S3 & PowerVR

[Matt]

[TSDgeos]

[Rookie]

[ronaldo]

Hmmm, So what is the status of S3, don't they design their own PC graphics cores? I'm not sure that it makes sense for VIA/S3 to licence yet another.

According to: http://www.viatech.com/en/company/overview.jsp

VIA are making set top boxes and web pads, so could this be where the rumor fits in?

[Dave Baumann]

Its been quoted to me a few times that when Via purchased S3 they didn't realise that S3 had no internal roadmap, and hence no upcoming technology. This would explain why we've seen nothing but rehash's of old S3 tech from Via so far.

WRT Matt’s wondering, PowerVR tech makes eminent sense for an integrated chipset – be it in a laptop or for desktop graphics. Look at KYROII, only 2.8G of bandwidth and you basically have the power of a GTS; couple that with dual channel RD/DD RAM in an integrated chipset and that performance not to be sniffed at. It’s the same reason why MBX is gaining ground in even smaller integrated devices.

However, from everything IMG are saying it seem they won’t settle for integrated only; they still want the desktop products as well, which is what ST were doing. If Via/S3 were only interested in integrated then IMG may still seek another company for desktop products; however given the Digitimes report that Via are setting up a graphics division then it seems like a nice knit.

[KingRoLo]

I think you guys have cracked it.

[Matt]

I mentioned the desktop market to the guy, and whether or not S3 plans on coming back to the high-end 3D acceleration market, and he said he doubts it. Then again, who knows. The guy is just a driver writer, so he really doesn't have any management type info at hand.

One thing that does seem interesting is that perhaps VIA plans on taking NVIDIA on with a "nForce killer". A motherboard with a high-performance integrated graphics system that uses TBR and cost significantly less than the nForce (and future nForces) would certainly keep NVIDIA on their toes.

[K6-III]

Remember the rumors about the S3 Columbia having TBR???

Maybe they will turn out to be true with a KyroIII/NP2-based Columbia.

[PC-Engine]

The ST sale is for Series 3, 4, and 5. AFAIK none of those can operate on passive cooling so laptops isn't one of the markets of a purchase.

[Mariner]

But the new MBX chip is part of PVR series 3 and I would expect that uses passive cooling. I'm pretty sure that the original Kyro chips released by Videologic as the "Vivid" graphics boards simply had heatsinks.

[PC-Engine]

I don't think MBX is part of series 3. It's a separte line designed to be integrated into embedded cpus. It doesn't have enough performance to compete in the laptop display market where ATI has dominance with the Rage Mobility chips AFAIC. BTW Kyro I and II use fans. Keep in mind that laptops have very little space and it gets hot really quick without all that air inside a PC case.

http://www.videologic.com/Images/JPG/Products600/VL-60451.jpg


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PC-Engine on 2002-03-04 12:27 ]</font>

[Dave Baumann]

I don't think 'cooling' is really that much of a concern - if they wanted it for integrated chipset then they would design it with a target process & speed to meet the cooling needs.

Initially Videologic were going to use passive cooling on KYROII, but that as changed to active cooling before they went to retial.

[Mariner]

Ah, that must be it. I remember reading a preview of the Vivid (or Vivid XS) which mentioned that there was no active cooling. I didn't realise they decided to add a fan after all.

[Teasy]

The ST sale is for Series 3, 4, and 5. AFAIK none of those can operate on passive cooling so laptops isn't one of the markets of a purchase.

Series 3 can operate at defualt clock with passive cooling. I have a Vivid!XS review board and it has no fan on it, just a small heatsink. Its perfectly stable and doesn't even get very hot. As for the Kyro 1, well that was on 0.25, but at 115mhz I'd say no it didn't need a fan either, not if Kyro II could run at 175mhz without a fan (al be it on 0.18 micron). Having a fan and needing a fan are two different things, IMO the Vivid!XS was given a fan simply for aesthetic puposes.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-04 14:01 ]</font>

[Tessier]

On 2002-03-03 17:05, DaveBaumann wrote:
Its been quoted to me a few times that when Via purchased S3 they didn't realise that S3 had no internal roadmap, and hence no upcoming technology. This would explain why we've seen nothing but rehash's of old S3 tech from Via so far.


Interesting. When VIA bought S3, I was told that S3 had a roadmap (almost the same you can see on the net - Columbia, Zoetrope). Unfortunately since then all my contacts left S3. One of them said S3Graphics didn't have the talented designers anymore: they left the company before the VIA business.

So it may be possible that VIA buy the licences, but I am personally a bit afraid of this.

[Teasy]

I don't think MBX is part of series 3. It's a separte line designed to be integrated into embedded cpus

MBX is based on Series 3 tech.

It doesn't have enough performance to compete in the laptop display market where ATI has dominance with the Rage Mobility chips AFAIC

I'd disagree with that actually. The Rage Mobility chip has a 105mhz core and 105mhz 64bit SDR ram, thats a fillrate of 210mpixels/s but more importantly a bandwidth of only 840mbps. What actual fillrate do you think that rage mobility will be reaching with such a small bandwidth?.. considering it has no bandwidth saving tech at all.. 50mpixels/s maybe?, ok I'll be generous and say 100mpixels without taking overdraw into account and 33mpixels/s when taking overdraw into account. The MBX could reach at least 100mpixels/s (and more if they clocked the core higher, as they probably could if they put it in a laptop) with the same memory bandwidth. It would also have no overdraw which means the full 100mpixels/s would be reached and it has free FSAA as. It should be significantly faster then the rage mobility. Also it would have a far better feature set on its side.

This is all pointless anyway because Kyro II could easily be used in laptops, as I said my Vivid!XS board runs at 175mhz with only a small heatsink and it uses a very low amount of power. They could even drop its speed to 150mhz it'd still absolutely kill the Rage Mobility and Radeon Mobility considering the small amount of mem bandwidth these two chips has available to them (840mbps for Rage Mobility and 1.4gbps for Radeon Mobility).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-04 15:45 ]</font>

[Rookie]

One thing that does seem interesting is that perhaps VIA plans on taking NVIDIA on with a "nForce killer". A motherboard with a high-performance integrated graphics system that uses TBR and cost significantly less than the nForce (and future nForces) would certainly keep NVIDIA on their toes.

:eek: VIA always trade high performance in high unstablity... ;P

I really like my Creative noise on VIA board...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rookie on 2002-03-04 15:33 ]</font>

[amk]

MBX is listed (http://www.powervr.com/Technology.asp) as Series 3 on the PVR website, but so is Naomi2 - 2xPowerVR S2DC + Elan - well, the T&amp;L may be considered S3. It seems that the definition of each series of PVR is a bit vague.

[nooneyouknow]

Why even bother worrying about how the Kyro II in a laptop would beat the Radeon Mobility when they just released their Mobility 7500 and are surely working on the next version already.

By the time VIA would get it working and actually secured an OEM, both ATI and Nvidia would have something better and cheaper.

[Teasy]

MBX is listed as Series 3 on the PVR website, but so is Naomi2 - 2xPowerVR S2DC + Elan - well, the T&amp;L may be considered S3. It seems that the definition of each series of PVR is a bit vague.

Naomi 2 isn't listed as series 3, ARX Family is just PowerVR's name for arcade graphics tech just like PMX Family is there name for desktop graphics tech. Obviously one of Series 3's possibilities is arcade but that doesn't make it Naomi 2, just like the PMX family tech in Series 3 isn't the same as the PMX Family tech in Series 1.

Why even bother worrying about how the Kyro II in a laptop would beat the Radeon Mobility when they just released their Mobility 7500 and are surely working on the next version already.

From what I've seen of the 7500 mobility its slower then a Kyro II as well as more expensive and I wouldn't be suprised to find that it uses more power so a mobile Series 3 chip could be highly competitive in this market.

By the time VIA would get it working and actually secured an OEM, both ATI and Nvidia would have something better and cheaper.

How do you know?... the mobile market is very limited by cost, heat and power, Nvidia and ATI can't just go all out without taking price, heat and power consumption into account like they do in the desktop market, which is very apparent in their current laptop chips, especially Nvidia's.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-04 22:39 ]</font>

[nooneyouknow]

Does the Kyro II have have T&amp;L? If not, then right away it is at a disadvantage since most games this year need T&amp;L. I am not saying that Kyro II mobile version is going to be crap, I am just saying that there is stiff competition and even though pricing is an issue, I think ATI above all, but even Nvidia, have stronger relationships to help ease any pricing issues. The way I look at it, a Radeon 8500 Mobility (or whatever it ends up being called) will be super fast and ATI has aleady shown they can be flexible on pricing *Retail 8500 64Mb price super-cheap.

I wish them luck, as more competition means lower prices for all :smile:

[Teasy]

Does the Kyro II have have T&amp;L? If not, then right away it is at a disadvantage since most games this year need T&amp;L

Kyro II doesn't have HW T&amp;L but that doesn't mean any mobile series 3 derivitive can't have T&amp;L if needed.

I am not saying that Kyro II mobile version is going to be crap, I am just saying that there is stiff competition and even though pricing is an issue, I think ATI above all, but even Nvidia, have stronger relationships to help ease any pricing issues.

Not if they keep using brute force they haven't. If VIA did buy STM's graphics division and produced a Series 3 or even Series 4 laptop chip then they would have a massive advantage over Nvidia and ATI in price, performance, and power consumption. Look at Nvidia's offering at the moment, yeah its cheap, but frankly its pathetic performance wise. The 7500 is much better but still not faster then a Kyro II and I'd bet not cheaper either, I'd also bet it uses more power then the Kyro II. VIA are known for producing high performance yet cost effective motherboards so why not move into the laptop market by producing laptop mobo's with integrated PowerVR chips? Thats something ATI and Nvidia don't do and it could make VIA's offering even more cost effective by selling the mobo and graphics chip together so the OEM doesn't have to go to two seperate manufacturers for two seperate parts like they do with ATI and Nvidia.

I believe VIA also have a new CPU coming, so they could sell a laptop mobo with integrated PowerVR graphics and there own CPU meaning the OEM would get all the important parts from one manufacturer.. which equals cost effectiveness.

IMO VIA could be very good for PowerVR, they seem like the best option to me, its just a pity this is still all wild rumour ATM :smile:

The way I look at it, a Radeon 8500 Mobility (or whatever it ends up being called) will be super fast and ATI has aleady shown they can be flexible on pricing *Retail 8500 64Mb price super-cheap.

You really think there going to be able to put a Radeon 8500 chip in a laptop?.. its got over 50 million transistors, its power consumption must be massive when compared to what you need for a mobile chip and the heat would also likely be too much for a laptop. I don't know a great deal about laptops but I would assume it would just be totally unfeasible to put a Radeon 8500 chip into a laptop. Maybe if they took out the pixel shaders and halfed the pipes then it might just work, but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-05 14:18 ]</font>

[Joe DeFuria]

Not if they keep using brute force they haven't.

In fairness, the same argument was made in the desktop area for the past 5 years.

One thing you have to consider, is would IMG / chip partner going to treat the mobile space like they did the desktop space? Will the go avoid going after the "high-end" mobile chips, and avoid going after the "super cheap" mobile space, and settle for something "mediocre" in both aspects?

You really think there going to be able to put a Radeon 8500 chip in a laptop?..

Yep. Eventually, as they migrate down to smaller fab processes, you bet the 8500 core will end up in a lap-top. That's they way it has always worked! There's no reason to expect we won't see a "high-end" lap-top chip based on the Radeon 8500 core on a 0.13 micron process...or the 0.10 process at the latest.

[Dave Baumann]

Will the go avoid going after the "high-end" mobile chips, and avoid going after the "super cheap" mobile space, and settle for something "mediocre" in both aspects?

