R520 launch delayed?

nAo said:
DaveBaumann said:
Personally, so far, I would liken R420->R520 as the change from TNT->GeForce 256 or GF256->GF4 or GF4->GFFX
Click to expand...
Let me hope it's better than that :D
Click to expand...

Leaving ATI aside and all, GFFX almost doubled the GF4, speed-wise. So I wouldn't see that as smt. bad.
 
Yes I know that it should be different Dave .. since SM3.0 is different to SM2.+ .. but how much different? It can't be that much can it?

I mean with a respin already .. they should've sorted out the driver problems ages ago(talking single card here and not AMR).

Orton said that they were waiting for more numbers of the card before the release to the general public .. and that was almost 2-3 months ago. They should have a good stock pile atm .. and so should release the card imo.

US
 
Mordenkainen said:
phenix said:
It is not denied neither by ATI nor by Mr. Dave Baumann. :)
Click to expand...

ATi doesn't comment on rumours. Dave is not an ATi spokesperson (and even if he was, the first premise still stands).
Click to expand...

I know that. :) I wanted to stir up Dave a bit hoping that he spills off some information in excitement. Not that I believe he would break any NDA for this but here is to hope.
 
Kaotik said:
AFAIK R500 isn't ATi's "problem" anymore, haven't been for quite a while, it's MS's now (meaning ATi just did the R&D, MS makes the chips (or rather, MS gets the chips done by TMSC))
Click to expand...
NEC actually, not TSMC.
 
Xmas said:
Kaotik said:
AFAIK R500 isn't ATi's "problem" anymore, haven't been for quite a while, it's MS's now (meaning ATi just did the R&D, MS makes the chips (or rather, MS gets the chips done by TMSC))
Click to expand...
NEC actually, not TSMC.
Click to expand...
Correct and incorrect.
 
Delays or not,

we can make a safe bet that Crytex has "one" as if you notice the Change Log on the new Farcry64 bit patch:

Patch 1.32 change log

• Fixed a Shader Model 3.0 issue that caused graphics corruption on new ATI hardware
Click to expand...
 
jb said:
Delays or not,

we can make a safe bet that Crytex has "one" as if you notice the Change Log on the new Farcry64 bit patch:

Patch 1.32 change log

• Fixed a Shader Model 3.0 issue that caused graphics corruption on new ATI hardware
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Was wondering how long before someone posted that :)

Jawed
 
Jawed said:
Was wondering how long before someone posted that :)
Click to expand...

Sometimes its hard to keep up with these forums as there can be a lot of info found here. And since you folks are pretty sharp I am sure others noticed it...but...since I did not see it anywhere else here yet..figured why not :)
 
lopri said:
Another example of ATI's incompetence and their shitty viewpoint of the customers. I know this line will draw some attention from some people here but please keep in mind that my entire post will be based on the assumption that the l'inq article contains some truth.
Click to expand...

I didn't see one word in the Inq piece as to "ATi's incompetence and their shitty viewpoint of the customer," so I hardly see how your disclaimer is believable...;) Heh...;) Seems to be your opinion and not the Inq's, right?

But please refrain from personal attack on my observation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, if you'll refrain from unsupported attacks on IHV's...;) (Such attacks as I have been known to make on them are generally very well supported. Heh..;) I often get criticized merely for remembering too much history...;))


First, if R520 is ready and good to go, why delay the launch?
Click to expand...

What proof is there that anything is delayed?


Do they know how much hype they self-generated about that piece of silicon? I'm sure many (including myself) have been eagerly waiting for the SM3.0 part from ATI. And, honestly, how many of you are more excited about AMR (which ATI downplayed from the beginning) than R520 itself?
Click to expand...

SM3.0 in and of itself would not inspire me to buy R520, just as it did not inspire me to buy nV40.

Considering that AMD core logic market is dominated by nForce, and that Intel just signed on cross-license agreement with nVidia, I really don't think there is much to be gained by ATI from AMR except, ahem, benchmark scores. Nice benchmark scores, probably, will bring them to nice OEM deals accordingly, but where does it leave their retail customers?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a retail ATi customer (x800) and also a retail nVidia customer (nf3) and I'm feeling just dandy...;)

Another interesting tidbit from the article is that R520 (maybe) is slower than 6800U SLI. ("maybe" inserted by me) For me, that is OK. For ATI, obviously not. (Again, the benchmarks) I'd rather have a sleek/simple solution than a bulky/buggy mess.
Click to expand...

Heh...;) If 6800U SLI isn't a "bulky/bloody mess" I cannot imagine what would be...;)


Couple this article with the following,

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23098

I could only conclude: (lots of silly stuff deleted)
Click to expand...

That's what you get for thinking about speculation as if it has the weight of fact, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Dedicated gaming GPUs bottom of the priority list?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Seanspeed
S
Kaotik
Working in psychiatry is fun and games
Replies
4
Views
964
Kaotik
Kaotik
N
Thief: The Black Parade - Full sized unofficial Thief Gold Expansion
Replies
3
Views
1K
nbohr1more
N
I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
1K
Phantom88
P
D
Rumor: Possible additions to the Xbox Backwards compatibility list. Edit: Dev Mode Required again
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Jay
J
Back
Top