[T2k]

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

Beat. Horse. Dead. Dig up horse. Beat again. Stand horse up. Kick and beat down. Again.

They got what they deserve - actually, it is still not enough.

No, definitely not yet.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by cthellis42

Considering the expected transistor bumps (and a few other comments), it seems rather like ATi is making the FP32 move with R420. Unless there's a few random, totally unexpected changes in there as well.

Well, transistor bumps don't mean much to me...I mean, there's supposed to be a very advanced vertex shader, and the "rumors" point to a doubling a PS "performance", clock for clock. They could account for any transistor increase.

Since FP32 is not needed, for PS 3.0 (let alone 2.0), it almost seems like it would be a waste of silicon for ATI to support it. It would be mostly a marketing check box. If, on the other hand, not having FP32 would really cause issues with VS 3.0, then I could see it. This is why I asked the Vertex shader question. (Is anyone going to offer any insight? )

I suppose going from FP24 to FP32 may not require that much increase in transistors....but if that were the case then you would think ATI might have just gone with FP32 in R300.

Back when we first leared that R390/420 was "heavily based on R300", I was assuming that R420 would be PS 2.0 and FP24. Then, we started hearing "definitive rumors" that R420 was PS 3.0...I went along with that until this past week when the current "definitive rumor" is PS 2.x. So, I'm wondering if my original hunch was correct all along on both accounts.

[T2k]

Originally Posted by anaqer

Isn't this getting a bit old already?

Still much younger than that CRAP we've been told by NVIDIA for a YEAR, my friend.

[Pete]

I don't see why ATI would bother with FP32 in the pixelshaders if R420's not going to support PS3.0.

This might be another case of ATi ratining transistors wisely, but we'll see. We've all expected ATi to blow nV out of the water in DX9 games, but that hasn't really happened yet because, well, there ain't no DX9 games. :?

[Lecram25]

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't see why ATI would bother with FP32 in the pixelshaders if R420's not going to support PS3.0.

This might be another case of ATi ratining transistors wisely, but we'll see. We've all expected ATi to blow nV out of the water in DX9 games, but that hasn't really happened yet because, well, there ain't no DX9 games. :?

And Tomb Raider: AoD is what?

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Lecram25

And Tomb Raider: AoD is what?

A half-way decent benchmark before they pulled it with the last patch, but the game itself was so sucky as to be nearly unplayable.

How about we say "there haven't been any good dx9 games yet that really take advantage of a lot of dx9 features", could we live in peace with that one and call it a draw?

[Geo]

Even assuming ATI can kick butt in current games, I would be concerned for them a year down the line. Remember how we use to hear at great length how many incompatibilities and "bugs" in ATI drivers really weren't, they were just developers who had developed around NV's bugs and now ATI was paying the price even tho their implentation was correct? Remember how that disappeared with DX9? Well, it will be back a little down the road if they hand the field to NV on ps3.0.

[Brent]

FarCry

[Chalnoth]

Of course, there have been some documented instances of ATI's drivers not conforming to spec, too.

But yes, the "underdog" will always have issues, even if the only problem is that the software is optimized for the competitor's hardware, as was the biggest problem for nVidia, back when they were overcoming 3dfx for mindshare. More recently this has likely also hurt the performance of the NV3x line somewhat (I certainly don't claim it's all of the performance hit, or even most, but witness such things as 3DMark2k3 not benchmarking in any partial precision mode). For ATI this was probably more of an issue with the Radeon 8500.

[DemoCoder]

Let's just say that I've been pleasantly underwhelmed by Far Cry. Nice polybump and shadows, but HL2's smoke and mirrors E3 demos still look better. Hopefully, once Valve finishes writing the real game, it will have the same quality.

[Hanners]

Originally Posted by Ante P

Depends on which one we are referring to as the first one now doesn't it?

Well, we know Fuad got his name right, so that's one thing...

[Ante P]

So if ATi supports FP32 what will happen to FP24 and does it mean they'll also support FP16?

And what if they have both FP24 and FP32, how would an application choose between the two. (Seeing that both are full precision and no hint is required.)

[Miksu]

Kinda interesting comment from MuFu @ Rage3D:

I don't think NV40 is launching at CeBIT now either.

So (if this is true), if Ati was supposed to wait until NV40 is launched before releasing R420, does this mean that we're gonna wait a little longer for both chips?

[Skinner]

Maybe they wait on each other, so no one is coming out

I wish it was already april, I want to buy some new toys.

