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
Goty - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r600reviewz/in...">http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r600reviewz/in...Goty - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
...soooo the HD2900XT doesn't support UVD. Who cares? I still accelerates HD video play back and can even beat its competition at the feat, so what's the big deal? You guys missed something, get over it.Roy2001 - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
ATI card makers cares.drebo - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Yet another pointless anti-AMD "article".Look, we realize that Intel buys a shitload of advertising from you, but could we atleast get a shred of real review material please?
This is bollocks. AMD never said UVD would be on the 2900 XT. nVidia didn't include full decode on the G80. Whatever the reasoning, it doesn't matter. My feelings are that those high end parts don't NEED the help. Your feelings are that AMD is deceptive and nVidia is god. We get it. You don't like AMD (or Intel pays you not to). Get over it already. I'd have rather seen an actual comparison of the video decode features of the 2900 XT, the 8800GTS, the 8600GT and the lower-end AMD parts.
You know, something that would actually mean something, other than this useless drivel, specualtion and namecalling.
Roy2001 - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Yeah, AT and many sites dislike AMD, and AMD partners are also dislike AMD so they pretend to know nothing about lacking of UVD and thus printed their box with UVD support.Is that your theory?
SilthDraeth - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Drebo you are hilarious. Anandtech certainly is anti AMD, and back before core 2 they where anti Intel.stfu.
chrispyski - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
I can understand if review sites like Anandtech or Tom's get things like this messed up as they have to rely on the information given to them from the PR guys whose job it is to make there merchandise appealing. But when board partners are being mis-informed and then mis-labeling their cards accordingly, then you begin to wonder what the hell is going on with their tactics.AMD was deceitful, if not to the review sites, then to their board partners. Either way is just bad business. Plain and simple.
tuteja1986 - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Yeah... Like i read around 3 or more reviews like firingsquad article that told it readers that 2900XT didn't UVD.These review were published on the 1st of 2900XT launch and they didn't make fuss about it. Also i have read article that compares 8600GT playback vs 8800GTX playback and it show that Image quality is better on 8800GTX than 8600GT playback.PrinceGaz - Monday, June 4, 2007 - link
Exactly, some first day reviews of the HD 2900 did mention that it did not include dedicated UVD hardware but that it would instead be implemented using its shaders/stream-processors (because the 2900 has sufficient of them to do the task just as well as the dedicated hardware on lower models does).Some people rely on just one review (possibly AT for many readers here); that is always a bad idea regardless of the site you choose. If you feel you know enough about an important new product by doing anything less than reading at least three (preferably more) comprehensive reviews, then you are likely to miss small but significant details. Reading more than one reduces the likelihood you overlook something, and increases your chance of being told about something another site missed such as details of the UVD support in the HD 2900.
I'm not saying any site is good or bad; the site where I first learned on launch day that UVD on the HD 2900 would be provided by its stream-processors rather than dedicated hardware, is the same site which not long previously had posted a review of the 8600GT/GTS launch which was at odds with just about every other respectable tech site. All sites have their ups and downs, so never trust what any site alone says, including AT, unless others support their findings.
Creig - Thursday, June 7, 2007 - link
http://www.bjorn3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7888...">http://www.bjorn3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7888...