New Details on R600 emerging - ReScheduled to MAY Launch

[apoppin]

uh, you have no sense of humour re: *Nine inches*

*some* would find 12" a bit hard to fit

:Q

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: allies
5-10% isn't that much at all. Especially considering nvidias IQ is better than ATi's at the moment. If the 5-10% improvement also comes with equal to or better IQ, however, I might consider selling my GTX and picking up an R600.

Well it better have equal or better IQ or else ATI is screwed unless they sell for way cheaper than the equivalent NVidia cards.

 

[sodcha0s]

what i am waiting for is to see how they squeezed such *incredible bandwith* out of a single "512MB ring bus" --compared with 1900 series ...

well *how* they "did" it was to actually *make* the ring bus *512-BIT* with 1 gig of *memory.*

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: apoppin
uh, you have no sense of humour re: *Nine inches*

*some* would find 12" a bit hard to fit

:Q

I was just trying to point out to the OMG 12 inch people that OEMs require a product capable of withstanding shipping. For this reason those more responsible PC manufacturers have to provide bracing for the video card. Full length cards can be a good thing in that respect.


EDIT

And yes I have no sense of humor :shocked:

Now wait while I whip out my big 10 inch
.
.
.
record of a band that plays those blues

 

[apoppin]

it was in theInq article

The PCB is once again new and does not derive from above mentioned three models - but still inside the 9 inches of length (three different 9-inch versions, guys really like the number). ... ATI managed to get its models in 9-inch size, but we already wrote about that one.

tasteless, i know

you were being serious - and made a good point - in response to my whimsy

but you should also know me -- by now


===============

Originally posted by: sodcha0s

what i am waiting for is to see how they squeezed such *incredible bandwith* out of a single "512MB ring bus" --compared with 1900 series ...

well *how* they "did" it was to actually *make* the ring bus *512-BIT* with 1 gig of *memory.*

and imo - that is pretty *damned impressive* - compared with the XTX's *512-bit external ring bus* and 1/2 the vRAM ... and even nvidia's unusual 384 bit bus. ... actually 153.6 GB/s [is] dwarfing 8800GTX and its 86.4 GB/s ...
--if these figures are to be believed
:Q

you make 150GB/s with a 512Bit bus sound so *simple*

EDIT: oh .... i see you picked on my *typo* ... thanks, i guess
fixed, i hope

 

[Schmeh]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I saw on G4 that Crysis will indeed be released on the XBOX 360, so there goes the only reason I was considering a DX10 video card.

Unfortunately this isn't true. According to Cevat Yerli, the CEO of Crytek, there are no plans for Crysis on any of the consoles at this point.

?We hope we aren't disappointing anyone, but contrary to any rumours that may be in circulation, neither Crytek nor any third parties are currently engaged in developing Crysis for console platforms. Our company's sole focus at this time is to complete Crysis for PC as well and as quickly as possible, so we can release it in a timely fashion to all who have shown such a strong interest in playing our game, while insuring we meet the high quality of game play they have come to expect.

While we are gratified by the level of interest shown in Crysis by console owners and fans, and are of course interested in next generation consoles for potential future developments, it is the company's policy not to discuss future plans before the fact.

We hope that clarifies the issue and thanks to all for your interest.

Thank you,
Cevat Yerli
CEO, Crytek GmbH?

Xbox360 Clarification

 

[apoppin]

you don't need a DX10 card to play crysis

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
153.6 GB/s [is] dwarfing 8800GTX and its 86.4 GB/s ...

However, we have yet to see how exactly that bandwidth will be used. Correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth by itseld doesn't mean much unless there is a Core able to fully utlize it??

That 77% bandwidth advantage obviously won't translate directly to a 77% performance advantage(If ATI managed that I would sell my GTS instantly and get the equivalent ATI card).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: apoppin
153.6 GB/s [is] dwarfing 8800GTX and its 86.4 GB/s ...

However, we have yet to see how exactly that bandwidth will be used. Correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth by itseld doesn't mean much unless there is a Core able to fully utlize it??