The 'high end' inttegrated chipsets rarely come close to the mid/low end desktop counterpart of a similar era; series 4, for instance may well be a low end (high volume) chip in the desktop space, but its quite feasable that the same design could be used in integrated chipsets at the same time and that would make for quite a high end integrated solution.

[Joe DeFuria]

The 'high end' inttegrated chipsets rarely come close to the mid/low end desktop counterpart of a similar era;

Certainly! (The "high-end" integreated chipsets also rarely come close to the mid-low end desktop in price.)

My point though, is that there is still some product segregation in the integrated chipset and especially the mobile market. There are "high-end" mobile chips, "mainstream" mobile chips, and "bare-bones" mobile chips, each priced accordingly.

So, which "market" will IMG / partener target in the mobile or chipset arena? We know they were "not interested" in the high-performance / low volume desktop area. Do we think they are interested in similar "high-performance / low volume" chipset / mobile market?

Of course, the "promise" of PowerVR technology is that they should be able to produce a high-performance part with mainstream pricing / powerconsumption (bandwidth use) , etc.

Again, the same promise was said of the desktop parts. In the end though, what was actually delivered was something like "a little better than mainsteam performance, at mainstream pricing." And that combination, when put against well estabilshed brands and parts that have big market penetration, won't sell many parts IMO.

[Dave Baumann]

So, which "market" will IMG / partener target in the mobile or chipset arena? We know they were "not interested" in the high-performance / low volume desktop area. Do we think they are interested in similar "high-performance / low volume" chipset / mobile market?

‘High Volume’ is the very nature of an integrated chipset – after all, a high end integrate video system is always going to be cheaper to the OEM than a chipset and a mid end desktop card; and, yes, the very nature of its designs should warrant extra performance, comparatively, without extra cost.

However, one thing you have to consider is PowerVR’s licensing model – currently one license has roughly equated to one design. According to PowerVR’s site MBX and KYRO are both the same series (Series 3), but they require separate licenses; presumably if a chipset maker wanted different parts for their integrated chipsets they would probably have to stump up and extra license fee. Its feasible to do it don’t you think they would rather pay one license fee for both a desktop and integrated parts?

[Joe DeFuria]

‘High Volume’ is the very nature of an integrated chipset...

Again, relative to the add-in board market, agreed. I'm only pointing out that within the integrated chipset and mobile markets, are different market segments. For example, the nForce chipset, radeon mobility 7500, and GeForce4 Go are "high price, high margin, low volume" parts relative to other integrated and mobile products.

I would also say that there's an argument to be had over which market has higher volume...the low cost add-in market, or the "high cost" mobile / chip-set market.

So my question to IMG - which sub-market (or markets) within the "integrated chipset and mobile markets" do they plan on going after? I don't think it's a given that they will simply go after the high-performance segment. (As much as I'd like to see them do it!)

However, one thing you have to consider is PowerVR’s licensing model...

Which, IMO, is actually a hindrance in this environment. (Highly competitive, fast paced PC graphics environment). It seems to me that the disadvantages of the "layered" business model outweigh the advantages.

Possible disadvantages:
* longer time to market (because of multiple parties involved in bringing the finished product to market).

* Extra cost - extra business unit required to make a "profit" on each sale of the chip.

Possible advantages:
* chip manufacturer saves on development and maintenance costs/resources. (Limited R&amp;D expenditures / driver support.)

In my opinion, it's the complexity of the PowerVR business model, moreso than the technology itself, that has lead to the less than stellar accpetance of PowerVR products in the PC space.

[Dave Baumann]

So my question to IMG - which sub-market (or markets) within the "integrated chipset and mobile markets" do they plan on going after?

Its clear that the only integrated market that IMG themselves are going for is that of PDA's and other such small devices as that is what MBX is aimed at; they have no licenses specifically aimed at the PC integrated sector. Those markets would most likely be decided on buy the manufacturer of the integrated chipset and hence whgich license they feel would best suit their needs; i.e. if STM graphics were purchased now the purchaser would have access to Series 3, 4 & 5 licenses - Series 3 would likely make a good product for the lower end integrated market, and potentially series 4 for the higher.

[PVR_Extremist]

Did you know that videologic will be releasing/announcing a new graphics card at CeBit?

It's on their home page. (in their CeBit Exhibition blurb). No specifics, just that they will release (or announce) one.

[Dave Baumann]

IMO - its most likely to be STG4800 based...

[Tagrineth]

I wonder... if VIA bought STM's graphics division and therefore the PowerVR licenses, would they be allowed to merge some of S3's better technologies into the PowerVR cores? i.e. single-cycle multitexturing using a method different from ATi and nVidia? That could be very good...

[Simon F]

On 2002-03-05 18:42, Tagrineth wrote:
I wonder... if VIA bought STM's graphics division and therefore the PowerVR licenses, would they be allowed to merge some of S3's better technologies into the PowerVR cores? i.e. single-cycle multitexturing using a method different from ATi and nVidia? That could be very good...


What single-cycle multitexturing?

You aren't confusing S3's "fast trilinear" which was single cycle as opposed to 2 cycle for the standard trilin'?

[Dave Baumann]

I wonder... if VIA bought STM's graphics division and therefore the PowerVR licenses, would they be allowed to merge some of S3's better technologies into the PowerVR cores?

I don’t think there would be any difficulty from a technology standpoint of ‘enhancing’ the design they license, however it could get a bit messy beyond that point – traditionally PowerVR supply the driver and developer support but could they do that with a hybrid design? And if they can’t would S3/Via be able to or even allowed to?

[Teasy]

In fairness, the same argument was made in the desktop area for the past 5 years.

Yes it was and it was a fair argument too, IMGTEC simply never partnered anyone who took advantage of it. However VIA are focused on PC hardware and they could take advantage of this in the mobile market. I didn't say IMGTEC and VIA will produce a great mobile chip.. we don't even know if this rumour is true or not yet. What I was saying is in PowerVR's current on the market tech (Kyro) they have a strong advatage that would fit the mobile market perfectly and be a much bigger advantage then HW T&amp;L (also they could have HW T&amp;L as well).

One thing you have to consider, is would IMG / chip partner going to treat the mobile space like they did the desktop space? Will the go avoid going after the "high-end" mobile chips, and avoid going after the "super cheap" mobile space, and settle for something "mediocre" in both aspects?

Well considering the current PowerVR tech that is already in the PC market is high end in mobile terms (the best mobile chips being Radeon 7500 mobility and Nvidia's go chips) and that VIA are a company focused on the PC market I don't see why they'd release a chip that's slower then Kyro II in the mobile market.

Yep. Eventually, as they migrate down to smaller fab processes, you bet the 8500 core will end up in a lap-top. That's they way it has always worked! There's no reason to expect we won't see a "high-end" lap-top chip based on the Radeon 8500 core on a 0.13 micron process...or the 0.10 process at the latest.

Yeah of course they will do it eventually. I should have been clearer and mentioned that I was not saying they would never be able to do it. Just not in time to limit the use of a Kyro II mobile chip. Putting a full Radeon 8500 in a laptop is quite a long way off IMO, probably 0.10 micron or smaller.. certainly not in the immediate future. So IMGTEC and VIA (if they are the ones taking over from STM) would have plenty of time to get a Series 3 mobile chip out and have it as a very competitive mobile chip.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-05 19:23 ]</font>

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes it was and it was a fair argument too, IMGTEC simply never partnered anyone who took advantage of it.

No offense, but you make that "argument" all the time, and I'm getting tired of telling you that's a cop-out argument. :wink:

It can easily be argued that the reason "no one took advantage of it", was because, in fact, that the technology itself couldn't deliver what was "promised". (A step change in price / performance).

I ask again, that if the argument was a no-brainer, then why didn't VDO make the PC chips themselves. If the technology was in fact a step above what anyone else could make, such that anyone could see it was the clear price / performance leader with no apparent drawbacks, VDO would have been idiodic to not make the chips themselves and make a killing.

Apparently, VideoLogic did their own "risk" analysis, and they decided that the technology was NOT "SO bulletproof" that they would risk their own investment to make and manage their own chip supply.

What I was saying is in PowerVR's current on the market tech (Kyro) they have a strong advatage that would fit the mobile market perfectly and be a much bigger advantage then HW T&amp;L (also they could have HW T&amp;L as well).

IMO, we really have little idea how Kyro would do in a mobile setting, in terms of cost, power consumption, heat, etc, relative to the current ATI and nVidia offerings.

Again, if it would be a clear leader, then why doesn't the product exist? Is it just that all the chip-makers aren't as "smart" as we are?

So IMGTEC and VIA (if they are the ones taking over from STM) would have plenty of time to get a Series 3 mobile chip out and have it as a very competitive mobile chip.

Yes, because IMGTEC and it's partners have been so quick and timely with products thus far. :wink:

[amk]

Teasy: look under the chart here (http://www.powervr.com/Technology.asp), at the cores table: Series 3 is used in Naomi 2. (IIRC an older version of the above chart had Naomi2 listed under S3). There was also a Sega presentation which described Naomi2 as S3 (don't have link). Also, there are a number of S3 2D/MPEG/video cores, and "ST has also included Series3 graphics technology in their set-top box reference platform"

[Teasy]

No offense, but you make that "argument" all the time, and I'm getting tired of telling you that's a cop-out argument.

And you make this argument everytime without any evidence or info to back it up (or I assume you have no inside info since your not specifically interested in PowerVR tech.. tell me if I'm wrong of course). Your only evidence seems to be "we haven't seem highend PowerVR tech in the PC space so it must be impossible".. thats overly simplistic.

It can easily be argued that the reason "no one took advantage of it", was because, in fact, that the technology itself couldn't deliver what was "promised". (A step change in price / performance).

Where is the evidence of this? Why do you think that the lack of highend PowerVR tech on the market is because IMGTEC can't come up with the tech. STM have said their not interesting in the highend market, IMGTEC have also said it is STM's decision not to go for the highend (I've also heard from reliable sources that this is the case many times).

I ask again, that if the argument was a no-brainer, then why didn't VDO make the PC chips themselves. If the technology was in fact a step above what anyone else could make, such that anyone could see it was the clear price / performance leader with no apparent drawbacks, VDO would have been idiodic to not make the chips themselves and make a killing.

Apparently, VideoLogic did their own "risk" analysis, and they decided that the technology was NOT "SO bulletproof" that they would risk their own investment to make and manage their own chip supply.

Nothing is bullet proof (well except bullet proof glass and metal ect but you know what I mean). Producing your own high end graphics chips is a massive risk no matter how good your tech is, especially when you have only one shot (if that given the size of IMGTEC). So many problems can arrise that can bankrupt even the most talented of companies (the problems with 0.13 micron for instance that can delay a product and potentially bankrupt a less then huge company) and IMGTEC do not have the money to risk faliure in such a market. Do they even have the money to have a go at this market??.. maybe not, there not a huge company.

IMO, we really have little idea how Kyro would do in a mobile setting, in terms of cost, power consumption, heat, etc, relative to the current ATI and nVidia offerings.

This info is publically known, I can't remember the exact numbers on heat, Power consumption ect for Kyro II though, maybe someone else can post them. As for price, well Kyro II is low on trasistors (allot lower then Radeon mobility 7500) and 0.18 (they could use 0.15 or even 0.13 for a mobile chip) so it should be cheaper to produce.

Yes, because IMGTEC and it's partners have been so quick and timely with products thus far

Thats hardly the point, someone said Kyro II as a mobile chip was pointless as Radeon 8500 would be out soon. All I said is Radeon 8500 in a laptop is a long way away so IMGTEC and whoever do have plenty of time to make a mobile series 3 chip a big success if they want to.. wether they use that time well is another argument entirely.

Teasy: look under the chart here, at the cores table: Series 3 is used in Naomi 2

AFAIK thats a mistake as we know the specs of Naomi 2 and it is merely a Naomi 1 board times two which means series 2 tech.

(IIRC an older version of the above chart had Naomi2 listed under S3). There was also a Sega presentation which described Naomi2 as S3 (don't have link).

I remember that presentation as one site read it and thought that Naomi 2 was Kyro based and I had to argue with them until they relented :smile: I'm sure Naomi 2 is series 2, NEC produces the chips for Naomi 2 and they do not have a licence to Series 3 tech.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-03-05 21:07 ]</font>

[Joe DeFuria]

And you make this argument everytime with absolutely no evidence or info to back it up (or I assume you have no inside info since your not specifically interested in PowerVR tech.. tell me if I'm wrong of course)

Teasy, I just presented to you my "evidence". The "evidence" is...there have never been any stand-out compelling products coming out of the PowerVR camp.

This "evidence" is just as valid as any "theoretical, technical, and marketing" papers you can provide about the tech.

The overriding question, Teasy, is that if someone "should" have built it, because it would have been a clear leader and hence, a clear money maker.....why DIDN'T they? There has to be some reason. And no, wwhat amounts to "they just didn't feel like it" doesn't wash with me. No company I know would "just not feel like" making a killing in the market if they had the technology at their disposal to do so.

And I AM interested in PowerVR tech...just not from an extreme isolationist perspective like you. :wink:

Why do you think that the lack of highend PowerVR tech on the market is because IMGTEC can't come up with the tech. STM have said their not interesting in the highend market, IMGTEC have also said it is STM's decision not to go for the highend (I've also heard from reliable sources that this is the case many times).

I'm not disagreeing or disputing your assertion here. You are simply NOT asking the more basic question. [b]WHY[/i] are these companies "not interested" in going for the "high-end", IF we assume (as you are) they COULD make a high-end product that would make them tons of money because it would be a clear market leader?

WHY is the question that must be answered. WHY would a company turn down the opportunity to deliver such a product? What you are saying Teasy, is this is exactly what IMG and chip partners did. They simply "decided" not to do it...even though such a product would have been a stand out.

Why, Teasy...WHY? :wink:

So many problems can arrise that can bankrupt even the most talented of companies....and IMGTEC do not have the money to risk faliure in such a market. Do they even have the money to have a go at this market??.. maybe not, there not a huge company.

OK...so you've reasonably explained why IMG might not want to undertake such a huge investment, even if the potential reward is huge. But now you're ignoring the other part of your argument which you like to state very often to shift any "blame" from Img tech...IMG TECH does not make their chips.

So, you are saying the NEC and STM don't have "large resources" to undertake the risk? So again, why didn't these companies bring a "higher risk" product to market, considering what you are "assuming" is a huge return?

The obvious answer is...one cannot "assume" the return would be as great as you seem to believe. That's all I'm trying to get across.

This info is publically known, I can't remember the exact numbers on heat, Power consumption ect for Kyro II though, maybe someone else can post them. As for price, well Kyro II is low on trasistors (allot lower then Radeon mobility 7500) and 0.18 (they could use 0.15 or even 0.13 for a mobile chip) so it should be cheaper to produce.

A lot of "shoulds", "coulds", "not exacts", "someone elses" in there. Not exactly convincing. :wink:

[Dave Baumann]

Teasy, I just presented to you my "evidence". The "evidence" is...there have never been any stand-out compelling products coming out of the PowerVR camp.

Really? So, there wasn't a product that made SEGA sit up, take note, and throw away half their R&D costs on the best that the only major PC 3D vendor could offer at that time?

As for IMG 'doing it themselves' they are just too small, they do not have the type of funds to be able to do it. They also know that other vendors have technology thats equally as powerful, so if they shot for the 'high end' alone they know that it may only last for a cycle or two.

[Joe DeFuria]

Really? So, there wasn't a product that made SEGA sit up...

I'm talking PC products here. (I specifically mentioned that early on.) One component of which is maintaining compatibility with existing hardware, APIs, and titles.

I have always said and still maintain that PowerVR tech is more ideally suited for "closed" systems that

a) don't need to rely on backward compatibility
b) where titles can be developed that play to the strengths of the PowerVR technology, without having to consider the "inefficiencies" of traditional renderers.

So it's no surprise to me that PowerVR is and can be "sold" successfully for closed systems like consoles and arcade boxes.

They also know that other vendors have technology thats equally as powerful, so if they shot for the 'high end' alone they know that it may only last for a cycle or two.

Huh? The whole premise of this debate is that it's being "assumed" by some that the "other vendors" cannot POSSIBLY have tech that's "equally as powerful", dollar for dollar, in the same time frame.

That if the "chip partner just wanted to", it's a fact that they could produce a clear price / performance leader, at any market segment.

I am the one questioning whether or not the PowerVR tech really DOES give someone a clear advantage in the PC space in price / performance, at any segment.

Also, No one is suggesting that someone "only" shoot for the high-end either.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Joe DeFuria on 2002-03-05 21:35 ]</font>

[Dave Baumann]

One component of which is maintaining compatibility with existing hardware, APIs, and titles.

There’s hardly much of a compatibility worry - PowerVR seem to have fewer troubles then some of the established PC vendors! :wink: AFAIK the only game that fails is GP3 (because if its rather shoddy 3D coding) – however, that should probably work if the card is used as an IMR.

Huh? The whole premise of this debate is that it's being "assumed" by some that the "other vendors" cannot POSSIBLY have tech that's "equally as powerful", dollar for dollar, in the same time frame.

I’m talking GigaPixel – the last thing IMG would want, if they were going it alone, is to put NVIDIA’s nose out of join and force them to implement a fully GP based system.

I am the one questioning whether or not the PowerVR tech really DOES give someone a clear advantage in the PC space in price / performance, at any segment.

Eh? So you are saying that a chip that is less complex than a GF2MX, but gives a GTS or above a run for its money most of the time doesn’t fit this criteria?

As time goes by the difference will decrease, and possibly (if nothing else is done) even cross over, but we are quite far from that position at the moment IMO.

[Joe DeFuria]

There’s hardly much of a compatibility worry - PowerVR seem to have fewer troubles then some of the established PC vendors!

My point is not about how compatible the current chip is, but how much did it "cost" (in terms of time and money) to get there? I wouldn't consider Neon a particularly "compatible chip."

Also, in terms of "compatibility", how much of PowerVR's "advantages" are really realized when all of the PC games are coded to run well on traditional renderers?

I’m talking GigaPixel – the last thing IMG would want, if they were going it alone, is to put NVIDIA’s nose out of join and force them to implement a fully GP based system.

Oh...so you're saying IMG and it's partners just don't have the balls and vision to be market leaders in the desktop arena. :wink: So why should the case be different with mobile parts and integrated chipsets?

Eh? So you are saying that a chip that is less complex than a GF2MX, but gives a GTS or above a run for its money most of the time doesn’t fit this criteria?

Show me the sales numbers of the GF2 MX boards vs. the KyroII and then you'll have your answer.

[LittlePenny]

Show me the sales numbers of the GF2 MX boards vs. the KyroII and then you'll have your answer.


Joe, I am sorry but your post is very condescending, and I really don't know if your responses to Wavey's post have much relevance.

[Dave Baumann]

My point is not about how compatible the current chip is, but how much did it "cost" (in terms of time and money) to get there? I wouldn't consider Neon a particularly "compatible chip."

You’ve used one then?

I’ll wager the ‘chip’ was no more or less compatible than any of the rest – the basic design premise of PowerVR from Neon 250 remains in KYRO; the only difference between the two is that its more than just Videologic are marketing Kyro, and more development has gone into the drivers.

Also, in terms of "compatibility", how much of PowerVR's "advantages" are really realized when all of the PC games are coded to run well on traditional renderers?

Take a look at any comparative benchmark and you have your answer. Remember, the basic level of KYROII in terms of fillrate is no more than that of a TNT2 Ultra…

Oh...so you're saying IMG and it's partners just don't have the balls and vision to be market leaders in the desktop arena. So why should the case be different with mobile parts and integrated chipsets?

Joe, I said if they were going it alone. Having a large partner on board gives them a level of abstraction from potential dangers, and it should also afford a greater push in the areas that IMG are just not geared towards (push with board vendors, marketing etc.) because of their size and business model. If KYRO were produced by IMG alone I personally don’t think there would be any hope of Hercules being on board now – they are there because of ST.

Show me the sales numbers of the GF2 MX boards vs. the KyroII and then you'll have your answer.

Completely different situations for the company’s involved. However, you may like to reference back to Hercules original reason for stepping on the KYRO bandwagon, and their thoughts on the matter.

_________________
'Wavey' Dave
Beyond3D (http://www.beyond3d.com)

[Joe DeFuria]

You’ve used one then?

No, but I do remember the (much delayed) launch rather well.

I’ll wager the ‘chip’ was no more or less compatible than any of the rest – the basic design premise of PowerVR from Neon 250 remains in KYRO; the only difference between the two is that its more than just Videologic are marketing Kyro, and more development has gone into the drivers.

I would wager otherwise.

Neon250's core was much more closely related to PCX1/2 (and Dreamcast) than Kyro. For example, Neon supports PowerSGL if memory serves, and kyro doesn't.

If it's just a matter of drivers, then why doesn't Neon have the same stand-alone GL driver, rather than the mini-GL PowerSGL wrapper that PCX1-2 also uses?

Take a look at any comparative benchmark and you have your answer. Remember, the basic level of KYROII in terms of fillrate is no more than that of a TNT2 Ultra…

And the KyroII is priced no more than a TNT2 ultra?

However, you may like to reference back to Hercules original reason for stepping on the KYRO bandwagon, and their thoughts on the matter.

So why is Hercules also on the ATI bandwagon? Why doesn't Hercules concentrate exclusively on Kryo tech?

I know the premise: at a given price point, a board manufacturer should have more profit from a PowerVR product than "traditional" products.

Why is ST dropping out then? They should be making a killing by making profits on chips where the competition has such small margins, they should be enjoying large ones.

I keep on going back to the same question. If that premise is a universal truth, then why isn't EVERYONE on board with PowerVR products?

Where are all those 3rd party Taiwaneese, and why aren't they on the PowerVR bandwagon?

[Joe DeFuria]

Look, all I'm trying to get from you (Dave and Teasy), is this:

Assuming that PowerVR tech is in fact, "all that it's cracked up to be", WHY are we talking about the fagile state and possible elimination of PowerVR tech from the PC space, rather than going on about how they are the number 1 graphics technology in PCs?

The only thing I can get from Teasy thus far are vague and unsupportable things like "it's not IMG's fault" and "IMG's partners just weren't interested."

Well, OK, WHY weren't IMG's partners "interested?" The bottom line is, everyone is interested in making money. I would bet that STM WOULD be "interested" in the "high-end" market, if they believed their expectations of the technology lent them to believe they could be profitable in that segment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Joe DeFuria on 2002-03-05 23:29 ]</font>

[Rodéric]

Are you sure the high-end market really makes much money ?

I'm not too sure.

[Dave Baumann]

Neon250's core was much more closely related to PCX1/2 (and Dreamcast) than Kyro. For example, Neon supports PowerSGL if memory serves, and kyro doesn't.

Its still based on exactly the same premise though Joe – both KYRO and Neon250 use infinite plane for overdraw detection and removal, the rest is really just aesthetics. The reason KYRO doesn’t support PowerSGL is there’s no reason for it to! Why support another API when you are going to get no developer support for it? (You may actually fine PowerSGL in other newer PowerVR products though…)

And the KyroII is priced no more than a TNT2 ultra?

No clue how much a TNT2 Ultra cost these days, but that’s not the point. However, if you really want a look at pricewatch you’ll see that the 64MB KYROII stands at just $7 more than a 64MB GF2MX400, and I know which I would take of those!

So why is Hercules also on the ATI bandwagon? Why doesn't Hercules concentrate exclusively on Kryo tech?

Because ST/KYRO do not answer all markets!

Where are all those 3rd party Taiwaneese, and why aren't they on the PowerVR bandwagon?

Who? That lot? (http://www.powervr.com/Release.asp?ID=25) :rollseyes:

[Ty]

I keep hearing how the next PVR tech is going to take the market by storm. Problem is that it's always the "next". A shame since they were getting closer too. But I guess there's always the next one. :wink:

On the other hand maybe they have to take one step back to take two forward.

[mboeller]

On 2002-03-06 03:13, Ty wrote:
I keep hearing how the next PVR tech is going to take the market by storm. Problem is that it's always the "next". A shame since they were getting closer too. But I guess there's always the next one. :wink:



Yep, that's really a shame! Cause if the products would have been on the market in time...

But maybe this time the product is ready in time, cause the main competitor (Nvidia) seems to slow down ( GF4 was delayed 6months, NV30 seems to be delayed 6months too, according to penstar.com ).

Neon250 was late 1,5 years ( shown at Cebit 98; released ~Okt 99 ).

KyroI was delayed at least 9months and slow ( should have been on the market at the end of '99 according to an paper from Videologic; but came to the market only 8-9/00 ).

KyroII was delayed 6months but only due to the delay of the KyroI.

KyroIII / KyroII-Ultra is delayed at least 6months due to ST ( according to ST the KyroIII / KyroII-Ultra should be on the market in 09-10/01 already ).

Don't know the Schedule of the STG 5500 after they cancelled the STG5000 in 2001.

So with the KyroII they got closer, but now they are slowing down again. Hopefully they can reverse this negative trend.


Manfred

[Simon F]

Joe DeFuria and (oops!) Dave verbally slugged it out with:
Joe:No, but I do remember the (much delayed) launch rather well.

Hmm.. this could get interesting...

Dave:I’ll wager the ‘chip’ was no more or less compatible than any of the rest – the basic design premise of PowerVR from Neon 250 remains in KYRO; the only difference between the two is that its more than just Videologic are marketing Kyro, and more development has gone into the drivers.

Joe:I would wager otherwise.
Neon250's core was much more closely related to PCX1/2 (and Dreamcast) than Kyro. For example, Neon supports PowerSGL if memory serves, and kyro doesn't.

Ok, you are both wrong. :wink:

PowerSGL was deemed obsolete for Kyro and so dropped. (BTW the SGL of Neon was quite different to PCX1/2 anyway). Neon has many similarities to Dreamcast but radically different to PCX1/2.

As for compatibility: In D3D, for example, there are a multitude of flags to indicate the various features of a particular piece of hardware and, unfortunately, not all games developers bothered to check them. For example, the "Z-Bufferless rendering", is one such flag, and some games ignored it and insisted on reading a "non-existant" Z buffer on Neon. This is not an issue with Kyro since it can optionally output sections of the Z buffer.

Joe:If it's just a matter of drivers, then why doesn't Neon have the same stand-alone GL driver, rather than the mini-GL PowerSGL wrapper that PCX1-2 also uses?
This is (no doubt) an overly gross simplification, but with GL you have to support everything no matter how obscure or rarely (or never!) used a feature is. If the hardware doesn't have a particular feature then the usual approach is to fall back to use software to render the feature. To do that, you'd at have to be able to access a Z-buffer.....

That's why Neon had a mini-GL (which only supplied functions that were actually used in the GL games), as opposed to a full GL.

Dave:Take a look at any comparative benchmark and you have your answer. Remember, the basic level of KYROII in terms of fillrate is no more than that of a TNT2 Ultra…

Only if you measure one tiny aspect of the performance (eg multiply clock rate by the number of texturing units) and ignore all the other real-world issues such as bandwidth in and out of the chip, and efficiency of the system!

The rest of the debate was business stuff which I'm prudently staying clear of!

_________________
"Your work is both good and original. Unfortunately the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good." - Samuel Johnson

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon F on 2002-03-06 10:40 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon F on 2002-03-06 10:42 ]</font>

[mboeller]

The rest of the debate was business stuff which I'm prudently staying clear of!


:eek: :eek: :eek:

WOW !

SimonF;

You must be lucky when it doesn't matter to you how well Your company does in the business. Or is Your wage so low that it does not matter if You work for IMG or (for example) the post office. :cool:


Manfred

[ronaldo]

More on the Via rumour:

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/03/06&amp;pages=01&amp;seq=2

[ronaldo]

In response to a recent rumor that it is planning to acquire the graphics chip division of STMicroelectronics (ST), chipset designer VIA Technologies on March 5 only confirmed that it has indeed been in contact with some international graphics chip companies, but refused to comment further on the progress of the plan, and more importantly, the identity of the candidates.

VIA said that its graphics chip acquisition, S3, may have leading advantages in the notebook sector, but to strengthen its desktop graphics chip product lines it has started reaching out to some graphics chip designers for possible cooperation. The company further noted that acquisition is not necessarily the only way to obtain related technology.

Industry sources said that they would be conservative about the actual value of the purchase if ST’s division is truly a candidate VIA is considering. They indicated that the market response to ST’s Kyro II line, launched in 2001, was rather weak.

ST transferred its graphics chip technology from Nvidia, and had manufactured graphics chips for Nvidia, four to five years ago. The production cooperation only lasted for just over a year. As for the driver program for its graphics chips, ST has adopted the technology of UK-based VideoLogic Systems. Given the moderate performance of VideoLogic’s driver program, compared to those of Nvidia and ATI Technologies, it is believed that VIA may not purchase the driver program segment if an acquisition were to be proposed.

VIA obtained S3’s Savage graphics core technology by acquiring the company in 2000. With S3’s expertise in notebook graphics chips and graphics-incorporated integrated chipsets, VIA successfully entered the notebook sector. At present, the Savage core technology has been updated from the Savage 4 to Savage 8. VIA’s chipsets, such as the P4M266, PN266T and KN266, are all based on the Savage 8 graphics core.

Currently, VIA and S3 are designing a new-generation graphics core titled Zoetrope, set for launch in mid-2002.




pffft... but an aquisition of IMG's driver program was never on the cards.

[Simon F]

You must be lucky when it doesn't matter to you how well Your company does in the business. Or is Your wage so low that it does not matter if You work for IMG or (for example) the post office. :cool:

Manfred

Very droll Manfred. FWIW I only discuss technology matters not business.

[mboeller]

Very droll Manfred. FWIW I only discuss technology matters not business.


Sorry SimonF;

I found it funny :sad:


Manfred

[jb]

They money to be made is at the low end were all of the voulme is. Sure you have a higher profit margin at the high end but the volumes dont come close to the lower end. Ideally you would want to cover all segments of the market but that is not possible with a compnay that has a limit amount of reasouces...

Some one also asked about the power comsumption of the K2, AFAIK I remember reading about 4 watts its what the general card consumed...

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

Joe Said:
IMO, we really have little idea how Kyro would do in a mobile setting, in terms of cost, power consumption, heat, etc, relative to the current ATI and nVidia offerings.


Yes we do, the PowerVR MBX consumes 60mw of power at 50Mhz (100Mpixels/s) and is 6mm^2 in size. Thats sounds pretty damn good for a mobile chip if u ask me.

http://www.powervr.com/Release.asp?ID=32

Couple that with a superH processer and u have a mobile dreamcast, all u need is the GD-ROM:)

[Joe DeFuria]

PowerVR MBX does not equal the equivalent of Kyro based lap-top graphics. Completely different market.

Of course the MBX power consumption is good...it better be for handhelds and PDA type devices.

[Nexus]

Back to the future of PowerVR:

VIA confirmed to tecchannel that they are in negotiations with a graphic manufacturer. They also plan a big press conference on CeBIT.

http://www.tecchannel.de/news/20020307/thema20020307-6902.html

[mboeller]

On 2002-03-07 22:37, Joe DeFuria wrote:
PowerVR MBX does not equal the equivalent of Kyro based lap-top graphics. Completely different market.

Of course the MBX power consumption is good...it better be for handhelds and PDA type devices.


I don't fully agree. The MBX is targeted at the PDA-market, but the Speed is so high that it would give most laptop-chips a run for the money, except maybe for the 2D (cause of the integrated 2D-3D thing ).

Remember, the MBX can run at up to 200MHz; so the fillrate would be up to 400MPixel.

Manfred

[ronaldo]

On 2002-03-08 09:05, mboeller wrote:

Remember, the MBX can run at up to 200MHz; so the fillrate would be up to 400MPixel.

Manfred


Seems a bit extravagant for the MBX to have two pixel pipes, afterall mobile phones aren't going to have a screen resolution of much more than 320x240. Dreamcast coped well with 4x that at 60Hz and with a single pipeline. Though, I suppose with 2 pipes the core can run at half the frequency to achieve the same output - and, lower clock frequency + lower voltage = lower power consumption.

[psurge]

ronaldo, maybe it's because they are doing some form of FSAA on 320*240? Also it would allow for more ops per pixel => better quality... just guesses on my part though.

Serge

[Dave Baumann]

I'm not actually sure how many pipes MBX has myself, but another reason why it may have two is to make sure it still does fast 2D - seeing as the 2D is being drawn through the 3D pipes.

[mboeller]

On 2002-03-09 11:57, DaveBaumann wrote:
I'm not actually sure how many pipes MBX has myself, but another reason why it may have two is to make sure it still does fast 2D - seeing as the 2D is being drawn through the 3D pipes.



I'm not sure myself, but DaveB said so :

Quote :


Yes we do, the PowerVR MBX consumes 60mw of power at 50Mhz (100Mpixels/s) and is 6mm^2 in size. Thats sounds pretty damn good for a mobile chip if u ask me.

[amk]

Concerning why IMG hasn't had aggressive partners, and Teasy's eloquent explanation of why IMG may need partners: if licensee X storms the market with PVR based products, not only X but also IMG gets rich. IMG may then consider itself wealthy enough not to need licensees, and starts producing its own chips (via a foundry, as do nVidia and ATi), leaving X in the lurch. Alternatively, if PVR products aren't capable of storming the market, there'll be limited interest anyway.

Perhaps, for this reason, potential licensees do not consider PVR worthwhile as a long term investment? Just speculating.

[ronaldo]

ronaldo, maybe it's because they are doing some form of FSAA on 320*240? Also it would allow for more ops per pixel => better quality... just guesses on my part though.

Serge

Yeah, I guess fast FSAA could be the reason, or as Videologic call it "FSAA for FREE(TM)". It's just that I assumed their 'free' FSAA meant some new tech that would realy give no/low performance drop FSAA, not just the inherent bandwidth saving that comes with tilers.

Oh well, Cebit is just around the corner so all will be revealed... ...or maybe not :-?

[Joe DeFuria]

Concerning why IMG hasn't had aggressive partners, and Teasy's eloquent explanation of why IMG may need partners....

There is now an additional interesting development. Creative Labs is obviously looking to get into the graphics market in an "aggressive way", based on their announced acquisition of 3D Labs.

This begs, the question....why didn't they buy STM Graphics instead?

[Dave Baumann]

This begs, the question....why didn't they buy STM Graphics instead?

No significant IP involved, it would still be owned by IMG.

[Joe DeFuria]

Quite possibly, yes.

In other words, IMG's business model itself may be a singificant reason why we don't see PowerVR products in the "high end."

Companies may be "afraid" to persue such markets if they don't have more ownership of the tech than IMG allows.

So, we have 3rd parties with the cash unwilling to take the risk of a "joint ownership" of the technology venture, and we have IMG / VideoLogic without the cash unwilling to make the investments needed.

End result: as I've been saying, lower probability of ever seeing PowerVR products in the high-end space.

[Teasy]

Teasy, I just presented to you my "evidence". The "evidence" is...there have never been any stand-out compelling products coming out of the PowerVR camp.

This "evidence" is just as valid as any "theoretical, technical, and marketing" papers you can provide about the tech.

Your evidence as I've said is overly simplistic in the extreme. It assumes that there is such a thing as a sure thing in the current graphics card market. There isn't.. the highend graphics market is an incredibly aggressive risky business (especially with Nvidia's product cycles) no matter what tech you have and some just don't wish to take that risk. 3DFX were a massive company and had great tech, were are they now?.. there a cusualty of an incredibly competitive and expensive market that will bankrupt even the biggest company if consistent success is not achieved.

In the end you have no technical data to support your point that PowerVR cannot develop a high end card.. have you?, your simply guessing that they can't.

The overriding question, Teasy, is that if someone "should" have built it, because it would have been a clear leader and hence, a clear money maker.....why DIDN'T they? There has to be some reason. And no, wwhat amounts to "they just didn't feel like it" doesn't wash with me. No company I know would "just not feel like" making a killing in the market if they had the technology at their disposal to do so.

It doesn't amount to not feeling like it.. I've never said that so don't put words into my mouth. You seem to think that business is black and white and you either have a guarenteed success or a failure, its pretty obvious this isn't the case.

And I AM interested in PowerVR tech...just not from an extreme isolationist perspective like you

Would you like to explain exactly how I have an extreme isolationist attitude toward the graphics card market? Maybe you should get your facts straight before assuming that. I've made it farely clear to everyone that for the last couple of months I've been using a Radeon 8500. I've previously owned a Geforce DDR, Radeon DDR, Voodoo5, TNT2, Voodoo2, Voodoo1, Rage128, S3 Virge ect ect.. what an extreme isolationist attitude I have to the graphics card market eh? :roll:

Besides my actual point is you might be interested but your not the sort of person that keeps right upto date with the latest PowerVR info are you?

I'm not disagreeing or disputing your assertion here. You are simply NOT asking the more basic question. [b]WHY[/i] are these companies "not interested" in going for the "high-end", IF we assume (as you are) they COULD make a high-end product that would make them tons of money because it would be a clear market leader?

There are many reasons, and you are only picking one presumably because its what you want to believe. Now I realise you will throw that point right back at me but the difference is I hear all the time from extremely reliable sources that will remain nameless that STM are not willing to risk money on going into the high end market and that is what holds back the current tech. For instance STM have still not used HW T&amp;L tech in their PowerVR based graphics cards. Why is that?., is it because PowerVR can't design HW T&amp;L units?.. nope, because they designed the very powerful Elan HW T&amp;L unit used in Naomi 2 4 years ago. So if IMGTEC can do a hardware T&amp;L engine and yet STM have never used a HW T&amp;L engine in any PowerVR graphics cards then obviously that is not down to a lack of skill on IMGTEC's part but to a lack of ambition on STM's part. After all, if Kyro II had been released with HW T&amp;L it would have been quite a highend card in performance at that time.

If neither of us had any other info or preferences toward this subject then the fact that IMGTEC and STM have never entered the high end market despite having potentially excellent tech could mean many things. It could mean that IMGTEC can't come up with high end designs, as you choose to believe. It could mean that STM don't believe there engineers are talented enough to produce chips on those designs. Or it could mean that STM either don't think that themselves or IMGTEC can produce a chip that's guarenteed to beat Nvidia (no chip would be guarenteed that) and so they will not risk the massive amount of cash neccesary to enter the highend market. Why do you think that one of those possibilities is true rather then one of the other possibilities?

So, you are saying the NEC and STM don't have "large resources" to undertake the risk? So again, why didn't these companies bring a "higher risk" product to market, considering what you are "assuming" is a huge return?

I know why NEC never did, because they went for the easy guarenteed money, they had a graphics card that could hang in the high end in the Neon 250 and instead they decided that a deal to put the chip in a Sega console along with Sega arcade machines was the more lucrative deal, and they were correct. They would have never sold around 15 million chips in the desktop market. STM.. who knows for sure?.. I don't.. what I hear from reliable sources is simply that STM are not ambitious in the graphics card market, its not there speciality and there not willing to risk big money in focusing on that market in the long term, exactly what is behind that attitude is something I don't know for sure.

The obvious answer is...one cannot "assume" the return would be as great as you seem to believe. That's all I'm trying to get across.

No no'one can assume that a company going for the highend with PowerVR tech will mean a guarenteed success, and that has been my point, problems can always arise. However there is no doubt that given some talented engineers, allot of cash and a little bit of luck a high end tiler would beat the crap out of anything on the market right now (Radeon 8500 and Geforce 4). This is born out simply by looking at the current PowerVR tech, Kyro II has the memory bandwidth and fillrate of a TNT2, yet it beats the crap out of a Geforce 2 MX and is right up there with a GTS.

A lot of "shoulds", "coulds", "not exacts", "someone elses" in there. Not exactly convincing.

Are you suggesting that I'm lying when I say that info is publically available? As for the rest well ok then, it has less transistors then Radeon mobility 7500 so it WILL be cooler and use less power, does that make you happy? :)

Lets wait until STM announce the sale of their graphics division, if the company is an ambitious company that is focused on the desktop PC market, like say VIA or Intel and wants to take on the PC desktop graphics market aggresively and we still see no higher end PowerVR tech then you'll have a good case.

This begs, the question....why didn't they buy STM Graphics instead?

Because someone else got there first.

[Joe DeFuria]

It assumes that there is such a thing as a sure thing in the current graphics card market. There isn't...

Obviously. That's the point.

The point is, we have yet to see anone actually take that RISK with powerVR technology with respect to entering the high-end market. Again...WHY.

I want to hear some of your personal speculation as to WHY no one is taking that risk. Instead of me offering my opinion as to why no one is taking the risk (tech may not be as good as some make it out to be, their business model is not suited to the PC market), I want to hear YOUR OWN speculation for it.

In other words, instead of you trying to refute MY opinions as to why we don't see such ambition and high-level products...offer YOUR OWN. You have not said anything yet with this respect. And that's what I want to know.

In the end you have no technical data to support your point that PowerVR cannot develop a high end card.. have you?, your simply guessing that they can't.


In the end, there is no high-end powerVR PC product. I am simply stating this FACT, and providing speculation as to why we have the reality of no high-end PowerVR chips. In other words, I am not GUESSING that there are no high-end PowerVR PC products. That is a fact. And based on that fact, I am indeed speculating that it MAY not simply be a matter of someone "wanting to build one" for such a product to exist.

Understand the difference?

It doesn't amount to not feeling like it.. I've never said that so don't put words into my mouth.

I won't bother going back to the old B3D forums (yet), but in this very thread, you said: "STM have said their not interesting in the highend market, IMGTEC have also said it is STM's decision not to go for the highend (I've also heard from reliable sources that this is the case many times). "

Then PLEASE, use your own words. Offer your own speculation as to WHY no one has produced a high-end PowerVR PC part. WHY is STM "not interested" in the highend market.

And simply telling me that there are "high risks" involved is not good enough. Because you (and I) don't know if they are lack interest in the high-end market, full stop, or if they're not interested in persuing the high-end market specifically with PowerVR technology because they don't think they'd be successful with it.

Would you like to explain exactly how I have an extreme isolationist attitude toward the graphics card market?

By virture of your arguments in this and other threads. I have yet to see you cast blame on IMG for, well, anything. Every time someone points a finger at IMG, you shift the "blame" away from them, and onto their partners, etc. Also, your willingness to bet parts of your personal anatomny on the execution of IMG and it's partners, doesn't help that image. ;)

Besides my actual point is you might be interested but your not the sort of person that keeps right upto date with the latest PowerVR info are you?

And what difference does that make? You would think that someone with the "latest PowerVR info" such as yourself wouldn't be in danger of eating his private parts in a lost bet. How could someone with such "inside info" as yourself possible lose a bet that concerns PowerVR, against someone like me that doesn't "keep up to date" as you say?

Maybe it's because I apply a bit more common sense, or maybe it's because I don't take every rumor I hear PowerVR, and spin it in the most positive and favorable light.

There are many reasons, and you are only picking one presumably because its what you want to believe.

No, it's because I have not been presented with any other viable alternatives.

It could mean that STM don't believe there engineers are talented enough to produce chips on those designs.

Great...you've just possibly outlined a weakness in PowerVR tech. It's designs may be "complex" for the typical engineer. But doesn't this go against the "fewer transistors are needed" theory? Shouldn't PowerVR's designs be EASIER to manufacture compared to comptitive designs, becuase they use fewer transitors?

Or it could mean that STM either don't think that themselves or IMGTEC can produce a chip that's guarenteed to beat Nvidia (no chip would be guarenteed that)

WHY? You keep offering this "reason", but it has no substance. In other words, this reason can very well be used to back MY OPINION, becuase you have not told us WHY you think that reason could be valid. In other words, it could mean that the PowerVR tech does not offer ENOUGH advantage over competitor's tech, to give any reasonable assurance of success in the market.

Why do you think that one of those possibilities is true rather then one of the other possibilities?

Again, the point is, BOTH of those possibilities can be used to back MY OWN opinion. Again, you are not asking yourself the underlying reason of WHY STM or any other partner doesn't think they could COMPETE (or beat?) nVidia with a PowerVR design. All you keep saying is that these partners may think that the competition is too tough, so they "choose" not to compete. What you haven't asked yourself, is WHY don't they think they could compete with a design that suppossedly offers significant price / performance advantages?

I know why NEC never did, because they went for the easy guarenteed money, they had a graphics card that could hang in the high end in the Neon 250...

Guranteed money? No such thing. You mean the shrinking volume of new Dreamcast hardware and now NEC has no high-end PC products? Some guarantee. You mean guaranteed short-term money. So the question is, why didn't they still keep a license for making PC products beyond Neon / Kyro?

I don't.. what I hear from reliable sources is simply that STM are not ambitious in the graphics card market,

And you wonder where I get the "they simply don't feel like it" thing from, when you make statements like that? :roll:

...its not there speciality and there not willing to risk big money in focusing on that market in the long term, exactly what is behind that attitude is something I don't know for sure.

Then why don't you SPECULATE. That's what I'm after. There's only one reason why STM would not be "ambitious" about the high-end market...because they don't feel like they can make a lot of money in it. And PART of the equation, must be a consideration of the technology they would use to go after that market. Yes, there are other considerations too.

Are you suggesting that I'm lying when I say that info is publically available?

Uh, no. I'm suggesting exactly what I said: "A lot of "shoulds", "coulds", "not exacts", "someone elses" in there. Not exactly convincing. " Translation: I'm not conviced by your statements with no quoted references or evidence.

As for the rest well ok then, it has less transistors then Radeon mobility 7500 so it WILL be cooler and use less power, does that make you happy?

No, becuase just because something has fewer tansistors, doesn't mean that it will be cooler and require less power. Does the Kyro core have any "power saving" tech to reduce the power used when certain parts aren't active, for example?

Lets wait until STM announce the sale of their graphics division, if the company is an ambitious company that is focused on the desktop PC market, like say VIA or Intel and wants to take on the PC desktop graphics market aggresively and we still see no higher end PowerVR tech then you'll have a good case.

I doubt it you see it that way. You've already given yourself an out. You said "and wants to take on the PC desktop graphics market aggressively."

So all you'll be saying in the future is that "well, they bought STM but "simply decided not to be aggressive." And we'll be having the same argument. I'll keep on asking you WHY they "simply decided" not to be aggressive, and you'll keep on saying it has nothing to do with IMG or the tech.

Because someone else got there first.

Huh? Where did we read about someone else buying STM "first?" There have been no announcmenets of an STM buy. Seems obvious to me that Creative Labs had their CHOICE of who to "buy" to enter the high-end mainstream market, and they chose 3D Labs.

So again, why not STM?

[RiotSquad]

[quote]The point is, we have yet to see anone actually take that RISK with powerVR technology with respect to entering the high-end market. Again...WHY.

I'd say he has stated it a lot of times...
STM isn't interested in the PC graphics let alone high end...why they aren't is because they aren't a graph. card business...they're a chip manufacturer.(wanting to make a bit on the side I'd guess)
Question is why would they aim high when the cash is in the bigger market share of low to mid...?

And simply telling me that there are "high risks" involved is not good enough. Because you (and I) don't know if they are lack interest in the high-end market, full stop, or if they're not interested in persuing the high-end market specifically with PowerVR technology because they don't think they'd be successful with it.

Noone but them knows that exactly of course...
But I'd say it gives a pretty good view of how interested they are in the PC graph. cards when it's the first thing to go now that they have some financial problems,agree?

I have yet to see you cast blame on IMG for, well, anything. Every time someone points a finger at IMG, you shift the "blame" away from them, and onto their partners, etc.

STM would most likely tell IMG Tech that "we want a cheap,viable solution for the low price,mid end" and IMG would develop that for them.
If VW goes to its dev studio asking for a new beetle,they wouldn't make a Rolls Royce,would they?

[Teasy]

Obviously. That's the point.

The point is, we have yet to see anone actually take that RISK with powerVR technology with respect to entering the high-end market. Again...WHY.

I want to hear some of your personal speculation as to WHY no one is taking that risk

STM are not a business focused on the PC graphics market.. Their graphics division is not much of a priority in their business (which is obvious considering recent events) and they probably feel that considering the extremely competetive nature of the highend part of the desktop graphics market they don't want to shift priority away from other sectors of there business into their graphics division. In the end whatever is behind STM's decision not to enter the high end graphics market doesn't change the fact that they have shown a lack of ambition in the graphics card market and that is the comment you seem to be arguing with is it not?

In the end, there is no high-end powerVR PC product. I am simply stating this FACT, and providing speculation as to why we have the reality of no high-end PowerVR chips. In other words, I am not GUESSING that there are no high-end PowerVR PC products. That is a fact. And based on that fact, I am indeed speculating that it MAY not simply be a matter of someone "wanting to build one" for such a product to exist.

I didn't say you were guessing that there was no highend PowerVR PC products I said you were guessing that PowerVR could not make a highend PowerVR design.

Then PLEASE, use your own words. Offer your own speculation as to WHY no one has produced a high-end PowerVR PC part. WHY is STM "not interested" in the highend market.

How should I know exactly why there not interesting in going into the highend PC market? I don't work for STM, the most I ever get as an answer to why there are no high end PowerVR cards is that STM have not choosing to go into that market and they have not choosen not to do high end cards through a lack of high end PowerVR tech.

By virture of your arguments in this and other threads. I have yet to see you cast blame on IMG for, well, anything. Every time someone points a finger at IMG, you shift the "blame" away from them, and onto their partners, etc. Also, your willingness to bet parts of your personal anatomny on the execution of IMG and it's partners, doesn't help that image.

err if that were true (which its not) then it wouldn't be isolationism.. more like zealotry. By isolationism I assumed you meant that I never assosiate with any other graphics card.

I don't shift blame from IMGTEC. When someone says something like "IMGTEC need to speed up the release schedules for their next few products, they also need to make a high end product and" for instance, I merely tell that persons what I have been told many times. That STM set the release dates for thier PowerVR based graphics chips and STM decide which market to go into not IMGTEC. STM decide which design they will base there product off and then licence that design from IMGTEC. IMGTEC cannot force STM to licence what would be considered a higher end design nor can they go over to STM and beat them up if they release late. If a PowerVR product comes out late then that is in the end STM's responsibility as its there product. As for the part about the bet.. well you don't think I might have been joking when I suggested I would actually do that if I lost do you? Maybe a sense of humour transplant is needed here.. STAT.

And what difference does that make? You would think that someone with the "latest PowerVR info" such as yourself wouldn't be in danger of eating his private parts in a lost bet. How could someone with such "inside info" as yourself possible lose a bet that concerns PowerVR, against someone like me that doesn't "keep up to date" as you say?

I wasn't aware it was already after September?.. wow how time has flown since earlier today when I could have sworn it was still early March. In other words do not assume I have lost that bet yet.

Maybe it's because I apply a bit more common sense, or maybe it's because I don't take every rumor I hear PowerVR, and spin it in the most positive and favorable light.

I don't base my bets on rumour, as for common sense it was anything but common sense to suggest that it was going to be over 8 month until a new generation of PowerVR products (Kyro III). Tell me exactly what were you basing that on?.. it seemed totally unlikely to me then and it seems totally unlikely to me now. I admit though I have been known to be very optimistic about some rumours in the past, but thats just my nature, I'm an optimistic person most of the time.

No, it's because I have not been presented with any other viable alternatives.

And you can't think for yourself then?

Great...you've just possibly outlined a weakness in PowerVR tech. It's designs may be "complex" for the typical engineer. But doesn't this go against the "fewer transistors are needed" theory? Shouldn't PowerVR's designs be EASIER to manufacture compared to comptitive designs, becuase they use fewer transitors?

Talking of spinning things to put them in a possitive light for IMGTEC you consistently do the opposite. I suggest that maybe STM's graphics engineers are not talented enough to make a good chip on a highend design and you assume that means the design is overly complex, that is one possibility, the other is that STM's graphics engineers are not as talented as those at ATI or Nvidia for instance (not that I'm saying that is true, its just a possibility).

WHY? You keep offering this "reason", but it has no substance. In other words, this reason can very well be used to back MY OPINION, becuase you have not told us WHY you think that reason could be valid

I didn't say this specific point was IMO the reason behind not having a high end PowerVR card, I said it was one of the possibilities.

In other words, it could mean that the PowerVR tech does not offer ENOUGH advantage over competitor's tech, to give any reasonable assurance of success in the market.

Clearly there is a large technical advantage though.

Again, the point is, BOTH of those possibilities can be used to back MY OWN opinion. Again, you are not asking yourself the underlying reason of WHY STM or any other partner doesn't think they could COMPETE (or beat?) nVidia with a PowerVR design

I have given my opinion on that many times already, thinking you might be able to compete or beat Nvidia in the high end doesn't mean any company will drop what there doing and move a massive amount of resources into the highend market, STM are not primarily a graphics chip company.

Guranteed money? No such thing

When compared to the desktop graphics market Sega arcade and console machines is guarenteed money.

You mean guaranteed short-term money

Hardly short term money, they made the deal with Sega in 98 and 4 years later their still selling chips in Naomi 2 machines.

So the question is, why didn't they still keep a license for making PC products beyond Neon / Kyro?

I don't know, do you?

And you wonder where I get the "they simply don't feel like it" thing from, when you make statements like that?

Yes I do wonder where you get it from and I continue to wonder where you get it from as I haven't said it. Statements like that??.. I'm simply telling you what others have said to me, STM don't want to go into the highend graphics chip market regardless of what tech is available. The desktop graphics market is not their companies focus, they don't put much money into their graphics division and the highend market is a risky business, riskier then most.

Then why don't you SPECULATE. That's what I'm after. There's only one reason why STM would not be "ambitious" about the high-end market...because they don't feel like they can make a lot of money in it. And PART of the equation, must be a consideration of the technology they would use to go after that market. Yes, there are other considerations too.

I have already done so, I have suggested many possibilities that someone could take from the fact that there is no high end PowerVR card. Like maybe IMGTEC can't do a highend design because there no talented enough, or STM can't do a highend design because there not talented enough ect. Why exactly do you wish me to speculate?.

No, becuase just because something has fewer tansistors, doesn't mean that it will be cooler and require less power. Does the Kyro core have any "power saving" tech to reduce the power used when certain parts aren't active, for example?

No, but that could be added, as for heat, my Kyro II has a small heatsink and no fan and isn't very hot at all.

I doubt it you see it that way. You've already given yourself an out. You said "and wants to take on the PC desktop graphics market aggressively."

Oh yeah man you caught me.. well done, I simply said that so I would "have an out"??:roll: If the company is not willing to go into the graphics market aggressively then there not likely to try to take Nvidia and ATI on in the high end are they?

So all you'll be saying in the future is that "well, they bought STM but "simply decided not to be aggressive." And we'll be having the same argument.

Would you kindly not tell me what I will be saying in the future, you have no idea what I will be saying in the future.

I'll keep on asking you WHY they "simply decided" not to be aggressive, and you'll keep on saying it has nothing to do with IMG or the tech.

If thats the truth as I know it then yes I will say that, if I find otherwise then I won't, if you don't believe that then that's your problem, I suppose we'll see won't we.

Huh? Where did we read about someone else buying STM "first?"

I don't believe I said that you read that did I?

Seems obvious to me that Creative Labs had their CHOICE of who to "buy" to enter the high-end mainstream market, and they chose 3D Labs.

That seems obvious to you why?.. because thats what you want to beleive? STM and IMGTEC have been in negotiations with a certain company ever since they announced that there graphics division was for sale. Just because STM have not announced anything yet it does not mean they have not already completed the deal to sell their graphics division, a few sites have recently claimed that a certain company is waiting till Cebit to make a big announcment about the purchase of STM's graphics division, I suppose you'll see soon enough wether that's true or not considering Cebit starts tomorrow.

[Joe DeFuria]

STM are not a business focused on the PC graphics market.. Their graphics division is not much of a priority in their business (which is obvious considering recent events) and they probably feel that...

How many times can you repeat this same argument? So, PC graphics is "enough" of a priority for STM to introduce a chipset in the highly competitive mid-range segement, but "not enough" priority to introduce a chip-set in what could arguably be less competitive high-end maeket?

WHY did STM re-enter the graphics chip business to begin with? I keep telling you...because they felt they had an opportunity to make money.

In the end whatever is behind STM's decision not to enter the high end graphics market doesn't change the fact that they have shown a lack of ambition in the graphics card market and that is the comment you seem to be arguing with is it not?

Yes, but the PART of my argument that you keep ignoring is the possibility that the REASON for their "lack of ambition" in the graphcis market is BECAUSE they don't feel IMG TECH'S TECHNOLOGY (or business model) gives them reason to BE ambitious.

I said you were guessing that PowerVR could not make a highend PowerVR design.

And is that not a valid possibility? Now, let me refine that thought to be absolutely clear. I am guessing that the combination of PowerVR design, in addtion to the PowerVR "business model", does not give any chip-maker the confidence needed that they COULD be successful in the high-end market.

ANYONE can "design" a high-end part. It's the ability to take that design and move it into a working and shippable part that matters.

How should I know exactly why there not interesting in going into the highend PC market?

The point is, you won't even guess. You keep on telling me that my "guesses" have no basis, but don't offer your own guess.

err if that were true (which its not) then it wouldn't be isolationism.. more like zealotry.

Zealotry it is, then. ;)

That STM set the release dates for thier PowerVR based graphics chips and STM decide which market to go into not IMGTEC. STM decide which design they will base there product off and then licence that design from IMGTEC

And that is an example, IMO, of a zealotrous(?) statement. You are neglecting to consider the fact that part of STM's decision will be based on the technology that's presented to them. You don't place ANY "burden" on IMG for the decisions that IMG makes.

