New rumor about ATI Southern Islands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursindonesia

LOL, Bart will be a great x7xx chip if 32 nm process wasn't canned, but :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: happens, and there's just so much you can do on the same process. Increasing absolute performance while increasing performance/$, performance/die area, and performance/watt aka overall efficiency at the same time, increasing product value for costumer somewhat (a US$ 229 HD 6870 Bart that's faster than 299 US$ HD 5850 of today is indeed giving more value for costumers, right ?) while making good progress for the company's bottomline altogether, all achieved using the same TSMC's troubled 40 nm process, and you guys already shooting so much flak to AMD ?? :rofl:

---

No way will it be 229 for a 6870. The cheapest x870 series was the $219(it's price had to drop after) 3870 which is 50 percent smaller and was facing much stiffer competition. and AMD/ATi had completely lost the momentum.

If rumors are true, 68xx is rather close to 270mm in size and it will be priced closer to 300 than 200 because of that. In addition, there is no real competition for it(a full gf104 will probably be pretty close or faster but it is not a confirmed product at this point) AMD knows that it has the momentum right now. Nv has only been able to pick up 15% market share since fermi's introduction. AMD is entirely going to try to take advantage of this situation. The stigma associated with the gtx 470 heat and power use has really stopped it from picking up marketshare, even though its a better value than the 5870 and 5850. AMD is not going to be generous to the consumer this generation and if it renaming is true, that is proof of that. The efficiency AMD seems to be stressing this part generation is power and chip size, not pricing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamtan2

lots of smoke being blown here based on RUMORS

RUMORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

the only thing we KNOW IMO is that naming something 6870 when it is worse than 5870 is a STUPID IDEA. so why expect them to do it.

---

Totally agree :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

No way will it be 229 for a 6870. The cheapest x870 series was the $219(it's price had to drop after) 3870 which is 50 percent smaller and was facing much stiffer competition. and AMD/ATi had completely lost the momentum.

If rumors are true, 68xx is rather close to 270mm in size and it will be priced closer to 300 than 200 because of that.

---

So if RV670 was 192mm2 and Barts is ~270mm2... where does the 50% smaller come into play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

The efficiency AMD seems to be stressing this part generation is power and chip size, not pricing.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

So if RV670 was 192mm2 and Barts is ~270mm2... where does the 50% smaller come into play?


Really?

---

I meant 50 percent larger or close to it, which is substantially bigger. But either way the chip is larger. You can't deny why AMD is renaming which I have seen from your post, agree why they are doing. Its all to justify a higher price. It actually one of the reason why I am taking this rumor rather seriously. When someone very pro AMD/ATI is believing this rumor, it is likely true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

I meant 50 percent larger or close to it, which is substantially bigger. But either way the chip is larger. You can't deny why AMD is renaming which I have seen from your post, agree why they are doing. Its all to justify a higher price. It actually one of the reason why I am taking this rumor rather seriously. When someone very pro AMD/ATI is believing this rumor, it is likely true.

---

Well... I expect people to get numbers right.

I never said it had anything to do with pricing... I am actually somewhat optimistic about Barts pricing, I was merely confirming the rumor was indeed true a few weeks ago, no more/no less.

Edit- To try and clarify, I am more inclined to think this is due to the product placement/naming of their entire lineup than a slightly higher margin to pocket mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

I meant 50 percent larger or close to it. Which is substantially bigger. But you can tell the chip is alot larger.

---

If Barts is 270mm² it has to have at least 1280 shaders. Juniper is what, 150? With 800... If AMD has gone 4-way on this architecture as most seem to believe and that this move would increase their shader density even further it would be practically impossible for a chip to be that size without a quite big increase in shaders (compared to Juniper) or just a slight decrease compared to Cypress.

If Barts XT has 1280 shaders we could expect it to perform in line with 5850 or better. This because of increased shader efficiency, higher clocks and higher memory bandwidth.

Dave Baumann has several times in the Beyond3d-thread stated that the 5800-series is the anomaly regarding price. This leads me to believe Barts is truly 6800-series, will be cheaper than current x8xx cards, will probably be a good purchase. I don't think AMD wants to get hundreds of reviews saying they've got worse performance/$ than their last generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

I meant 50 percent larger or close to it, which is substantially bigger. But either way the chip is larger. You can't deny why AMD is renaming which I have seen from your post, agree why they are doing. Its all to justify a higher price. It actually one of the reason why I am taking this rumor rather seriously. When someone very pro AMD/ATI is believing this rumor, it is likely true.

---

tajoh111: It seems obvious to me that you have a bias against AMD in general... I'm actually kind of suprised you have an ATI VC in your rig...

We only have a week or so to go before the release...
If the rebranding thing is accurate, I agree with you.
Changing the Model#'s we're all used to is a little awkward, but they're changing the brand from ATI to AMD as well, so it really might not be that far out of line... :p:

Pricing is going to be the key thing...
If I can pick up a 6850 (6770) for ~ $200, and it performs as well as a 5850 while using less power I'll be a happy camper. :up:

I need a new VC anyway, and I have the cash on hand so as soon as a 6xxx pops up for sale I'll order one and let ya know how it does... :yepp:

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

If Barts is 270mm² it has to have at least 1280 shaders. Juniper is what, 150? With 800... If AMD has gone 4-way on this architecture as most seem to believe and that this move would increase their shader density even further

---

It's actually the exact opposite. The more narrow the shader the lower the density as there are more duplicated structures taking up space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

tajoh111: It seems obvious to me that you have a bias against AMD in general... I'm actually kind of suprised you have an ATI VC in your rig...

We only have a week or so to go before the release...
If the rebranding thing is accurate, I agree with you.
Changing the Model#'s we're all used to is a little awkward, but they're changing the brand from ATI to AMD as well, so it really might not be that far out of line... :p:

Pricing is going to be the key thing...
If I can pick up a 6850 (6770) for ~ $200, and it performs as well as a 5850 while using less power I'll be a happy camper. :up:

I need a new VC anyway, and I have the cash on hand so as soon as a 6xxx pops up for sale I'll order one and let ya know how it does... :yepp:

Dave

---

No real bias. I might even buy a 6990 if they can keep the price around 650. I even posted pics a while back that I owned both those cards. I have been disappointed in the cards from both company this generation and have not upgraded. I am not letting this name branding slide because no one did when NV did it and alot of people are posting a stance they won't buy NV card because of the renaming antics, which is ridiculous.

