

you mean you are going to pay for it

and don't blame AMD for competing only in the midrange .... they have no good alternatives or they would have a XTX
... nvidia sets the pricing and will charge what they want to

 

[MegaWorks]

"Nvidia can price their high end at whatever the hell they want because there is zero competition in the ultra-high end market"

You said it yourself, they price they cards so ridiculously high. Simple solution don't buy their high end part, by buying it you're encouraging them on keep it that high. If the competitor can't or don't want to deliver fine I'm cool with that. I think bitching at something won't get you anything and as a costumer I would deem what is right for my budget.

 

[Butterbean]

Story out today about the new AMD/ATI multi core cards (with pics). If I was going dual gpu's any time soon I would easily go Crossfire and ATI (and I just bought a 8800GT for now though)

"AMD official with ATI R680, RV620, and RV635 GPU cores"


http://www.engadget.com/2007/1...0-and-rv635-gpu-cores/

 

[Deathray2K]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Deathray2K
I don't think ATi will be competitive even in the midrange market much longer. NVidia is readying to release the 9200 and 9800. The 9200 will effectively be their new midrange card, with the 8800GT (I believe, maybe the 512MB GTS) essentially becoming the low-end. This is going to further lower the 8800s' prices, and I just don't see how ATi is going to combat that without even any new architecture to bolster their high-end.

I hightly doubt that. The 9200 will be a low end card, and there's no way it would perform anywhere close to a 8800gt. And nobody knows how close Nvidia actually is to releasing the 9 series, but I don't think they're just sitting on their butts and waiting for the right moment.

I got the information from a friend at MSI, so I think its quite accurate.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Deathray2K

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Deathray2K
I don't think ATi will be competitive even in the midrange market much longer. NVidia is readying to release the 9200 and 9800. The 9200 will effectively be their new midrange card, with the 8800GT (I believe, maybe the 512MB GTS) essentially becoming the low-end. This is going to further lower the 8800s' prices, and I just don't see how ATi is going to combat that without even any new architecture to bolster their high-end.

I hightly doubt that. The 9200 will be a low end card, and there's no way it would perform anywhere close to a 8800gt. And nobody knows how close Nvidia actually is to releasing the 9 series, but I don't think they're just sitting on their butts and waiting for the right moment.

I got the information from a friend at MSI, so I think its quite accurate.

Historically, the new generation mid-range was always slower than last generation high end (think 7600GT vs 6800GT), same goes for midrange/lowend. 8500GT which was new gen low end is slower than previous generation mid-range 7600GT. If nVidia naming remains the same, 9200 will be new gen low end, and if history is any indication it won't be as fast as 8800 series.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Cheex
I guess it now goes to show that I'll be better of not upgrading now and just getting 'whatever-the-hell' Nvidia puts out in February.

sure the 'ultra' for $850


:Q

If you wanna have the top cards you gotta pay for it. You can thank ATI for not having a competitor in the marketplace.

I'm sorry but nvidia is to blame here. It's their product and they decide on pricing it.

It's because ATI has nothing even close to what they offer. That's the problem. If ATI had something that competes on every level then the pricing would go down.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Cheex
I guess it now goes to show that I'll be better of not upgrading now and just getting 'whatever-the-hell' Nvidia puts out in February.

sure the 'ultra' for $850


:Q

If you wanna have the top cards you gotta pay for it. You can thank ATI for not having a competitor in the marketplace.

you mean you are going to pay for it

and don't blame AMD for competing only in the midrange .... they have no good alternatives or they would have a XTX
... nvidia sets the pricing and will charge what they want to

Again because friggen ATI or AMD whoever, can't make a product that comnpetes. I own an HD2900 and I know that much.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
"Nvidia can price their high end at whatever the hell they want because there is zero competition in the ultra-high end market"

You said it yourself, they price they cards so ridiculously high. Simple solution don't buy their high end part, by buying it you're encouraging them on keep it that high. If the competitor can't or don't want to deliver fine I'm cool with that. I think bitching at something won't get you anything and as a costumer I would deem what is right for my budget.

Again it's because AMD or ATI whoever you wanna blame cannot produce a cardc that competes. There is no comparison between the two companies' cards. Nvidia beats ATI hands down. Talking about midrange? Ok then, find me an ATI card that offers the same level of performance for the same price as an 8800GT. You could grab them for well under $250 with rebates and coupons from bestbuy stores. Or how about a ~$350 card that can compete with the 8800GTS 512MB? That's right, there is nothing out there.


I love how I have to repeat myself so much because nobody understands that it's ATI/AMD's fault for not being competitive in the marketplace. You can't blame Nvidia because they know they own the market. You would do the same thing. No competition means you can do what you want.

 

[SickBeast]

It doesn't make sense for AMD, with such limited resources, to research a high-end GPU that cannot be implemented into Fusion for at least a few years.

