Don't get fooled by .... nvidia attacking Ati

[radar1200gs]

LOL! I can assure I am making nothing up.

There is such a thing as DDR-1 compatability mode in the DDR-II specification and ATi did make use of it. Go check the JEDEC specifications.

Why? probably because their memory controller didn't FULLY support DDR-II until the 9800. Speaking of 9800's with DDR-II on them, there are probably (lots) more 5800 Ultras in existance than these cards.

 

[martrox]

Speaking of 9800's with DDR-II on them, there are probably (lots) more 5800 Ultras in existance than these cards.

This right here tell everyone here all the need to know about your "knowledge"......

 

[Dave Baumann]

LOL! I can assure I am making nothing up.

There is such a thing as DDR-1 compatability mode in the DDR-II specification and ATi did make use of it. Go check the JEDEC specifications.

No, where is your proof that ATI ran in compatibility mode?

 

[DarN]

Speaking of 9800's with DDR-II on them, there are probably (lots) more 5800 Ultras in existance than these cards.

Funny. I didn't have any problems in obtaining one...

 

[radar1200gs]

The information about DDR-II compatability modes and the claim that ATi were running the memory in that mode both originate from the EE-Times which ran an article on the subject.

I no longer have the url to t he article, but it is probably still in nv-news's news archive.

Now Dave, if you want to call a publication as respected and reputable as the EE-Times a liar, that's entirely your call...

 

[Razor1]

The information about DDR-II compatability modes and the claim that ATi were running the memory in that mode both originate from the EE-Times which ran an article on the subject.

I no longer have the url to t he article, but it is probably still in nv-news's news archive.

Now Dave, if you want to call a publication as respected and reputable as the EE-Times a liar, that's entirely your call...

http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021115S0028

 

[FUDie]

The information about DDR-II compatability modes and the claim that ATi were running the memory in that mode both originate from the EE-Times which ran an article on the subject.

I no longer have the url to t he article, but it is probably still in nv-news's news archive.

Now Dave, if you want to call a publication as respected and reputable as the EE-Times a liar, that's entirely your call...

http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021115S0028

Although the ATI part has been demonstrated running with DDR-II memory, sources said the DRAM was running in a DDR-I compatibility mode. The part was not designed for use with DDR-II, according to sources.

Just what "sources" were these? Were they from NVIDIA or ATI or someone completely neutral?

Thanks Razor1, now we can see that radar is just spreading more FUD.

-FUDie

 

[radar1200gs]

Two questions.

If the EE Times was not sure of the information provided by their source (and it is common practice not to reveal your source) why did the run the article (there is a risk they could be sued by ATi)

Given the above, if the EE-Times, article was nothing but FUD (LOL!) why didn't ATi sue them or force a retraction of the article. If I were ATi I most certainly would have...

 

[FUDie]

Two questions.

If the EE Times was not sure of the information provided by their source (and it is common practice not to reveal your source) why did the run the article (there is a risk they could be sued by ATi)

Given the above, if the EE-Times, article was nothing but FUD (LOL!) why didn't ATi sue them or force a retraction of the article. If I were ATi I most certainly would have...

That's your proof that the "sources" were correct? Are these the same "sources" that claimed that ATI had a bridge chip built into their PCIe parts? If the "sources" came from ATI, then EE Times would have said so. However, since they did not, one can assume the sources were not from ATI, and, hence, may have a self-serving reason for spreading FUD. Do you think EE Times has the technical know-how to verify what these "sources" have said?

Your credibility goes down every time you post. No wait, it can't go any lower.

-FUDie

 

[radar1200gs]

The EE-Times is one of the most respected and reputable publications (paper and electronic) in the Electrical & Electronic Engineering world.

You are suggesting they would risk that reputation over an unreliable source seeking a PR advantage over a rival???

 

[DemoCoder]

EETimes is very respectable. But Dan Rather got fooled too.

 

[radar1200gs]

So, if they were wrong, why hasn't ATi taken legal action against them?

 

[T2k]

I am getting EETIMES on weekly basis (printed version) and it's a very respected source but also keep in mind: it's NOT about IT or computers or graphics. It's strictly an engineering newspaper, mostly about design, semiconductor related stories - as they say about themself: "The industry newspaper for engineers and technical management" and that's it.
There's no such thing like omniscient magazine.,,

 

[T2k]

So, if they were wrong, why hasn't ATi taken legal action against them?

Probably because it doesn't worth it. It's absolutely irrelevant for everybody except peeps like you.

 

[FUDie]

So, if they were wrong, why hasn't ATi taken legal action against them?

Why should they bother? Did this article prevent ATI from selling boatloads of 9700 and 9800 boards? Don't think so.

Do people sue The Inquirer everytime they post rubbish? No? Then does that make everything The Inquirer posts true?

-FUDie

 

[radar1200gs]

So, if they were wrong, why hasn't ATi taken legal action against them?

Why should they bother? Did this article prevent ATI from selling boatloads of 9700 and 9800 boards? Don't think so.

Do people sue The Inquirer everytime they post rubbish? No? Then does that make everything The Inquirer posts true?

-FUDie

Why should they bother??? To protect their reputations perhaps?

ATi was caught lying their arses off and the reason they can't/won't/haven't taken any legal action over the article is because they can't unless they want to lose the case and look like prize clowns to the entire world.

I don't know why you are trying to compare the Inquirer to the EE-Times either. Anyone with a half a brain already knows there is no comparison.

 

[FUDie]

So, if they were wrong, why hasn't ATi taken legal action against them?

Why should they bother? Did this article prevent ATI from selling boatloads of 9700 and 9800 boards? Don't think so.

Do people sue The Inquirer everytime they post rubbish? No? Then does that make everything The Inquirer posts true?

Why should they bother??? To protect their reputations perhaps?

ATi was caught lying their arses off and the reason they can't/won't/haven't taken any legal action over the article is because they can't unless they want to lose the case and look like prize clowns to the entire world.

Caught lying by who? Anonymous sources? What do you smoke? Where is the real evidence that the boards are using memory the way that is claimed? Where is the signal analysis from an unbiased third party? Go ahead and cling to these "sources": it's clear that you'll believe anything that is negative about ATI.

I don't know why you are trying to compare the Inquirer to the EE-Times either. Anyone with a half a brain already knows there is no comparison.

I am not comparing the two, I am just stating that you can't go around suing everyone who is incorrect or misinformed.

-FUDie

 

[radar1200gs]

The judge of such a case has the power to compel the source to appear before the court and present their claims for scrutiny.

EDIT: The EE-Times isn't just anybody. They carry considerable clout in the industry which is why you would not allow misinformation spread by them about you to go unchallenged whereas you might with the Inquirer.

 

[Pete]

What's your point? ATi cards used DDR-II successfully (well, for as long as DDR-II made sense in the video card market, which was about a minute). That article probably didn't affect their sales one iota, and it's almost certain no retail consumer not in the biz would care whether or not their 256MB 9800P was running in compatability mode, considering the benchmarks.

Even if it's true, this seems a rather minor point to argue about.

 

[radar1200gs]

My point at the time was that ATi was a liar. (this was before GF-FX was widely available and nVidia regrettably lied about the number of pixel pixel pipelines. It's a shame they used the word pixel instead of shader).