You are ASSUMING, that going into the negotiations, STM already decided to not make any "high end" parts. You fail to appreciate the liklihood that STM CONSIDERED all of IMG's designs, and based on what they saw, THEN decided that "high-end" wasn't a good idea.

IMGTEC cannot force STM to licence what would be considered a higher end design nor can they go over to STM and beat them up if they release late.

Again, you wash the hands of any "blame" on IMG TECH. You are ASSUMING that IMGTEC provided STM with an attractive high-end part, which STM just decided "not to do." You are ASSUMIUNG that any delays are due to STM engineering, and not to a combination of STM engineering, PowerVR design, and IMGTECG business model.

Is it ultimately the responsibility of STM to deliver on the scedule they set forth? Yup. Can there be reasons for late delivery that are beyond the control of STM engineers, and rest on IMG TECH engineers? Yup.

As for the part about the bet.. well you don't think I might have been joking when I suggested I would actually do that if I lost do you? Maybe a sense of humour transplant is needed here.. STAT.

Obviously. The point is, no one that was not 100% sure of himself would make a bet with such outrageous terms. Perhaps some common sense is needed here...

I wasn't aware it was already after September?.. wow how time has flown since earlier today when I could have sworn it was still early March. In other words do not assume I have lost that bet yet.

True. But I'll ask you this question...would you make the same bet again given the current circumstances?

I don't base my bets on rumour, as for common sense it was anything but common sense to suggest that it was going to be over 8 month until a new generation of PowerVR products (Kyro III). Tell me exactly what were you basing that on?..

I was basing my guess primarily on the problems everyone's been having with advanced fab processes, and on the historical track record of IMGTECH / partner deliveries.

And you can't think for yourself then?

Um, I HAVE thought for myself, and my opinion is the best that I can come up with. Now you're asking me to think for you, to come up with an alternative to argue against myself? My, that's a clever strategy you've got there. ;)

Again, I am asking for YOUR opinion (besides "the partners just weren't interested in the high-end market) for why the partners haven't made a high-end part. Alternatively, provide your opinion/guess as to WHY these partners aren't interested in the high-end market, considering PowerVR tech is "supposed" to have a significant price / performance advantage.

Talking of spinning things to put them in a possitive light for IMGTEC you consistently do the opposite.

Then why is it that IMGTECH and it's partners never seem to meet the expectations of the PowerVR "camp", while at the same time end up producing when and what I expect them to be? Could it be that what you see as the "opposite of optimism" is actually a realistic point of view, rather than negative?

I suggest that maybe STM's graphics engineers are not talented enough to make a good chip on a highend design and you assume that means the design is overly complex, that is one possibility...

I didn't assume anything. I flat out said it was a possibility. The whole point of that exercise (apparently wasted) was to get you to realize that the examples you are giving do not refute my opinion. Because in all the examples you give, the "reason" behind those examples can point to problems with IMG tech or its business model.

I've been trying for the past dozen or so posts to get you to go more DEEPLY into your reasons. Don't just give a skin-deep response. You said not talented enough to make a chip based on a "high-end" design. What about talented enough to make a chip based on IMG-TECH'S high-end design?

Clearly there is a large technical advantage though.

No, clearly there is not a large "technical edvantage" when you consider the entire product and the target market. Isn't that the point we are arguing about? Clearly, there is a SPECIFIC memory bandwidth advantage when it comes to fill-rate. This does not translate directly to a large technical advantage for the overall product. Isn't there a semi-annual discussion on these boards about large poly counts and relative bandwidth advantage?

I have given my opinion on that many times already, thinking you might be able to compete or beat Nvidia in the high end doesn't mean any company will drop what there doing and move a massive amount of resources into the highend market, STM are not primarily a graphics chip company.

Let me put this another way so that maybe you'll understand.

If IMG-TECH came to STM and said "with this design, you can build a high-end part that will sell retail for about $10 US, and will be 1000x faster than ATI's and nVidia's high-end"....do you think STM would say "nah...we're not "interested" in the high-end.

Obviously, there is SOME POINT between the absurd example above, and what IMG-TEC actually offered, that would entice STM (or some other chip-maker) into the "high-end." And obviously, IMG-Tech has not offered any chip-maker such a product. Now, where that "point" is will vary from chip-maker to chip-maker, as every company has different risk/reward points.

But the fact that NO company has apparently been persuaded by IMGTECH's "high-end design", should tell you something.

I don't know, do you?

Yes, I gave you my GUESS. The PowerVR tech and IMG's business model doesn't particularly favor a profitable business in the PC space. Now I'm asking for your guess...again.

Like maybe IMGTEC can't do a highend design because there no talented enough, or STM can't do a highend design because there not talented enough ect. Why exactly do you wish me to speculate?.

Well, that's the first time I've seen you specualte that perhaps IMGTECH isn't "talented" enough to design a profit-making part for the high-end.

But that's not what I'm after. What I am trying to get you to speculate is nothing specific. Just SOMETHING that cannot be explained by my own guess. Because you are continually harping on my opinion as overly negative and pessimistic, yet when you try to refute it, you only provide things that could be actually be explained nicely by my opinion.

Basically, if you find my guess so "pessimistic" or otherwise repulsive, I'm looking for ANY alternative opinion from you that cannot possibly be explained by my gess.

No, but [pwer saving tech] could be added...

And what would that cost in terms of redesign? How long would it take? ATI's and nVidia's current parts already have the r&amp;D and design cost refelcted in their parts sale price. Again, you have made an overly "optimisitic" presentation of Kyro as a mobile part, because you haven't considered these things.

If the company is not willing to go into the graphics market aggressively then there not likely to try to take Nvidia and ATI on in the high end are they?

On the other hand, if a company is presented with tech and a business structure such that they believe they will be successful in the high-end, they will take on the competitors.

You keep on presenting your stance as if these chip companies decide on what markets they will go after, before even looking at the tech they will use to go after it. Doesn't it make more sense for the business to look at the tech available, and THEN decide which market(s) are appropriate? Sure, a company might have a pre-disposition to concentrate on one market, but if the same tech can expand their business, don't you think they'd consider it?

STM and IMGTEC have been in negotiations with a certain company ever since they announced that there graphics division was for sale.

And? This means that negotiations with other companies are off limits? If someone doesn't offer STM a better deal than whatever company you're talking about, STM wouldn't go for it?

Just because STM have not announced anything yet it does not mean they have not already completed the deal to sell their graphics division...

Gee, I can play that game too. Just because Creative announed their deal a few days ago, doesn't mean it wasn't "done" earlier than that. I thought you didn't make your decisions and guesses based on rumors? Guess that doesn't apply here...

Look, when I asked you for a reason Creative didn't buy STM, you said it could be because someone else bought STM first. Anything's possible, but if don't base your guesses on "rumors" then how can you reach that conclusion given the fact that Creative already announced their intended purchase, and no one has done the same for STM?

[Ailuros]

Seems obvious to me that Creative Labs had their CHOICE of who to "buy" to enter the high-end mainstream market, and they chose 3D Labs.

So again, why not STM?

Creative didn't start negotiations with 3DLabs yesterday, nor do deals like that happen over night.

Anyone interested with some insider contacts can simply ask how long Creative has been researching to expand into alternative markets.

You may excuse my interruption now. Carry on with the usual cross-quoting pattern *ahem* :roll:

[Ty]

: Creative didn't start negotiations with 3DLabs yesterday, nor do deals like that happen over night.

Certainly true but that doesn't mean that the deal was sealed without CL considering STM's graphic division.

[Dave Baumann]

http://www.theinquirer.net/13030205.htm

A QUICK STROLL round Halle 19, the processor and the motherboard place here at CeBIT, revealed that a machine equipped with top quality Kyro graphics had miraculously appeared on the VIA stand.

And chatting to a fake gorilla walking round holding a real human being in a small cage, it now appears to be well on the cards that Via might announce a deal with ST Microelectronics and Imagination, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

[Tompa]

He he ...cool...this gets more and more interesting, if this comes out true, then the possibility to see a "high-end" powerVR product in the "near" future has to be quite big now when considering that VIA is way more into the PC market than ST ever was.....or ??

/ Tompa

[Joe DeFuria]

Nah...I'm sure Via just "isn't interested" in the high-end. They never have been before. It doesn't matter what tech IMG or STM has, they just don't want to be in that market ;)

All sacrasm aside, If VIA is the STM purchaser, I hopw that they DO go after the high-end, and deliver a PowerVR based part designed to make full use of the latest high-speed 128 bit DDR memory available!

[Ailuros]

Joe,

If all goes according to plans there should be more than one card releases this year (4800 excluded). It would be the absolute track record for PowerVR.

Rev did mention "the one" didn't he? Assuming it would make it be4 the end of this year to shelves it could finally qualify them to give the market some serious competition.

But I know how you stand to "ifs" and "buts" and I can't actually disagree. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[Ty]

Joe,

&lt;Snip>

Rev did mention "the one" didn't he? Assuming it would make it be4 the end of this year to shelves it could finally qualify them to give the market some serious competition.


I believe he said, "No, Kyro III would not be the one" (to take the world by storm I presume).

[Joe DeFuria]

I hope there will be something other than KryoII 4800 on the shelves this year from the PowerVR team...just not before September. ;)

[ParkLife]

Joe, would you mind please stopping? The majority of your posts these days seem to be provoking Teasy. I find the banter the two of you thrash through with quote after quote after bloody quote amazingly boring and iritating. He is not much better, and I'm sure many of us can see your point, but enough is enough!

[Ailuros]

Joe,

&lt;Snip>

Rev did mention "the one" didn't he? Assuming it would make it be4 the end of this year to shelves it could finally qualify them to give the market some serious competition.


I believe he said, "No, Kyro III would not be the one" (to take the world by storm I presume).

I am aware what he meant. Considering the specifications it wouldn't be exaggerated, given the fact that someone takes a 02' release for granted.

[Ailuros]

I hope there will be something other than KryoII 4800 on the shelves this year from the PowerVR team...just not before September. ;)

ROFL

Which year? hehehehe :evil:

[amk]

From an ATi presentation (http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/ati_128mb_praesentation/index3.php)

Value 51 %
Mainstream 44 %
HighEnd 3 %
Ultra HighEnd 2 %

I don't know how they define the market segments, or whether the figures are no. of cards sold or by $$$ (more likely), but I think it shows that STM was entirely justified in targetting mainstream first. ST may be a big company, but it's not PC-oriented, so it may not have wanted to divert resources from its core businesses (e.g. hardware MPEG decoders) to make high end gfx cards, when comparatively few would be sold. Nothing to do with the potential of PVR's high-end designs, just resource management.

As to why Creative didn't buy STM GPD: why didn't VIA buy 3DLabs? :P (Assuming VIA has bought STM GPD). Presumably, Creative want to get into workstations (where TBR is of limited/no benefit - lots of geometry, lots of wire frame models with no need for HSR - and 3DLabs is of course strong), whereas VIA wants integrated chipsets and laptop, where PVR has theoretical advantages (e.g. MBX's low power and size). Hopefully, VIA also want to cover the full spectrum of gfx AIB too.

[JavaJones]

Wondering why STM didn't go after the high end ignores the potentially greater issue. There are many possible reasons STM might not have been interested in the high end, and it makes it easy to side-step any inferences from that to the quality/performance of IMG technology. The more interesting question in considering the potential of IMG technology for the high end is why *no one else*has licensed any IMG designs to go after the mid or high end PC market. STM's got plenty of reasons not to go high end, but lots of other companies would surely love to take a piece of the market, and they have the technological know how and financial ability to do so in a timely fashion, provided they have a good design. And yet, no other licensees of IMG tech for the high to mid level PC space. Why?

- JavaJones

[RussSchultz]

STM's got plenty of reasons not to go high end, but lots of other companies would surely love to take a piece of the market, and they have the technological know how and financial ability to do so in a timely fashion, provided they have a good design. And yet, no other licensees of IMG tech for the high to mid level PC space. Why?


I'm guessing that a license for PVR is about $1M US or more, probably plus royalties. It still would take a layout team, plus plenty of assorted engineers to get a product close to market.

The mask set alone for .15u would be close to $1M US dollars.

$2M is not chump change, especially when its only the start!

[Joe DeFuria]

amk,

I don't know how they define the market segments, or whether the figures are no. of cards sold or by $$$ (more likely), but I think it shows that STM was entirely justified in targetting mainstream first.

Actually, I would have thought that it would have been volume sales, not % of total profits. But you're right, we can't tell from the presentation exactly what they mean.

Why is ANYONE making "high end" and "ultra high end" cards if there is no money in it? I'd say the answer is one of two (or both) of the following:

1) There actually IS money in it. ;)
2) There are some less "direct" benefits...like having the "leader" in performance helps push your brand, and increases sales of the lower performing cards via marketing.

While it is certainly true that there's much higher volume in the low to mainstram market, there's also much more competition in terms of the number of competitors, and presumably, the profit margin per unit is lower.

As to why Creative didn't buy STM GPD: why didn't VIA buy 3DLabs?

Heh! ;) Well, that can be answered by my original opinion: 3D labs cleraly has a "high performance", not a value part. And Creative apparently wants to go after the high-end mainstream and professional market...at least at first. So if Creative didn't view IMg's tech or the business model as one that is suitable for the high-end, they wouldn't be interested in STM.

JavaJones,

The more interesting question in considering the potential of IMG technology for the high end is why *no one else*has licensed any IMG designs to go after the mid or high end PC market.

Yes, I said the same exact thing. ;)

And in my opinion, it's a combination of the IMG tech, and the business model that IMG uses to license the technology, that gives companies hesitation. Creative Labs, for example, made it clear in their conference call that they wanted full control over the development of future products (for various reasons). With a 3rd party having the bulk of the responsibility for design with IMG Tech, STM wouldn't fit Creative's needs.

[amk]

STM's got plenty of reasons not to go high end, but lots of other companies would surely love to take a piece of the market, and they have the technological know how and financial ability to do so in a timely fashion

If you mean allow ST to target the low end, and another company mid-high - I don't see how that could work. As Joe said, one of the motivations for having a high-end part would be branding, supporting sales of the cheaper parts. Also, high-end cores will tend to migrate towards mainstream over time. I can't imagine how two companies could split PVR tech in that way.

I'm not sure there are 'lots' of companies which could put PVR tech in all market segments. They'd be PC-oriented, heavy-hitting semiconductor firms, but not not so powerful that they demand complete control over future products. VIA perhaps would be IMG's ideal partner - big enough without being an arrogant superpower (e.g. Intel), and upwardly mobile. Who else? AMD is focused on CPUs (even its mobo chipsets exist only to cover late 3rd parties), Intel is IMO likely to want to control everything, SiS and ALi are (perhaps) too small, the memory manufacturers are in financial difficulties...

I don't see any need to question IMG's ability to design a competitive high-end part - IMHO business reasons (including IMG's business model - but if IMG's not big enough to go it alone...) are a more obvious suspect, and adequately explain the continued absence of a high-end PVR part. OTOH if VIA don't produce the goods, I'll get suspicious.

[Ailuros]

One more thing that just hit me is that PowerVR (at least after the KYRO) would have been able to compete in the mid-end (or even high end) market more effectively if all their attempts wouldn't have been haunted by constant delays.

With the specs known so far on the STG5500, would it have been released late fall last year it would have been a much different story than if it launches now somewhere before or within summer this year.

Take the STG4000/KYRO as an example: it was announced in Nov99' as far as I can remember. If it would have been released on time and cards released (even if only a revamped variation) in a 6 month manner, chances are high that the cards presented would be worthy mid-range competitors. Didn't the old roadmap suggest Series5 (STG 6000/6005) for 2002?

I'd rather say that it isn't an inability to design/deliver at all, rather a huge lack in execution whichever's fault that may be.

NVIDIA turned and is remaining the market leader because of it's rapid execution. IMHO the first step to success is to be able to execute. No market "forgives" delays....

[Ty]

&lt;Snipped stuff agreed with>

I'd rather say that it isn't an inability to design/deliver at all, rather a huge lack in execution whichever's fault that may be.

But do we know if ImgTec managed to design their end on time? I agree with you that 'something(s)' has prevented the timely release of PVR products but I thought that is part of the reason why this thread exists. :)


NVIDIA turned and is remaining the market leader because of it's rapid execution. IMHO the first step to success is to be able to execute. No market "forgives" delays....

It's been said before that execution is a major part of the plan. 3dfx suffered greatly from poor execution as well. Imagine if their Banshee on up had been on time.

[ronaldo]

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/03/15&amp;pages=04&amp;seq=24


So Via want the KyroIII, not the KII.

[Dave Baumann]

If this it the case then I would guess that means that KYROIII is pretty close to being finished - if not VIA could just skip all the hassle and go directly to IMG and buy a Series 4 license...

[mboeller]

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/03/15&amp;pages=04&amp;seq=24


So Via want the KyroIII, not the KII.

I hope this article is not correct. An arrangement like this will never work.

If correct then IMG would design the chip, ST would manufacture the chips and VIA would sell them. So, an unwilling ST ( otherwise they wouldn't want to sell their division ) would stay in the middle. If true this would be the worst what could have happend !
It seems that VIA needs "something to compete" but is not sure if they even want PVR-technology and so they made an decision based on the smallest common denominator, nothing more. This (if true) looks really really bad. I hope IMG can survive.


Manfred

[Joe DeFuria]

If this it the case then I would guess that means that KYROIII is pretty close to being finished - if not VIA could just skip all the hassle and go directly to IMG and buy a Series 4 license...

I'm not sure how "close" you are guessing, but that's a pretty big jump there. Series4 might be 2 years away, after Kyro III plus a couple spins of KyroIII variants to up clock speed and tweak features.. I mean, I think KyroIII is close too. (I don't think my guess of "on the shelves in Sept" is far away...it's just one more product cycle in the grand scheme of things.

I hope this article is not correct. An arrangement like this will never work.

My attitude is not quite as pessimistic as that, but I generally tend to agree. However, I really have no idea what this new arrangement is. Does this mean that VIA is just another recipient (like Hercules) for STM Kyro chips? Is VIA planning to re-sell the chips? (Will hercules have to buy them from VIA?)

How will the relationship between VIA and STM be different from that of Hercules and STM? Assuming VIA is not buying STM Graphics, is STM still up for sale, or does this new arrangement mean that STM is willing to hold on to the graphics division.

If STM is not bought, then will STM continue to sell chips to 3rd parties like Hercules? Or is this some arrangement to make VIA the exclusive recipient of STM chips?

More questions than answers...

And of course, the big one....what is it about the package that persuaded Via NOT to buy STM? ;) Why doesn't anyone really seem to want to aggressively go for it?

[Dave Baumann]

Joe, I'm not sure you took that quite correctly; PowerVR Series 4 = KYROIII.

i.e. if ST are still miles away from getting anything into silicon with Series 4 (i.e. KYROIII) then what's the point of VIA buying anything from STM; they could just get a license directly from PowerVR and do it all themselves. There must be some value in going to STM, and as far as I can see the only value that STM has with Series 4 (a.k.a. KYROIII) must be time...

[Joe DeFuria]

PowerVR Series 4 = KYROIII.

Ahhh....forgot about the mis-matched numbers. ;)

To be clear, I think most people (including myself) believe that KyroIII chips are "close" to being ready for production. There's apparently only a disagreement between it being a more "imminent" release (next month or so), or release ready for the fall. I happen to believe the latter.

[mboeller]

[quote]I hope this article is not correct. An arrangement like this will never work.

My attitude is not quite as pessimistic as that, but I generally tend to agree. However, I really have no idea what this new arrangement is. Does this mean that VIA is just another recipient (like Hercules) for STM Kyro chips? Is VIA planning to re-sell the chips? (Will hercules have to buy them from VIA?)



I'm very pessimistic if this article has _any_ meaning.

Have You ever worked "together" with an unwilling customer (from IMG's side) or supplier (from VIA's side). Everything you want or need takes forever to do (sometimes you are lucky and it takes only twice as long, but sometimes it takes ten times as long ). ST wanted to sell this division, so they will only do the minimum of work in the future with the minimum of resources to get the work done. This will slow down the progress of the Kyro-chips even more. So we will be very lucky to see the Kyro3 at the end of 2002. In the end this will kill the graphics-division of IMG, that's for sure. So I really hope this article has _no_ meaning at all.

[Joe DeFuria]

Have You ever worked "together" with an unwilling customer (from IMG's side) or supplier (from VIA's side). Everything you want or need takes forever to do (sometimes you are lucky and it takes only twice as long, but sometimes it takes ten times as long ).

Yeah, I know what you mean. IMO, the more business layers there are involved, whether they are "willing" or not, the longer it takes to just get things done. Each business unit has their own particular goal, which might not exactly be in line with the other business units. I don't see this model working in today's PC environment.

This is why I was hoping from the beginning that IMG would just ditch the "technology licensing" model, and become a full-fledged "fabless semiconductor" outfit similar to nVidia / ATI. They could focus on bringing out the products they want, and they'd only have "themselves" to blame if things don't go well...that's great motiviation for getting the job done.

[Ailuros]

I think what Wavey was trying to say is that if the 5500 wasn't as advanced in development as it already is there wouldn't be any need for negotiations between VIA and ST Micro.

VIA could instead just ask for a Series4 licence str8 from ImgTech. Apparently ST Micro has already put some work on the forementioned chip, meaning it already has it's share of IP on it. All VIA needs to do if they want Series4 is to buy the licence off ST M's hands.

Any other case would suggest a major delay for a 5500 release; the case above is rather the complete contrary.

edit:

According to sources, the primary focus of the cooperation is ST&amp;#8217;s new-generation, better-performance Kyro III graphics core, not ST&amp;#8217;s present product lines.

"ST's graphics core" suggests working silicon. Anything else would be just a design on a chalk board. [/edit]

There will be an announcement of the acquistion soon enough if that should help ;)

[Ailuros]

Ty,

But do we know if ImgTec managed to design their end on time? I agree with you that 'something(s)' has prevented the timely release of PVR products but I thought that is part of the reason why this thread exists.

I didn't exclude the STG4000/KYRO from it. If my memory serves me well there were previews of it on the net available months before it's release (I'm not so sure if it was as early as Nov99' but pretty close to it).

At this point of time and considering the Series4, I'm afraid that the story hasn't changed much. I'm willing to place my bets on the 0.13um/TSMC "milestones" besides the intention of ST M to sell their GDP (they didn't take that decision overnight).

Would their have been since winter last year at least one vga on .13 available I would have reason enough to believe anything else.

[Simon F]

PowerVR Series 4 = KYROIII.

Ahhh....forgot about the mis-matched numbers. ;).
'Kyro' is ST's trademark, while the "series" numbering is IMGs.

[Gunhead]

"Craphics core" doesn't necessarily suggest working silicon, or any silicon at all. It can simply refer to a chip design (or even a design that spans less than an entire chip). I've seen it used that way a great many times. :(

[Tagrineth]

Sounds to me like VIA will buy the near-complete STG5xxx series, let STM themselves keep making the K1/2/2SE lines (like NEC still making Series 2 for arcade machines), and keep the PVR licenses for their own Series 5.