ATI is a glorified file cabinet at AMD. The acquisition was for intellectual property and influence. Hardly any of the R600 team actually work there anymore and nearly none of the executive staff. Dave Orton left, Victor Peng (pres of discrete graphics engineering) is now with Intel Visual Computing, Bob Drebin (new GPG CTO and senior engineering director at ArtX) as well as Raja Koduri left AMD for Apple. Chris Evenden, PR chief as well as marketing director Vijay Sharma are gone. Danny Shapiro (FireGL marketing chief) is now at nVIDIA. ATI is nothing more than an encyclopedia of IP under license by AMD and Radeon (along with all the others) is a brand owned and marketed by AMD. Eric Demers, Mark Leather, and Carrell Killebrew are still around, though, and have been since before R300. A few influential fellows are still there but it's not the same company.
http://i26.tinypic.com/sqt3yp.png
http://i31.tinypic.com/oho6qa.png
Although interestingly, these slides paint an even smaller differential--20% difference between the 285 and the 5870.
I would say 30-38% is "OK" for a $400 single GPU in Crysis. That would push minimum framerates to about ~19 at 1080p w/ no AA/AF, and an average probably around 30, with the HD 5870. Hell it might be the DX12 generation before we get a single card that can tackle Crysis, keep it above 30fps minimum.
Right now I'm trying to get through Warhead on my i7 @ 3.8GHz, GTX 285 SSC and it's PAINFUL at 1080p no AA/AF, the average is ~25fps. The cut-scenes on the other hand, are just brutal.
http://i31.tinypic.com/oho6qa.png
Although interestingly, these slides paint an even smaller differential--20% difference between the 285 and the 5870.
I would say 30-38% is "OK" for a $400 single GPU in Crysis. That would push minimum framerates to about ~19 at 1080p w/ no AA/AF, and an average probably around 30, with the HD 5870. Hell it might be the DX12 generation before we get a single card that can tackle Crysis, keep it above 30fps minimum.
Right now I'm trying to get through Warhead on my i7 @ 3.8GHz, GTX 285 SSC and it's PAINFUL at 1080p no AA/AF, the average is ~25fps. The cut-scenes on the other hand, are just brutal.
Jesusthewererabbit
Senior member
- Mar 20, 2008
- 934
- 0
- 76
Yeah, take the number from the 5870 and calculate the difference with the 285. 51.5 vs 42.7fps = 20.6% @ 1080p with no AA/AF. From the looks of it, it was probably done on a combination of high/mid-high details, rather than full.
Just look at bit-tech's 295 review SLI review, even the 295 only averages around 34-35fps at 1080p with no AA/AF on Very High. Assuming those charts hold, at 1080p the HD 5870 will probably average around 30-32fps on Very High no AA/AF.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
So by the looks of it the 5870 is a little slower then a gtx295 ,and about 40% faster then a gtx285??
So if history repeats itself the gtx285 was ~ 2x the 8800gtx, the 8800gtx was ~ 2x the 7900gtx,the 7900gtx was ~ 2x the 6800ultra.
So the gtx380 should be ~ 2x the gtx285 (which is faster then the gtx295) and should be faster then the 5870 but cost more?
Just gota see the prices now.
So if history repeats itself the gtx285 was ~ 2x the 8800gtx, the 8800gtx was ~ 2x the 7900gtx,the 7900gtx was ~ 2x the 6800ultra.
So the gtx380 should be ~ 2x the gtx285 (which is faster then the gtx295) and should be faster then the 5870 but cost more?
Just gota see the prices now.
You have yet to disprove anything I posted, and yet you repeatedly make these false accusations.
Please prove where my statement is wrong.
ATI is now a brand name. It doesn't matter if they began life as a separate entity or were originally created to be a subsidiary of the parent company. The end result is the same. The minute they were bought out by AMD, they ceased to be a standalone company.
waffleironhead
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2005
- 7,047
- 551
- 136
i have a test tomorrow. sure i may be sitting in front of a few open books, but the slightest reason to procrastinate is enough. i thought, hm, i can cause mischief here.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
um, hmmmm, I wonder why that is exactly? maybe because r600 SUCKED??? If those guys had done their jobs then maybe their company could have survived without a lifeline. ATI became a takeover target because they went with the gigantic die/top dog strategy that nvidia is currently employing. ATI could at least try it because they had a 1/2 step die advantage over nvidia; the reason that nvidia is going to 40nm at the same time (or as close to it as possible) as amd is that executing their strategy is enormously more difficult with a die size DISadvantage. Nvidia has more/better people than ati used to, so they might be able to keep going down this road, but if they don't pull a rabbit out soon then they, too, will become a takeover target.
Getting the good people and IP is a huge part of any acquisition. From the way things are looking at ati these days it appears that the ip was a much more valuable item for amd.
nV would have to completely flop GT300, which probably will not happen, for that to even be a possibilty.
