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
DerekWilson - Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - link
At the Tunis even, if members of the press specifically asked AMD, they were told that UVD was not in the 2900 XT.Aside from us, there were quite a few publications at the Tunis event that did not have correct information becaues we didn't specifically ask someone.
The presentations and slides were absolutely not clear on the issue, and there is no slide that does make it clear that UVD is not in the 2900 XT. Period.
Not mentioning it as a feature is not the same as mentioning that something is not a feature.
lemonadesoda - Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - link
Then, Mr Wilson, you have to admit that there are better reporters/journalists representing other publications. Why do you write a 3 page article whining about the fact that you weren't SPOON FED all the information... and that because you didn't get your facts right... you continue to write copy with FUD.Not only is the content of this article poor, you could have written it with 80% less words. Do you get paid on a per word basis?
DerekWilson - Sunday, July 22, 2007 - link
If we had to explicitly confirm everything that was implied, we would never publish an article. We don't want to be spoon fed, but we don't need to be mislead (whether on purpose or by accident). It's slightly more costly to the manufacturers who's boxes were printed as supporting UVD than for us, which really underlines the fact that AMD made a mistake somewhere along the way here.I don't get paid per word -- I do tend to be wordy though. Sorry about that.