The change from AMD to ATI does not justify the name series change because most people are not going to notice that. People are not going base its performance based on naming because they have been the same company for a while. The fact that some people are giving them a ticket out is ridiculous when NV got so much heat for it(which shows tremendous bias).

AMD/ATI started as a pretty nice company, but they have really took some turn for worse for their goodwill lately. Bad graphs, bad commercials and this new naming scheme is not doing favors for their credibility.

This might not get people who have 5xxx series people to upgrade(since it was so recent), but people who held back on the 5870 generation and still have 4xxx might upgrade thinking they are getting a better card than they really are. That is something substantially faster than a 5870 for a much lower price, which honestly would be something that sounds appetizing if it were the case; I think AMD is trying to do this partially as well as increase the margins for their cards. The reality if the renaming is true is that your getting something with very similar speed to a 5850 for just a tiny bit cheaper than its original MSRP. There are alot of rumors that suggest barts xt performs around this level.

What scares me this generation is pricing. The 6970 or single cayman has to be pricier than the last generation(the name suggest so and barts is obviously not going to be priced like older x7xx series) cypress which was already 400 dollars. I can easily see cayman being 500 dollars with no real competition and because AMD has the momentum right now(the stronger brand). Since cayman is bigger and the 5970 was already 700 dollars. Are we going to start seeing 800+ dollar cards. That really scares me is fermi started out so weak. Unless their is a miracle turn around(like the 4870) I can see getting raped by AMD.

I am just getting scared to see a possible monopoly like situation, which could happen, with certain people like charlie wanting to happen and this is spreading to the fanboys which don't realize the longterm consequences. I am not happy when either companies fail because it decreases competition and sometimes forces a company to sell below cost which I dislike because it really does no longterm good. FFS, what is wrong with these people. I didn't like when NV got so strong and I don't like AMD getting so strong.

so, 6850/6870 bart editions for half the price as current 5850/5870 generation but similar performance?
not shabby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

No real bias. I might even buy a 6990 if they can keep the price around 650. I even posted pics a while back that I owned both those cards. I have been disappointed in the cards from both company this generation and have not upgraded. I am not letting this name branding slide because no one did when NV did it and alot of people are posting a stance they won't buy NV card because of the renaming antics, which is ridiculous.

The change from AMD to ATI does not justify the name series change because most people are not going to notice that. People are not going base its performance based on naming because they have been the same company for a while. The fact that some people are giving them a ticket out is ridiculous when NV got so much heat for it(which shows tremendous bias).

AMD/ATI started as a pretty nice company, but they have really took some turn for worse for their goodwill lately. Bad graphs, bad commercials and this new naming scheme is not doing favors for their credibility.

This might not get people who have 5xxx series people to upgrade(since it was so recent), but people who held back on the 5870 generation and still have 4xxx might upgrade thinking they are getting a better card than they really are. That is something substantially faster than a 5870 for a much lower price, which honestly would be something that sounds appetizing if it were the case; I think AMD is trying to do this partially as well as increase the margins for their cards. The reality if the renaming is true is that your getting something with very similar speed to a 5850 for just a tiny bit cheaper than its original MSRP. There are alot of rumors that suggest barts xt performs around this level.

What scares me this generation is pricing. The 6970 or single cayman has to be pricier than the last generation(the name suggest so and barts is obviously not going to be priced like older x7xx series) cypress which was already 400 dollars. I can easily see cayman being 500 dollars with no real competition and because AMD has the momentum right now(the stronger brand). Since cayman is bigger and the 5970 was already 700 dollars. Are we going to start seeing 800+ dollar cards. That really scares me is fermi started out so weak. Unless their is a miracle turn around(like the 4870) I can see getting raped by AMD.

I am just getting scared to see a possible monopoly like situation, which could happen, with certain people like charlie wanting to happen and this is spreading to the fanboys which don't realize the longterm consequences. I am not happy when either companies fail because it decreases competition and sometimes forces a company to sell below cost which I dislike because it really does no longterm good. FFS, what is wrong with these people. I didn't like when NV got so strong and I don't like AMD getting so strong.

---

A lot of what you're saying is in line with my views but some are not:

-Barts at x7xx price point is really asking a lot IMO, the chip is 270mm² and you want it competing price wise with a 170mm² chip? It's not reasonable. More reasonable would be to see Barts priced as the 4850/4870/4890.

-Nvidia is finally stepping up to the plate and we will probably see somewhat more competition from them which hopefully will lead to price cuts.

-TSMC is increasing capacity which will give AMD a chance to produce as many cards they can sell, not limited by production. This will also lead to lower prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

-Barts at x7xx price point is really asking a lot IMO, the chip is 270mm² and you want it competing price wise with a 170mm² chip? It's not reasonable. More reasonable would be to see Barts priced as the 4850/4870/4890.

---

Wait a minute, where did you get the info that the chip would be 270 mm^2? 270 mm^2 means that Cayman would be ridiculously big. Highly unlikely.

Pricing differs from generation to generation. Chip size doesn't matter to us consumers when it comes to pricing; it's all about the competition. So it's not really asking a lot. I agree pretty much with all of tajoh111 's post. Having Barts be named as the 6800 series would be pretty disappointing as we are already used to seeing the performance leaps each generation gives. What gives, AMD?

All you can hope for is that the rumours are untrue. I doubt they are false though, seeing as how many of these rumours has cropped up, except for the first Cayman GPU-Z shot which still implied Cayman as the 6800 series. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindbox

Wait a minute, where did you get the info that the chip would be 270 mm^2? 270 mm^2 means that Cayman would be ridiculously big. Highly unlikely.

Pricing differs from generation to generation. Chip size doesn't matter to us consumers when it comes to pricing; it's all about the competition. So it's not really asking a lot. I agree pretty much with all of tajoh111 's post. Having Barts be named as the 6800 series would be pretty disappointing as we are already used to seeing the performance leaps each generation gives. What gives, AMD?

All you can hope for is that the rumours are untrue. I doubt they are false though, seeing as how many of these rumours has cropped up, except for the first Cayman GPU-Z shot which still implied Cayman as the 6800 series. :rolleyes:

---

I got it from tajoh111 on the other page.

It would make Cayman somewhere around 400mm² (given 1920 SPs) which is in line with what most are expecting (a bit bigger than Cypress).

Yes and no. Of course size will impact price, I don't think they'd want to sell at a loss (it's impossible in the long term at least). But at the same time, the competition is what drives prices down. I agree with it being quite stupid to name Barts 6800 as the performance isn't there. But at the same time I understand the argument that x8xx isn't supposed to be a 400 dollar card which means it has to be smaller to be profitable (a relative "has to be").

If 6870 (Barts XT) comes with a good price tag (<5850, ~5830 price) and ~5870 performance I wouldn't be too upset with the naming. But if they're asking for more than 5850 price I would bash them as I did Nvidia. Cayman for ~5870 price and 5970 performance wouldn't be that bad either.

Sure changing the way amd chooses the model number is gonna be confusing and frankly kinda misleading but why is everyone getting so bent out of shape this is an entirely new card. Nvidia re-branded the 8800gt i believe like 3 times to 3 or 4 different models that is much much worse imo. Anyway im waiting for reviews im gonna be needed a new card some time soon time to upgrade from my 8800gts, its lasted me a really long time :P

maybe the renaming has to do with all the new fusion product that amd is introducing in 2011 ?????

I tend to agree with the statement you just made snowman, as well as the statement made by your teddy bear, I believe they're both correct, valid and accurate, as well as farkin cute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakefalcons

Sure changing the way amd chooses the model number is gonna be confusing and frankly kinda misleading but why is everyone getting so bent out of shape this is an entirely new card. Nvidia re-branded the 8800gt i believe like 3 times to 3 or 4 different models that is much much worse imo. Anyway im waiting for reviews im gonna be needed a new card some time soon time to upgrade from my 8800gts, its lasted me a really long time :P

---

I agree. I would rather they not have played with the numbers, but to compare with what nvidia did is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakefalcons

Nvidia re-branded the 8800gt i believe like 3 times to 3 or 4 different models that is much much worse imo.

---

8800GTS 512MB was still a little bit slower than 9800GTX, 9800GTX+ was even faster and even the GTS 250 had something new, I just can't remember, what exactly.

So, yeah, in three times, it would still be considered as upgrade, even if it was a minor one.

But in AMD's case, you might actually end up with a slower card, when "upgrading" from HD 5870 to HD 6870.

That is obviously worse.

The reason to rename them might have something to do with ATI brand going away and AMD needing more space to accommodate more cards, but that doesn't change the fact, that it might hurt many people.
They're entitled to change the designation of certain cards, but at least make an announcement or something.

Still, I can't shake this weird feeling. There were many options and this is suspiciously the dumbest one, they could come up with, yet they went with it.

btw. some more news from OBR

Quote:

---

HD 6850 price - $229-249
HD 6870 price - $299-329

(that's my estimate from the currency conversion)

---

He's also asking people if they are really sure, that the SP is now 4D instead of 5D, because you might end up disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

So, yeah, in three times, it would still be considered as upgrade, even if it was a minor one.

But in AMD's case, you might actually end up with a slower card, when "upgrading" from HD 5870 to HD 6870.

That is obviously worse.

---

I believe he wasn't speaking of the 8800 gts and 9800 gtx chips.
Rather the 8800GT, 9800GT and the GTS240, in which case, you would not be upgrading at all, in the slightest.

Oh, the 8800gtx laptop chip became a 9800gt mobile chip.

In AMD's case, you would not end up with a slower card because if the naming changes take place, the 6870 would not be the successor to the 5870.
The cayman xt 69xx would be the successor.

With a straight face, you expect Cayman to be slower than the 5870?

Indeed.

Edit: I wouldn't trust OBR, given his history of lying and nda baiting.

Jimmyz delivered. Some still remember the day lol

This is a new product, how in the hell can it be "renamed" ,its new chip with new design,not same chip or same chip with a shrink.
On the other hand this:

Quote:

---

But in AMD's case, you might actually end up with a slower card, when "upgrading" from HD 5870 to HD 6870.

---

That IS obviously wrong product placement,we dont have all the data tho, if 6870 ends up slower than 5870 and be priced similarly, than it will be something to b*tch about for sure tho.
If however amd is changing theyre product line to accomodate new segments (fusion maybe) and price will be inline of what it should be.Than really ,thats understandable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

I believe he wasn't speaking of the 8800 gts and 9800 gtx chips.
Rather the 8800GT, 9800GT and the GTS240, in which case, you would not be upgrading at all, in the slightest..

---

GTS 240 was OEM only though, so a regular person would not be able to upgrade to it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Oh, the 8800gtx laptop chip became a 9800gt mobile chip.

---

That's nothing unusual though, both companies have quite different naming scheme in the notebook segment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

In AMD's case, you would not end up with a slower card because if the naming changes take place, the 6870 would not be the successor to the 5870.
The cayman xt 69xx would be the successor.

---

Yes, you would.
How should a regular person know that, after three generations, where HD 5870 was faster than HD 4870 and that was faster than 3870?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

GTS 240 was OEM only though, so a regular person would not be able to upgrade to it at all.

That's nothing unusual though, both companies have quite different naming scheme in the notebook segment.

Yes, you would.
How should a regular person know that, after three generations, where HD 5870 was faster than HD 4870 and that was faster than 3870?

---

A "regular person" probably buys a 7600gt from maplins for £80 and does no research.
Normal people walk into shops and buy what they are told is best.

