ATI Fast14 tech? What difference can it make?

[wireframe]

I made a mistake attributing the statement made by rwolf to some official ATI spokesperson. In tracking the quote I ended up on Digitalwanderer's quote and it has no author attached.

What, you don't consider me an official spokesperson for ATi? :|

No. I would put you more in the ATI "spook" category.

 

[Tim Murray]

For all we know, Dig could be Dave Orton in disguise.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Seriously though...I don't know exactly what fast14 or what it can do, but I really think this is the surprise they've been trying to hide.

NONE of the usual insider-infoers/teasers have mentioned/commented on it or its possible inclusion/ramifications in the upcoming R520, and no one at ATi has mentioned a thing about it....it just feels right.

 

[Geo]

Seriously though...I don't know exactly what fast14 or what it can do, but I really think this is the surprise they've been trying to hide.

NONE of the usual insider-infoers/teasers have mentioned/commented on it or its possible inclusion/ramifications in the upcoming R520, and no one at ATi has mentioned a thing about it....it just feels right.

Hmm, well if we see a press release in the next couple months that ATI is *acquiring* Intrinsity, that would be a big tip-off that it was going well in a provable fashion (i.e. they'd done it for real and the results knocked their socks off and now they don't want anyone else to use it).

 

[Tim Murray]

I think there are greater odds of Series 5 coming to market by June than Fast14 influences being part of R520.

 

[Geo]

Exec Summary: "Hey everybody, Baron says PVR5 is just around the corner, and you know he's plugged in to all that sh*t! Kewl!"

 

[RussSchultz]

Seriously though...I don't know exactly what fast14 or what it can do, but I really think this is the surprise they've been trying to hide.

NONE of the usual insider-infoers/teasers have mentioned/commented on it or its possible inclusion/ramifications in the upcoming R520, and no one at ATi has mentioned a thing about it....it just feels right.

My company doesn't really share what libraries we use in our products, either.

Not because its some sort of secret, but because nobody really cares.

 

[rwolf]

Well how fast can ATI get the R5xx to go if it does use Fast14 .. especially after the remarks like.

Well, I'm sure that's mostly just marketing speak. After all, GPU's are a different beast from many other processors out there. They're huge and they're pushed to the absolute limits as far as heat/power consumption go. They also have more R&D poured into them than probably any other type of chip out there save CPU's.

Personally, I would venture to guess that gains on the order of 5-20% would be most likely due to this tech. But that doesn't consider the fact that if ATI wasn't licesning this technology, they'd be spending that money on R&D in other areas, so it may not be even that much faster. As for how it compares to what nVidia will be doing, well, there are many ways to leverage more performance, and nVidia working on their own methods to increase silicon performance doesn't necessarily put them at a disadvantage.

It all depends upon where nVidia and ATI are focusing most of their development money. This really is a game of guesswork and luck. The company that managed to pick the right strategy moving forward will gain more marketshare. But, in all likelihood, both companies' products will be very close.

Well considering that their DSP performs twice as fast as those from seasoned DSP makers makes me wonder if your 5-20% assumption is a bit low.

 

[jpr27]

Hmmm...

I thought I read somewhere that ATI did buy Intrinsity or the rights to the Fast14 tech.

Also does anyone know if NV has licensed or is using Fast14 as well? I'll try a google search and see what I can find.


***There is no Luck...Only the Will and Desire to Succeed!!!***

 

[KimB]

Probably not. There has been no information to that effect so far.

 

[GwymWeepa]

Dear god, let Nintendo use fast 14 tech in its GPU *prays*.

 

[KimB]

Dear god, let Nintendo use fast 14 tech in its GPU *prays*.

There's more than one company researching ways to improve silicon-based processor performance.

Anyway, just got an e-mail from radar1200gs, sending these links:
www.arithmatica.com
http://www.arithmatica.com/news/art040426B.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20040428013643.html

Looks like nVidia's been licensing math library technologies of their own since the NV40. Remember that it has been noted that the NV40, while having quite a few more transistors than the R420, is very close to the same die area.

 

[egore]

Looks like nVidia's been licensing math library technologies of their own since the NV40. Remember that it has been noted that the NV40, while having quite a few more transistors than the R420, is very close to the same die area.

