Really? When exactly have they been able to do those "counters" excluding 7950GX2 and now current generation?
AMD: R7xx Speculation
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
- Status
Really? When exactly have they been able to do those "counters" excluding 7950GX2 and now current generation?
Appearance is more important than anything else in this and many other industries. Would anyone out there honestly say Nvidia is not universally-recognized as the world leader in consumer graphics?
Past examples: 6800 Ultra, 7800 GTX 512
Current/short-term future examples: 8800 GT, 9600 GT, 9800 GX2
Maybe it's just me but IIRC X800 XT PE held the performance crown from 6800 Ultra, and 7800GTX 512 (was it even really available?) while it can be called "quick answer" was pretty much just as quickly (less than 2 months iirc) beaten by X1900-series again?
So IMO it has been more of trading punches both directions rather than "nvidia always having replacement up their sleeve"
So when in June is this likely to be released? I was wondering whether on not it would be worthwhile waiting for the new cards if my money becomes available mid April onwards. I bought my 7900gtx a few weeks before the 8800gtx came out. That WAS pain. So im kinda worried that i'll do the same with this generation. Will I at least have an indication on what configurations will be released and when?
Lots of OT discussion going on here 
Anyway, is the R700 the actaul R700 planned when ATI was still independent? I get the feeling that the R770, or w/e the next generation AMD product is called, that its a more beefed up/tweaked RV670 core on 55nm process.
It just seems this way because of the financial position AMD is in, and they are probably looking fanatically to cut cost in alot of areas to hang in there. I.e instead of pouring money into R680 (a single chip solution) they opted with going dual GPU with RV670 and in doing so probably cut alot of R&D cost. Same goes for now. Create a fast midrange solution RV770 and go dual for high end.
Anyway, is the R700 the actaul R700 planned when ATI was still independent? I get the feeling that the R770, or w/e the next generation AMD product is called, that its a more beefed up/tweaked RV670 core on 55nm process.
It just seems this way because of the financial position AMD is in, and they are probably looking fanatically to cut cost in alot of areas to hang in there. I.e instead of pouring money into R680 (a single chip solution) they opted with going dual GPU with RV670 and in doing so probably cut alot of R&D cost. Same goes for now. Create a fast midrange solution RV770 and go dual for high end.
Unfortunately, No.
And you know this how?
You think they managed to design a whole new GPU in LESS than 1.5 years?
Not new. If I understand some people's statements, who always are right, the upcomming RV770 is something like the project Loki: current architecture (RV670) with some improvements (higher texturing power? higher Z-fillrate? shader domain clocks?).
Last edited by a moderator:
Why unfortunately?
See what AB wrote above. When a project tends to undergo changes in the scope of vision, the new vision is usually not as aggressive as the original. This generally means either less features or less performance. It becomes evolutionary and not revolutionary as originally intended.
You sure can and have. That still wont change my opinion on what they will release in June as the RV770. I can just as easily point you to several dozens of Press Conference Q&A where AMD said and indicated their quad-core Phenom / Opteron will be so far ahead of anything from Intel. Do I need to? We all know how that one turned out.
A completely different situation...
Comparing apples and oranges now.
Now exactly why is this situation any different from that?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sorry late to the party...but...
The NV1 was a far greater flop than the FX series.
Nvidia didn't actually start doing truly well until the TNT1/2. After which their next new architechture was the Geforce 256 which had just evolutionary changes until the FX.
So out of differening Architectures, Nvidia didn't exactly have the glorious golden age many atribute to it.
So we had NV1 - complete failure although interesting.
Riva 128 - Better, but still a failure when compared to the competition.
TNT - Nvidia finally get's it right...still not one of my favorites...
Geforce 256 to 4- Improves even more...image quality still not what I'd like, but it was fast.
FX Series - Again a relative failure compared to the competition. Probably would have been good on it's on.
6xxx series - Nvidia hits stride again but remains "generally" slower and less image quality than ATI.
7xxx series - Still "generally" slower than ATI and still lower IQ.
8xxx series - Absolutely blows away ATI in speed and marginally better IQ, although I prefer R600 AA quality (speed is another matter entirely).
So, yeah, they've certainly been successful, but I count at least 2 failures prior to the FX failure. And while successful other than having better marketing they still trailed ATI in speed and IQ until the 8xxx series.
Basically, when it comes right down to it. Nvidia isn't all that different than any other tech company. They have hits and misses with regards to their hardware.
Nvidia however has certainly excelled when it comes to marketing. Don't think anyone would argue that point.
Regards,
SB
Blazkowicz
Legend
well I don't agree for everything. Riva 128 may have sucked but so did every early 3D hardware besides 3dfx of course :sun:.
Geforce 3/4 are much better than R2xx quality wise. Usable AA (rotated grid for the 2x mode only, the best one to use on such hardware) versus old sucking oversampling, texture filtering comparable to G80 (but 8x max and slow) versus very fast but sucky bilinear aniso with limited angles.
at the time only a voodoo5 could offer better AA quality (4x rotated grid, super sampled) and similar filtering (through negative LOD. but only bilinear!)
