ATI to scrap X700XT in favour of X800?

[Bjorn]

1.6ns is still hard to get? I thought it was supposed to be flowing in volumes by now. :?

Perhaps the 1.6 ns RAM isn' the only problem. The X700 XT didn't seem to overclock that well which perhaps might indicate a combination of RAM and yield problem.

 

[{Sniping}Waste]

To me it looks like a proceses problem or a layout problem somewere. It looks more of a layout problem because the cost of fixing a proceses problem is much cheeper then making new masks because of layout changes plus the the time to get dies for testing the new masks.

 

[Richthofen]

1.6ns is still hard to get? I thought it was supposed to be flowing in volumes by now. :?

Perhaps the 1.6 ns RAM isn' the only problem. The X700 XT didn't seem to overclock that well which perhaps might indicate a combination of RAM and yield problem.

i agree.
Memory doesn't seem to be the problem here. I think its more about manufacturing problems or one could say heat and power consumption translating into problems getting the clock speed up.

Bottom line is this: Nvidia is able to produce GF6600GT parts with 500MHZ core clock with more complexity in the GPU -> larger DIE. They consume less power than X700XTs and Nvidia is pricing them very agressivly and still are getting their margins up
It doesn't look like that they have problems in that marketspace with manufacturing, yields and so on.
Their PCI-E and AGP parts are available while ATIs competiting X700XT is a paper product and not available.
I think that translates into manufacturing problems on ATIs side more than anything else.

 

[kemosabe]

1.6ns is still hard to get? I thought it was supposed to be flowing in volumes by now. :?

This GDDR3 story has turned into a fiasco for whatever reasons. Samsung still has a monopoly more than two years after Micron developed the spec and Infineon/Hynix/Elpida have likewise failed to provide any competition. Nothing is preventing Samsung from gouging the IHVs with the prices on 1,6ns modules; meanwhile 700MHz GDDR3 should have been shipping on these $600 boards long ago and is nowhere to be found.

 

[Dave Baumann]

From a recent Goldman Sach's report:

In addition, ATYT's margins in discrete notebook graphics processor units (GPUs) are likely benefiting from declining DRAM prices, since ATYT bundles the memory in the same package as its notebook GPU.

It looks like there is a softening in prices of the low end BGA memories, which is probably why they are more able to position X800 in a lower end price bracket rather than persevering with X700 XT.

 

[AlNom]

1.6ns is considered low-end?

 

[Dave Baumann]

No, thats my point. X800 uses a large die and 256-bit bus, but only 350MHz DDR; X700 XT has a smaller die and 128-bit but expensive 1.6ns GDDR3. Being these are supposed to be volume, mainstream parts the availability of 350MHz DDR is laikely to be far greater than 600MHz GDDR3 and a softening of memory pricess is going to have greater effect on the lower end 350MHz RAM making X800 more viable in X700 XT position.

 

[kemosabe]

From a recent Goldman Sach's report:

In addition, ATYT's margins in discrete notebook graphics processor units (GPUs) are likely benefiting from declining DRAM prices, since ATYT bundles the memory in the same package as its notebook GPU.

That other board is still bountiful, huh Dave?

 

[Bjorn]

No, thats my point. X800 uses a large die and 256-bit bus, but only 350MHz DDR; X700 XT has a smaller die and 128-bit but expensive 1.6ns GDDR3. Being these are supposed to be volume, mainstream parts the availability of 350MHz DDR is laikely to be far greater than 600MHz GDDR3 and a softening of memory pricess is going to have greater effect on the lower end 350MHz RAM making X800 more viable in X700 XT position.

Perhaps they can match the prices of the 256 Mb 6600 GT but i doubt that they'll be able to compete with the 128 Mb parts. I see it as a viable alternative to the GT in that it'll probably be a bit faster but also more expensive. Thus, not exactly a direct competitor.

 

[whql]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20196

Story seeded by nvidia and not very accurate? No, could never be the case.

 

[Bjorn]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20196

Story seeded by nvidia and not very accurate? No, could never be the case.

The availability of the X700 is close to zero though (did a quick search on pricewatch and got 0 hits). But they seem rather optimistic about a low end X800 that will sell for the same price as the 6600 GT. Only problem with that is that the GT is already down to 180$ and will be even lower when such a card comes to the market.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Following on from the release of X800 ATI have officially cancelled X700 XT.

 

[Bjorn]

Following on from the release of X800 ATI have officially cancelled X700 XT.