[anaqer]

Originally Posted by T2k

Still much younger than that CRAP we've been told by NVIDIA for a YEAR, my friend.

Well, whatever floats your boat, my friend.

[Hanners]

Originally Posted by Skinner

Maybe they wait on each other, so no one is coming out

I wish it was already april, I want to buy some new toys.

My pay rise kicks in at the start of April, it couldn't be timed much better.

[incurable]

Originally Posted by Hanners

Well, we know Fuad got his name right, so that's one thing...

Wait, has it really been verified by independent sources that he exists and does indeed turn his head when being called by his name?

Edit: Oh, and on the timing issue, I don't care about the announcements, availability in early May would be fine with me.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Miksu

Kinda interesting comment from MuFu @ Rage3D:

So (if this is true), if Ati was supposed to wait until NV40 is launched before releasing R420, does this mean that we're gonna wait a little longer for both chips?

I'd hold off on reading too much into that quote for now, since there's some confusion there (or there was last night, at least).

[Sage]

if the rumors about R420 being available in quantity already are true then I can't imagine ATi wasting the jump they have on nVidia. Last time round they were the only ones with DX9 cards on the market for a loooong time and sold quite a many few because of that sole factor. It looks like they could have a product shiped a few months before nVidia, giving them a very nice window where they, once again, have no competition. Why throw away all of those sales because your competitor is being slow?

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Sage

if the rumors about R420 being available in quantity already are true then I can't imagine ATi wasting the jump they have on nVidia. ......Why throw away all of those sales because your competitor is being slow?

Because there are an awful lot of R3xx cards still in the channels to be sold and the card makers would probably appreciate a chance to unload their stock on hand of old cards before the new cards come out and make 'em obsolete.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Because there are an awful lot of R3xx cards still in the channels to be sold and the card makers would probably appreciate a chance to unload their stock on hand of old cards before the new cards come out and make 'em obsolete.

yeah I know, but I think that ATi is in a possition to strike nVidia another hard blow. nVidia is already in a weak possition and allowing them to recouperate would be a big mistake because I doubt they will let themselves be put in such a possition again.

[CapsLock]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Because there are an awful lot of R3xx cards still in the channels to be sold and the card makers would probably appreciate a chance to unload their stock on hand of old cards before the new cards come out and make 'em obsolete.

It seems as if the R350 is already being priced at mid-range levels in some places @~200USD, the R360 could be brought down to the 300USD level and they would still be making money on it, leaving plenty of room for a 400-500USD uber card that enthusiasts will be unable to resist. I agree with the get a jump on the competition POV. Many systems and buyers work on the whatever is the mostest factor, if Ati get this market they will have the inertia when NV40 hits.

Not that I know all the facts on this kind of situation, just my 2 cents.

Caps

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Sage

yeah I know, but I think that ATi is in a possition to strike nVidia another hard blow. nVidia is already in a weak possition and allowing them to recouperate would be a big mistake because I doubt they will let themselves be put in such a possition again.

Yes, but you don't necessarily "strike nVidia" from a business perspective just by launching your cards first. You strike nvidia by making your OEM customers as satisfied with a combination of products and service.

The "happier" ATI keeps their oem customers, the more these customers would be willing to either

1) Be an ATI shop only
2) Be willing to pay a premium for ATI's parts.

That being said, there is a certain market appeal to launching first, (it can help your brand, as well as allow OEMs to charge a premium to consumers for these parts before the competition hits the market.) So there are of course some cons to "waiting." Picking the right time to "launch" is as much of an art as it is a science.

[CapsLock]

Checking PriceGrabber just now, it seems most 9800P are still close to 300USD, and XT's are around 450USD. Soooo, maybe my analysis wasn't so goodish. :?

Caps

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Yes, but you don't necessarily "strike nVidia" from a business perspective just by launching your cards first. You strike nvidia by making your OEM customers as satisfied with a combination of products and service.

The "happier" ATI keeps their oem customers, the more these customers would be willing to either

1) Be an ATI shop only
2) Be willing to pay a premium for ATI's parts.

That being said, there is a certain market appeal to launching first, (it can help your brand, as well as allow OEMs to charge a premium to consumers for these parts before the competition hits the market.) So there are of course some cons to "waiting." Picking the right time to "launch" is as much of an art as it is a science.

Bang on!

I don't think ATi's main goal is just to beat nVidia, I think their goal is to win customers.