The only people interested in the naming shift is flamebaters and pedants.
The regular computer users with no strange emotional attachment will see the 6970 being the replacement to the 5870 and get over it.

Every main product line in the 5 series will have a considerably faster replacement.

Whilst nvidia's renames were inline upgrades, this isn't. It's a shift.

Old 5970 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6990
Old 5870 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6970
Old 5850 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6950
Old 5770 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6870
Old 5750 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6850

All have faster parts succeding them, different names and elevated prices but ALL faster.

The 8800gt -> 9800gt brought no faster part for the midrange to succeed it.
What you saw was what you got, the same card in the same category as the previous gen.

There was no naming shift to lower the actual real world performance position of the 800 card. ATI do have an actual replacement.

Names change to alter perceived positions of performance, part upgrades are sequential and bring full performance upgrades across the board.

Thank you for saying Cayman will be slower than the 5870, someone is bound to dig that up in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Thank you for saying Cayman will be slower than the 5870, someone is bound to dig that up in the future.

---

:rolleyes:

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7...bartsfixed.png

Consider the naming change because they need to fill in the gaps from the 5xxx series and not because they are trying to deceive anyone.

Until the full product line is disclosed getting your panties all in a wad about the name will just make you look a like a nutjob...... :rofl:

DOes that insinuate that Barts is twice the die size are of juniper? WTF? oh wait its still a crapload smaller than GF104....... (sigh)

That is my guess (bolded text)...

All this talk about people ending up with a "slower" card because they are tricked by the number is bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:.

So your telling me when I go buy Washer and Dryer if I see a model number higher than what I currently own I am going to buy it without any research?

Come on :rolleyes:

Anyone who doesn't take some time to research any purchase in life doesn't have the right to complain if they get an inferior product.

Making excuses and arguments for stupid people is ridiculous and considering the tech experienced people in this forum anyone who brings it up should be ashamed :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

8800GTS 512MB was still a little bit slower than 9800GTX, 9800GTX+ was even faster and even the GTS 250 had something new, I just can't remember, what exactly.

So, yeah, in three times, it would still be considered as upgrade, even if it was a minor one.

But in AMD's case, you might actually end up with a slower card, when "upgrading" from HD 5870 to HD 6870.

That is obviously worse.

The reason to rename them might have something to do with ATI brand going away and AMD needing more space to accommodate more cards, but that doesn't change the fact, that it might hurt many people.
They're entitled to change the designation of certain cards, but at least make an announcement or something.

Still, I can't shake this weird feeling. There were many options and this is suspiciously the dumbest one, they could come up with, yet they went with it.

btw. some more news from OBR

He's also asking people if they are really sure, that the SP is now 4D instead of 5D, because you might end up disappointed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eagleclaw

So your telling me when I go buy Washer and Dryer if I see a model number higher than what I currently own I am going to buy it without any research?

---

I don't know and I don't care.
The fact of the matter is, they could have chosen any number or letter to differentiate from the standard, that they set three generations before, but they didn't.

So what? You don't care but post it. lol OK

Don't be short sighted and wait to find out why. Maybe new standard requires new numbers, I don't know and neither do you yet.

If they screwed with the numbers for no good reason I will be there ripping them to but not before the facts come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

I don't know and I don't care.
The fact of the matter is, they could have chosen any number or letter to differentiate from the standard, that they set three generations before, but they didn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

A "regular person" probably buys a 7600gt from maplins for £80 and does no research.
Normal people walk into shops and buy what they are told is best.

The only people interested in the naming shift is flamebaters and pedants.
The regular computer users with no strange emotional attachment will see the 6970 being the replacement to the 5870 and get over it.

Every main product line in the 5 series will have a considerably faster replacement.

Whilst nvidia's renames were inline upgrades, this isn't. It's a shift.

Old 5970 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6990
Old 5870 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6970
Old 5850 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6950
Old 5770 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6870
Old 5750 ---Replaced by New/Faster--> 6850

All have faster parts succeding them, different names and elevated prices but ALL faster.

The 8800gt -> 9800gt brought no faster part for the midrange to succeed it.
What you saw was what you got, the same card in the same category as the previous gen.

There was no naming shift to lower the actual real world performance position of the 800 card. ATI do have an actual replacement.

Names change to alter perceived positions of performance, part upgrades are sequential and bring full performance upgrades across the board.

Thank you for saying Cayman will be slower than the 5870, someone is bound to dig that up in the future.

---

Man, I can't believe your trying to put a positive spin on this renaming. NV gave an excuse which turned out to be somewhat true in the end for its renaming scheme, the board partners wanted it which I suspect is true, because if smaller companies like bfg have nothing to sell, they will go belly up, which sucks. It nonetheless the renaming still did suck.

Room for fusion products is a lame excuse because their current naming gives so much room for products, far more than NV, E.g 6x90, 6x30, 6x80, ,6x00, 64xx,65xx or even 6xx5. They have 4 digits to work with, that's plenty. Their are almost too many cards as it is. If they really wanted, they should have named, if they really wanted Bart XT as 6790, which would have been better.

They should have kept the 69xx series exclusive to their dual cards. This has nothing to do with fusion as their naming scheme is flexible enough that it can fit pretty much everything they could ever want and everything to do with pricing. AMD just wants fatter margins.

Whatever jowy, if your relating this renaming scheme to naming, your small minded. The bigger concern is it relates to pricing which is I think is everyone's concern, the 5870 was already 400 dollars with certain versions being 500. If they are going to start charging 500+ dollars for cayman, which is a chip under 400mm, that really sucks, which I can see them doing as the price of the 5970 was 700 or 600(I never have seen this price until recently). And I can see the new dual chips coming at 800+ street price.