AMD as a whole has a better chance of going under or being acquired. Without that massive Arab cash infusion last year, they could be IBM/AMD for all we know.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
It is a FACT that ati used to be a standalone company. Xeon was never a standalone company. Ati could possibly be spun off if amd goes out of business. In fact, I think that it would surprise nobody here if ati were to become a separate company in the future again either because amd needed more cash or they wanted to focus on their "core competency" of cpus again. If ati were lucky they might even get hector ruiz as ceo.
Sure ati is a brand now, I never said that it wasn't. I've consistently said that you were wrong to compare it to Xeon. Why is this so difficult to figure out? Should I use smaller words?
two bad years of performance isn't enough for a mass exodus. it was the buyout and reorganization.
It's not quite that simple... on average, sure, the 8800GTX was 2x faster than the 7900GTX. But the GTX285 vs. 8800GTX? On average, definitely less than 2x faster... and that's not even considering that the GTX285 is a refresh vs. an 8800GTX. A GTX380 (or whatever the hell they call it) will not be a refresh piece, so it's even less likely its 2x the speed of a GTX285. Remember, while the GTX280 was a definitely faster card than the 9800GX2 in real gameplay, its framerates weren't that much better initially.
Also, in those slides, the 5870 is shown to be ~GTX295 if not faster on average, not slower.
Besides, are we seriously comparing performance based on some AMD slides? Who here remembers when the ATI 48xx slides comparing the 4850 to the 8800GT and the 4870 to the 9800GTX were first unveiled?
Yeah, and look what happened - the 48xx's were definitely much better performers than AMD even listed and indeed the 4870 was more compared to the GTX 260 and 280 than the 9800GTX... so my advice: wait for real reviews!
heres a real review of GTX295 quad sli VS. two 5870's in Crossfire:
http://i32.tinypic.com/58it1.png
Which has already been posted earlier in this thread, btw. So far there are the AMD slides, a czechgamer review of 3DV & HAWX, and this review.
http://i32.tinypic.com/58it1.png
Which has already been posted earlier in this thread, btw. So far there are the AMD slides, a czechgamer review of 3DV & HAWX, and this review.
Looks pretty good. Of course, CryEngine 3 was designed to be easier to run, not necessarily to look better than CryEngine 2. I still don't see how anyone could tolerate having such huge barriers between the screens. I could understand if it was a racing game or an RTS, but not a shooter.
bryan, it doesn't matter if ATI was a standalone company earlier in its life or if it was originally created by a parent company. Either way, it could still be spun off into a separate company if needed. Look at GlobalFoundaries. It started out as simply a division of AMD, yet is now a completely individual entity. There's nothing to say Xeon couldn't do the same should Intel choose to leave the server market.
It's not far fetched to believe that Cry Engine 3 might be capable of better looking stuff than 2, but I was under the impression that the main purpose of it was to make an engine that would be able to run on the consoles. Videos of it so far show it not looking like a next gen engine but a current gen engine. Cry Engine 2 can already do stuff like this with the right settings applied. I don't really think they needed anything but a way to run it without being so expensive with the resources.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
well my understanding is that they are going to go both ways with the new engine. on the consoles it will be severely scaled down of course but on the pc they will be pushing it even further than before. I guess we will know for sure in a few months.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...yengine-3-videos/News/
Please provide the proof that my post was wrong as you have repeatedly claimed it was in your subsequent posts.
You have yet to substantiate any of your repeated claims that my post contained wrong information.
And please be explicit in what it is about my post that is incorrect and likewise be explicit in what it is about my post that you believe you are correcting with the statements you are making in your posts.
You claiming that a comparison between XEON and ATI is wrong does not make such a comparison wrong unless you can provide proof that your opinion is correct.
You are the one claiming my post was wrong, as such the burden of proof falls to the accuser. Please provide your proof that my post was in error.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
correct me if I'm wrong, but we're actually talking about a "brand identity" here. A brand identity is The totality of brand associations including name and symbols that must be communicated As I said earlier, you were wrong to compare a brand identity like xeon with a brand identity like ati. Ati's brand has much more history/name recognition, was it's own company for a long time, and in fact many people probably still don't even know that it's a part of amd now. Xeon is and has always been a subset of intel, if it were spun off (like GF) it would be completely reliant upon intel. If xeon starts to suck in a few years then it will go the way of itanium and nobody on forums (or anywhere else for that matter) will give a shit. If amd completely shuts down ati the managers would be lucky to make it home alive from the public outcry. In fact, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous to think that they WOULD shut down ati; if things got too terribly bad they would spin it back off.
Now it's your turn. Please show me how my logic is faulty. Prove to me that ati was never a standalone company. Show me how xeon is different from itanium, new coke, or tab. Send a nasty message to paul otellini telling him why you can't live without xeon.
Now it's your turn. Please show me how my logic is faulty. Prove to me that ati was never a standalone company. Show me how xeon is different from itanium, new coke, or tab. Send a nasty message to paul otellini telling him why you can't live without xeon.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
Yea your right we should wait for real reviews, but my money's on the gtx 380 as being ~20% faster and ~100$ more. Unless Nvidia changes the way they been doing things for the past 6 years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter