ATI Releases More "R600" Details

[swtethan]

geez what is going on, oh well 10240 marks 3dmark06

 

[Matt2]

Yeah, RussianSensation failed to realize that the xbit labs review that showed the GTX scoring well below 10k and the GTS below 9K was only using an FX-60 at stock.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: newb54

Originally posted by: Ibiza
Doubt whether current 8800GTX owners should trade their card in for R600, to be honest.

And wheres the damn games to play with your new hardware anyway?? Consoles are the future IMHO. Piracy has all but killed PC gaming.

Are you on drugs?

Are you? I have to agree with him. after selling my xbox 360 and buying a 8800GTS for some of the newer games im very very disappointed. Thinking of picking up another 360.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: newb54

Originally posted by: Ibiza
Doubt whether current 8800GTX owners should trade their card in for R600, to be honest.

And wheres the damn games to play with your new hardware anyway?? Consoles are the future IMHO. Piracy has all but killed PC gaming.

Are you on drugs?

Are you? I have to agree with him. after selling my xbox 360 and buying a 8800GTS for some of the newer games im very very disappointed. Thinking of picking up another 360.

360 FTW! Havent bought a PC game in MONTHS and I havent missed a beat in the gaming arena.

 

[Cookie Monster]

They said 320 stream processors, probably a marketing thing against nVIDIA.

From what i can tell, R600 is defitnately a unified architecture, but the question is... is that does it use scalar shaders (like G80) or vec4 shaders (1 vec4 = 4 scalar operations however not taking the account of % ultilisation/efficency etc) or a combination of both (vec4+scalar, or vec3 +scalar etc etc).

Scalar shaders could be true, and the fact that the 320 scalar ALUs could be divided into either 64 5D ALUs (i think its this IMO) or 80 4D ALU i.e where R600 has 64 5D ALUs that are able to perform 5 scalar operations therefore theorectically able to produce 320 scalar operations in total.

The thing is that although G80 has 128 only, its clocked at 1350mhz while the current rumours point to R600 being clocked somewhere between 700~850 across the GPU. Also if the R600 is a scalar design, efficency might be similiar from both architectures.

Cant wait for the benchmarks.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think R600 is mostly like 5% faster than the gtx.... But it runs cooler and more silent than the x19xx series... and it will be probably cheaper than the gtx.... thats what the guy from the UK that had recieved one was saying.... although he couldnt give exact numbers on benchmarks... coz of NDA. Also he said he had a 512mb r600 card.... so maybe thats what is gonna be released for this round... (XT), while the (XTX with 1 gig ) maybe later or who knows... He was not so excited about the benchamrk results thoe... he said better but not that greater than the gtx... too lazy to find the link... but there was also a thread here on AT about that story

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
They said 320 stream processors, probably a marketing thing against nVIDIA.

From what i can tell, R600 is defitnately a unified architecture, but the question is... is that does it use scalar shaders (like G80) or vec4 shaders (1 vec4 = 4 scalar operations however not taking the account of % ultilisation/efficency etc) or a combination of both (vec4+scalar, or vec3 +scalar etc etc).

Scalar shaders could be true, and the fact that the 320 scalar ALUs could be divided into either 64 5D ALUs (i think its this IMO) or 80 4D ALU i.e where R600 has 64 5D ALUs that are able to perform 5 scalar operations therefore theorectically able to produce 320 scalar operations in total.

The thing is that although G80 has 128 only, its clocked at 1350mhz while the current rumours point to R600 being clocked somewhere between 700~850 across the GPU. Also if the R600 is a scalar design, efficency might be similiar from both architectures.

Cant wait for the benchmarks.

Bah- beat me to it. Although much more detailed and knowledgeable than what I would have posted.....

 

[MichaelD]

I can't wait for an official, real, detailed review...it's supposed to be out in May, now, right?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
I can't wait for an official, real, detailed review...it's supposed to be out in May, now, right?

it was scheduled for March

it was supposed to be out in November

who really knows


maybe AMD wants to add some more "stuff" to it
:Q

all that content protected goodies, physics processor ...
it'll be the Swiss Army GPU ... and be able to heat your lunch also ... if the power usage is right

i *guess* it is getting close ...

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: AnotherGuy
I think R600 is mostly like 5% faster than the gtx.... But it runs cooler and more silent than the x19xx series... and it will be probably cheaper than the gtx.... thats what the guy from the UK that had recieved one was saying.... although he couldnt give exact numbers on benchmarks... coz of NDA. Also he said he had a 512mb r600 card.... so maybe thats what is gonna be released for this round... (XT), while the (XTX with 1 gig ) maybe later or who knows... He was not so excited about the benchamrk results thoe... he said better but not that greater than the gtx... too lazy to find the link... but there was also a thread here on AT about that story

Even if the R600 blew away the GTX I doubt he would say it until Overclockers.co.uk had shifted their GTX stock lol

I really want to see a proper review before I decide between GTX or R600 but right now the R600 XT which Overclockers has is beating the GTX. I wonder how fast the R600 XTX version will be?

If the R600 XT is priced at GTS level then who is going to purchase the GTS when the R600 XT is offering GTX performance?

