Here is my opinion on why you were rather subborn on this point: If ATI created a unique physics chip rather than renamed a video card GPU it would made ATI's engineering accomplishments appear much more significant. That type of creativity and engineering prowess would certainly make ATI look like a much better buy at ~$5.5 billion, and therefore make AMD's decision to pay such a high price for ATI seem more reasonable.
_______________________
I can't believe that you held that opinion and didn't state it. I wouldn't be able to answer it anyway because I was limited to 5 posts.
Clearly, I didn't know if it was or wasn't a Physics chip, and I still don't. I also didn't know if it was or wasn't the 1900 that they were referring to.
I put up a casual post based on a link from the Inquirer that I thought people here would find value in, and didn't expect to incur a hostile reaction from such am innocuous comment.
As for ATI, I knew very little about that company other than their Video Cards were competitive with Nvidea. I did know about Torrenza, and when the Physics chip was mentioned on Inquirer, I made the logical conclusion that this was what AMD wanted. I guess if that was true, you would agree with my conclusion.
So, I still don't know whether it's true or not, but with this new Stream computing system, it doesn't matter. That will do just fine, and it looks like the Co-processor candidate AMD is looking for.
If somebody out there has a better one that works with Torrenza, I'm sure AMD would be receptive to it. Cell seems to be a candidate, according to IBM, but its only an accelerator. |
