AMD Delays Introduction of Next-Generation ATI R700 Graphics Chip

Cyber-Mav · 16 Dec 2007 at 12:27

only thing keeping ati alive right now is the xbox360. ati is just pure jammy they got the contract for the 360 otherwise they would be down and out for the 10 count.

/ puts bill gates on people that need to be slapped list.

Stellios · 16 Dec 2007 at 12:34

LabR@t said:
give them a year, i reckon its worth the wait if they get it right *** x1800 was rushed out and as was 2900 so lets take stock and slow down research to get it right

Its a fair point, but thats going to be 2 generations of cards that they have effectively missed out on. The 8800 was the most dominant and the 9800 will have no competition if they are not releasing soon.

Tom|Nbk · 16 Dec 2007 at 12:54

LoadsaMoney said:
Oh dear.

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:32

Oh dear +1

Looks like it could damage PC gaming market and also hike the prices of NV's new GPU's, looks like I'll be keeping this 8800GT for a loooong time :\, I was planning on upgrading the GPU in august next year but I dont know if that will happen now.

I hope Intel get into gear now we need something good from them because I cant see ATi being around for much longer if they keep delaying there products.

FreeStream · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:36

Cyber-Mav said:
only thing keeping ati alive right now is the xbox360. ati is just pure jammy they got the contract for the 360 otherwise they would be down and out for the 10 count.

/ puts bill gates on people that need to be slapped list.

You sir, are a tool.

LOW END AND INTEGRATED PARTS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. ATI ARE NOT IN TROUBLE.

Stop posting utter ****. FFS :mad:

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:38

Concorde Rules said:
You sir, are a tool.

LOW END AND INTEGRATED PARTS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. ATI ARE NOT IN TROUBLE.

Stop posting utter ****. FFS

I think they are in abit of trouble, these delays could allow Nvidia to destroy the competition in the mid and low end market I think. But one has to think that surely they cant all be a set of planks at ATi so to a certain degree they must know what they are doing, but from what I see it does not look good for ATi at the moment and the Xbox360 is a kind of lifeline for them.

jaykay · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:42

The 2400 and 2600 seem to be selling well for them as Dell and other makers have them in their pcs.

FreeStream · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:43

willhub said:
I think they are in abit of trouble, these delays could allow Nvidia to destroy the competition in the mid and low end market I think. But one has to think that surely they cant all be a set of planks at ATi so to a certain degree they must know what they are doing, but from what I see it does not look good for ATi at the moment and the Xbox360 is a kind of lifeline for them.

But it isn't.

Big contracts to Dell/HP/Apple is where the money is. I remember a white back ATi were shipping a million of the 2600XT chips to someone big or something.

High-end is 1% (or a VERY small percentage) of their profits. They have an excellent range of low end parts that are better priced than equivalent nVidia parts.

I assure you, AMD would NOT have bought ATi if they were going down the tubes.

Ok so they have ditched R700 till 2009, so what? Does the average consumer care who is winning the power race? No!

Stop these silly arguements, ATi/Intel/AMD/nVidia know what they are doing. You lot really do not know there financial or contractual status.

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:45

Concorde Rules said:
But it isn't.

Big contracts to Dell/HP/Apple is where the money is. I remember a white back ATi were shipping a million of the 2600XT chips to someone big or something.

High-end is 1% (or a VERY small percentage) of their profits. They have an excellent range of low end parts that are better priced than equivalent nVidia parts.

I assure you, AMD would NOT have bought ATi if they were going down the tubes.

Ok so they have ditched R700 till 2009, so what? Does the average consumer care who is winning the power race? No!

Stop these silly arguements, ATi/Intel/AMD/nVidia know what they are doing. You lot really do not know there financial or contractual status.

There is no need to tell people to stop these silly arguments, I was only saying, nothing wrong with people saying what they think, no reason to put a stop to the arguments.

FreeStream · 16 Dec 2007 at 13:53

willhub said:
There is no need to tell people to stop these silly arguments, I was only saying, nothing wrong with people saying what they think, no reason to put a stop to the arguments.

Ok fair play.

However, you can agree this debate is pointless. We don't need to argue about why people think ATi pushing back R700 means financial troubles.

We do not know anything in detail. Therefore it is all pointless speculation which seems to plague this forum quite often and sometimes results in suspensions for such a trivial matter.

Tom|Nbk · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:23

Concorde Rules said:
You sir, are a tool.

LOW END AND INTEGRATED PARTS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. ATI ARE NOT IN TROUBLE.

Stop posting utter ****. FFS

Don't feed the troll, just ignore him

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:27

Concorde Rules said:
Ok fair play.

However, you can agree this debate is pointless. We don't need to argue about why people think ATi pushing back R700 means financial troubles.

We do not know anything in detail. Therefore it is all pointless speculation which seems to plague this forum quite often and sometimes results in suspensions for such a trivial matter.

These things happen on lots of forums, we should be able to discuss wht ATi are pushing back the R700 and what it means for Nvidia etc..

Tom|Nbk said:
Don't feed the troll, just ignore him

Cant you use something other than "troll" lol, it just sounds so ugly

LoadsaMoney · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:29

Concorde Rules said:
However, you can agree this debate is pointless. We don't need to argue about why people think ATi pushing back R700 means financial troubles.

It's not ATi that are pushing it back, its AMD, and it says why they are, to save money, that means they are in financial trouble imo, if they need to save money, they have been for a long time, they only bought ATi to keep emselves alive, everyone knows this.

The money is not in the high-end as you say, so it could be a good move, concentrating on what makes money more, and thats the mainstream, and in the mainstream ATi/AMD are doing very well, look at their 2900's, they were getting snapped up by the bucket load by the likes of DELL etc..., they couldn't make em fast enough the demand was that huge for em.

hiroofheroes · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:31

ati is still profitable (and is keeping amd alive when the cpu side is making huge losses), but if they don't keep up on the r+d they could quickly lose the high end market forever - if you let the opposition get a generation ahead of you in r+d you have to catch up somehow or risk your best performing part being equivilent to your opponents mainstream. Look at how how the cpu side of amd now have to fight, and amd doesn't have the cash reserves (or even profitability) of an intel (k8 versus netburst> ddr2 k8 versus core2) or nvidia (9700 versus 5800 > x800 versus 6800) to catch up or overtake by spending more on r+d. Amd are betting the farm on fusion and the low end returning them to profitability and using the cash to first off pay off the interest on their debts, and then play catch up - which they can only do if intel and nvidia reduce their own r+d - which I don't think is going to happen given they learnt from previous mistakes.

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:35

hiroofheroes said:
ati is still profitable (and is keeping amd alive when the cpu side is making huge losses), but if they don't keep up on the r+d they could quickly lose the high end market forever - if you let the opposition get a generation ahead of you in r+d you have to catch up somehow or risk your best performing part being equivilent to your opponents mainstream. Look at how how the cpu side of amd now have to fight, and amd doesn't have the cash reserves (or even profitability) of an intel (k8 versus netburst> ddr2 k8 versus core2) or nvidia (9700 versus 5800 > x800 versus 6800) to catch up or overtake by spending more on r+d. Amd are betting the farm on fusion and the low end returning them to profitability and using the cash to first off pay off the interest on their debts, and then play catch up - which they can only do if intel and nvidia reduce their own r+d - which I don't think is going to happen given they learnt from previous mistakes.

I would have thought they did better than Nvidia with the X800 Vs 6800 since the X800 was the faster card.

Monkeynut · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:48

Wasn't the x800 only DirectX9.0a or something? Didn't support HDR + some shader things?
Maybe this is why AMD were so keen to get a DirectX 10.1 card out of the door, because to your average joe user, an AMD DirectX 10.1 sounds better than an NVIDIA DirectX10 part, even if NVIDIA have the faster card.

J.D · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:51

willhub said:
I would have thought they did better than Nvidia with the X800 Vs 6800 since the X800 was the faster card.

ATI only went weak at the knees with R600. X1900XT/XTX's were amazing cards before the 8800GTX came out. In fact, they still are......

So 1 year and 1 month ago ATI had the fastest card out and Nvidia couldn't even manage HDR and AA at the same time with much worse image quality to boot. I never heard such cries from people such as yourself when that was happening. You will be happy to say something when it's ATI/AMD though

.

That's why I get at you Will about the AMD/ATI side of things. I think you seem to forget how not that long ago that ATI were at the top of their game and that your arguments are one sided IMO as I never hear you mention the other side.

I know it seems very suspicious that I am saying this with running an AMD/ATI rig lol (hmmmm

). I'm getting an Intel/Nvidia setup in the next 2-3 weeks though so just to assure you that I'm not a fanboy

.

Tom|Nbk · 16 Dec 2007 at 14:57

willhub said:
Cant you use something other than "troll" lol, it just sounds so ugly

No.

hiroofheroes · 16 Dec 2007 at 15:00

the 6800 was faster than the x800 and a more advanced gpu. The x850 gave ati the speed advantage but was still sm2 vs sm3 of the 6800. Plus nvidia had sli for the highest performance.

The 6800 was teaked and expanded to create the 7 series gpu's, wheras ati's x8 series was just a tweaked 9x00 series, and was pushing the 9x00 design to its limits.

So I think its safe to say that the 6800 was the most advanced gpu, even if the x850 refresh made the x800 design faster in some games.

The x1 series caught ati up with nvidia and the x1900 put them slighly ahead in terms of performance (excluding the gx2 and quad sli), but the g80 is still the highest performing chip avaliable some 14 months after launch, and the timeframe for a refresh part is so behind that nvidia will have the 9 series out to compete.

willhub · 16 Dec 2007 at 15:00

Monkeynut said:
Wasn't the x800 only DirectX9.0a or something? Didn't support HDR + some shader things?
Maybe this is why AMD were so keen to get a DirectX 10.1 card out of the door, because to your average joe user, an AMD DirectX 10.1 sounds better than an NVIDIA DirectX10 part, even if NVIDIA have the faster card.

The X800's did not have SM3.0, that was the only downfall, it did lead to the 6800's lasting abit longer than the X800's but by the time SM3.0 was needed the X800's were not fast enough really, the 6800's could not do AA/HDR infact no NV cards could up untill the 8 series.

hiroofheroes said:
the 6800 was faster than the x800 and a more advanced gpu. The x850 gave ati the speed advantage but was still sm2 vs sm3 of the 6800. Plus nvidia had sli for the highest performance.

The 6800 was teaked and expanded to create the 7 series gpu's, wheras ati's x8 series was just a tweaked 9x00 series, and was pushing the 9x00 design to its limits.

So I think its safe to say that the 6800 was the most advanced gpu, even if the x850 refresh made the x800 design faster in some games.

Are you sure they were faster? I can easilly find plenty of benchmarks suggesting they were not.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=742&model2=720&chart=277

X800 gave the 6800Ultra a run. The only advantage I seen in the 6800's was SM3.0, however for all the time I had an X800XTPE it really was not being used.

You forgot to mention that ATi had crossfire at this time aswell for the X800's.

6800 was 16pipelines, X800 was 16 pipelines, the X800 was higher clocked too.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDEsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

check that, 6800Ultra is faster in some games and the x800xt is in others but it seems the x800 came out on top in the end at higher res.