ATI FY 3Q 2006 Results and CC

[lik]

Hypothetically if there was a g71 with 32 pipes, that would put it with a trany count of higher then the r580, so there would not have been a 7950 or quad sli. So this really wasn't an option.

Why is that? I don't think the change from 24 to 32 pipes will increase transistor count a lot. R580 is twice as larger as g71. How much difference can the additional 8 pipes bring in in terms of the transistor count?

 

[Razor1]

Why is that? I don't think the change from 24 to 32 pipes will increase transistor count a lot. R580 is twice as larger as g71. How much difference can the additional 8 pipes bring in in terms of the transistor count?

for nV's chips the way they are set up it would make around a 80 million trany difference. The r580 is around 380 mill trany's., opps nV's chip will still be smaller but not by much

 

[epicstruggle]

What Geo found interesting

Hmm, refering to yourself in the third person..... Clear sign of green boxites (also known as demintus positis reputatium)



j/k
Thanks for the summary, much appretiated.
epic

 

[SsP45]

Nvidia= king of 3d.
They know how to sell cards and make huge profits, something ati fails at.

$40M+ profit isn't good enough? How is $40M in profit failing?

 

[Arun]

$40M+ profit isn't good enough? How is $40M in profit failing?

Net income computed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 was $90.7 million, or $0.23 per diluted share, compared to GAAP net income of $64.4 million, or $0.18 per diluted share, for the first quarter of fiscal 2006.

GAAP net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 includes stock-based compensation expense of $23.0 million as a result of the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123R), during the quarter.

Non-GAAP net income for the first quarter of 2007, which excludes SFAS 123R stock-based compensation and related tax differences, was $111.1 million, or $0.29 per diluted share.

Heh. Not that it matters of course, but NVIDIA's focus on margins definitively have given them a financial edge over ATI. At the same time, they pretend it barred their entry in some markets (such as 2G mobile phones) because the margins wouldn't be worth the trouble, and I question whether that was such a good idea personally.

Uttar

 

[Dave Baumann]

Given ATI's margins are 50% plus in that arena, it would tend to suggest that to attempt to compete with ATI they are having to undercut.

 

[Geo]

Heh. Not that it matters of course, but NVIDIA's focus on margins definitively have given them a financial edge over ATI. At the same time, they pretend it barred their entry in some markets (such as 2G mobile phones) because the margins wouldn't be worth the trouble, and I question whether that was such a good idea personally.

Didn't once upon a time they have a stated goal of "every pixel everywhere"? Now they talk about 2G phones, mainstream/value Intel mobo, the bottom two thirds of the notebook market, and DTV (am I missing any more?) as markets where they really aren't interested because they'd have to compete on price.

 

[dizietsma]

In regards to the RV570 it does look like this will be much needed in the mid range space, however I could not quite grasp why it would be delayed if yields were so good ? Maybe there is no delay ?

Regards

Andy

 

[Jawed]

Maybe TSMC has had problems with 80nm - and this is why UMC is getting a look in. It's amazing that the analysts didn't press this point. Sorta: "Our mainstream parts are late, so our margins are hit by having to use enthusiast-level GPUs." "Oh, OK." Lame.

Jawed

 

[Kombatant]

Is it just me, or this produced no news whatsoever? Btw thx geo

 

[Sunrise]

Maybe TSMC has had problems with 80nm - and this is why UMC is getting a look in. It's amazing that the analysts didn't press this point. Sorta: "Our mainstream parts are late, so our margins are hit by having to use enthusiast-level GPUs." "Oh, OK." Lame.

I wouldn´t call it problems, it´s more to do with TSMC´s plans to offer every customer a substitute for their 90nm process targets, meaning they need time to fully qualify not only their low-end, low-power and high-output targets, but they also need to cope with high-speed targets since TSMC is known for their customers to be very demanding especially in this field.

UMC is getting a look in because UMC always was ATI´s low-end FAB with substancial volume and very good yields and quality services. Based on that, UMC always wanted to grow even more, so they forced themselves to be competitive with TSMC not only process technology wise, but also on pricing and naturally this also leads to price biding between those foundries, since they need every FAB to be fully utilized to make money. Nothing is worse then having bought millions worth of equipment and leave it unused. UMC actually was in-front of TSMC, WRT their 80nm process, meaning they already shipped final silicon, while TSMC still has the advantage (and that takes additional time) that they offer more process targets.

Yields may be not quite as good as they´re on 90nm, which isn´t a secret, but i don´t buy that exaggerated "yields"-thing, not even for a second.

ATi is working with TSMC very closely and have been for years, meaning they both depend on each other heavily. If you take a look at ATI´s very early roadmaps, dating back to the beginning of this year, they always forecasted/planned those parts to be in full production in late august, early september, so there may be some delay involved, but since Orton didn´t exactly specifiy what caused this delay (and i´m pretty sure it´s because they still have X1800/X1900 inventory, which needs to be sold first -> the inventory "hangover" he also spoke of), it´s understandable, but not quite "definitive" that this has anything to do with the quality of 80nm in general. It´s nothing that should come as an unexpected surprise.

 

[Geo]

Is it just me, or this produced no news whatsoever? Btw thx geo

Oh, I dunno, confirming RV560/RV570 are somewhat late is news. I mean, we've heard that suggested here and there, but it's always good to get the principal on the public record.

