AMD Cayman info (or rumor)

[Zloyd]

Hmm delayed a month. We can be pretty sure its not yeild or anything major, if it were we would have heard of it before.

It is most likely delayed because of the 580...... amd didnt see that one coming. So my personal feeling is atm cayman and 580 are really close with possibly cayman being a tad slower, amd want fastest single gpu title back so maybe they will up the clocks a bit, go at the drivers hard and deliver the fastest single gpu card a month from now.

[Carbon_Unit]

I think this is the worst logic I have ever seen on this forum

So Nvidia PR is silent because: 6900 is going to own 580 and Nvidia doesn't want to sell more cards during the sole month in which they are in a good position? Cool

I thought the point was Nvidia is being silent about the 69xx cards, at least that's what I got out of the discussion.

That we have to wait for another month to pick up a decently priced card.

That's what it really means.

All these may be true, but nVidia has been confident enough to drop the GTX580 right on Cayman. This timing and confident indicates that they have planed to sabotage it, and may even had plan to beat it too.
On the other hand, these 2 delays are not indicating a confident AMD, but we have to wait and see how Cayman will stand against GTX580, if it comes out on time.

I don't see how a delay has to mean AMD is not confident in their product. There are so many factors that can cause a delay. And think about it, what exactly can AMD do with another 2 weeks? The GPU is what it is, they can crank up the clocks somewhat, but that's about it. However Cayman turns out, it is what is is, two weeks is not going to change that. The only thing that could possibly give a large performance boost is currently drivers are broken or have some kind of show stopper problem that is hobbling performance.

[zerazax]

I don't see how a delay has to mean AMD is not confident in their product. There are so many factors that can cause a delay. And think about it, what exactly can AMD do with another 2 weeks? The GPU is what it is, they can crank up the clocks somewhat, but that's about it. However Cayman turns out, it is what is is, two weeks is not going to change that. The only thing that could possibly give a large performance boost is currently drivers are broken or have some kind of show stopper problem that is hobbling performance.

Exactly right. A 2 or 3 week delay isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things - the silicon is ready, and cards are supposed to be in production.

The most likely answers are drivers, finalizing clocks, or delayed components in the final product.

All this talk of redesigning etc. isn't just flawed logic... its serious-delusional-fanboy-level logic

It's too early to say it for sure, but it seams to be the case.

If that news holds true, then AMD will probabley go for "stunning value for money" solution, which the resent Geforce GTX 570 comes soon seams to be comfirming the same point too. nVidia seams to be preparing to drop the GTX570 on it.

I've been speculating about these delays, as a possiable indication of performance-trouble in AMD-camp. It seams to be getting more clear now, but we have to wait and see he final reult to make sure.

This makes zero logical sense. First, you brought up the GTX 580 as a surprise in performance for AMD earlier in this thread and in other threads, and now you bring up the 570

So lets take a look at these facts:

1) Everyone knew the GTX 480 was supposed to have 512 SP's and higher clocks. These specs were leaked a year earlier, but Nvidia obviously had trouble and couldn't do it

2) AMD projects where their competitors are, so it should be no surprise that 5970 is close to the 580, as that's where they thought Nvidia's highest competitor's performance would be

3) Why would AMD release their flagship 2nd gen DX11 card (which they labeled it as such in the analyst day PR) with inferior performance to a card they thought was supposed to be released a year ago this month?

So please, keep talking about how AMD has performance troubles. They've already ruled out the issue that its yields, and from Dave Baumann's post over at Beyond3D it looks like changing clocks isn't the issue either.

And based on Occam's Razor, the most likely scenario is a simple one:

However, the issue is not yields or such, but just too low availability of one specific driver-MOSFET from Texas Instruments, which is "so new there's no info about it available, not even from TI"
HD6800 uses the same, and apparently there just isn't enough of them at the moment

VR-Zone

But please, go ahead and entertain us all with your grand conspiracy theories and "educated" guesses based on such credible sites like FudZilla and Kitguru, the shining examples of journalism

Hmm delayed a month. We can be pretty sure its not yeild or anything major, if it were we would have heard of it before.

It is most likely delayed because of the 580...... amd didnt see that one coming. So my personal feeling is atm cayman and 580 are really close with possibly cayman being a tad slower, amd want fastest single gpu title back so maybe they will up the clocks a bit, go at the drivers hard and deliver the fastest single gpu card a month from now.

The flaw with that premise is... why would AMD not know where the 580's performance would be? Keep in mind that Nvidia was supposed to releasing a 512 SP higher clocked Fermi a year ago this month....

So tell me why AMD would release their 2nd-generation DX11 card with a performance target lower than where their competitor was supposed to be a year ago?

Neither company has ever shot their next generation's flagship at a target lower than where their competitor was supposed to be from the last generation. And if all the architectural changes are to be believed, Cayman isn't meant to be a simple refresh / stop-gap

[Sam_oslo]

I see you guys have another view, but tha's fine with me. Different views will help us all to undrestand this better. I have another view, and I hope you guys can respect it, as I respect yours.

nVidia's new move to prepare GTX570 seams to be a preperation against 6970 too. The timing suggest that strongly.

I've also been talking about these delays as a possiable indication of perforamnce-truble in AMD-camp.

I may be wrong, but I think a few facrors are indication that AMD is truble to deliver nessesory performance to beat/match GTX580. We will find out soon, no need to agree on evrything right now.

[FischOderAal]

nVidia's new move to prepare GTX570 seams to be a preperation against 6970 too. The timing suggest that strongly.

Or maybe because they have some scrap chips with little defects I doubt ever GF110 is fully functional, even with a matured 40 nm process.

I wouldn't use the GTX570 as any indicator for HD 6970. Although I'm pretty sure NVIDIA has one of the best ideas of how HD 6970 will turn out.

[Sam_oslo]

Or maybe because they have some scrap chips with little defects I doubt ever GF110 is fully functional, even with a matured 40 nm process.

I wouldn't use the GTX570 as any indicator for HD 6970. Although I'm pretty sure NVIDIA has one of the best ideas of how HD 6970 will turn out.

Scraps to fight it's own GTX580, GTX480 etc..? That wouldn't make any sense. Even for scarpe, as you put it kindly.

GTX570 is meant to fight AMD's next move, for sure. You may argue it's mean to fight 6950, but I personally think this timing is indicating that it's meant to drop on 6970. We have to wait and see.

[Carbon_Unit]

The 570 could be intended to compete with the 6950. It largely depends on price, and of course performance of the various cards.

And when it comes to performance of the 69xx cards, there is so much conflicting info I don't know what to think.

[Zloyd]

zerazax

Its only a 2-3 week delay so I assume if they want they can increase base voltage a tad bit and increase clocks (simple bios change no?) final fine tuning to get the biggest lead possible. Considering their last chip was 5870 and now they are trying to make something thats 40% faster(to beat 580) thats a challenge(its on the same process they are trying to achieve this afterall)

So just the reasoning I can think of is amd had a lead in time over nvidia and they maybe assumed that it would be a little while yet before 580 showed up. So current cayman was aimed at 480. Perhaps they would be happy for it to play out that way for a bit, release cayman at 500$ steal 480 sales, few months later nvidia has a reply that beats it, no problem amd have sold enough cards by then milked the 500$ bracket drop price of card and beat that single chip with antilles ? Or drop pricing on antilles a bit and put preassure on fastest nvidia card(say they assumed they would have antilles out before 580 @ 650$) .

Another thing I would like to point out is knowing and having a idea about your competitors next card and being able to beat it are 2 different things. I mean amd can have all the idea about intels next gen enthusiast desktop stuff but even knowing so they wont be able to beat it in outright performance so they strategise to make the most of it in other price brackets.

My earlier post had one really big assumption, amd had no idea nvidia had 580 ready already.

Also in terms of just commonsense its like you say the delay is only 2 weeks the reason is probably really simple but we are human we like drama :P

[FischOderAal]

Scraps to fight it's own GTX580, GTX480 etc..? That wouldn't make any sense. Even for scarpe, as you put it kindly.

GTX570 is meant to fight AMD's next move, for sure. You may argue it's mean to fight 6950, but I personallt think this timing is indicating that it's mean to drop on 6970. We have to waut and see.

Sorry, but what you're writing doesn't make any sense to me. My bet is that GTX480 (GF100, that is) will be EOL soon. GF100 is too expensive and not that suitable for desktop graphics. Maybe they will still produce them in smaller quantities for Tesla, since GF110 lacks in HPC.

And what else should NVIDIA do with GF110 chips that have only 480 functionally shaders? Scrap 'em? No, like the other thread about the GTX570 suggests a card with 480 shaders and a little speedbump over GTX480 coupled with lower power consumption makes most sense to me. Maybe a full GF104 as a GTX560 and the GTX460 will be GT540 or something like that.

We have no news about any chip below GF104, do we? NVIDIA has to fill the Geforce 500 lineup with something

A GTX570 makes sense even if HD 5970 fails to beat GTX580. Then the GTX570 might beat the HD 6950. So the situation would be like what we had with the RV770 and GF100 if I remember correctly (GTX480 > HD 5870 > GTX470 > HD 5850 ==> GTX580 > HD 6970 > GTX570 > HD 6950). I guess that would make NVIDIA quite happy.

[zerazax]

I see you guys have another view, but tha's fine with me. Different views will help us all to undrestand this better. I have another view, and I hope you guys can respect it, as I respect yours.

nVidia's new move to prepare GTX570 seams to be a preperation against 6970 too. The timing suggest that strongly.

I've also been talking about these delays as a possiable indication of perforamnce-truble in AMD-camp.

I may be wrong, but I think a few facrors are indication that AMD is truble to deliver nessesory performance to beat/match GTX580. We will find out soon, no need to agree on evrything right now.

The issue here with your premise is that there's no logical place to put Cayman.

Where would the 570 be? If rumors are correct, its a cut down 480 SP version of GF110, and is likely clocked lower than the 580, so it'll be placed ~ GTX480 performance. Makes sense, the 480 is supposed to be EOL, and you wouldn't want the 570 being too close to the 580, so it'll likely follow the 470 vs. 480.

Now, if you place the 570 there, you say its meant to counter the 6970...

But that would say the 6970 is ~ GTX 480 performance, which means its only ~16-20% faster than the 5870.

Then where does the 6950 go? The 6870 is already nipping on the tails of the 5870 (lets say 10%), so the 6950 certainly would have to be slotted higher, especially if AMD wants to make any sense of return on a cut down Cayman chip.

In that case, lets say 6950 is in a worst case scenario only 15-20% faster than the 6870 - reasonable given that Cayman is at least Cypress size.

However, that would mean the 6950 is only 5-10% faster than the 5870, and thus is only 10-15% slower than the 6970 which is at 480 performance.

Which again, is way way way too close for how AMD has ever slotted their cards - even the 5770 and 5850 had very sizeable performance differences.

A great chart for performance summary this is here from Xbitlabs

The ONLY way Cayman is going to have these numbers is if AMD decided to rest on their laurels and made Cayman only a minor refresh, which none of the evidence points - and in fact which contradicts your initial premise that AMD is having trouble with a high end performance GPU.

And even if its a minor refresh, all the worst case scenarios would have to occur ALL together to even be within the same ballpark as what you are suggesting.

Now if you had said the 6970 is somewhere between 480 and 580, and 6950 somewhere between 5870 and 6970, and that the 570 would be somewhere between the 6950 and 6970, I'd say that's a very conservative guess, but one that is reasonable and would mirror the GF100 vs. Cypress numbers.

Thus, this isn't a matter of "agreeing" or "disagreeing" - it's pointing out that your original argument's logic is completely incorrect and you're bringing arguments here that are incompatible with the reality of the situation

[zerazax]

Its only a 2-3 week delay so I assume if they want they can increase base voltage a tad bit and increase clocks (simple bios change no?) final fine tuning to get the biggest lead possible. Considering their last chip was 5870 and now they are trying to make something thats 40% faster(to beat 580) thats a challenge(its on the same process they are trying to achieve this afterall)

The issue with a "simple" BIOS change is that you have to take all the cards back through Quality Assurance/Control. And if they've already produced tens of thousands of cards, that can take a lot of time.

In fact, Dave Baumann of AMD posted about this over at Beyond3d

Changing clock speeds is not something you do on a whim, nor can it be necessarily done quickly. Dependant on where you are in a qualification cycle changing clocks will have major ramifications that can result in potentially months of schedule alteration.

Reading between the lines a bit, he's saying that changing clocks too late in the game can cause potentially months of schedule alteration.

Now if the 2-3 week delay is where it stands, it seems to rule out changing clocks and BIOS'es as well.

So just the reasoning I can think of is amd had a lead in time over nvidia and they maybe assumed that it would be a little while yet before 580 showed up. So current cayman was aimed at 480. Perhaps they would be happy for it to play out that way for a bit, release cayman at 500$ steal 480 sales, few months later nvidia has a reply that beats it, no problem amd have sold enough cards by then milked the 500$ bracket drop price of card and beat that single chip with antilles ? Or drop pricing on antilles a bit and put preassure on fastest nvidia card(say they assumed they would have antilles out before 580 @ 650$) .

The second issue, which you touched upon in your first paragraph, is that AMD would have a hard time on the same process.

Yes, the same process is tough... but AMD has done it before. Remember RV670->RV770? That was a tad bit more than 40% more performance on the same process, don'tcha say?

And here's the kicker... if Cayman is really as new an architecture as the newest leaks/rumors are suggesting, then 40% isn't unheard of on the same process - RV770 had major changes but wasn't nearly as new an architecture.

The second thing to point out is... where is AMD's goal in reaching *just* 480 performance? Keep in mind Cypress came out last September. They've had over a year to come out with a replacement. They saw Fermi come out late, but they knew (Nvidia said it themselves) that GF100 is supposed to have 512 chips. They also knew that the Fermi series clocks really well.

Why would AMD expect that a year AFTER Fermi was supposed to be launched, that Fermi couldn't have a 512 SP card with more clocks? Of course they can expect it, they know Nvidia has enough resources that they can have extra teams devote to fixing whatever was broken for a refresh before a card is even released.

So that goes into the other point... what logical reasoning would AMD have to settle with getting a card out that only matches what their previous competitor was supposed to have a year ago? It makes no business sense, especially to release the 68xx's at a price point which forces your higher end cards to perform even better than the 480.

Another thing I would like to point out is knowing and having a idea about your competitors next card and being able to beat it are 2 different things. I mean amd can have all the idea about intels next gen enthusiast desktop stuff but even knowing so they wont be able to beat it in outright performance so they strategise to make the most of it in other price brackets.

My earlier post had one really big assumption, amd had no idea nvidia had 580 ready already.

Also in terms of just commonsense its like you say the delay is only 2 weeks the reason is probably really simple but we are human we like drama :P

Yes, executing != knowing. Both sides have seen this happen many times.

But AMD got Barts out on time, on the same 40nm process. Heck, AMD got the entire Evergreen family out on time, on the same 40nm process. Whether they reached their performance targets is another matter, but I don't think AMD is likely to suddenly stumble when they had no problem getting things out month after month after month

As for drama... well I hope people like popcorn

[Dark-Energy]

You just laid it all down very well.

[Sentential]

The issue with a "simple" BIOS change is that you have to take all the cards back through Quality Assurance/Control. And if they've already produced tens of thousands of cards, that can take a lot of time.

In fact, Dave Baumann of AMD posted about this over at Beyond3d


Reading between the lines a bit, he's saying that changing clocks too late in the game can cause potentially months of schedule alteration.

Now if the 2-3 week delay is where it stands, it seems to rule out changing clocks and BIOS'es as well.




The second issue, which you touched upon in your first paragraph, is that AMD would have a hard time on the same process.

Yes, the same process is tough... but AMD has done it before. Remember RV670->RV770? That was a tad bit more than 40% more performance on the same process, don'tcha say?

And here's the kicker... if Cayman is really as new an architecture as the newest leaks/rumors are suggesting, then 40% isn't unheard of on the same process - RV770 had major changes but wasn't nearly as new an architecture.

The second thing to point out is... where is AMD's goal in reaching *just* 480 performance? Keep in mind Cypress came out last September. They've had over a year to come out with a replacement. They saw Fermi come out late, but they knew (Nvidia said it themselves) that GF100 is supposed to have 512 chips. They also knew that the Fermi series clocks really well.

Why would AMD expect that a year AFTER Fermi was supposed to be launched, that Fermi couldn't have a 512 SP card with more clocks? Of course they can expect it, they know Nvidia has enough resources that they can have extra teams devote to fixing whatever was broken for a refresh before a card is even released.

So that goes into the other point... what logical reasoning would AMD have to settle with getting a card out that only matches what their previous competitor was supposed to have a year ago? It makes no business sense, especially to release the 68xx's at a price point which forces your higher end cards to perform even better than the 480.



Yes, executing != knowing. Both sides have seen this happen many times.

But AMD got Barts out on time, on the same 40nm process. Heck, AMD got the entire Evergreen family out on time, on the same 40nm process. Whether they reached their performance targets is another matter, but I don't think AMD is likely to suddenly stumble when they had no problem getting things out month after month after month

As for drama... well I hope people like popcorn

Couple points Id like to add to this, yes what you say about the RV770 against the RV670 is quite true but by the standards of the day both were small chips. The last "real" big chips from ATi we have are the R520/R580 and the R600. Both had notorious leakage issues, both had mixed yields. When you compare to nVidia you have the G80, GT200 and now GF100/GF110. People like to make comparisons about how wasted and bloated nVidia's die space has been as it has been running about twice that of ATi's. But they have several years of eventually pulling off large monolithic chips at reasonable profit margins; ATi does not.

ATi made a tactical decision several years back that they would not continue large monolithic chips ever again; I applaud that effort however in order for that tact to work well they need to have functional drivers.While they as you put it have had a year to finalize Caymen they have had over 10 to have acceptable drivers that I can immediately think of starting with the 9700PRO. Promises have been made and broken and while I like what I hear about Caymen the talks of them having a superior product as a whole simply has not happened.

This has been their achilies heel in the mobile segment as well which is why they continue to not make inroads on switchable graphics as their implementation blows. So now they are faced with a non broken Fermi, and now the same people who laughed and said this was the worst chip of all time now all of a sudden people think its the best damn thing since sliced bread. Yet I and others reminded people that they (nvidia) have a tendency to do poorly on first gen parts and exceedingly well on revision parts were laughed at and were told nVidia is at their deathbed. NV30, NV40, GT200, and now GF100 are good examples of this. All were laughed at and were later vindicated as ATi continued to flounder at making an acceptable software package.

So again here we are with a similar situation; nVidia has a working chip, ATi has had an excellent chip but once again are the drivers going to pull through? My guess is no. Unless Caymen is significantly better GF110 it will fail; why? Because ATi has yet to address the fundamental problem with their products; their drivers. Until they address that in a serious way I will continue to *not* take them seriously.

In the end; powerhogging aside; which nvidia is certianly guilty of; what exactly does ATi do that is so much better than nVidia that would justify the littany of problems that purchasing said card brings?

Heat can be controlled.
Power can be controlled.
In most games they are neck in neck, in others ATi gets thrashed, in no game does nVidia fall behind as ATi does.
I am not a programmer and therefor I cannot control driver bugs.

Therefor I take the lesser of two evils which has been for as long as I can remember; nVidia. Also while I am thinking about it;

Now, if you place the 570 there, you say its meant to counter the 6970...

But that would say the 6970 is ~ GTX 480 performance, which means its only ~16-20% faster than the 5870.

Then where does the 6950 go? The 6870 is already nipping on the tails of the 5870 (lets say 10%), so the 6950 certainly would have to be slotted higher, especially if AMD wants to make any sense of return on a cut down Cayman chip.

In that case, lets say 6950 is in a worst case scenario only 15-20% faster than the 6870 - reasonable given that Cayman is at least Cypress size.

However, that would mean the 6950 is only 5-10% faster than the 5870, and thus is only 10-15% slower than the 6970 which is at 480 performance.

Which again, is way way way too close for how AMD has ever slotted their cards - even the 5770 and 5850 had very sizeable performance differences.

A great chart for performance summary this is here from Xbitlabs

I heard this exact same argument back in the x800XT days about how DX9c didnt meant anything; turned out they were wrong, dead wrong; the bottom line is this: ATi as it stands now will continue to fall behind as time goes on like it has in the past because often they are not ahead of the technology curve. They are either behind or just at it and so anyone who reads this must understand the moment real DX11 games arrive that use tessalation; all the numbers you listed are going to get on. ATi's use of tesselation with the current crop of 6800 series is at best half as good as nVidia and thats being generous. Also Id like to say that this isnt just an ATi issue; I remember a couple nvidiots claiming how ty the 9700PRO was as it was beaten soundly by the FX5800 in DX8 games but got reemed when it was actually forced to use DX9; dont be fooled.

If Caymen gains significant grounds on tesselation then I take what I said back; but if its more of the same you'd be a fool to buy it.

[Lanek]

Scraps to fight it's own GTX580, GTX480 etc..? That wouldn't make any sense. Even for scarpe, as you put it kindly.

GTX570 is meant to fight AMD's next move, for sure. You may argue it's mean to fight 6950, but I personally think this timing is indicating that it's meant to drop on 6970. We have to wait and see.

let say the GTX570 480SP is faster of the GTX480 ... how much faster ? we know the average performance gain over the GTX580 is 15%-20%...
If faster, the GTX570 will only be 5-10% faster of the GTX480 ( pure speculation ofc for the perf of the 570 )..

You really think AMD have AIM the 6970 for be only 10-15% faster of the GTX480?

Nvidia guys tell in each interview till the GTX480 release they are " confident" to be able to release the full 512SP.
Don't you think AMD had just imagine Nvidia will surely release the 512SP version next ?

[LordEC911]

let say the GTX570 480SP is faster of the GTX480 ... how much faster ? we know the average performance gain over the GTX580 is 15%-20%...
If faster, the GTX570 will only 5-10% faster of the GTX480 ( pure speculation ofc for the perf of 570 )..

You really think AMD have AIM the 6970 for be only 10-15% faster of the GTX480?

Nvidia guys tell in each interview till the GTX480 release they are " confident" to be able to release the full 512SP.
Don't you think AMD had just imagine Nvidia will surely release the 512SP version next ?

5% is wayyyyy generous...

Let's just say Cayman will more than hold its own against these "surprises" as some like to call them, not directed at you Lanek.

[Lanek]

5% is wayyyyy generous...

Let's just say Cayman will more than hold its own against these "surprises" as some like to call them, not directed at you Lanek.

Right with that, the surprise was just they can release it now, in November...

[bl4ckdr4g00n]

I don't wanna see any surprise which Phenom once did.

[highoctane]

In general product release delays rarely mean, we've decided to delay our launch to make the product even better.

It's got to be a major decision for any company to delay a highly anticipated product release rather than launch with low quantities or even paper launch.

Thats not to say cayman won't rock when it gets here.

[LordEC911]

In general product release delays rarely mean, we've decided to delay our launch to make the product even better.

It's got to be a major decision for any company to delay a highly anticipated product release rather than launch with low quantities or even paper launch.

Thats not to say cayman won't rock when it gets here.

Like the card they released a week shy of a year ago holds it's own against a newly released product?

[flopper]

22 nov was set.
Nvidia drop 580,
delay happens with sudden oh our 5000 line sells a lot...and the 6800 is in demand...
obviously the 580 might been 10% better than they expected so they adjusted and delayed for that.
(most likely at this point)

[LordEC911]

adjusted and delayed for that.
(most likely at this point)

Not likely at all. They are way too far along at this point, see zerazax's posts with quotes from Dave.

[mibo]

Not likely at all. They are way too far along at this point, see zerazax's posts with quotes from Dave.

This can also happen on the software side.
Imagine this: AMD thinks the GTX580 will be just an announcement (or paper launch). AMD prepares HD6900 drivers (new architecture!) with a focus on compatibility and stability (not performance, as there is no competitor expected). They plan to deliver a performance enhanced driver later, when Nvidia does deliver - to counter their card.
But now the competitor is already here...

[Gilgamesh]

News:

http://www.techpowerup.com/134383/Ra...-December.html

Originally poised for a November 22 launch, and plagued by reported delays, the Radeon HD 6900 series from AMD is indeed staring down at a three-week delay. According to a new release by AMD circulated to press sites, AMD is pinning the new launch date to be "in the week of" December 13, 2010. AMD tried to explain that the Radeon HD 5800 series is still in strong demand, and the Radeon HD 5970 is still maintaining performance leadership, perhaps blaming congestion in inventories for the delay, and not anything to do with manufacturing.

The first part of the explanation is unconvincing. If AMD did not want to disturb Radeon HD 5800 series sales, there wouldn't be Radeon HD 6800 series, which was launched with the idea of giving HD 5800-like performance at more affordable prices. The second part, however, is hard to dispute. AMD signed off its release saying that enthusiasts will find the products worth the wait. December 13, however, could disturb some gifting (or self-gifting) plans for Xmas. Given the swamped courier and logistics services at that time, it will be tough to get a Radeon HD 6900 series product in time for the celebrations.


And:
http://translate.google.it/translate...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8

AMD has officially tell us that the launch of the Radeon HD 6900 was postponed from 22 November to mid-December, exact date not yet determined. An announcement is perplexing since just before the online test the GeForce GTX 580, AMD has assured us that the rumors were inaccurate and delayed the launch would proceed as planned, the manufacturer also giving us a date for the arrival of the test samples in order to support his statements.

To justify this change of plans, AMD highlights the fact that the Radeon HD 5800 is still selling well and the Radeon HD 5970 has not been beaten by the GeForce GTX 580, a second argument somewhat since boat arrival the latter was not foreseen when the original date was set.

If it is possible that sales of Radeon HD 5000 were worse than expected in recent months, resulting in formation of significant stocks to try to sell before the arrival of the next generation, we highly doubt that AMD will come from the realize that very day.


The launch of the Radeon HD 6900 as originally planned.

We are ultimately faced with several options. AMD either lied to us in one form or another to ensure that we recommend to buyers interested in a GeForce GTX 580 to wait, while the delay of the Radeon HD 6900 was already evident due to excessive inventories of Radeon HD 5800, manufacturing problem of the card or GPU or Cayman Focus drivers dedicated to it. AMD is realized afterwards that the Radeon HD 6970 would have difficulties with the GeForce GTX 580 and decided to review the specifications of it to ensure pass.

From our side, if the frequency and number of processing units were not disclosed accurate, based on some information we have, we believe that the Radeon HD 6970 should be 20 to 30% more efficient than Radeon HD 5870 ... is exactly what the GeForce GTX 580. It is indeed possible that AMD has had to play somewhat with frequency in the last minute ...

In all cases, we are moving probably to a very limited availability of the Radeon HD 6950 and 6970 for Christmas, which could leave the field open to the GeForce GTX 580 with the early arrival surprised many people.

We've updated the conclusion of our feature on the GeForce GTX 580 so as to take into account this new information.

[flopper]

Not likely at all. They are way too far along at this point, see zerazax's posts with quotes from Dave.

Dave speaks months, not 3 weeks after 580 launched.
if they did that it be missing the christmas sales.
unless they did this months back but that havent been the case to anyone sicne 22nov was set a long time.

[hurrdurr]

they never been silent before.
every time they launch a great card (whoop ass can) they drum the drums.
every time they get ass kicked, they dont.

WHAT.

The whoopass situation was when they launched GTX 280. They employed TERROR FANFARE talking about the card and how much ass was about the kicked. The result? One of the biggest fiascos in their history with incredibly high priced cards getting their asses kicked by the competition's surprise offerings.

And how about the Fermi launch? "Are You Ready For The Announcement Time of The Day In Which We Will Tell You When The Product Is Going to Be Announced"? "CRANK THAT S#!7 UP" etc etc. Another underwhelming product.

So their PR is silent now and you have determined that it's because their product is going to suck compared to what AMD's offerings will be. And you say their PR is silent because they don't want to make people buy their cards in the sole month they are in a good position (before 6900's come out)

Really, cool story, bro. The lack of logic in some people is overwhelming sometimes. When there are some facts, and you try to interpret the facts as a proof of Nvidia's sucktitude whether or not they actually are, you sound funny.