Someone inf B3D noticed this:

Quote:

---

With only 2 exceptions, names of the ATi's products launched in last 7 years, always corresponded to die size:

101 - 150mm² => x6xx

* RV830 (Radeon HD5500): 104 mm²
* RV635 (Radeon HD3650): 120 mm²
* RV530 (Radeon X1600): 150 mm²
* RV630 (Radeon HD2600): 150 mm²
* RV730 (Radeon HD4600): 150 mm²

151 - 190mm² => x7xx

* RV410 (Radeon X700): 156 mm²
* RV840 (Radeon HD5700): 170 mm²

191 - 340mm² => x8xx

* RV670 (Radeon HD38x0): 192 mm²
* R430 (Radeon X800XL): 240 mm²
* RV770 (Radeon HD4800): 256 mm²
* R420 (Radeon X800XT): 281 mm²
* RV790 (Radeon HD4890): 282 mm²
* R520 (Radeon X1800): 288 mm²
* RV870 (Radeon HD5800): 331 mm²

341 - 500mm² => x9xx

* R580 (Radeon X1900XT): 342 mm²
* R580+ (Radeon X1950XT): 34x mm²
* R600 (Radeon HD2900): 420 mm²

The only two exceptions in this system were two "pipe-cleaner" parts, which were used for testing of new manufacturing process and because of that, they were significantly smaller, than other GPUs of that family: RV570 (80nm), RV740 (40nm).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Man, I can't believe your trying to put a positive spin on this renaming. NV gave an excuse which turned out to be somewhat true in the end for its renaming scheme, the board partners wanted it which I suspect is true, because if smaller companies like bfg have nothing to sell, they will go belly up, which sucks. It nonetheless the renaming still did suck.

Room for fusion products is a lame excuse because their current naming gives so much room for products, far more than NV, E.g 6x90, 6x30, 6x80, ,6x00, 64xx,65xx or even 6xx5. They have 4 digits to work with, that's plenty. Their are almost too many cards as it is. If they really wanted, they should have named, if they really wanted Bart XT as 6790, which would have been better.

They should have kept the 69xx series exclusive to their dual cards. This has nothing to do with fusion as their naming scheme is flexible enough that it can fit pretty much everything they could ever want and everything to do with pricing. AMD just wants fatter margins.

Whatever jowy, if your relating this renaming scheme to naming, your small minded. The bigger concern is it relates to pricing which is I think is everyone's concern, the 5870 was already 400 dollars with certain versions being 500. If they are going to start charging 500+ dollars for cayman, which is a chip under 400mm, that really sucks, which I can see them doing as the price of the 5970 was 700 or 600(I never have seen this price until recently). And I can see the new dual chips coming at 800+ street price.

---

renaming is when you give something which already has a name another name (8800->9800->GTX250)

model numers have change numerous times and i see no problem as they need to make space to slot in integrated DX11 cards inteo the lower end = Ontario APU below the low end cards and Llano APU above low end cards

my guess:
successor of 56xx series will take the 67xx name;
Llano will take the 66xx name
ontario will carry the 62xx and 63xx brands;
64xx and 65xx will stay the same; and the 61xx series will be renamed OEM low end parts from the last product cycle just like 5145

if you have 2 completely new pricepoints / types of product you have to make certain adjustments to the naming schemes; it might be slightly misleading but it is understandable that they want to keep more space at the bottom range to accomodate special OEM only products or cut down APUs

Rumour has it that the 6870 beats the 5870 in 3d06 and slightly trails in vantage p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

renaming is when you give something which already has a name another name (8800->9800->GTX250)

model numers have change numerous times and i see no problem as they need to make space to slot in integrated DX11 cards inteo the lower end = Ontario APU below the low end cards and Llano APU above low end cards

my guess:
successor of 56xx series will take the 67xx name;
Llano will take the 66xx name
ontario will carry the 62xx and 63xx brands;
64xx and 65xx will stay the same; and the 61xx series will be renamed OEM low end parts from the last product cycle just like 5145

if you have 2 completely new pricepoints / types of product you have to make certain adjustments to the naming schemes; it might be slightly misleading but it is understandable that they want to keep more space at the bottom range to accomodate special OEM only products or cut down APUs

---

This is completely not valid because they have tonnes of room as it is as I have shown in my example.

6870 indicates better performance than 5870 and may decieve
alot of 4xxx owners into upgrading into performance that has already been around at a pricepoint(if my concerns turn out to be true) that was already around last generation. A 5850 at 259 does not look nearly as attractive as a 6870 at 269.

I can see pricing of the 6870 being around 269-299. and the 6850 around 199-239, either of which is very pricey for a successor to the 5770 series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

This is completely not valid because they have tonnes of room as it is as I have shown in my example.

6870 indicates better performance than 5870 and may decieve
alot of 4xxx owners into upgrading into performance that has already been around at a pricepoint(if my concerns turn out to be true) that was already around last generation. A 5850 at 259 does not look nearly as attractive as a 6870 at 269.

I can see pricing of the 6870 being around 269-299. and the 6850 around 199-239, either of which is very pricey for a successor to the 5770 series.

---

You have no example of RENAME. It might not be good practice and can confuse some to name 6k series like that. But Rename it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechanical Man

You have no example of RENAME. It might not be good practice and can confuse some to name 6k series like that. But Rename it is not.

---

Indeed!

Rename would have to be taking a currently sold part & resell that part under a new name.

These are new parts so the Rename argument is void.

Misleadingly named part due to perception of performance could be valid & only time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechanical Man

You have no example of RENAME. It might not be good practice and can confuse some to name 6k series like that. But Rename it is not.

---

the principle is still the same though. people dont like renaming because it tricks the consumer (or so they say). the 6xxx naming scheme is indeed tricking the consumer if renaming is considered tricking the consumer.

How is this rename? If you had no idea what chip was going into the product category then if the 6870 was better than the 5870 it would be appropriate. You're only in an uproar over this because the Barts GPU is perceived as midrange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

the principle is still the same though. people dont like renaming because it tricks the consumer (or so they say). the 6xxx naming scheme is indeed tricking the consumer if renaming is considered tricking the consumer.

---

The principle is not the same as your getting new tech not old tech renamed as new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

the principle is still the same though. people dont like renaming because it tricks the consumer (or so they say). the 6xxx naming scheme is indeed tricking the consumer if renaming is considered tricking the consumer.

---

You are saying that setting up new model numbers for new products is just as bad as someone trying to sell old products with new model numbers. No, it isn't. Model numbers are only comparable in the same generation and this is not a rename so your logic is flawed.

The only kinda issue with the name I see is somebody not keeping up with the latest news might assume the performance difference might be similar to that of jumping from a 4870 to a 5870, while a 6870 will probably end up similar to a 5850/5870.

I would assume there's no way they are going to be offering this at juniper prices at launch due to the revisions to memory, gpu size/core count & pcb revisions so naming it a 6770 would put it in the wrong performance/pricing class.

I don't keep up with the details completely myself but I would imagine they are simply trying to replace the 58xx lineup with a cheaper similar performing solution with the 68xx and we have yet to see the replacement for the 57xx series.

In the end it really boils down to common sense and having a clue about what you intend to spend your money on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Indeed!

Rename would have to be taking a currently sold part & resell that part under a new name.

These are new parts so the Rename argument is void.

---

I remember some people having no problem calling the GTX 480/470 renamed, because they assumed, they will be called GTX 380/370...but that was NV, right?

We still have rumors about Juniper being renamed. If that happens, I'm really looking forward to comments from some of you :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

I remember some people having no problem calling the GTX 480/470 renamed, because they assumed, they will be called GTX 380/370...but that was NV, right?

We still have rumors about Juniper being renamed. If that happens, I'm really looking forward to comments from some of you :yepp:

---

Eh? so what if it was rename (without commenting on if it was or was not)? there was no part named 380GTX that suddenly got renamed to 480GTX.

Same with HD6k there is no part that is suddenly renamed. If juniper gets renamed to 6k it is bad.

I wish this would be true, the rumor came from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Rumour has it that the 6870 beats the 5870 in 3d06 and slightly trails in vantage p

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

I remember some people having no problem calling the GTX 480/470 renamed, because they assumed, they will be called GTX 380/370...but that was NV, right?

We still have rumors about Juniper being renamed. If that happens, I'm really looking forward to comments from some of you :yepp:

---

There is no relevance to what people want to call something based on assumption to what something really is named.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

There is no relevance to what people want to call something based on assumption to what something really is named.

---

:confused2

First of all, this is NOT a rename. It's a new chip/architecture, not G92 renamed 395105138 times

Second, it all depends on the pricing! The 3870 and 4870 were priced in the $199-299 range MSRP. The 5870 ended up being priced in the 400's.

Now if they make the 6870 back in the 199-299 range, and make a single GPU 6970 in the $400+ range, it would make a lot of sense and this wouldnt be a big issue. And if Cayman is as strong as people say it is (5970 performance in a single GPU), then it would all make sense!

[[I wish this would be true, the rumor came from?]] -you can add this one to the list

"- Since its so close to release anyway..

I've got Barts XT to OC by 200mhz on the core with no vcore mod and it was still running cool and quiet, it can be pushed further easily. As for the 6800 naming, marketing felt that since its close to the 5870 in dx9/10 but faster in dx11, the name is fine.

Edit: What this means for Barts Pro is that it truly is a monster OC gpu, for low prices, if you don't mind OC it will be the best bang for buck.
Last edited by Silverforce11; Yesterday at 05:44 PM. "
post #125

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...2111195&page=5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

:confused2

---

Its Simple! people make up alternative names all the time & i don't see what all the fuss is about.

So the 4D shaders rumor might not be true. Maybe they saved the VLIW-4 design for the next gen (what the real NI @ 32nm should have been) codenamed S.I.??

To get the increase in performance, it must be a fully redesigned scheduler and front end. Compartmentalized into RPEs. Maybe this new front end was supposed to go with the 4D shaders on 32nm for the original NI concept. Like SA wrote in April when they had 'codenames mixed up' : "a newly redesigned front-end with a mildly revamped Evergreen shader." That would mean it's really VLIW-5.

Oh well, lookin forward to finding out! Exciting! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Man, I can't believe your trying to put a positive spin on this renaming. NV gave an excuse which turned out to be somewhat true in the end for its renaming scheme, the board partners wanted it which I suspect is true, because if smaller companies like bfg have nothing to sell, they will go belly up, which sucks. It nonetheless the renaming still did suck.

---

Ok, piece of newsflash for you, Hot and straight from my valued source The English Dictionary.

Apparently it says that in order to rename a name has to be assign to it on the first place and then changed.

Oh wait, I just recall you're not part of the marketing team, in fact you have no ties to Ati to confirm anything in regards to the card, all you go by is rumors.

See, what Nvidia did was in Fact Textbook renaming.
E.g. If I am a car manufacturer and I build a car and give it a name, (ford fiesta) and then I put better rims on it and call it (ford monaro), and then straight after I put a bodykit on it and call it (gt40)..... its still the same card regardless of the headroom for improvement.

Its awesome to see you troll against Ati.. I mean AMD, but seriously you haven't even got a leg to stand on when you put your argument like that.

OMG another "5 pages per day" thread? Could mods copy the known proven and high-likely-to-be-true informations into the first post please? I really don't have time to read the whole thread this time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

So the 4D shaders rumor might not be true. Maybe they saved the VLIW-4 design for the next gen (what the real NI @ 32nm should have been) codenamed S.I.??

To get the increase in performance, it must be a fully redesigned scheduler and front end. Compartmentalized into RPEs. Maybe this new front end was supposed to go with the 4D shaders on 32nm for the original NI concept. Like SA wrote in April when they had 'codenames mixed up' : "a newly redesigned front-end with a mildly revamped Evergreen shader." That would mean it's really VLIW-5.

Oh well, lookin forward to finding out! Exciting! :)

---

Either way, if the 800/960 SP's rumor for Barts is putting it @ 5850/5870 levels.... imagine double that for Cayman or 4x that for Antilles would be like :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

This is completely not valid because they have tonnes of room as it is as I have shown in my example.

6870 indicates better performance than 5870 and may decieve

---

Even if the 6870 is slower than the 5870, it is still a substantial upgrade.

