Slashdot Mirror
Radeon 9700 Pro: ATI Ahead
Keefe writes "The epic battle between ATI and Nvidia wages on. While Nvidia awaits arrival of their near-fabled NV30 for redemption, ATI conquers all by introducing the fastest and most advanced graphics card to date. The next-generation ATI Radeon 9700 Pro marks the second time Nvidia cedes the performance crown to ATI (the first time being the brief glory when the ATI Rage Fury beat the Nvidia TNT). See how the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro stacks up at Techware Labs."
PC Gamer reviewed the 9700 four months ago.
???
LadyStar - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
I wonder how much extra circuitry this chip has in order to be backwards compatible. I rember reading that the Geforce 3 had to have some legacy circuitry that wasn't used in Direct Draw 8 games in order to run Direct Draw 7 games. Now that we're into DD8.1 and DD9.0, how much more legacy circuitry is in there?
... it wants its news back.
First they point out a Salon piece mentioning "selling out" and now we get an ATi puff piece for a video card taht has been out for months...
If only I had a brain, I could figure out what this meant!!
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
3-500 dollars today for a card that will be severely outclassed by a card in a few months. There are no new games that demand a card this instant. I personally plan on buying a new computer and geforce fx when doom3 comes out. Unless you have to buy a new system in the next 3 months why not wait?
The internet is on computers these days.
is that it's currently God's Own card until the next one comes along (Probably from nVidia) then it'll be crap.
Repeat as necessary.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I think the point the author is trying to make is that the card has been out for months, and Nvidia STILL hasn't released their next big thing. Look what happened to 3dfx when they where slow out of the gate with next gen cards.
Being faster means little when you have no modern competition. If the current ATI's remain in the lead performance wise when the next Nvidia chipset is released, that will be a major victory for ATI. On the other hand, ATI does have the crown at the moment, and the longer they are in the lead the more market share they could take from NVidia. Then back to the first hand, a whole lot of people aren't ready to upgrade yet and may not be for a while, so being in the lead when nobody is buying isn't really an advantage after all. On the other hand once again... oh, nevermind.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Hmmm
Nvidia GeForce4 TI : approx $100
ATI 9700 : around $300
Games or software that need 9700 over GeForce4 : 0
Maybe I'll wait until the cost comes down and until there is a true need for that card
9700
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
nVidia has convinced me with their FreeBSD drivers. Good work.
[Reflex mistake above. Pressed enter instead of tab.]
Anyway, for 3dsmax and such apps, I would still stick to nvidia Quadro and softquadroed Geforce cards.
is not that this is the second time that ATI has been faster than nVidia, it's that this is only the second time that this has been the case.
Back in The Day, it seemed that 3dfx would come out with their card, and hold the performance crown for a few months, then someone else would release theirs, and hold the performance crown for a few months, then 3dfx would release their next generation of cards, and the cycle would continue that way.
It's been all ATI and nVidia now for a number of years, and ATI has only just now figured out that if they want to sell graphics cards to gamers, they have to be faster every once in a while?
I hope it reverts to the old model. Competition can only yield better graphics cards at lower prices.
The NV30 will be a better value than you think. Not only will it replace your old video card, but it'll replace your old hair dryer, too!
-Teckla
Man I just upgraded to a Riva TNT2... Does this mean I have to upgrade AGAIN???
"No Matter Where You Go.. There You Are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Wasn't this card released a few months ago? About two days after I bought my GeForce 4 Ti4600 :-(
But having seen the videos for the Nvidea Fx card I can't see ATI holding the crown for long.
Okay, i was checking up on Pricewatch to see the price differences between the R9700 and nVidia's offerings. WTf is up with this GF4 TI 4800? Is it just a version that supports AGP 8x ? Because, it's MORE expensive by 20 bucks than a Radeon 9700Pro (at 232$)
I still agree with whoever (likely several people) said that its pointless to spend so much cash when this kind of polygon pumping power isnt even needed yet.
By the time you actually NEED one of these it will be in the 150$ range; the only reason you need one now is the geek equivalent of penis envy
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
The Radeon 8500 outperformed the Geforce3 Ti500 and came out months before the Geforce4 Ti series. They're continually trading the performance lead. The only instance of nVidia ever keeping the performance crown continuously from one product generation to another was Geforce2-->Geforce3.
From the time the Geforce2 came out until the Radeon 8500 came out 17 months ago, ATI had the unquestionable performance crown, but since then it has been juggling back and forth, which is to be expected since each new product release is about 6 months after the competitor's last release and the technology improves as time goes on. nVidia has a habit of shooting for a holiday release but not actually shipping until the new year, and ATI has made their last two releases in August. So when either one of them makes a new release they have a 6-month lead over the other company's product, so you should expect them to always trade performance crowns unless one of them is more than 6 months begind the other in R&D, which would be saying quite a lot.
Repeal the DMCA!
Last time I checked, NVidia had an obnoxious policy of not releasing technical info for all the functionality of their cards. Is that still the case?
How is ATI regarding open source support? Can I run a fully powered video card from ATI without having to download special drivers directly from ATI, like I used to have to do with NVidia?
do a search...yes this problem was fixed by ati.
grab the latest drivers...it was just a glitch in the first release.
or you could always flash the bios of your OEM card with the firmware from a retail card..
The only difference is 1/2 the memory bandwidth. While that may seem like a lot, the 9500 pro actually gives @ 70% of the performance of the 9700 Pro.
and....
The 9700 Pro, 9700, and the 9500 Pro use the exact same GPU. So download a new bios at www.3dchipset.com/temp/warp11.zip and you can overclock the GPU to get almost 90% of the performance of a 9700 Pro.
Read all about it here Firingsquad.com
Also make sure to get DirectX 9
and New Catalyst 3.0 Drivers
And the 9500 Pro is a cheap at $180 delivered.
www.pricewatch.com
The problem with the 9x00 series is that ATi still has a long, long way to go in the driver department. I cannot tell you how many "cutting edge" gamers I've run into who cannot extract a decent picture or more than 5FPS out of this card due to horrible driver problems. To the best of my recollection, this has pretty much always been the case with ATi, and although they have been better recently they stil have a long way to go before they match nVidia's stability.
Just a warning to those of you who (inexplicably) want to pay a gigantic premium for the fastest card on the market for about another quarter.
levine
I don't know about you, but I have been burned by ATI over and over again with regards to driver quality. I sincerely hope they are still not bad about drivers but I'm not going to risk it again.
NVidia has always had top notch driver support, and they continue to support even the oldest TNT cards with driver updates. ATI tends to drop new driver support after a couple years.
I'm waiting for the GeForce FX. I just hope I can get one with dual DVI.
The 9700 Pro was out first -- I have had one since September (bleeding edge adoption, I know). The non-Pro 9700 was recently released, however....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Maybe this article about ATI's Radeon 9500Pro would have been a better one to link to. It shows how this cheaper R300 based product compares to other offerings and how it beats the Ti4200 hands down and often outdoes the Ti4600. It may not be the killer card that the 9700 is, and may not be a true entry level card, but for the mainstream gamer market it gives mighty fine performance for your cash.
I know I'm going to get blasted for being a Luddite, but try to read more into this than a rehash of "640K is more than anyone will ever need." Please?
First, PC video has gotten very fragmented in terms of capability. Hardware Transform & Lighting (T&L) first appeared in the GeForce 1 several years ago. The follow up, the GeForce 2 became a very popular, almost standard, card. But there are still major PC retailers that ship with motherboard video, such as Intel's extreme-whatsit and so on. These chipsets are not T&L capable. Still, several years after the first T&L cards appeared, there is a huge segment of the market that doesn't have hardware T&L. These are fast machines in every other respect (bottom end these days is 1.8GHz), just not T&L accelerated 3D.
Of course the hot video feature these days is programmable shader logic. But realistically what percentage of very capable PCs support this? 10%?
Second, the bottom has fallen out of 3D gaming on the PC. The sales figures of games that are perceived as Big Hits, like No One Lives Forever 2, are, in reality, abysmal. We're talking under 50,000 copies. There are some 3D games that are doing well, but it's a small, small handful. Just that "Oh yeah, what about Doom 3?" comes up in these discussions shows how weak the market is.
