DaveBaumann said:Quite easily. He's set in the opinion that what we've seen from the vendor up until that point is whats going to occur here [Vince], but the fact is we just do not know that.Vince said:Well if we 'just don't know' then how the heck can you question Paul?
Actually.. you posted this article. Kinda ironic actually:
[url=http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=190254#190254 said:DaveBaumann previously cited[/url]][url=http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5104656.html?tag=nefd_lede said:news.com article which[/url]]The deal with ATI is similar to the relationship ATI has with Nintendo for providing graphics to the GameCube, said Chris Evenden, director of PR for ATI. ATI designed a customized chip for the Japanese giant, which then took the blueprints and found a manufacturing partner.
So, if we're to believe the article, which you quoted - why should we doubt that there is the commonality that Paul is proposing if ATI is saying the same thing itself?
Ok,and even if we look past your inconsistent argument and mentality and we agree that "we just do not know" (which I'm happy with) then you, or anyone else, doesn't have the ability to tell him he's wrong for believing what he does. If having a set-view of the world is worthy of a comment from you, then you'll have your hands full in the PC-3D forums for a few years.
DaveBaumann said:Take a look at PowerVR and other IP licensing companies Vince - they do it all the time. MBX isn't inhernatly targetted at any single process.
And they're not high preformance, structured architectures. We can talk in general terms, and you'd be correct (eg. ARM, MIPS) but they're not going to scale with a process like a specific design would and won't be competitve - and I'd hope we won't see something like this.
DaveBaumann said:Vince said:Never before have I see such a design, shit... lets end the semantics, it's just not an intelligent decision to forgo ATI's expertise. Why not just have a patent cross-licensing deal or other alternative?
IP does not equal patents Vince.
It was an example. That's why I threw in the "or other alternatives" comment since I was proposing other, open-ended, alternatives.
DaveBaumann said:How do you know they took a design that was targetted at a particular process?
There are only so many vendors with so many embeddedDRAM processes. It's not like they had any choice at that period but 180nm. The complexity of design locks them from going back to the older, >200nm, stepping.