[Unknown Soldier]

R700 scheduled for Q1 2008

ATI's next generation part codenamed R700 is scheduled for first quarter of 2008. ATI failed with every plan to make the R600 on market and still has to launch this part at some point in May.

We don’t know many details about R700 only that it will support DirectX 10.1 and Shader model 4. We know that the work in currently on the schedule and that this chip has to fight G100 chip from Nvidia.

We hope it wont be that late as R600 was, for DAAMIT sake.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...d=211&Itemid=1

[CMAN]

I am assuming the R700 will be an incremental update rather than a big update. In addition, does this mean no R650? Or is the R700 meerly an R650?

[suryad]

Hmm interesting. I was planning on building the fastest computer possible with the top of the line parts available xmas of 2k7...hopefully some more info should be out by then to judge whether it would be worth waiting for that.....

[3dilettante]

I think R700 would be a worthy thread topic, once we know something substantive about R600.

It seems a shame that it had to be a Fuad story that started it.

Also, does Fuad have some friends writing, or has he resorted to referringn to himelf in the first person plural? Since when was it "We"?

[Rolf N]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

I think R700 would be a worthy thread topic, once we know something substantive about R600.

It seems a shame that it had to be a Fuad story that started it.

Also, does Fuad have some friends writing, or has he resorted to referringn to himelf in the first person plural? Since when was it "We"?

We do that all the time, too. It's good journalistic style, though the practice actually originates from representing a team with implied reciprocal support. For lone guns such as us it doesn't make as much sense, short of keeping the door open for future multitude.

Implying team support however doesn't mean that you actually collaborated on a story with a team, or even that the team agrees with you. When we wrote tech articles for print, our contact openly admitted being completely out of his league and we were essentially unchecked in our facts, because there was noone who could have done that.

[trinibwoy]

Originally Posted by suryad

Hmm interesting. I was planning on building the fastest computer possible with the top of the line parts available xmas of 2k7...hopefully some more info should be out by then to judge whether it would be worth waiting for that.....

And then when R700 is delayed you're gonna wait another year to build the fastest computer available with the top of the line parts available in xmas of 2k8 ..... then you're gonna wait to see if it's worth waiting for R800 in Q1 0f 2009 !!

[Unknown Soldier]

Well I also thought it pretty early for R700 rumours .. but if it's true, I hope AMD learnt something in regards to the problems they experienced with the R600 and actually release the R700 on time. That's if this rumour is true none the less.

Won't speculate on specs since we still waiting for official R600 specs.

US

[Blazkowicz]

presumably it would bring FP64 support?

[Tim Murray]

Lest we forget...

Also, I assume that you'll see FP64 on ATI cards before the end of this year. Don't count on it being fast; I think it's exclusively for GPGPU.

[vertex_shader]

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...d=211&Itemid=1

+6 months

[wolf2]

I predict that AMD will kill the 700 before it ever sees the light of day and move all development resources to Fusion (integrated) products.

[Techno+]

Originally Posted by wolf2

I predict that AMD will kill the 700 before it ever sees the light of day and move all development resources to Fusion (integrated) products.

I dont think so. AMD isn't that stupid to let go of such a market. I think they would do that if their market share in the IGP arena increases a lot. Just imagine, AMD stops developing discretes and goes for Fusions, then their fusions dont gain them any marketshare, this is a situation where AMD would have lost marketshare in every GPU market, and I'm sure AMD is keeping this in mind.

[wolf2]

Originally Posted by Techno+

.......Just imagine, AMD stops developing discretes and goes for Fusions, then their fusions dont gain them any marketshare, this is a situation where AMD would have lost marketshare in every GPU market, and I'm sure AMD is keeping this in mind.

Yes....AMD is in a world of hurt.

Why throw money at development in a discreet market that they can't make money in?

AMD/ATI is close to a full generation behind in discreet graphics. Nvidia has won. AMD may choose to continue their developments, but that will aonly accelerate the ousterr of H. Ruiz as he throws good money after bad.

Ultimately, they (AMD) must cut their losses and refocus on their core strategy which is currently Fusion until that gets re-jiggered too.

[3dilettante]

AMD can still make money off the discrete market, even if R600 is does badly.
The margins may be skinny if things go badly, but any income is better than eating an unrecovered loss.

[wolf2]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

AMD can still make money off the discrete market, even if R600 is does badly.
The margins may be skinny if things go badly, but any income is better than eating an unrecovered loss.

You must think like a CEO. He has shareholders to satisfy and a Board of Dir. Income with skinny margin is only justified if it leads to income with fat margins. AMD must find the strategy that does that.

- Can high-end discreet ever bring AMD fat margins? No AMD is a generation behind.
- Can low-end discreet bring them fat margins? No. By definition low-end discreet is not a high margin business.
- Can Fusion? Maybe. AMD/ATI is a unique combination. The question is, is there a market for their vision?

[Silent_Buddha]

On Topic

Wasn't there news a few months back that R700 was going to be composed of X numbers of discrete chips with AMD/ATI being able to scale how many chips were used based on the market segment it was going to target? Or was the rumor about multiple "cores" making up a modular type chip? Sounds fairly similar to the research and developement that Intel is doing on their next discrete chip.

Off Topic

Also, this isn't the first time that AMD has been in "trouble" nor is it even remotely close to the worst the company has been.

AMD was in far far worse shape when Intel pulled a switch from 486 to Pentium and AMD could no longer make virtually exact copies of Intel chips. Since then AMD has been investing quite heavily into research and development. First with the 586, then eventually the K6-2, K7 (Athlon) their first truly successful chip and then the K8 (Athlon 64).