My point is that video cards keep improving, but at the same time, there's no market for these features, nor is there a market for the features of cards two generations back. I don't like this, but that doesn't change anything. Certainly it's fun to write shaders and to be able to buy something for $400 that's significantly better than $100,000 hardware from just a few years ago, but that's looking at the situtation from a "look at what I have in MY computer" perspective, not something I can realistically expect to be in most of the PCs out there.
I think they're still kicking around. They don't really seem to be up on the superfast3dgamer market, but they make good cards for graphic editing, and the dual-head is nice with the multi-monitor suppose.
If I had the cash, I'd be playing my games on three monitors... which is supposed to work nicely on the matrox dual-head cards.
have a Windows box around "just for gaming." Yet we lambast Microsoft regularly on Slashdot and to our friends? Seriously, if you want people to switch, how about only buying games that run on Linux or other Open Source OSs'? All I play is Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake III, and Unreal Tounament 2003 which run great on Debian Testing (my Redhat 8 laptop is another matter-HELP!). Is gaming that important that you have to run a Windows box and buy Windows-only games? A little monetary support to the manufacturers who help us could go a long way. Gaming could be the "killer app" for a lots of would be Open Source converts.
This guy is way out there
The PRO cards were released first. The lower clock cards 9700, 9500 Pro, 9500 were only recently released. This is old news period.
ATI is in REALLY good shape right now. As far as their drivers go, they're really getting much better. ATI will have had the performance crown for 6 months or so by the time the FX comes out, by that time they'll have a card based on the R350 core that should at least equal the FX, and come June or July the completely new R400 core based cards should be around, more than likely beating Nvidia's next big thing by a long time. Nvidia is a hype machine, but they're not delivering, they dropped the ball big time by not getting the FX out at least by Christmas. And I bet if you took the dustbuster off the top of the FX and ran in at clock speeds that normal cooling can facilitate it would be on par with the 9700. And top performance means nothing anyway, it's what, like less that 5% of the market? ATI currently has the fastest mobile chipset, pocket chipset, value chipset, and their mainboard chipset is for the P4, not the Athlon like Nvidia, who do you think is in a better market position? They've basically got Nividia beat everywhere right now (as far as stuff already on the market goes) they seem pretty serious about being the one to beat themselves.
With all due respect to the submitter of this news article, I have to question the statement that the Rage Pro beat the TNT.
As I recall the days when Quake 3 was getting ready to be released, the id guys specifically said that they were trying to really hard to make Q3 work on the ATI Rage Pro, and the way they were going about making it work was allowing the user to turn off enough eye candy (ie remove enough features) so that the game would be compatible with the Rage Pro. The end result was that it looked rather ugly. On the other hand, as far as I know, the TNT1, although probably too slow to play Q3 feasibly, could support full eye candy, including 32-bit color.
I actually played the game on a TNT2 for a while, which, I believe, had the same features as the TNT1 with a speed boost.
Now if you are talking about quake1 benchmarks or something, I don't know which card would've been faster (rage pro or tnt1) but let's face it, there's more to video cards than just high framerates, as 3dfx found out (the hard way).
This has been Elmer Fudd weporting. We now weturn you to your wegular newscast.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
First of all, take a look at ATI's sales figures for the first quarter which included 9700P sales--UP 34% sequentially! In fact, shortly after shipping the 9700P ATI announced that the demand for its new high-end graphics product was going to materially affect its earnings in a positive sense--and that's just what happened. By the first of October ATI had shipped 1 million + of its $400 3D accelerators into the market, according to an article I read. By now I would image they've shipped somewhere between 2-3 million of them. Twice I saw various enews outlets carrying stories on ATI being surprised by demand for the its R300-based products and having to seek out additional FAB space immediately. Actually, this market is vigorous and very healthy, and if anything there is a pent-up demand for products like this.
Second thing you forget is that M$ is driving 3D into the mainstream with its DX initiatives--which basically means that someone using a GF2 and someone using a 9700P can run the same 3D program--the only requirement being that the hardware developer has written DX-compliant drivers. Of course the guy running the old 3D card won't get anything close to the performance and atmosphere of the guy running the 9700P, but he can still run the program, and that's what counts. Upgrading his 3D card is up to him. Those who like 3D games will buy these cards--those who don't, won't.
