Tweet
GDDR-3 ATI vs nVidia
How the industry feels about it:
nVidia bashing of it:
ATI's response:
courtesy of nV News
EE Times has an article talking about the confusion surrounding ATI's recent announcements on GDDR-3. In essence, the spec was initiated by NVIDIA, and ATI decided to follow the leader and make their spec a little faster.
Here's a quote that summarizes this whole nonsense quite well:
Problem is, what ATI calls GDDR-3 is quite similar to what Nvidia, Samsung and others are calling GDDR-2, samples of which were shown at the Beijing conference. "What it really comes down to is that what they are calling graphics DDR-2, the 1-Gbit/second part, was a spec put together by Nvidia," said Kevin Ryan, a fellow at Micron Technology Inc. "The GDDR-3 spec was worked on with ATI. So really you have an Nvidia spec out there that goes up to 1 Gbit/s and an ATI spec out there that goes up to 1.4 Gbits/s. So ATI felt that because it went 40 percent faster, it needed to be called 3 and not 2."
Here's a quote that summarizes this whole nonsense quite well:
Problem is, what ATI calls GDDR-3 is quite similar to what Nvidia, Samsung and others are calling GDDR-2, samples of which were shown at the Beijing conference. "What it really comes down to is that what they are calling graphics DDR-2, the 1-Gbit/second part, was a spec put together by Nvidia," said Kevin Ryan, a fellow at Micron Technology Inc. "The GDDR-3 spec was worked on with ATI. So really you have an Nvidia spec out there that goes up to 1 Gbit/s and an ATI spec out there that goes up to 1.4 Gbits/s. So ATI felt that because it went 40 percent faster, it needed to be called 3 and not 2."
nVidia bashing of it:
Got a interesting response from Brian Burke NVIDIA's Desktop PR manager on a question about ATI's GDDR-3 this morning. I wonder what he's talking about? 
We are big fans of faster graphic memory and can use all the speed memory makers can provide. The GDDR-3 spec is a work in progress. Generally it is a good spec and we are glad ATI is evangelizing graphics memory needs with memory vendors, which is something NVIDIA has been doing for years. We think the spec needs to be more aggressive.
NVIDIA cannot endorse the spec as is. It needs more work. 500MHz as a starting point is boring in the time frame they are talking about, which is 2003. 500MHz in 2002 is exciting. 500MHz in 2H03 is boring. The value of the GDDR3 as it stands in the current spec will be severely tested in the coming weeks with existing technology.
Brian Burke
NVIDIA Corporation
We are big fans of faster graphic memory and can use all the speed memory makers can provide. The GDDR-3 spec is a work in progress. Generally it is a good spec and we are glad ATI is evangelizing graphics memory needs with memory vendors, which is something NVIDIA has been doing for years. We think the spec needs to be more aggressive.
NVIDIA cannot endorse the spec as is. It needs more work. 500MHz as a starting point is boring in the time frame they are talking about, which is 2003. 500MHz in 2002 is exciting. 500MHz in 2H03 is boring. The value of the GDDR3 as it stands in the current spec will be severely tested in the coming weeks with existing technology.
Brian Burke
NVIDIA Corporation
Chris Hook, who I met at San Francisco had a nice response to my GDDR-3 post from Nvidia:
Hi Ben!!
Saw your article on GDDR-3 and Brian Burke's comments. It sounds to me like there is some disagreement at nVidia over the GDDR3 issue and whether or not the GDDR3 spec is 'fast enough'. I would point you to some comments by Tony Tamasi in EBN Magazine a few weeks ago, when ATI's GDDR3 spec was announced, with the support of DRAM memory industry leaders. Mr. Tamasi was quoted as saying that GDDR-3's very high speed will definately be welcomed by graphics companies. See link and quote below
Chris Hook
PR Manager, Mobile and Integrated Business Unit
ATI Technologies
Click here
Nvidia said that it, too, is working with DRAM suppliers to get GDDR-III to market as soon as possible. "If we can get enough DRAM makers to build GDDR-III, it should become very affordable," said Tony Tamasi, Nvidia's senior director of desktop product management. "The very high speed will definitely be welcomed by graphics companies."
Hi Ben!!
Saw your article on GDDR-3 and Brian Burke's comments. It sounds to me like there is some disagreement at nVidia over the GDDR3 issue and whether or not the GDDR3 spec is 'fast enough'. I would point you to some comments by Tony Tamasi in EBN Magazine a few weeks ago, when ATI's GDDR3 spec was announced, with the support of DRAM memory industry leaders. Mr. Tamasi was quoted as saying that GDDR-3's very high speed will definately be welcomed by graphics companies. See link and quote below
Chris Hook
PR Manager, Mobile and Integrated Business Unit
ATI Technologies
Click here
Nvidia said that it, too, is working with DRAM suppliers to get GDDR-III to market as soon as possible. "If we can get enough DRAM makers to build GDDR-III, it should become very affordable," said Tony Tamasi, Nvidia's senior director of desktop product management. "The very high speed will definitely be welcomed by graphics companies."
courtesy of nV News
Comment