 

[GTaudiophile]

320 Stream Procs and 512-bit and all this HD stuff.

nVidia is fvcked!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
320 Stream Procs and 512-bit and all this HD stuff.

nVidia is fvcked!

let's hope so - the days of the 9700 Pro lighting a fire under nVidia's ass are long gone and it has been nVidia doing all the ass-burning ever since...it's about time we saw results with some decisive competition. It certainly paid off in the CPU side of things.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
320 Stream Procs and 512-bit and all this HD stuff.

nVidia is fvcked!

let's hope so - the days of the 9700 Pro lighting a fire under nVidia's ass are long gone and it has been nVidia doing all the ass-burning ever since...it's about time we saw results with some decisive competition. It certainly paid off in the CPU side of things.

How has nVidia been doing all the "ass burning"? X1900XTX and X1950 were both better than the 7900 series. The only trump card nVidia had was to slap together two mobile 7900s to best a single X1950XTX and even then it wasn't by much.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
320 Stream Procs and 512-bit and all this HD stuff.

nVidia is fvcked!

let's hope so - the days of the 9700 Pro lighting a fire under nVidia's ass are long gone and it has been nVidia doing all the ass-burning ever since...it's about time we saw results with some decisive competition. It certainly paid off in the CPU side of things.

How has nVidia been doing all the "ass burning"? X1900XTX and X1950 were both better than the 7900 series. The only trump card nVidia had was to slap together two mobile 7900s to best a single X1950XTX and even then it wasn't by much.

Agreed. Since the 9700 PRO, I would say things have been dead even. And ATI never really quite had their own "NV30" fiasco.

The 9700 PRO is reborn in R600 I believe. It will be a monster. And while I predict nVidia has something waiting in the wings, it will not be a new core.

 

[n7]

Based on what i've read from those under NDA, i don't think it's gonna be all that much better than the 8800s, which is why there is talk of lower prices.

I suppose time will tell though, but i'll reserve my excitement for when these damn cards actually can be bought, which seems like it's taking ages...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Yeah, RussianSensation failed to realize that the xbit labs review that showed the GTX scoring well below 10k and the GTS below 9K was only using an FX-60 at stock.

Good point Matt. But even if R600 gives 30-40% better performance in 3dMark06, unless it translates to real world performance of similar magnitude, what's the difference?

7950GT outscored X1950XT as far as I recall or at least is very close in 06, yet in games, it loses.

 

[nZone]

Old saying: You get for what you paid for.

If R600 is priced at $499; regardless of Mt. Everest specs; the performance is probably +-5% of the GTX. As the R600 specs are more than twice that of GTX; I don't see a company would do consumers good by selling cheaper at twice the performance of the competitor. If the performance is actually way faster than the GTX; they would take this advantage and sell at a higher price.

If nVidia set a bold statement by saying 8800Ultra will cost $999; this is for sure the performance will be twice that of R600.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: swtethan
geez what is going on, oh well 10240 marks 3dmark06

Even with my 6400 at 3.4GHz and my GTS at 650/1000(2000), I remember barely breaking 9000 in 3DMark06. wth?? Maybe IQ settings were forced in the CP...not sure...can't be bothered to run it again right now.

 

[apoppin]

*all speculation*

at this point

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nZone
Old saying: You get for what you paid for.

If R600 is priced at $499; regardless of Mt. Everest specs; the performance is probably +-5% of the GTX. As the R600 specs are more than twice that of GTX; I don't see a company would do consumers good by selling cheaper at twice the performance of the competitor. If the performance is actually way faster than the GTX; they would take this advantage and sell at a higher price.

If nVidia set a bold statement by saying 8800Ultra will cost $999; this is for sure the performance will be twice that of R600.

They also have to claw back some market share though so selling cheaper could achieve that.

Haha, and you think 8800 Ultra would be double the performance of R600 because of the $999 price tag?? It won't even double the performance of 8800GTX (considering it's been confirmed (at least that's what NVidia said but they could be lying) to be non dual-GPU) so that would be nearly impossible unless they cherry picked cores that could run at like 1200MHz core, which would be a sight indeed, but highly unlikely.

 

[renozi]

I know 3DMark scores don't matter much and it's on a different proc, but

"More R600 3DMark06 figures appear - 12K with the XT
Our last findings on how fast R600 cards perform in 3DMark06 caused a lot of buzz. Let's see how the following tidbit shapes up:
The VR-Zone has some numbers they couldn't keep for themselves regarding a Radeon X (sorry...), HD 2900 XT coupled with a Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (quad core) processor. They say with the latest 8.361-RC4 drivers they got around 12K with that R600XT card which is faster 2000 points higher than the scores from FX57.net. They price of this card will be 399USD which would be quite a bargain." -TechPowerup.com

 

[GTaudiophile]

At $399...wow!

The only thing stopping me is VISTA! FVCK!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
At $399...wow!

The only thing stopping me is VISTA! FVCK!

what if they postpone it again?
:Q

 

[nZone]

Why is Vista stopping you? If you are willing to buy a new video card with new driver; isn't your statement irrelevant?

 

[chizow]

Good news is that the cards are actually in reviewers hands. NDA should be lifted in 2 weeks or so or once the tech demo takes place (22nd I believe). Availability a few weeks after that. Either way it'll be nice to have some options again and benchmarks that don't involve 25-way G80 shoot-outs.