You actually have to wonder if that card was ever supposed to be released in the form that was sent out for reviews. I'm thinking of the heat issues and the low overclockability. And why bother setting the RAM to 520 MHz if it required 1.6 ns vs 2.0 ns RAM ? All for a lousy 20 MHz more.

 

[ondaedg]

Following on from the release of X800 ATI have officially cancelled X700 XT.

You actually have to wonder if that card was ever supposed to be released in the form that was sent out for reviews. I'm thinking of the heat issues and the low overclockability. And why bother setting the RAM to 520 MHz if it required 1.6 ns vs 2.0 ns RAM ? All for a lousy 20 MHz more.

Personally, I think ATI is releasing cards for review and actually SKUing them just to provide benchmark advantages. I don't think they actually ever intended on producing the X700xt, but they did provide them to reviewers to make the X700 seem at least somewhat attractive vs the 6600gt. The same goes for the X800XT PE. Nvidia could also be criticized for this with their "Ultra Extreme". To Nvidia's defense though, I have "read" that their top of the line parts are a bit more available than ATIs. Either way, the online community should demand a system similar to Auto and motorcycle racing. In order for a card to be reviewed, there has to be at least a certain number already in production. Perhaps the review sites can come to some sort of agreement on a solution similar to this.

 

[Bjorn]

Personally, I think ATI is releasing cards for review and actually SKUing them just to provide benchmark advantages. I don't think they actually ever intended on producing the X700xt, but they did provide them to reviewers to make the X700 seem at least somewhat attractive vs the 6600gt. The same goes for the X800XT PE. Nvidia could also be criticized for this with their "Ultra Extreme".

I'm thinking that they intended to produce the X700XT but probably not with the spec that it currently has.

To Nvidia's defense though, I have "read" that their top of the line parts are a bit more available than ATIs. Either way, the online community should demand a system similar to Auto and motorcycle racing. In order for a card to be reviewed, there has to be at least a certain number already in production.

I have some doubt that the UE availability is better then the PE. But who knows.

Perhaps the review sites can come to some sort of agreement on a solution similar to this.

That will surely never happen.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I don't think they actually ever intended on producing the X700xt, but they did provide them to reviewers to make the X700 seem at least somewhat attractive vs the 6600gt.

They intended to provide them to board vendors as vendors have released PR about their particular boards, such as this. If it was intended to be a reviewer only board then you don't make you vendors look like fools and spend money creating marketting and packaging on something that won't exist; that does happen because of other factors, but not if there was never any intent.

 

[Mulciber]

Either way, the online community should demand a system similar to Auto and motorcycle racing. In order for a card to be reviewed, there has to be at least a certain number already in production. Perhaps the review sites can come to some sort of agreement on a solution similar to this.

that would make it really hard for the first buyers to make an informed decision

 

[Mulciber]

I don't think they actually ever intended on producing the X700xt, but they did provide them to reviewers to make the X700 seem at least somewhat attractive vs the 6600gt.

They intended to provide them to board vendors as vendors have released PR about their particular boards.

so they simply failed at supplying them. that's not suprising to me considering how many review sites were worried about heat issues with the x700xt.

 

[Dave Baumann]

so they simply failed at supplying them. that's not suprising to me considering how many review sites were worried about heat issues with the x700xt.

I, and a few others, had revision 2 boards and there wasn't anything particulrly bad aboard the board, other than the rather nasty fan. As I said earlier, though, the ASIC's were being supplied to board vendors as XT's but they were being left to the vendor to do the binning for XT or PRO spec, as you can see from the Sapphire PRO board we reviewed with the ASIC stamped as XT, the board vendors just thought that was more trouble than it was worth. I should imagine they are rather pleased that the X800 has filled its price point.

 

[Mulciber]

so they simply failed at supplying them. that's not suprising to me considering how many review sites were worried about heat issues with the x700xt.

I, and a few others, had revision 2 boards and there wasn't anything particulrly bad aboard the board, other than the rather nasty fan. As I said earlier, though, the ASIC's were being supplied to board vendors as XT's but they were being left to the vendor to do the binning for XT or PRO spec, as you can see from the Sapphire PRO board we reviewed with the ASIC stamped as XT, the board vendors just thought that was more trouble than it was worth. I should imagine they are rather pleased that the X800 has filled its price point.

a very odd strategy. as i believe you've said before, one of the supply problems with the higher end x800s was that ATI was forced to fill their orders for the lower end by intentionally turning off good quads. doesn't appear that they've changed that stategy much with the autumn release then?