Final Words
For now, we are left with reports that there is no physical UVD hardware in R600. But is this really the case, or was UVD hardware included but broken (reminiscent of the problems NVIDIA had with PureVideo on the 6800 line)? If the physical hardware simply isn't present, the way things have gone seem to indicate that AMD's own staff didn't understand exactly what was going on. For journalists to miss something like this is one thing, but channel partners printing boxes with non-existent features on them is entirely different.
This is more than a little troublesome, but we are awaiting a response from AMD on all the issues we've presented here today. We were hoping to have their response to include here at publication, but we will absolutely update this article when we do hear from AMD.
So where do we stand now? Well, board partners who've already printed boxes with UVD labels and retailers who list UVD as a feature of the HD 2900 XT will need to go back and revise their materials. This is certain to cause plenty of headaches with everyone involved in the making, marketing, retailing, and purchasing of the HD 2900 XT. Journalists have had to go back and correct articles to reflect the lack of UVD support in R600, and everyone is looking to AMD and wondering just what that was all about.
While we might not really think UVD is necessary in a high-end graphics card, just as full video decode might be overkill in an 8800 part, many have lamented the fact that their high-end graphics hardware supports last years video decode feature set. This is true even on G80 hardware where the technology lag makes sense due to the extra development time NVIDIA had with G84/G86. Honestly, for us, the issue is not the lack of the feature; it's the way in which this situation blossomed.
From the beginning, at press briefings, AMD could have grouped R600 with X1000 and separated it from the rest of the R6xx lineup. They had no problems pointing out the differences between G80/G7x and G84/G86. After the fact, with almost every article indicating that UVD was in HD 2900 XT, AMD corrected no one. It took people asking direct questions to start to get real answers. But we still don't feel like we've got the whole story.
With our go-to man for graphics at AMD, Will Willis, having quit shortly after the R600 launch, and most of the other PR people we used to work with from ATI already absent, we have been a little worried about the situation. Losing Will will certainly be a blow for AMD PR, as he was by far the most helpful guy around. Having a key member of the PR team depart just after a launch like this also doesn't feel good. Hopefully, the replacement AMD finds for Will can fill his shoes, and hopefully we will get some answers soon.
We are left with the feeling that AMD wanted this to be ambiguous for as long as possible (whether this is true or not). The reasoning for this is are certainly not attractive, and range from blatant deception (i.e. suggest there's at least one feature on HD 2900 that you couldn't get from 8800 GTS/GTX) to a last minute problem with UVD on R600 that kept them from enabling it. But without answers from AMD, we just can't know what really went on in their minds while all this was going down.
For now, we are left with reports that there is no physical UVD hardware in R600. But is this really the case, or was UVD hardware included but broken (reminiscent of the problems NVIDIA had with PureVideo on the 6800 line)? If the physical hardware simply isn't present, the way things have gone seem to indicate that AMD's own staff didn't understand exactly what was going on. For journalists to miss something like this is one thing, but channel partners printing boxes with non-existent features on them is entirely different.
This is more than a little troublesome, but we are awaiting a response from AMD on all the issues we've presented here today. We were hoping to have their response to include here at publication, but we will absolutely update this article when we do hear from AMD.
So where do we stand now? Well, board partners who've already printed boxes with UVD labels and retailers who list UVD as a feature of the HD 2900 XT will need to go back and revise their materials. This is certain to cause plenty of headaches with everyone involved in the making, marketing, retailing, and purchasing of the HD 2900 XT. Journalists have had to go back and correct articles to reflect the lack of UVD support in R600, and everyone is looking to AMD and wondering just what that was all about.
While we might not really think UVD is necessary in a high-end graphics card, just as full video decode might be overkill in an 8800 part, many have lamented the fact that their high-end graphics hardware supports last years video decode feature set. This is true even on G80 hardware where the technology lag makes sense due to the extra development time NVIDIA had with G84/G86. Honestly, for us, the issue is not the lack of the feature; it's the way in which this situation blossomed.
From the beginning, at press briefings, AMD could have grouped R600 with X1000 and separated it from the rest of the R6xx lineup. They had no problems pointing out the differences between G80/G7x and G84/G86. After the fact, with almost every article indicating that UVD was in HD 2900 XT, AMD corrected no one. It took people asking direct questions to start to get real answers. But we still don't feel like we've got the whole story.
With our go-to man for graphics at AMD, Will Willis, having quit shortly after the R600 launch, and most of the other PR people we used to work with from ATI already absent, we have been a little worried about the situation. Losing Will will certainly be a blow for AMD PR, as he was by far the most helpful guy around. Having a key member of the PR team depart just after a launch like this also doesn't feel good. Hopefully, the replacement AMD finds for Will can fill his shoes, and hopefully we will get some answers soon.
We are left with the feeling that AMD wanted this to be ambiguous for as long as possible (whether this is true or not). The reasoning for this is are certainly not attractive, and range from blatant deception (i.e. suggest there's at least one feature on HD 2900 that you couldn't get from 8800 GTS/GTX) to a last minute problem with UVD on R600 that kept them from enabling it. But without answers from AMD, we just can't know what really went on in their minds while all this was going down.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
LTG - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Please ignore the small number of posts who called the article "blame shifting" or to "get over it".This article was not only well done it was important to the integrity of the process because it illuminated what went on behind the scenes.
Whether or not there was intentional deception in the best case there was inadequate information provided (no proof but if I had to bet it would be that someone at AMD didn't act in good faith at some point in time).
This kind of honest and direct reporting is why I come to the site. Likewise whenever AT gets hard questions from readers in the comments section, the authors directly respond much more than some other sites I see.
Keep it up please, you're right on track.
kalrith - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
I also agree. Those who are calling AT biased, anti-AMD, and pro-Intel are just idiots. AT is for the companies that are providing the best bang for the buck of the average AT reader. AT was pro-AMD for the several years only in the sense that it stated AMD processors provided a much better value than Intel. Now, the tables have turned in Intel's favor somewhat as far as performance goes and lot as far as appropriate release dates and release information goes.coldpower27 - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
I concur with this.7oby - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Both nVidia and ATI are very vage about this topic and have in the past sometimes even released false information.Although you hardly find any information about this on the web, the following restrictions seem to stabilize in my mind:
PureVideo:
. WMV-9/VC-1 Decoding deactivated on AGP Systems in recent driver releases
. partial H.264 hardware assisted decoding only possible with SSE2 (rules out AthlonXP systems for which the assistence would be very helpful)
. remember GeForce 6800 where the H.264, VC-1, WMV9 assisted decoding has been announced a later recalled due to hardware defects in this silicon?
Avivo:
. actually worse: I can not find any information about AGP, SSE(2) requirements
. I remember reading on their webpage: X1000 supports hardware assisted encoding (!) of content. What has survived is "The Avivo Video Converter is only supported on Radeon™ X1000 Series or new GPUs.", which leaves a very bad taste, since it has been proven that this software runs without X1000 hardware and doesn't utilize it for the tasks it offers.
Instead: A lot of confusion and frustration on the consumer side complaining about not properly working hardware assisted decoding.
ViRGE - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
On hardware assisted encoding:It's actually worse than you think. Both ATI and Nvidia go back to 2004 with promises of this for the R420 and NV40 respectively. I have product overviews and press slideshows from both companies touting hardware encoding of MPEG 1, 2, and 4. Neither company has or will be delivering on this.
I fear GPU-based physics is going to go the same way.
7oby - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...">http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content...eAssets/...states
ATI Avivo HD video and display architecture present in HD 2900, 2600, 2400
UVD (Unified Video Decoder) only present in HD 2600, 2400
Thus pretty much the same as with nvidia
Pure Video HD architecture present in G80, G84, G86
VP2 (for full H.264 decode) only present in G84, G86
Chunga29 - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Am I the only one that wonders when that PDF was last updated?PrinceGaz - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Well, given that certain review sites which checked their facts before writing their review of the HD 2900 mentioned that it specifically did not include dedicated UVD hardware (instead relying on the shaders to perform the same task because there are enough of them to do it), it would seem the information was available at least a few days before the NDA expired.Chunga29 - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Care to enlighten as to which "certain sites checked their facts"? I saw Firingsquad (well, skimmed it), and Tom's and a few others. I'm not sure who got it right at the start, but someone above linked at least four other places that got the UVD informations wrong. Tech Report, AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, and Firingsquad are all (well, not so much FS) pretty major sites, and they don't usually make mistakes of this sort unless someone gave them wrong info. Then there's Gigabyte and a couple other manufacturers that put UVD on 2900 boxes, I think.Goty - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r600reviewz/in...">http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r600reviewz/in...