*chuckle* If everybody had to run 3D games prior to their being published we'd never have seen the first 3D game--so obviously that's not a requirement. 3D gaming software is just like any other--there's never a case where "everybody" buys it, no matter what it is. There are still tens of millions of people who are still running Windows 98, for instance. "Everybody" participating isn't required for an unqualified success in this market because the market is segmented.
That's my last point--you talk about videocard markets being segmented--that's because the market itself is segmented! Not everybody wants a 9700P, but millions of people do, and that's plenty enough demand to create a sizable market. Talking about fragmented--look at the automobile industry. It's extremely fragmented, but the market is so huge that companies make money anyway.
I guess it all boils down to the fact that "one size does not have to fit all" for markets to succeed and thrive. Indeed, the raw diversity of the American economy stuns people who experience it after the limitations of planned economies. They often find the amount of choice staggering.
There is a cohesion and a method to it all. APIs like DX and OpenGL are making it happen, along with the competitive efforts of hardware companies like nVidia and ATI. In another year or so you won't be able to buy a graphics accelerator, for any cost, that won't include a decent level of 3D acceleration--indeed, even ATI's current value line of videocards is OpenGL 2.0/DX9-compatible. The 3D card market is just like any other--higher end products get designed and built because there's a real demand for them.
Also, instead of looking at one 3D game--why not look at combined sales for all of them to judge the success of the market. People's tastes differ--I can't stand the "Sims", for instance, but many people love the games. Looking at the sales depth of a single 3D game will tell you little about the overall market.
In my system at home for instance I replaced a GF4 Ti4600 with a 9700P and couldn't be happier. I make use of the features of the product--especially its incredible fill rate and bandwidth which allow me to run older games faster than was possible before, along with stunning visual effects like FSAA and anisotropic filtering--which are applied by the driver and can be used with any 3D game. So even running older 3D software I can see a big difference between my former GF4 Ti4600 and the newer 9700P which I bought back in September. I feel very much as if I've gotten my money's worth.
Just to let you know there's another side of the coin here...
Also, while the NV30/GeForceFX may beat the R300/Radeon 9700, I'd be surprised if ATI doesn't release a R350 based card (Radeon 9900?) close to the launch of the GeForceFX. ATI's lower end cards (such as the 9500 PRO) will continue to beat the GF4TI series in price and performance.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
ATi only ships binary drivers, and they are rather buggy so far.
Bullshit.
The Radeon drivers are as open as ATI could make them -- all the functions they had to keep closed for whatever pointy-haired reason are exported into a static lib, so that all the rest could be open-sourced. Want to compile them against a custom kernel such as Gentoo's? Sure, you can, the drivers are designed so that this is absolutely possible.
As for buggy, I own a 3rd party card built around an ATI chip, the worst-case scenario, and I would sincerely like to know what you mean by 'rather buggy'. Outside pure FUD, of course.
So cut them some slack. You like your nVidia card, it's cool, I'm happy for you. But if you don't reward companies that get out of their way to provide us minority Linux folks with good drivers, like ATI did, then you provide strictly no incentive for those companies to support us. So let's drop the dick^W GPU contest and stop peeing in the soup, hmm? Thank you.
Rant over.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Nvidia releases binary drivers. ATI releases specs. If you think about it, which is better?
Don't be suckered just because Nvidia has thrown you a bone. If you read some of the developer mailing lists for say, Mplayer, the Nvidia binary drivers leave a lot to be desired.
At the time, Intel stated that the lower price of the 486SX wasn't just a marketing ploy, but representative of the fact that the FPU required significantly more (and more complicated) QC testing than the integer logic on the CPU, so the lower price reflected the lower cost to manufacture. Not that anybody believed that, mind you. Intel also claimed the FDIV bug in early Pentiums was incredibly rare and not worth worrying about.
the 9500 lost in every single test vs the 4400, and even the 9700 lost a few
maybe, but the test resolution was 1024x768. I run my monitor at 1600x1200.