 

[Geo]

If you take a look at ATI´s very early roadmaps, dating back to the beginning of this year, they always forecasted/planned those parts to be in full production in late august, early september, so there may be some delay involved, but since Orton didn´t exactly specifiy what caused this delay (and i´m pretty sure it´s because they still have X1800/X1900 inventory, which needs to be sold first -> the inventory "hangover" he also spoke of), it´s understandable, but not quite "definitive" that this has anything to do with the quality of 80nm in general. It´s nothing that should come as an unexpected surprise.

Hmm. I'm trying to decide if X1900GT supports that idea. A lower priced part (with good performance) is typically going to be a higher volume part. I think it unlikely that X1900GT is *all* dead-die skus, and putting some portion of healthy R580s in there isn't something they can enjoy doing.

 

[Jawed]

I think there's a fair amount of delay:

If I could find the HKEPC article that featured this, then I would link it, but I can't

I imagine this roadmap is about a year old. RV560/570 is clearly indicated as April/May/June.

Jawed

 

[Sunrise]

I think there's a fair amount of delay:

If I could find the HKEPC article that featured this, then I would link it, but I can't

I imagine this roadmap is about a year old. RV560/570 is clearly indicated as April/May/June.

Jawed

Even if you could find that HKEPC article, it would be worthless, since RV560/RV570 parts planned for April are completely out of the question.

If you look at that roadmap closely, RV560/RV570 is indicated as July/August. If you add 1 month you get into early septemberish and i basically agreed with you here (read my post again), but i also outlined that this delay doesn´t have anything to do with process technology at all, which is one thing that is worth pointing out i think, because if you talk about "problems" they have to be unusual.

You´re looking at an "estimation roadmap" (which is an outlook, not definitive) from the beginning of this year, which should tell you that these estimations can only be met if everything works out as planned. A slip of about one month is nothing surprising at all and certainly not that big of a story.

EDIT: Typos fixed.

 

[Sunrise]

Hmm. I'm trying to decide if X1900GT supports that idea. A lower priced part (with good performance) is typically going to be a higher volume part. I think it unlikely that X1900GT is *all* dead-die skus, and putting some portion of healthy R580s in there isn't something they can enjoy doing.

That certainly depends highly on their margin model and market demand. I guess at a certain point they have to, because either they´ll run out of X1800 ASICs, their yields improve to the point where >80% of R580 ASICs are 100% functional and/or demand for GTs is a lot higher than their inventory of non-functional ASICs.

 

[poopypoo]

EDIT: DAMNIT, i really need to check before i post XD I knew the connect3d x1800gto was no longer on sale, but now HIS has a $30 rebate on theirs, bringing it to $170. not bad, not bad at all. pretty much scrap my whole post, although i am worried about the margins (i'll leave my post intact in case anybody's responding to it now -- disregard it tho XD) .

honestly it really sucks that they're late with 560/570. if their target was July/Aug, AND they're late (Sep? Oct?), then... that bothers me. i love my Connect3d x1800gto (that I got on sale); since it was cheap, I find its performance to be mind-blowing, and more than sufficient for my 1280x1024 LCD in all current games. However, that sale price has not persisted, and the 7600GT has dropped lower and lower. They need a mainstream card fast -- didn't they learn that with the 9500p? You'd think that would have been a priority.

I realize shit happens, and I am happy with MY card, but I'm SURE the margin on it sucked -- and that's a problem.

 

[Jawed]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32791

According to some, TSMC’s 80nm standard is three to four months late, as ATI was expecting to start production on 80nm parts in early spring.

---

From all indications the 80nm standard process (GT) is kicking along fine after its small delay, and we are going to see final products in pretty short order. The two other products are still not in full production yet. High Speed is supposed to be open for full production by the end of this summer, and Low Power looks to be closer to 2007.

Can R600 be clocked significantly higher than R580? There's been thoughts about R600 being hundreds of MHz faster (admittedly none serious), but wouldn't that require a High Speed process? Or am I misinterpreting the concept of TSMC's HS

Presumably R600 on the 80nm standard process at TSMC is going to be 5%-10% faster than R580

The next big question is where 65nm is. Apparently the standard 65nm line is out of risk production and is chugging away at full speed. The initial products for 65nm are typically smaller, more specialized products and DSPs. This does not include the large GPUs from the big guys. For now, GPUs will stay at 80nm throughout the rest of this year. In early 2007 it appears as though Nvidia may be first out of the blocks with 65nm parts. Mimicking this year’s 90nm production run from NV, it will start with smaller, more budget-oriented designs which will culminate to the larger 65nm refresh of the G80. ATI will probably be very close behind with the RV6x0 series of chips on 65nm, and will eventually produce a 65nm version of the big R600.

So, pretty much in line with earlier rumours, apart from NVidia supposedly doing stuff on 65nm quite soon, presumably G8x value/mainstream.

Jawed

 

[_xxx_]

"HIgh speed" is a refence to transistor switching speed inside the chip or the overall clocks? I tend to think it's the former, would be the opposite of low-power.

 

[trinibwoy]

That Joshua guy certainly writes as if he knows what he's talking about. A refreshing change coming from the Inq.

"HIgh speed" is a refence to transistor switching speed inside the chip or the overall clocks? I tend to think it's the former, would be the opposite of low-power.

Doesn't one imply the other?