Radeon 9700 w/ DDR2 announced

[Sabastian]

Looks as though Samsung is not so happy with this GDDR-3 spec from ATi. You would think that because it is about 40% faster then current DDR-II spec he would be happy about it.

"It's a marketing gimmick just to confuse people," said Jon Kang, senior vice president at Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., a top supplier of graphics DRAM that also worked on the spec. "It's also the son trying to tell the father what to do," he added, implying that ATI is trying to play catch-up with Nvidia's graphics spec, which is expected to be implemented in parts that will hit the market first.

Apparently they are talking about the NV30 but I guess that they were not privy to the R300 working already with DDR-2. Personally I think Samsungs SVP is being a little harsh but maybe ATIs spec upsets their plans or something. I mean really sense GDDR-3 is 40% faster it doesn't seem outrageous to have a different naming convention for it. Anyhow I thought that this article was interesting. Take a look.

http://www.eet.com/semi/news/OEG20021024S0043

 

[Dave Baumann]

It seems to me that thats an issue of the memory manufacturers own making. It sounds as though they courted NVIDIA without without asking for input from ATI and now ATI have done a 'me too' with GDDR-3; had the memory manufacturers sought input from both parties initially then there wouldn't be this confusion.

 

[nAo]

Really interesting article..I'm just curious to see if some people will find that stuff "quite amusing"...emh, of course is not going to happen any time soon.
(that's me really worrying for this forum..just fighting an already lost battle)

ciao,
Marco

edit: Q.E.D

 

[Sabastian]

It seems to me that thats an issue of the memory manufacturers own making. It sounds as though they courted NVIDIA without without asking for input from ATI and now ATI have done a 'me too' with GDDR-3; had the memory manufacturers sought input from both parties initially then there wouldn't be this confusion.

Ahhh that makes sense. But they must have some issue it seems with ATi doing this. I don't fully understand why they would ignore ATi to that extent. Seems if ATi didn't pull these sorts of "marketing gimmicks" they would be left out all together. Samsungs SVP doesn't make sence when he says that they changed the naming of the spec to GDDR-3 "just to confuse people " IMO he sounds upset about the development of the tech all together. At any rate I find his response perplexing.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I think the reason the Samsung rep answered in that fashion is quite possibly because ATI are defining this with other DRAM vendors. Reading the GDDR-3 PR they have the headling of "Leading DRAM vendors and ATI" but then have a few quotes from manufacturers other than Samsung. Looks like we have memory alliances forming - NVIDIA with Samsung and GDDR-2 and ATI and others with 'GDDR-3'.

Eventually it probably will just go back to JEDEC for a defined standard for both suppliers and purchasers.

 

[Sabastian]

Yes I was thinking that myself.

Crucial?

EDIT: Crucial don't make graphics memory .... or do they?

 

[Sabastian]

Here we go Dave and it looks as though your suspision was correct. I don't see Samsung listed as a supplier of the GDDR-3 memory.

"Elpida is focused on supporting graphics technology for mainstream and mobile applications, and both ATI and Elpida are committed to making this leading-edge technology available to the widest possible cross-section of the market so all users can benefit,"

"DDR-II is the technological foundation for the eagerly anticipated third-generation DRAM for graphics (GDDR3) due out next year in an industry-wide initiative pushed by ATI and by Micron, Infineon, Hynix, and Elpida.GDDR3 not only continues the trend for the graphics industry to be an early adopter of DRAM technology, but is the first DRAM designed specifically for a market before an industry standard is available. GDDR3 will become available in 2003 and should continue to be an important inflection in graphics for years to come."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5874