Check out these test results. And these tests are with 8x anisotropic filtering and 4X AA. High stressing for any card.
The 9700 Pro, 9700, and 9500 Pro spank ALL the current nVidia cards at resolutions above 1024x768.
As for the "ATI's looks like crap" I'm not sure what you mean. ATi has always had the best picture. nVidia was always faster but not nearly the same quality picture.
And I pray that ATi has fixed their driver issues. I always hated that they updated their drivers every 6 months. But since the Catalyst 3.0 drivers were released so soon I have new hope.
Website owners grease some palms at slashdot to garner some extra pagehits to pay the bills?
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
If you're talking about current games that use DirectX 8.1 the GeForce Ti4200 (sorry, the Ti4400 is out of production) is still a reasonable choice.
However, you are going to see games that use the full DirectX 9.0 functionality over the next 12 months. That unfortunately means the GeForce4 Ti4xxx series cards are going to start bogging down on highly-complex backgrounds and 3-D effects from these new games. You'll want a card that support DX9 functionality in hardware like the ones that use the ATI R300 chipset (Radeon 9500 and above) and the ones that use the new nVidia GeForce FX chipset.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Two weeks ago, I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro. In that time, I have managed to get three out of my huge pile of 3D games to work with it, and only Quake III works well. ATIs driver coders are off in lala-land, and games can't cope with them. No two people seem to have the same problems with the Radeon 9700 Pro, which makes troubleshooting a nightmare. I would have been better off just getting an Nvidia card for half the money to hold me over until the next Nivida card came out.
ATI cards are just not good for gamers. While Nvidia focuses on speed and stability, ATI focuses on cramming any possible feature they can into their All-In-Wonder cards, at the cost of a decent driver set for people who want a card that just attaches to a CRT and WORKS. I will NEVER buy another ATI card, and I will always remember why I ran all my systems on Nvidia for five years before screwing up and getting this fucking ATI card.
Umm, I've had Radeon 9700 Pro since mid-October.. the non-pro versions were much harder to find back then than the pro versions.
You can wait for the day when there isn't a new piece of hardware on the way that'll toast your current kit, but then you just wait forever.
I actually bought a 9700 Pro just the other day, to go in a new PC. All the parts for that PC were custom chosen, a few to have a good price-performance ratio (e.g., only an Athlon XP 2100+) and a few because they're the best around and I don't expect to upgrade them any time soon (the 9700 Pro).
I've been watching the market for several months now, and AFAICS the 9700 Pro I bought is way cheaper than it was those few months ago when it came out, and is likely to be way cheaper than anything new by nVidia initially will be, if and when that comes out. The performance of the 9700 Pro is still way ahead of everything else currently available, so buying a new PC now, with games very much in mind, what would you have done? Saved a whole 25% and bought a Geforce 4 Ti4600 instead?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Feeling more righteous now, are we?
The point was not about nationalities, the point was that a diversity of products in *any* economy is a sign of health. My point had nothing to do with either elevating America or disparaging anyone else. Try putting the remarks in the context of the topic I was addressing. As I am an American it's natural for me to frame ideas from that perspective, just as it is natural for you to say, "Fuck you, you arrogant yankee prick," in the context of wherever it is that you come from.
May be redundant but I'd like to see some BENCHMARKS under Linux between the ATI 9700 - GF4 4600 and the ATI 9500 - GF4 4200. Wouldn't we all?
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
I've had the opposite experience since September when I replaced the GF4 Ti4600 I had (moved it to the wife's machine at home) with a 9700 Pro. I have found the drivers terrific so far, from the included version on the CD up to the current 3.0 DX9-compliant Catalysts. What's more, I've tested the card with more than 35 3D games in my library--closer to 40--and have yet to find one that wouldn't run, or either ran so poorly the game was unplayable. From my point of view it's simply the best 3D card I've ever owned--especially for 3D gaming.
Also, this is the second motherboard I've used the card with--the first was an MSI KT333 chipset board, my current board is a nVidia-based nForce2 chipset board manufactured by Chaintech, which supports AGP x8 and several other things. The card runs extremely well. I've not even been tempted to swap cards with the wife and go back to the nVidia Ti4600 product--no way...
