Can you let us know what the cause of the 6900 series delay is?
AMD: R9xx Speculation
- Thread starter Lukfi
- Start date
Can you let us know what the cause of the 6900 series delay is?
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
But wouldn't you change clock speeds if you knew the cards can do better than what you reckon is safe.
i.e. according to rumours the XT will be clocked up to 900 yet if they were say, to be released at 825 to keep it safe yet after the 580's release you decide that 875 or 900 would be better.
Hell, you might actually have a demon chip on your side and actually decide to down clock it so as to make overclockers happy that they can get more increased performance from the chip.
haha, that's all silly though. I'm pretty sure you guys know what you are doing.
i.e. according to rumours the XT will be clocked up to 900 yet if they were say, to be released at 825 to keep it safe yet after the 580's release you decide that 875 or 900 would be better.
Hell, you might actually have a demon chip on your side and actually decide to down clock it so as to make overclockers happy that they can get more increased performance from the chip.
haha, that's all silly though. I'm pretty sure you guys know what you are doing.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
I'd bet on a manufacturing or driver issue. I don't buy the official reason and I fear that at some level AMD faked the sample arrangements with the press earlier this week to counter the first delay rumors so that while publishing the GTX 580 review we’d still think the launch would go as planned. That would be a card you play only once of course.
I bet it's not GPU manufacturing problem in a 'needs a respin' sense. Not with so much experience with 40nm. Driver issues also seem fishy to me. Drivers delaying launch, srsly? TI MOSFET sounds weird but I'd believe that sooner than first two options.
Could also be TSMC capacity problem. Maybe they decided to allocate capacity to current line of products for now. Lets not forget Zacate and Ontario.
From Daves hint we can safely say it's not due to clock change ;-)
Could also be TSMC capacity problem. Maybe they decided to allocate capacity to current line of products for now. Lets not forget Zacate and Ontario.
From Daves hint we can safely say it's not due to clock change ;-)
No amount of experience with a given manufacturing process will keep you safe from damning bugs. That said, it's probably the sort of thing that they would have caught much earlier, early enough not to have this little SNAFU… Unless of course it was intentional.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Why not? If Charlie's supposed deep-inside-nvidia source had no clue about the GTX580 then AMD could have been caught blind.
It's now looking more like Charlie's deep-inside-nvidia-source is either himself or AMD thus the blind leading the blind.
Nvidia's specs for the original 512 SP beast w/ similar clocks were talked about a year ago
You don't think AMD knew or had a pretty good idea what the GF100 was supposed to be?
Unlike Nvidia, AMD already knew what the competitors targets were in the past... why do people think AMD would go for their second gen DX11 card to be worse than where their competitor was supposed to be a year earlier?
I am sure the delay has something to do with GTX580 launch. May be AMD didn't expect GTX 580 to be available at the launch and hence thought that launching cayman early even without sufficient stock will be alright. Or may be it didn't expect GTX 580 to be 15% faster than GTX 480.
Or may be they thought GTX580 will completely obliterate HD5970 and a Cayman will be required to counter it. And now when it hasn't turned out that way they believe it's better to cut prices and let the HD59XX inventory get cleared before unleashing Cayman.
For last couple of years, AMD has been flawless with GPU launches. It doesn't seem likely that they slipped this time — which is quite crucial because for the first time in a year Nvidia has a compelling product that is better than HD5870 (GTX480 was too loud and hot) and HD 5970 — due to driver glitches or TI probs or TSMC yield issues.
Or may be they thought GTX580 will completely obliterate HD5970 and a Cayman will be required to counter it. And now when it hasn't turned out that way they believe it's better to cut prices and let the HD59XX inventory get cleared before unleashing Cayman.
For last couple of years, AMD has been flawless with GPU launches. It doesn't seem likely that they slipped this time — which is quite crucial because for the first time in a year Nvidia has a compelling product that is better than HD5870 (GTX480 was too loud and hot) and HD 5970 — due to driver glitches or TI probs or TSMC yield issues.
AMD surprised by 20% performance bump? Maybe positively surprised yes. I think AMD expected GTX580 level performance 1 year ago. At least that's how they reacted when they finally saw GTX480 reviews. Complete lack of being impressed to put it mildly.
'We are even more confident now.' Their words on CC.
The only thing from nV that caught them off guard IMHO is GTX460.
My money's on this.
So when are we kidnapping Wavey and torturing some good intel out of him?
There goes his Prius now!
Im with Sodium Penthanol. It doesn't leave any marks so Dave can go into work acting like nothing has happened whilst we make off with all the goods on not only this generation but perhaps the next generation of AMD graphical goodness.
He deserves it IMO for launching a massive counter-espionage action against us. He started it!
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
I wasn't talking about the specs of the GTX580 but that it was actually a real part that it would be hard launched early November.
That was a complete surprise...
See Charlies rant here to see how he and AMD were both caught off guard.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/10/18/nvidia-gtx580-paper-launch-next-month
I think that Barts contain 1280 SPs.
Yes I know very well that this is a "high level" overview but it seems to work.
Althou i'm not so good at math you're right there, and it aint just a high level overview. But then EG_Redwood and EG_Juniper have only one setup engine to oversight their work, while EG_Cypress and NI_Barts have two, so it's more proper way to me looking what is cut down.
They're just cut down EG_Cypress part, no "new NI shaders" (that took more die space per SP), all tessellation improvements in Barts came plainly fro it's higher clock so there's no real improvement (or need for die area) and with all stuff they cut-off (320SPs, DP support, 2nd CFX and reduced MC) ... it simply should be 1280SPs
I agree there with you. Redundancy if it translates into merely 15-20mm2 (7-9% bigger) die space is nifty feature for gpu business.
but seems nobody doesnt wish to confirm my thoughts
As now seems, neither AMD doesn't want to address fully working gf104 chip, that is still non-existing as real product ex.gtx475->now.gtx560(?)
And as the only reason for redundancy in Barts would be to address some mythical future nVidia product, so as there are no requirements for it we probably wont see that "fully enabled Barts" either. But who knows may we'll see HD6890 after all and that would be great
My bet is on AMD cleansing out of piled up HD5800 cards from clogged warehouse inventory and further down the retail stream before newcomers arrive. It's not like they're really afraid vaporware GTX580 will spoil their sales
And Q3 show some sales slowdown-drop of ATi gpu line so its last moment to sell them at discount prices and yet for none the less than HD6800 cards.Newegg has some 5870's at $269 with rebate, I expect they could move a few.
Similar threads