How? Because it can output display to 5 monitors for a start.
It will have better figures for minimum FPS, better tesselation, some new features.

Lower price point.

Get over the naming shift, straws are being molested.

If the 6870 is really the replacement for the 5770, but performs at or near the 5870, that pretty damn amazing. I don't see how anyone could complain about that. The rearranging of the naming convention seems odd to me, but I'll wait and see how the whole lineup naming ends up before I start condemning it.

If AMD was actually doing a rename, the 5770 would become the 6770 (or 6870), with little to no changes to the actual GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuroikenshi

I tend to agree with the statement you just made snowman, as well as the statement made by your teddy bear, I believe they're both correct, valid and accurate, as well as farkin cute

---

thank you :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behemot

OMG another "5 pages per day" thread? Could mods copy the known proven and high-likely-to-be-true informations into the first post please? I really don't have time to read the whole thread this time...

---

i agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

i agree

---

its a rumor thread so until nda's are off we wont know officially so you will have to wait just like i have to

How long until the NDA gets lifted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

Either way, if the 800/960 SP's rumor for Barts is putting it @ 5850/5870 levels.... imagine double that for Cayman or 4x that for Antilles would be like :eek:

---

If BARTS has 960 shaders (4+1) 900MHz, 48 Texture Units and 256bit memory with 32 ROPs it will have 90% HD5850s performance.


If CAYMAN will have 1920 Shaders (4+1) 900MHz, 96 Texture Units and 256bit memory with 48 ROPs then at high resolutions with AA enable will be 10-20% more than HD5870.

All those in DX-9/10 Games, in DX-11 with tessellation enable 6xxx series will be 50% more than 5xxx.

If you say the new cards can take 5 displays, will it then be able to do 3 displays that do not run DP? I dont want to get DP screens, they are so rare still that you have almost nothing to select from :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aten-Ra

If BARTS has 960 shaders (4+1) 900MHz, 48 Texture Units and 256bit memory with 32 ROPs it will have 90% HD5850s performance.


If CAYMAN will have 1920 Shaders (4+1) 900MHz, 96 Texture Units and 256bit memory with 48 ROPs then at high resolutions with AA enable will be 10-20% more than HD5870.

All those in DX-9/10 Games, in DX-11 with tessellation enable 6xxx series will be 50% more than 5xxx.

---

barts has a different shader setup (3+1 or 4+0); performance / shader is supposed to be increased!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

barts has a different shader setup (3+1 or 4+0); performance / shader is supposed to be increased!

---

Right, the architecture change means you can't directly compare the SP's unit for unit, but it does seem to be much more efficient... and if the tesselation engine is improved, its DX11 performance should really pull ahead of the 5xxx's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

How long until the NDA gets lifted?

---

about 5 or 7 more days

lets hope these smash the 480s!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

barts has a different shader setup (3+1 or 4+0); performance / shader is supposed to be increased!

---

Well, I believe they will use the same 5-way VLIW shader architecture (4+1)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

How long until the NDA gets lifted?

---

According to Tweaktown, that's october 22 :shrug:

http://gpudesign.bafree.net/wp-conte...10/10/6850.jpg
http://gpudesign.bafree.net/wp-conte...0/10/68503.jpg

http://gpudesign.bafree.net/amd-radeon-hd-6850-picture

yeah mate check the thread, it has already been posted

don't know if this was posted somewhere else, but there're 'preliminary' results of Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 in 3DMark.
great caution advised.

quote different from the ones in this thread, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aten-Ra

Well, I believe they will use the same 5-way VLIW shader architecture (4+1)

---

What makes you think so? ..apart from the fact that 800 SPs don't quite add up. However, if the 4+1->4 transition turns out to be false for Barts, then what differs it from Juniper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it_is_me

don't know if this was posted somewhere else, but there're 'preliminary' results of Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 in 3DMark.
great caution advised.

quote different from the ones in this thread, huh?

---

Those results you posted above are from pconline site and is for Barts and the other is for Cayman XT in case they aren't fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it_is_me

don't know if this was posted somewhere else, but there're 'preliminary' results of Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 in 3DMark.
great caution advised.

quote different from the ones in this thread, huh?

---

Are we talking about HD 6870 "Bart" or HD 6870 "Cayman" ? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

What makes you think so? ..apart from the fact that 800 SPs don't quite add up. However, if the 4+1->4 transition turns out to be false for Barts, then what differs it from Juniper?

---

I believe BARTS will be a 12 SIMD x80 (5-way VLIW)

Barts XT = 960 shaders (900MHz) with 48 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 32 ROPs
Barts Pro = 800 shaders (800MHz) with 40 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 16 ROPs

They will replace 5770 and 5750, Barts XT will have 90% performance of 5850 and Barts Pro will be like 5830.

CAYMAN to be a 24 SIMD x80 (5-way VLIW)

Cayman XT = 1920 shaders (900MHz) with 96 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 48 ROPs (not 32)
Cayman Pro = 1760 shaders (750MHz) with 88 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 32 ROPs

They will replace 5870 and 5850, Cayman XT will be 10-20% faster than 5870 at high resolutions with Filters on like 1920x1080 4x AA in DX-9/10 games. 50% more performance in DX-11 games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aten-Ra

I believe BARTS will be a 12 SIMD x80 (5-way VLIW)

Barts XT = 960 shaders (900MHz) with 48 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 32 ROPs
Barts Pro = 800 shaders (800MHz) with 40 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 16 ROPs

They will replace 5770 and 5750, Barts XT will have 90% performance of 5850 and Barts Pro will be like 5830.