The NV40 might be on more layers than the R420 which would also account for the die area not being that much more.

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

TBH this fast 14 sounds to me like its just a transistor/gate layout/design on the production silicon. one they have made which is well suited for the logic ATi are gonna be putting on their chip (but not neccecarily for all).

Sure if they can use trannies wink more efficiently thats great, we'll probably be seeing higher clocked GPU's from ATi, dont think it will help people like Intel and AMD though, far too much overlap from their own designs/uses I expect. (but dont 'know')

 

[tazdevl]

For all we know, Dig could be Dave Orton in disguise.

LOL nah. Doesn't sound like him.

There have been no reports of NVDA licensing the technology.

Unlikely... chances are, given the fact that they are a small shop, they signed an exclusive deal with ATI that prevents them from licensing it to nVIDIA.

 

[DemoCoder]

Unlikely... chances are, given the fact that they are a small shop, they signed an exclusive deal with ATI that prevents them from licensing it to nVIDIA.

Although it's possible to refuse to license a patent, it's rare. (e.g. Polaroid) It is a violation of the spirit of patent law. If you're going to keep technology secret and monopolize it, there is little justification of patent, which is a social contract designed to promote science via public disclosure. But if people can't use your invention by paying you for it, what's the use? Yes, people "lock up" technology all the time, it's one of the distasteful perversions of patents, especially when holding companies, many just legal firms, by up a bunch of tech patents and use them to do nothing but sue.


In many countries patent licensing is *compulsory*, and in the US, there are limited compulsory statues. If NVidia really wanted Fast14, they could just buy the company, then simply honor the deal they granted ATI, while owning the patent, and charging royalties to ATI.

But I suspect the hype surrounding Fast14 won't translate into as large real world benefits as is being described here, over and above other techniques that parallel Fast14. Remember the hype surrounding Rambus? Gigapixel? et al People here are too easily excitable by buzzwords.

 

[Dave Baumann]

There have been no reports of NVDA licensing the technology.

Unlikely... chances are, given the fact that they are a small shop, they signed an exclusive deal with ATI that prevents them from licensing it to nVIDIA.

The whisper on the vine was that this was an exclusive license for graphics use. Whether it translates into anything is another question though - I think this might be in the experimental stage when they licensed it and its a question of how to make it fit, which in itself is likely to involve taking an architecture that it can fit into and then actually prototyping some chips.

 

[Mintmaster]

Do you think Sony's & NV's cooperation began the day after they announced the agreement?

I was thinking about this, but isn't it illegal for them to withhold information from stockholders? Especially large partnerships like that, where NVidia's volume could possibly double.

 

[Geo]

There have been no reports of NVDA licensing the technology.

Unlikely... chances are, given the fact that they are a small shop, they signed an exclusive deal with ATI that prevents them from licensing it to nVIDIA.

The whisper on the vine was that this was an exclusive license for graphics use. Whether it translates into anything is another question though - I think this might be in the experimental stage when they licensed it and its a question of how to make it fit, which in itself is likely to involve taking an architecture that it can fit into and then actually prototyping some chips.

Any whispers on how much diligence there was in advance of the announcement? i.e. maybe they did that before they signed-up, or at least before they announced? Would also be interesting and relevant to know how much up-front money there was versus royalties or something of the kind on back end when/if actual chips are being sold using it.

 

[Geo]

Do you think Sony's & NV's cooperation began the day after they announced the agreement?

I was thinking about this, but isn't it illegal for them to withhold information from stockholders? Especially large partnerships like that, where NVidia's volume could possibly double.

Well, I'm certainly not a securities law expert. But if there weren't material (to their balance sheet "material", which would have to be pretty substantial for a company like NV) immediate revenues involved (i.e. current or next quarter), I don't see why they'd have to make an immediate announcement on those grounds. And sometimes the "exploratory" phase (i.e. work is being done to see if it is feasible, but walking is still an option for either player) of these things can be extensive.

I would also *think* that NDA provisions can be a reason to withhold. So if Sony said in the contract "You can't announce until x date" that NV cannot be reasonably expected to not enter into a lucrative contract because they can't tell the shareholders yet.