That 77% bandwidth advantage obviously won't translate directly to a 77% performance advantage(If ATI managed that I would sell my GTS instantly and get the equivalent ATI card).

you are correct ... they only mention +10%

that was not what i was referring to ... i *wondered* how the heck do they get so much bandwith with a single 512-bit external ring bus -- compared with the x1900xtx ... only twice the vRAM doesn't explain it ...

isn't 150GB/s an awful lot of data across that *small* of a bus?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Its not rocket science. Theyre using 512bit memory interface GDDR4 clocked at 2.4ghz.
512/8 * 2400 = 153Gb/s

And its not called a external "ring" bus. Its either called memory interface or memory bus.

You are misunderstanding it with the ring bus technology used in ATi's memory controller inside the R5x0. The ring bus technology (used in the R5x0) is literally two 256bit ring buses running at the same speed as the DRAM around the memory controller. They also travel in the opposite direction to reduce latency. By placing the memory bus around the edges of the chip wire density around the controller is decreased, this can result in a higher clock speeds. The ring bus technlogy is simply a design came up by ATi to make things efficent/flexible in the memory department.

So the R520/580 has 4 ring stops. But i would imagine that since the R600 has a 512bit memory interface it might have 2x512bit ring bus therefore resulting in having a 1024bit internal ring bus. (the R520/R580 had 512bit internal ring bus). Its abit tricky what to say because it doesnt look as simple as just adding more "xxx bits" to my knowledge. But Im 100% sure that ATi has carried on using the advanced memory controller with the ring bus technology integrated into the R600.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Its not rocket science. Theyre using 512bit memory interface GDDR4 clocked at 2.4ghz.
512/8 * 2400 = 153Gb/s

And its not called a external "ring" bus. Its either called memory interface or memory bus.

You are misunderstanding it with the ring bus technology used in ATi's memory controller inside the R5x0. The ring bus technology (used in the R5x0) is literally two 256bit ring buses running at the same speed as the DRAM around the memory controller. They also travel in the opposite direction to reduce latency. By placing the memory bus around the edges of the chip wire density around the controller is decreased, this can result in a higher clock speeds. The ring bus technlogy is simply a design came up by ATi to make things efficent/flexible in the memory department.

So the R520/580 has 4 ring stops. But i would imagine that since the R600 has a 512bit memory interface it might have 2x512bit ring bus therefore resulting in having a 1024bit internal ring bus. (the R520/R580 had 512bit internal ring bus). Its abit tricky what to say because it doesnt look as simple as just adding more "xxx bits" to my knowledge. But Im 100% sure that ATi has carried on using the advanced memory controller with the ring bus technology integrated into the R600.

actually it's pretty close to rocket science

you're right ... it would just be an 'external bus'
--1GB vRAM connected to the GPU via 512-bit external bus or memory bus ... i mixed up the infernal 'ring' and managed to confuse myself ... it's been awhile since i poured over the articles at AT and Beyond3d

but yep, it does appear it could be 2x512bit ring bus .... i guess ... logically ... i better stop speculating

thanks for clarifying

 

[zoozilla]

Wow......I'm gonna need a new computer.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: gclg2000
sweet, 2 companies making superb products...but no cool games to play them on..

Originally posted by: Xcobra
great, all we need is games!!!

Best posts in this thread.

I'm still running a Pent D 930, 2GB, 7900 GT box, and I'm not buying a damn thing until we see some more games.

 

[imported_cinder]

Still no release date yet...Or did I miss it in another post?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: gclg2000
sweet, 2 companies making superb products...but no cool games to play them on..

Originally posted by: Xcobra
great, all we need is games!!!

Best posts in this thread.

I'm still running a Pent D 930, 2GB, 7900 GT box, and I'm not buying a damn thing until we see some more games.

then you missed mine ... here's an encore

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: gclg2000
sweet, 2 companies making superb products...but no cool games to play them on..

how about some good news?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37071

Company of Heroes goes DirectX 10

End of March

By Fuad Abazovic: Friday 19 January 2007, 12:24
GOLLY, THERE might be a game that will have DirectX 10 support, coming in late Q1 2007.

If all goes well Company of Heroes should get the DirectX 10 patch by the end of March 2007. It might be the first commercial and available game to use the DirectX 10 rendering and the benefits of the DirectX 10 hardware.