The graphics core(s) on the Fusion are only going to be so powerful. They will by no means be high-end on their own. Perhaps 4 of them would compete, but my guess is that the best you'll get is 3 graphics cores and a single CPU core.

The problem with Fusion is that you'll have to sacrifice CPU cores to gain more GPU power.

As others have said, the new Xbox or PS4 may give them a good reason to spend all that R&D money. For the time being, they'd better sell what they have and try to finally make some money.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It doesn't make sense for AMD, with such limited resources, to research a high-end GPU that cannot be implemented into Fusion for at least a few years.

The graphics core(s) on the Fusion are only going to be so powerful. They will by no means be high-end on their own. Perhaps 4 of them would compete, but my guess is that the best you'll get is 3 graphics cores and a single CPU core.

The problem with Fusion is that you'll have to sacrifice CPU cores to gain more GPU power.

As others have said, the new Xbox or PS4 may give them a good reason to spend all that R&D money. For the time being, they'd better sell what they have and try to finally make some money.

That's their fault anyway. Nobody told them to gimp their CPU to increase GPU power. Nobody told them they had to do multiGPU solutions. The fact is that AMD can't make a single card compete with Nvidia's single card. That alone has kept prices steep and performance rather stagnant.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It doesn't make sense for AMD, with such limited resources, to research a high-end GPU that cannot be implemented into Fusion for at least a few years.

The graphics core(s) on the Fusion are only going to be so powerful. They will by no means be high-end on their own. Perhaps 4 of them would compete, but my guess is that the best you'll get is 3 graphics cores and a single CPU core.

The problem with Fusion is that you'll have to sacrifice CPU cores to gain more GPU power.

As others have said, the new Xbox or PS4 may give them a good reason to spend all that R&D money. For the time being, they'd better sell what they have and try to finally make some money.

That's their fault anyway. Nobody told them to gimp their CPU to increase GPU power. Nobody told them they had to do multiGPU solutions. The fact is that AMD can't make a single card compete with Nvidia's single card. That alone has kept prices steep and performance rather stagnant.

Have you seen their new Hybrid Crossfire stuff? I would imagine that a Fusion-version of this tech would be quite impressive. Imagine 3 GPUs inside Fusion paired with 3 cheap grapics cards (or a single card with 3 GPUs on it). If they program their drivers properly (hopefully tile-based already), that should be equivalent to a very high-end GPU.

You never know, even R680 might be faster than an 8800 Ultra, even though it uses 2 GPUs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It doesn't make sense for AMD, with such limited resources, to research a high-end GPU that cannot be implemented into Fusion for at least a few years.

The graphics core(s) on the Fusion are only going to be so powerful. They will by no means be high-end on their own. Perhaps 4 of them would compete, but my guess is that the best you'll get is 3 graphics cores and a single CPU core.

The problem with Fusion is that you'll have to sacrifice CPU cores to gain more GPU power.

As others have said, the new Xbox or PS4 may give them a good reason to spend all that R&D money. For the time being, they'd better sell what they have and try to finally make some money.

That's their fault anyway. Nobody told them to gimp their CPU to increase GPU power. Nobody told them they had to do multiGPU solutions. The fact is that AMD can't make a single card compete with Nvidia's single card. That alone has kept prices steep and performance rather stagnant.

Have you seen their new Hybrid Crossfire stuff? I would imagine that a Fusion-version of this tech would be quite impressive. Imagine 3 GPUs inside Fusion paired with 3 cheap grapics cards (or a single card with 3 GPUs on it). If they program their drivers properly (hopefully tile-based already), that should be equivalent to a very high-end GPU.

You never know, even R680 might be faster than an 8800 Ultra, even though it uses 2 GPUs.

I've seen it and am unimpressed. You have to buy specially designed hardware for everything. That alone doesn't interest me at all. I want to pop in one card to occupy my PCIe x16 slot and have it run the games I can't play well now, with good FPS. ATI obviously can't do that.

There's already something faster than an 8800Ultra, a 512MB 8800GTS when overclocked. Stock it already beats ths GTX.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I've seen it and am unimpressed. You have to buy specially designed hardware for everything. That alone doesn't interest me at all. I want to pop in one card to occupy my PCIe x16 slot and have it run the games I can't play well now, with good FPS. ATI obviously can't do that.

There's already something faster than an 8800Ultra, a 512MB 8800GTS when overclocked. Stock it already beats ths GTX.

It's not like anything nVidia has is significantly better anyway.

Even if you had an 8800 Ultra, you would not be able to run Crysis at full settings. It might be 25-30% faster overall (more than that with AA if you care).

In any event, you're probably going to be forced to buy one of these "gimped" CPU/GPUs soon enough. Intel is working on one of their own. The fact that ATI can pair theirs with a discreet card is a pretty cool trump card IMO.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I want to pop in one card to occupy my PCIe x16 slot and have it run the games I can't play well now, with good FPS. ATI obviously can't do that.

Where did you read that R680 needs "special" hardware? And what hardware are you talking about? Links?

Wouldn't it work like the 7950GX2 did?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I want to pop in one card to occupy my PCIe x16 slot and have it run the games I can't play well now, with good FPS. ATI obviously can't do that.

Where did you read that R680 needs "special" hardware? And what hardware are you talking about? Links?

Wouldn't it work like the 7950GX2 did?

He was talking about Hybrid Crossfire (which may or may not need a new chipset; AFAIK they haven't released the system requirements for it yet).

 

[taltamir]

intel is NOT working on a fusion like thing... intel is working on making their own discreet cards to go along with their octal core cpus (two natively quad core die on one chip)...

So you would buy a motherboard... maybe from intel, maybe from nvidia... put a cpu with 4 or 8 cores in it. and get a video card to go with it (nvidia or intel for single video cards... AMD would have crappy weak video cards for their quad crossfire boards)

An intel octa core with a multicore cpu like archeticture based video card from is going to compete with an AMD northbridge integrated mobo graphics + cpu that contains 2 cpu and 2 gpu cores and a 1-4 cheap video cards running in crossfire...

The thing is, that intel CPU could be paried with an nvidia single card or mobo... AMD on other hand will not have the performance to compete with anything unless you have a full AMD platform... The AMD platform will be very driver Dependant, promising high graphics performance with their N-cards+chips crossfire at the cost of low cpu performance and inflexibility... I think that is suicide.

 

[Skunkwourk]

ok so theres plenty of debate over AMD/ATI vs Nvidia. What Im curious is what AMD/ATI's partners/vendors are going to think. Powercolor, Visiontek, HIS, Sapphire, Diamond, etc... Correct me if Im wrong, but AMD/ATI's choice not to release any new cards is going to affect their profits as well right?

The question is how much? and can they do anything about it?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
He was talking about Hybrid Crossfire (which may or may not need a new chipset; AFAIK they haven't released the system requirements for it yet).

Ahh I see. It requires the 790G version of the new chipset doesn't it?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SickBeast
He was talking about Hybrid Crossfire (which may or may not need a new chipset; AFAIK they haven't released the system requirements for it yet).

Ahh I see. It requires the 790G version of the new chipset doesn't it?

For now...I assume it could work with other hardware. I have a feeling it will be an amazing feature for Fusion.

 

[Mana]

Originally posted by: m0mentary
ok so theres plenty of debate over AMD/ATI vs Nvidia. What Im curious is what AMD/ATI's partners/vendors are going to think. Powercolor, Visiontek, HIS, Sapphire, Diamond, etc... Correct me if Im wrong, but AMD/ATI's choice not to release any new cards is going to affect their profits as well right?

The question is how much? and can they do anything about it?

Whoa, slow down there. No new architectures is not the same thing as not releasing new videocards. I would be extremely surprised to not see a refresh of the Radeon 3800s, at the very least, by this time next year. We already know that there will be a Radeon 3400 released sometime in the future.

Also, when you people keep talking about how the 8800 GT makes the 3870 obsolete you keep forgetting one small but important detail. For the market that these cards are aimed at, namely those people like me who run medium resolutions with a little bit of AA and Anisotropic Filtering, both of the cards are more than good enough for all games on the market. By the time games come out where the 3870 won't yield a playable experience at decent settings, the 8800 GT will also not be able to. In this sense, both the 3870 and 8800 GT are equal.

Ok sure, for some it matters whether or not they're able to turn on at least4x AA and and 8x Anisotropic Filtering at high resolutions. But both the 8800 GT and Radeon 3870 aren't aimed at these people.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: Mana

Originally posted by: m0mentary
ok so theres plenty of debate over AMD/ATI vs Nvidia. What Im curious is what AMD/ATI's partners/vendors are going to think. Powercolor, Visiontek, HIS, Sapphire, Diamond, etc... Correct me if Im wrong, but AMD/ATI's choice not to release any new cards is going to affect their profits as well right?

The question is how much? and can they do anything about it?

Whoa, slow down there. No new architectures is not the same thing as not releasing new videocards. I would be extremely surprised to not see a refresh of the Radeon 3800s, at the very least, by this time next year. We already know that there will be a Radeon 3400 released sometime in the future.

Also, when you people keep talking about how the 8800 GT makes the 3870 obsolete you keep forgetting one small but important detail. For the market that these cards are aimed at, namely those people like me who run medium resolutions with a little bit of AA and Anisotropic Filtering, both of the cards are more than good enough for all games on the market. By the time games come out where the 3870 won't yield a playable experience at decent settings, the 8800 GT will also not be able to. In this sense, both the 3870 and 8800 GT are equal.

Ok sure, for some it matters whether or not they're able to turn on at least4x AA and and 8x Anisotropic Filtering at high resolutions. But both the 8800 GT and Radeon 3870 aren't aimed at these people.

Actually thanks for pointing that out. Im not familiar with the normal cycle for new architecture but Im guessing they're trying to leap frog one generation and catch up in the next?