Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI dropping support for <R600 - wtf!?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Yeah... in terms of units the low-end parts have by far the highest volumes. Most people still do pretty basic stuff with their PCs, and the most basic IGP parts satisfy a lot of users. You sure see the difference when you start gaming, however...

    In terms of dollars I suspect the midrange parts (say HD4670 today) are the most significant, but I'm not sure about that.

    Comment


    • #12
      Problem is, NVidia outperforms them currently with the more expensive cards and AMD doesn't offer anything equivalent.
      um... ... no. Nvidia doesn't have anything to answer AMD's high-end offerings.

      I'll quote HardOCP on their recent Phenom II DD3 review : http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...50aHVzaWFzdA==


      I am sure you are wondering, “WTF happened to all our resolutions to compare?” Well interestingly enough, none of our current test setups had enough CPU to push the setups to being GPU limited even at 2560x1600. Those 4870 X2 in CrossFireX kick some major ass! big grin I could show you a big graph, but it would just be flat. Instead, what you see above represents every resolution. We had no set of scores that differed by more than 3 frames. Anyway.
      Also, if you check Newegg here and look at the $400+ bracket, you'll find the HD 4870 punching all of the Nvidia cards in the nose with a lower price point.

      ***

      Looking at those stats, it's AMD vs NVidia: 36% vs 64%. So I wasn't too far off. So I stand by what I said. And you've just confirmed it.
      Um. No. The Xbitlabs report from August 2008 shows Nvidia GPU's at 31% of shipment, and AMD GPU's around 18% shipment. So now. That doesn't comfirm what you said.

      The only significant design win Nvidia has to their name are the parts in Apple's. Okay, I'll grant you that Apple's sell pretty decently, but that also ignores updated designs for AMD products over the past 6 months.
      Last edited by Saist; 03-05-2009, 10:36 AM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Saist View Post
        Um. No. The Xbitlabs report from August 2008 shows Nvidia GPU's at 31% of shipment, and AMD GPU's around 18% shipment. So now. That doesn't comfirm what you said.
        Actually in Aug 08 that might have been right; if you take out Intel then you need to double the "total market share numbers" to get just AMD vs NVidia and that gives you 62% vs 36%, which is pretty close.

        That said, the Aug 08 numbers were shortly after we launched 7xx so probably don't reflect what is happening today.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          Actually in Aug 08 that might have been right; if you take out Intel then you need to double the "total market share numbers" to get just AMD vs NVidia and that gives you 62% vs 36%, which is pretty close.

          That said, the Aug 08 numbers were shortly after we launched 7xx so probably don't reflect what is happening today.
          okay. I honestly didn't ready the numbers that way.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Saist View Post
            um... ... no. Nvidia doesn't have anything to answer AMD's high-end offerings.

            I'll quote HardOCP on their recent Phenom II DD3 review : http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...50aHVzaWFzdA==
            A Phenom II is not a GPU :P


            Also, if you check Newegg here and look at the $400+ bracket, you'll find the HD 4870 punching all of the Nvidia cards in the nose with a lower price point.
            Go through the pages here:

            http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews....d=711&pageid=8

            NVidia is pretty much stomping on the 4870. I don't see how the 4870 outperforms NVidia. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Saist View Post
              okay. I honestly didn't ready the numbers that way.
              That's the beauty of numbers; there are so many ways to read them

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                The biggest focus of the Catalyst Linux drivers has always been professional workstation graphics (FireGL, FirePRO etc..) although over the last year we have been putting more effort into some consumer features as well.

                From a technical point of view Catalyst Linux is our vehicle for letting Linux users see the performance and features from our proprietary shared-across-OSes code base. Practically speaking, for Linux users that means spiffy 3D performance and features, including things like Crossfire and Multiview. These are super-important for the professional workstation market but seem to be less interesting for consumer Linux users with the exception of running Wine.

                In most other respects, the open source drivers have the advantage of staying current with the evolving framework (and it is evolving REALLY quickly right now) since new framework features (like EXA improvements) are usually worked out by making simultaneous changes to the open source drivers and the X/DRI framework. You can't do that kind of thing with closed-source drivers.

                Anyways, bottom line is that the Catalyst Linux driver will continue to be extremely important for some market segments, but will probably never be a perfect fit for all of them -- but the open source drivers will be a good solution for the rest.
                For 4xxx owners like myself, that "choice" is a choice between no 3D acceleration whatsoever, and many glaring non-OpenGL problems. Using radeonhd, I can't even play Quake 3. Using fglrx, I have black lines on my windows that shouldn't be there, panning in GQView is embarassingly slow, there's big tearing lines in Xv video playback, and I have to calculate custom modelines if I want a refresh rate higher than 75Hz. If I had an nV card, or even an Intel GMA or something ancient, I wouldn't have to deal with this. Based on my experience with this card, I probably won't be buying ATI in the future.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  A Phenom II is not a GPU :P
                  I think the point was that the high end GPUs are so fast that you end up CPU-limited on benchmarks, not GPU-limited. You can see that when the framerate stops increasing as you lower the resolution.

                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  NVidia is pretty much stomping on the 4870. I don't see how the 4870 outperforms NVidia. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
                  You can spend your whole life arguing this; every time prices change the relative price-performance of the competitors changes completely. The very high end performance is primarily for bragging rights; all of the other purchase decisions are made on bang-for-the-buck.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by roothorick View Post
                    If I had an nV card, or even an Intel GMA or something ancient, I wouldn't have to deal with this.
                    Right now if you had an older GPU from anyone including ATI you would have an easier time -- the newest GPUs from all vendors have the most problems with Linux. That is changing pretty quickly though.

                    Originally posted by roothorick View Post
                    Using radeonhd, I can't even play Quake 3.
                    Agreed, but that's why we're focusing *more* resources on fglrx support for newer GPUs in parallel with finishing the open source support for 6xx/7xx. This is about shifting resources, not cutting them.

                    Originally posted by roothorick View Post
                    Using fglrx, I have black lines on my windows that shouldn't be there, panning in GQView is embarassingly slow, there's big tearing lines in Xv video playback, and I have to calculate custom modelines if I want a refresh rate higher than 75Hz.
                    I don't remember seeing these issues reported before; tearing in Xv is a known issue (for most vendors, not just us) but you should be able to get good tear-free playback through OpenGL. If you haven't already posted details about the black lines on your windows can you start a thread or point to a bug ticket somewhere ?

                    Thanks,
                    JB
                    Last edited by bridgman; 03-05-2009, 11:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      I think the point was that the high end GPUs are so fast that you end up CPU-limited on benchmarks, not GPU-limited. You can see that when the framerate stops increasing as you lower the resolution.



                      You can spend your whole life arguing this; every time prices change the relative price-performance of the competitors changes completely. The very high end performance is primarily for bragging rights; all of the other purchase decisions are made on bang-for-the-buck.

                      You're not seeing cpu limiting. Things haven't been cpu limited for years. You're seeing parallel limiting. The framerate stops increasing as you lower the resolution because the cards are designed to handle x number of calculations as well as they can handle y number of calculations. The biggest cards are able to do max resolution or less than max resolution with alot of post processing (Anitropic filtering, Anti aliasing, etc.) You'll only hit bump ups in framerate when you hit sweet spots on resolution, post processing etc being able to be divided down into streams or rop's that don't stall very often.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X