DirectX 10 patch will make the game look better as some eye munchies are possible with Direct X 10 only. The patch will make the rendering faster and the game should run quicker too. Overall you might not see the benefits in Frames per second as the new patch will do more then the DirectX 9 version of the game. The performance should level up but the game will look better.

We will keep our fingers crossed for late March patch release.

 

[ronnn]

They better make vista work nice for me with a pile of new dx10 games that are fun to play. Or I ain't upgrading. :beer:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: gclg2000
sweet, 2 companies making superb products...but no cool games to play them on..

Originally posted by: Xcobra
great, all we need is games!!!

Best posts in this thread.

I'm still running a Pent D 930, 2GB, 7900 GT box, and I'm not buying a damn thing until we see some more games.

then you missed mine ... here's an encore

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: gclg2000
sweet, 2 companies making superb products...but no cool games to play them on..

how about some good news?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37071

Company of Heroes goes DirectX 10

End of March

By Fuad Abazovic: Friday 19 January 2007, 12:24
GOLLY, THERE might be a game that will have DirectX 10 support, coming in late Q1 2007.

If all goes well Company of Heroes should get the DirectX 10 patch by the end of March 2007. It might be the first commercial and available game to use the DirectX 10 rendering and the benefits of the DirectX 10 hardware.

DirectX 10 patch will make the game look better as some eye munchies are possible with Direct X 10 only. The patch will make the rendering faster and the game should run quicker too. Overall you might not see the benefits in Frames per second as the new patch will do more then the DirectX 9 version of the game. The performance should level up but the game will look better.

We will keep our fingers crossed for late March patch release.

Meh, I only play shooters.

 

[imported_Finny]

Then you, sir, are missing out on one of the greatest PC gaming experiences to date. CoH is an incredible game, and now I need an 8800GTS (Or X2800XL) to see it in it's DX10 glory! Wah!

 

[Zebo]

Can't wait...been waiting for the 8800GTX to come down in price...ATM they don't have to with no competition. I just can't bring myself to spend $600 on a graphics card...but then I said the same thing about $400 for 7800GTX and eventually bought it. Hopefullly I won't have to make that choice again.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Finny
Then you, sir, are missing out on one of the greatest PC gaming experiences to date. CoH is an incredible game, and now I need an 8800GTS (Or X2800XL) to see it in it's DX10 glory! Wah!

if its really so great then its cuz of the gameplay. that won't improve with better graphics.

 

[apoppin]

you guys are so hard to satisfy

r600 is leaked and finally there is *competition* coming


you ask for a dx10 *game*

you get one ... a *good* one, CoH ... in March ... and then you STILL complain it's NOT about the GFX or it's not your "type" of game. :Q


i give up on you guys

 

[bamacre]

Pffft, even if I liked games other than just shooters, I wouldn't pay $500 to upgrade my video card to play one game.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Pffft, even if I liked games other than just shooters, I wouldn't pay $500 to upgrade my video card to play one game.

i certainly *hope* no one else is buying 8800 or r600 for *one* game

well, unless they *love* CoH

i see most savvy upgraders going for the DX9 performance first --with perhaps an eye out for DX10 performance later ...

by the time quality *full dx10 games* are released, both the 8800 and r600 will be barely hanging onto the midrange
:Q

 

[josh6079]

R600 sounds nice.

But, I doubt it could best two GTS's and I bet the price will be pretty close to the same.

Of course, how appealing is two G80's with SLI AA still broken?

 

[Jodiuh]

Originally posted by: Finny
...one of the greatest PC gaming experiences to date. CoH is an incredible game...

Damnit, I need to get on this. I'm yet another "shooter boy," but recall some very fun times w/ Command and Conquer Red Alert. The demo's installed, been through two of the tutorials, but got a bit bored (FPS patience level)...probably should jump into the game, hehe.

Originally posted by: apoppin
i certainly *hope* no one else is buying 8800 or r600 for *one* game

I did. Oblivion. But I've def enjoyed the dramatic increase in IQ for GTR2, HL2, Dark Messiah, and BF2142. I hear CoH runs nicely too.