PDA

View Full Version : ATI to start selling chips to other manufacturers!!!!!!



alessandro
29th May 2001, 19:59
Check out the press release! (http://www.ati.com/na/pages/corporate/press/2001/4378.html)

Elsa Radeon IIs anyone http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

isochar
29th May 2001, 22:25
Learning from 3dfx's mistakes...
is Matrox next?

cerb
29th May 2001, 22:35
Matrox already sold chips to Gigabyte, but the Gigabyte cards would only work on Gigabyte motherboards as they didn't have their own bios chips on them - they shared the motherboard's. Don't know why on earth they did that.

That was at least 12 months ago I heard about that. Never heard any more of it since.

One downside to having several board manufacturers is that if they use low-quality parts to keep the overall cost down (I read on these fori somewhere someone mentioned one of the Kyro I boards being really really poor 2d image quality, and everyone blamed the Kyro chip)

Halcyon
29th May 2001, 23:22
Excellent news for ATI and for the industry at large.

If ATI can remain competitive and stop making losses, then they can probably also compete with nVidia on some levels.

That should leave enough breathing room for Matrox and others to also maneuver beyond their normal areas (i.e. business and desktop video graphics).

Very good news, IMHO.

cheers,
halcyon

Novdid
30th May 2001, 01:53
ATI's chips have always been better than Nvidias. The big trouble with ATI is their drivers.

They make excellent hardware and couples it with some really lousy drivers. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/rolleyes.gif

If they could make better drivers then they would be better than Nvidia in just about everything, maybe even speed.

EvilDonnyboy
30th May 2001, 12:32
Yea, I was about to say that. Nvidia's 2D image quality problem is greatly attributed to their lack of control over the quality of components on the board.

Nvidia's supposedly trying to fix this, but their cards are not on par with ATi and a ways off Matrox (from what I gather, I don't have a GF3).

dZeus
30th May 2001, 12:34
EvilDonnyBoy: it seems that nVidia's reference design doesn't help the quality that much either

Indiana
30th May 2001, 12:49
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by EvilDonnyboy:
Yea, I was about to say that. Nvidia's 2D image quality problem is greatly attributed to their lack of control over the quality of components on the board.</font>

Yes, that's what NVidia wants you to believe...
In fact with that much companies out there selling nearly the same cards and looking hard for some possibilities to differ from the competition (by adding extra features, TV-in/out and the like), I find it very hard to believe there's not one single product that emphasizes display quality.

That leaves the other possibility: the bad quality is inherent to NVidias chips (integrated RamDAC?) or to the reference design.

P.S.: While you can blame cheap filters for blurriness, the "washed-out" look ("stonewashed colours"(tm) for all you marketing people http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif) is caused by the gfx-chips rendering engine(s).


[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 30 May 2001).]

az
30th May 2001, 13:04
I guess that they'd spend more attention to that if they were selling cards, not just chips http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

AZ

CHHAS
30th May 2001, 16:03
Oh goody, now we're going to see ATI based cards with lousy 2D quality http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/tongue.gif

Flipin
4th June 2001, 09:10
I bought the Xpert2000pro 32meg card for my other computer, and it's crap!! when clocked @ 142/160, it managed to just about push above my clocked G400 @ 149/198 even though clock speeds are far from G400. However, 3D quality sucks as it has some kind of blurry static noise, and the image therefore isn't quite as sharp... The worse part is the 2D side. On all the highly refresing (windows moving, progress bars) the ATI can't draw them whole, and the lower part disappears!!! this happens in a flickering manner and is pretty anoyng... I would expect that Radeon isn't any better, since my ATI was designed in the year 2000 and propably the same tech as in the Radeon. The ramdac was suprisingly sharp. Almost Matrox quality http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Novdid
4th June 2001, 11:31
"The Radeon IS a very big improvement to earlier chips. The 2d IS very acceptable."

I think you have heard that phrase many times and it is true.

Technoid
4th June 2001, 13:44
Only time will tell

The Rock
5th June 2001, 13:47
The Radeon kicks ass. Best all around video card I EVER owned. It would be cool if Elsa or Hercules wrote drivers for ATI-based cards though. At least ATI owners would have another option (although ATI's drivers are better now than they've ever been).

Bart

Ashley
5th June 2001, 14:24
ELSA and Hercules haven't written drivers in, literally, years. They simply stamp the chip vendors' reference drivers with their own bitmaps and text, and provide the occasional independent utility.

You sure you'd want to use a driver from someone with zero experience, with the chip itself in particular and with writing drivers in general? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif