Originally posted by: lavaheadache
nice read... now where are those 8.12's that claim a needed boost in performance
Originally posted by: thilan29
Nice read. I have to say G80 was amazing. First and only time I bought on launch day and I wasn't disappointed. Everything since then has been sort of...meh...but kudos to ATI for the 770 and bringing great performance at pretty good prices.
Ever remember how crappy the midrange parts (8600, 36XX, etc.) were before RV770 came out? I'm very glad you don't have to spend $500 (like I did with the 640 GTS) to get really good performance anymore.
Originally posted by: Creig
I'm glad that AMD opened up and allowed the interview without having a PR representative sitting there holding a leash on the Engineers to keep them from "saying too much". I hope to read more articles such as this one in the future. Although the gaming performance and features reviews of new hardware are always exciting (to us geeks, anyhow), it was very interesting to read about the people behind the product and the decisions they made that ultimately yielded the RV770.
Nice job, Anand.
Originally posted by: Creig
I'm glad that AMD opened up and allowed the interview without having a PR representative sitting there holding a leash on the Engineers to keep them from "saying too much". I hope to read more articles such as this one in the future. Although the gaming performance and features reviews of new hardware are always exciting (to us geeks, anyhow), it was very interesting to read about the people behind the product and the decisions they made that ultimately yielded the RV770.
Nice job, Anand.
Originally posted by: chizow
Pretty good article, a bit disappointing as there wasn't much on how RV770 was so much better than its late and underwhelming predecessors. I would've been more interested in reading what specific areas of the GPU they fixed. I also agree that more info on RV870 would've been nice.
Didn't see much in there about pricing, as to why ATI didn't charge more for a high performing part, sounds like they just targetted price points without considering the competition's pricing. Sure its great for consumers, but it sure isn't helping AMD's bottomline and may ultimately hurt them in the long run.
Also no mention of ATI's very public driver problems. Considering both Anand and Derek have spent considerable space covering monthly driver issues, I'm a bit surprised he didn't directly confront them to affect change.
Originally posted by: chizow
Didn't see much in there about pricing, as to why ATI didn't charge more for a high performing part, sounds like they just targetted price points without considering the competition's pricing. Sure its great for consumers, but it sure isn't helping AMD's bottomline and may ultimately hurt them in the long run.
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: chizow
Pretty good article, a bit disappointing as there wasn't much on how RV770 was so much better than its late and underwhelming predecessors. I would've been more interested in reading what specific areas of the GPU they fixed. I also agree that more info on RV870 would've been nice.
Didn't see much in there about pricing, as to why ATI didn't charge more for a high performing part, sounds like they just targetted price points without considering the competition's pricing. Sure its great for consumers, but it sure isn't helping AMD's bottomline and may ultimately hurt them in the long run.
Also no mention of ATI's very public driver problems. Considering both Anand and Derek have spent considerable space covering monthly driver issues, I'm a bit surprised he didn't directly confront them to affect change.
There is no way you can support this statement. Please, stop spreading FUD.
Sure they did okay, but they could've done better. All they managed to do was lower NV's margin (they were still profitable in Q3, unlike ATI). NV on the other hand goes for the jugular when they have a killer part and does well even when they don't. And I guess you're finally acknowledging NV will win in a coin-flip situation against ATI, which is why ATI would choose to cut prices instead of taking NV on with a superior part. In the long run it hurts ATI as much as NV as they've set consumer expectations for their parts in terms of price to performance. As we can see with current pricing, there's not a whole lot of room when you start at the $200-$300 range.Originally posted by: Creig
Let's see, price it higher and try to compete directly with Nvidia for sales. Or... Price it lower, steal sales from Nvidia, garner enthusiastic public support for offering low cost/high performance cards while simultaneously forcing Nvidia to cut their own prices, drastically reducing (or eliminating) Nvidia's expected profit margin on an already expensive die.
Yeah, I think AMD did okay with their decision.
Originally posted by: chizow
Sure they did okay, but they could've done better. All they managed to do was lower NV's margin (they were still profitable in Q3, unlike ATI).
Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Good read it makes me curious if AMD/ATI being so tied to the development of GDDR5. I wonder if they tied any strings to the GDDR5 chip makers such as a percentage of GDDR5 chip sales or discounts??? Is it possible that AMD/ATI may have a cost advantage over Nvidia with GDDR5 and this is why NV needs to stay with bigger dies?
Does NV have to pay more for GDDR5 then ATI OR pay more for larger dies? If you were NV which would you take?