FX 5200 / 5500 was a huge success, and the FX series uses same AA/AF as the gf 3/4 line.
of course ATI went unchecked with their R300, massive power, fast 4x rotated grid AA, fast and decent aniso, usable DX9 card.
for geforce 6, well a 6800GT and X800 pro were about as fast, then who had or took teh performance crown.. you may or may not care. broken filtering on gf 6/7 is annoying, you can decide to live with it (using 8xS for older games and pretending you look at a good picture anyway for others)
Geforce 3/4 are much better than R2xx quality wise. Usable AA (rotated grid for the 2x mode only, the best one to use on such hardware) versus old sucking oversampling, texture filtering comparable to G80 (but 8x max and slow) versus very fast but sucky bilinear aniso with limited angles.
at the time only a voodoo5 could offer better AA quality (4x rotated grid, super sampled) and similar filtering (through negative LOD. but only bilinear!)
FX 5200 / 5500 was a huge success, and the FX series uses same AA/AF as the gf 3/4 line.
of course ATI went unchecked with their R300, massive power, fast 4x rotated grid AA, fast and decent aniso, usable DX9 card.
for geforce 6, well a 6800GT and X800 pro were about as fast, then who had or took teh performance crown.. you may or may not care. broken filtering on gf 6/7 is annoying, you can decide to live with it (using 8xS for older games and pretending you look at a good picture anyway for others)
nVIDIA sure does have its shares of hits and misses but they landed almost all the rights one bang on and quite the time execution too.
Example, nVIDIA's domination of the mid end with the 6600GT where ATI had no anwser til the late introduction of the X800GTO, and by then the damage had already been done. ATi did have the performance crown with the X800XTPE which was slightly faster than the ultra. But is this more important or having mid range product that blows away its competition in price/performance/features?
Same goes for the 6800GT which was one of the most popular cards of all time. Something that made ATi counter very late with the X800XL.
Then came the refresh with the NV45. Traditional refresh? no, but rather the introduction of SLi. To put things into perspective, ATi only released a similiar/competitive solution with the introduction of native crossfire in the form of the X1950pro. Late again.
Then the NV47 ala 7800GTX/GT. Undisputed for 6 months. Performed roughly double last gen's flagships.
G71 vs R580 was in favor of ATi only in the view of an enthusiast. Why? IMO G71s are much more economical in terms of production cost compared to a more complex large R580 chip. (think very small die size/less transistors than G70/functional chips per wafer etc)
Then again, with the introduction of the first DX10 product G80 nVIDIA remained undisputed for a very long time thanks to the delayed R600 not being competitive enough in all fields.
The point im trying to get across is that, ATi may had the better products in terms of IQ, or sometimes performance but to me theyve always missed the crucial hits. They always lacked the business side of things which slowly made nVIDIA recover. And now the tables have turned so drastically that ATi went to a point of actually being acquired while the other is enjoying record breaking growths per consecutive Qs.
Example, nVIDIA's domination of the mid end with the 6600GT where ATI had no anwser til the late introduction of the X800GTO, and by then the damage had already been done. ATi did have the performance crown with the X800XTPE which was slightly faster than the ultra. But is this more important or having mid range product that blows away its competition in price/performance/features?
Same goes for the 6800GT which was one of the most popular cards of all time. Something that made ATi counter very late with the X800XL.
Then came the refresh with the NV45. Traditional refresh? no, but rather the introduction of SLi. To put things into perspective, ATi only released a similiar/competitive solution with the introduction of native crossfire in the form of the X1950pro. Late again.
Then the NV47 ala 7800GTX/GT. Undisputed for 6 months. Performed roughly double last gen's flagships.
G71 vs R580 was in favor of ATi only in the view of an enthusiast. Why? IMO G71s are much more economical in terms of production cost compared to a more complex large R580 chip. (think very small die size/less transistors than G70/functional chips per wafer etc)
Then again, with the introduction of the first DX10 product G80 nVIDIA remained undisputed for a very long time thanks to the delayed R600 not being competitive enough in all fields.
The point im trying to get across is that, ATi may had the better products in terms of IQ, or sometimes performance but to me theyve always missed the crucial hits. They always lacked the business side of things which slowly made nVIDIA recover. And now the tables have turned so drastically that ATi went to a point of actually being acquired while the other is enjoying record breaking growths per consecutive Qs.
While there is more of that I don't agree with, I will cut to the chase.
ATi was acquired because they were doing so good, not because they were doing poorly. It would be extremely interesting to go back and see how ATi's 2007 would have played out if they weren't bought by AMD but, alas, that isn't possible.
Yea, sure, it's economically sound to buy companies which are doing great. It gets you a wonderful price. And their silly investors...they have the golden goose, but they sell it because they need the cash-and everyone knows it's better to have cash once than have a constant cash-cow.
Do you think that if they were actually doing so great and were having super dooper outlooks on the future, they would've accepted to be TAKEN OVER by AMD?Really?
- Status
Similar threads