I would strongly suggest that either you have some underlying system incompatiblity of which you are unaware which prohibits the card from working properly--or else you simply had the bad luck to pick up a defective card (in which case an RMA is order.) Your experience is certainly not representative of that of the reviewer of the article on which this thread is based, none of the other reviews of the product (and there have been dozens of them), or my direct personal experience. Think how you like but I thought you should know your experience is anything but typical.
I've always had nothing but bad experience with ATI's drivers, while I've had no problems with nVidia's. This might have changed recently, but due to my past experience, I'd probably hold out for the GeForce FX if I were going for a top-end card.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I purchased this video adapter 2 weeks ago, and while i did have one minor driver duke out between catalyst and detonator :), all was well. every game i own plays fantastically as well as some older legacy games which the GF 3's and later would chop up, such as Xwing Alliance. i do get minor shadow corruption out of "Mafia" but that game hasnt been very fun anyways so just as well. I must concur with the slashdotters who feel you have some other underlying hardware incompatibility and/or driver issue. Ive had bad experience with ATI products in the passed in relation to driver support and poor game functionality, and i can assure you, dear fellow gamer, that the Radeon 9700 pro is a different animal entirely... :)
Similarly, I laugh at how far away unix desktops are for beginners. As for games, well, I just know that it will be practically impossible for me (and I consider myself to be pretty unix-literate) to set up all the shit that will be required. It will probably involved being flamed in a 'help' forum for daring to ask such a non-1337 question.
What I'm saying is that different operating systems have different strengths. So long as windows provides a gaming environment which I feel is good value for money, I'll keep spending.
Which is that the 9700 performs significantly better than the GF4 when you crank up AnIso filtering and FSAA. Now personally, I love the way these look. My GF4 performs adiqutely with them, but on newer, more demanding games, I have to turn them off to keep a good frame rate. The 9700 is not so encumbered since it's a faster card and has a MUCH more efficient AnIso method.
Now personally I've had too many problems with ATi's drivers and too good an experience with nVidia's to switch (stability is more important than speed for me), but I can see reasons why someone would want a 9700. Also, it is preped to run DX9 games when they come out, which will happen.
Framebuffers are (finally) starting to use IEEE754/854 floats instead of ints. 4 Channels (RGBA) *32Bits/Flaot = 128 Bits.
These pictures show the difference between 32-bit and higher precision. Notice the lack of banding in the high precisions car images.
Floating Point Precision Color
Cheers
--
"Question Authority!"
"Says who?!"
- Anonymous
I've had 3 ati cards in my life, and 3 of them had drivers and software as stable as a tau lepton.
You know, I have felt the same way. I have had four myself. I had the original Mach32 with 2 megs of DRAM. I got that thing like ten years ago. Like 8 years ago, the Mach64 with 4 megs of VRAM was the schnitz. I had to get that bad boy. The thing lasted until 1998 when I got a rage pro with 8 megs of some ram. Never had a complaint with that card, it wasn't 3dfx, but it did the job and was noticably faster than my Mach64 from 1994.
Anyway, 2001 i decided to go ATI again, since I had always gotten ATI. Got the original Radeon with 32 megs of DDR ram. Drivers sucked, had to flash my BIOS like 3 times to get the card to work. The thing is, I didn't write off the company. I mean, I have only used ATI since I stopped using my original IBM 8514/A adapter, one of the very first SVGA video cards ever. In fact, the reason I originally got ATI was not only did they have the best drives all during the 90's, all there cards were 8514/A compatible. With early slackware distros, I ran x in that mode. ATI always had perfect OS/2 drivers, since 2.0 came out. That was the primary reason I always used them.
So, the point is its the youngins who are bitching about ATI. No company can be perfect forever, so cut them some slack. I plan on getting a 9700 Pro as soon as they drop a little more in price. I had some bad experience with the Radeon, but nearly 10 years of solid experience with ATI is more than enough to maintain my brand loyalty.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Another reason, us developers have to support older video cards -- look at what the market is using ...
Half Life Hardware Survey
I believe it is 2 years old. If anyone can confirm the year of the survey, please post a follow up.
Cheers