The years between their 486 days and their Athlon XP days were bleak and much worse than what they are going through now.

Also, considering that the ATI division is currently almost (around 40ish?) percent of their incoming revenue. It'd be suicide to kill off the discrete business which is what is feeding ATI's integrated motherboard chipset solutions.

Also, lest you forget. A strong Discrete part is the equivalent of millions of dollars of free advertising via word of mouth and reputation.

I'm fairly certain AMD isn't quite that stupid and incompetant that they would kill it off.

Then again, companies have done stupider things in the past.

Regards,
SB

[Rolf N]

Originally Posted by wolf2

You must think like a CEO. He has shareholders to satisfy and a Board of Dir. Income with skinny margin is only justified if it leads to income with fat margins. AMD must find the strategy that does that.

- Can high-end discreet ever bring AMD fat margins? No AMD is a generation behind.
- Can low-end discreet bring them fat margins? No. By definition low-end discreet is not a high margin business.
- Can Fusion? Maybe. AMD/ATI is a unique combination. The question is, is there a market for their vision?

One whole generation behind? That's a dramatization, isn't it?
AMD will have a fab tech advantage in graphics, which should allow them to compete even with a design disadvantage. So yes, keeping the development going will lead to tangible returns eventually, as long as the PC gaming market doesn't outright implode.

I'm personally not even paying attention to any graphics card that consumes more than 50W. I couldn't tell you any G80 benchmark score. It may just be me, but hearing that the G80 generation is supposed to be over already is kinda surprising.

[3dilettante]

Originally Posted by wolf2

You must think like a CEO. He has shareholders to satisfy and a Board of Dir. Income with skinny margin is only justified if it leads to income with fat margins. AMD must find the strategy that does that.

- Can high-end discreet ever bring AMD fat margins? No AMD is a generation behind.
- Can low-end discreet bring them fat margins? No. By definition low-end discreet is not a high margin business.
- Can Fusion? Maybe. AMD/ATI is a unique combination. The question is, is there a market for their vision?

Right now AMD needs to make money. It doesn't matter right now if the margins are skinny. It is in debt and it needs more financing.

It needs to demonstrate to investors, analysts, and creditors that it can produce a reliable income stream. It needs to prove that it didn't get completely screwed by the ATI acquisition.

While not as glorious as the high end, the mid range and low-end products represent a reliable income stream.
Even if R600 does poorly, there is still time to recover in the next generation if the rest of the lineup does respectably.

Originally Posted by Rolf N

AMD will have a fab tech advantage in graphics, which should allow them to compete even with a design disadvantage. So yes, keeping the development going will lead to tangible returns eventually, as long as the PC gaming market doesn't outright implode.

There is unlikely to be an advantage in discrete graphics; AMD's using the same fabs Nvidia uses.

[Rolf N]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

There is unlikely to be an advantage in discrete graphics; AMD's using the same fabs Nvidia uses.

Right now they do. But AMD is certainly compelled to leverage their own fab technology when they get the chance.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Rolf N

Right now they do. But AMD is certainly compelled to leverage their own fab technology when they get the chance.

in the distant future yes, they are already capacity constrained as it is right now.

[wolf2]

Originally Posted by Rolf N

AMD will have a fab tech advantage in graphics, which should allow them to compete even with a design disadvantage.

Laying out a graphics part using semi-custom design rules is a whole different ball-game then a CPU in full-custom.

[Corwin_B]

I love ATI products since the R300, and I'd really like to see them succeed, but I have to agree with Wolf2 here : if the current string of atrocious execution (rivaling 3Dfx's) continues, I can see AMD pulling the plug of the high-end discrete market, even if a change of CEO is needed for that.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Tim Murray

Also, I assume that you'll see FP64 on ATI cards before the end of this year. Don't count on it being fast; I think it's exclusively for GPGPU.

I was thinking that's what the 512b bus and top-shelf GDDR4 were for, but FP64 seems like a hyooge and premature leap above FP32. That said, I don't know how they think R600 will skew b/w pro and consumer SKUs, or how it'll contribute to Fusion or whatever "accelerators" they have planned for a few years down the line.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Corwin_B

I love ATI products since the R300, and I'd really like to see them succeed, but I have to agree with Wolf2 here : if the current string of atrocious execution (rivaling 3Dfx's) continues, I can see AMD pulling the plug of the high-end discrete market, even if a change of CEO is needed for that.

I still think its premature to say something like this, mainly because they will try to fix the problem first before pulling the plug, nV was able to, AMD should be too. Faliure to execute has equal importance with planning + management and engineering.

[Speccy]

Originally Posted by Corwin_B

I love ATI products since the R300, and I'd really like to see them succeed, but I have to agree with Wolf2 here : if the current string of atrocious execution (rivaling 3Dfx's) continues, I can see AMD pulling the plug of the high-end discrete market, even if a change of CEO is needed for that.

That would be entirely counter productive to any kind of strategy.

For starters, the primary cost is the engineering resource, the much of which is still required to design and implement architecture for chipset and CPU's, by removing the desktop all you are doing is removing an incremental cost while cutting off a considerable revenue generator. The technologies are leveraged through other areas of the business as well so, for instance, if you want any consumer presense, removing desktop graphics also jeoparises that.

Besides Fusion, the point of purchasing a graphics company is to leverage the benefits to further the core business - Intel, for instance, can only offer an "Intel only" ecosystem thats good for business and entry level PC's as their graphics performance is low; however AMD can offer compelete AMD systems into a much wider variety of configurations while offering the stability of a single hardware / single software solution stack; this is all addative. Removing the desktop graphics business will not just undercut this, but also going to send a horrible message to the very OEM's that they are trying to attract to their core business.