CAYMAN to be a 24 SIMD x80 (5-way VLIW)

Cayman XT = 1920 shaders (900MHz) with 96 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 48 ROPs (not 32)
Cayman Pro = 1760 shaders (750MHz) with 88 Texture units and 256 bit memory with 32 ROPs

They will replace 5870 and 5850, Cayman XT will be 10-20% faster than 5870 at high resolutions with Filters on like 1920x1080 4x AA in DX-9/10 games. 50% more performance in DX-11 games

---

Sounds pretty much like my expectations, not sure about the 48 ROPS though. But one thing, if Barts XT is so close to 5850 despite the much lower number of shaders, then Cayman XT should be more than 10-20% faster in DX10. I agree on 50% faster on DX11 though.

cayman xt hot daang! thats a nice chip :p

Hmm I'm really hoping Cayman XT is more than 10-20% in current titles and with that I hope it scales with clock speed better ( GF100 anyone ) I'm more concerned with game performance today, not in 6-12 months. If it does significantly better in the games I play now, I'd want one, if not meh. Its kind of like the 8800GTX. Although its among the first DX10 cards, it also did exceptionally well with the current DX9 titles.

A large boost to DX11 alone isn't enough to personally sway me to buy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

Hmm I'm really hoping Cayman XT is more than 10-20% in current titles and with that I hope it scales with clock speed better ( GF100 anyone ) I'm more concerned with game performance today, not in 6-12 months. If it does significantly better in the games I play now, I'd want one, if not meh. Its kind of like the 8800GTX. Although its among the first DX10 cards, it also did exceptionally well with the current DX9 titles.

A large boost to DX11 alone isn't enough to personally sway me to buy one.

---

Does GF100 scale better with clockspeed? Thought most GPUs scaled roughly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Does GF100 scale better with clockspeed? Thought most GPUs scaled roughly the same.

---

5x70 may get VRAM bandwidth limited at high clocks.

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

---

too bad they didnt do a per clock efficiency comparison. should be simple if someone wants to just type the numbers into excel and divide framerate over ghz at stock and OC settings. (per ghz efficiency should only be compared to itself at different frequencies and not against other cards)

for best results tests should have been done with just core, just ram, and then both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

---

Oh really!?!?!?
Overclocking both the core and memory by 9% brings a 7-8% increase in performance, a few cases ~5% but more cases than that +10%.
Core clock increase of 9% brings usually ~4-5% performance increases or roughly half the clockspeed increase.

While GTX480 with ~18.5% increase to the core/shader clock usually brings a 5-8% increase in performance, with a few cases being ~10%. So at best roughly half the increase to the clocks but in most cases about 1/3.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx480_review/8 (used the average FPS numbers)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ng/default.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Speaking of drivers, does any1 know if ATI supports 120Hz in non-native res yet in latest catalyst? This is such an important thing for me using a 120Hz LCD, I'd gladly pick an ATI card but since I've heard it seems like it's not working with 120Hz in non-native res I've sticked to Nvidia so far cuz 120Hz support is better.

---

I don't have refresh rate problems with the 10.9 on my 4850 and my 120Hz :)

3DMark Vantage (Performance-preset)/3DMark06:

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 480: P18376/19671
GeForce GTX 460 (256-bit/1GB): P13623/18601
GeForce GTX 460 (192-bit/768MB): P13386/18259
GeForce GTS 450: P9792/15793

AMD

Radeon HD 5870: P17924/19433
Radeon HD 6870: P16270/19480
Radeon HD 5850: P15593/18762
Radeon HD 6850: P14872/18750
Radeon HD 5830: P14014/17298
Radeon HD 5770: P11017/16358
Radeon HD 5750: P9124/14966

http://en.expreview.com/2010/10/11/a...ace/10638.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

3DMark Vantage (Performance-preset)/3DMark06:

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 480: P18376/19671
GeForce GTX 460 (256-bit/1GB): P13623/18601
GeForce GTX 460 (192-bit/768MB): P13386/18259
GeForce GTS 450: P9792/15793

AMD

Radeon HD 5870: P17924/19433
Radeon HD 6870: P16270/19480
Radeon HD 5850: P15593/18762
Radeon HD 6850: P14872/18750
Radeon HD 5830: P14014/17298
Radeon HD 5770: P11017/16358
Radeon HD 5750: P9124/14966

http://en.expreview.com/2010/10/11/a...ace/10638.html

---

not even a test system was showed etc... so seriously its not even worth it to mention it ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

not even a test system was showed etc... so seriously its not even worth it to mention it ...

---

let's hope those results are fake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Oh really!?!?!?
Overclocking both the core and memory by 9% brings a 7-8% increase in performance, a few cases ~5% but more cases than that +10%.
Core clock increase of 9% brings usually ~4-5% performance increases or roughly half the clockspeed increase.

While GTX480 with ~18.5% increase to the core/shader clock usually brings a 5-8% increase in performance, with a few cases being ~10%. So at best roughly half the increase to the clocks but in most cases about 1/3.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx480_review/8 (used the average FPS numbers)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ng/default.asp

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/kfa2-g...rchy-review/19

I don't know man.. in this review a 8.5% OC provides for the most part a 10% or greater speed boost and at the bare minimum a 5% in only a couple games.

And if you look at hwbot, every single, single card 3dmark record is owned by a gtx 480(I guess not 2001 which requires optimization rather than GPU power)

3dmark 06, 3dmark 05, 3dmark 03 and vantage. (the gtx 480 always being first and the top place a 5870 has achieved)

--------480" "5870" "Slowest gtx 480 beating the top 5870
3dmark05 1340clk(58738) 1350clk(48619) 88th place 701mhz
3dmark06 1360clk(42921) 1390clk(36040) 84th place 800mhz
3dmark03 1340clk(157095) 1400clk(115853) 93rd place 750mhz
vantage 1450clk(39281) 1505clk(31004) 47th place 1100mhz

To give you an idea of the lead, vantage is the best benchmark for the 5870 and it doesn't enter the ranking until 47th(the other benchmarks the 5870 shows up at 80th+ place) place and the card is overclocked to 1500+ mhz which is an exceptional overclock for the 5870. It is getting beat by the gtx 480 at 1100mhz.

If a 18.5 percent improvement only gave a 5-8% increase, I don't think this would be possible, especially when in most benchmarks, a gtx 480 with clocks of less than 1 ghz are beating 5870 at 1400mhz.

Ask an bencher and they will tell you that a gtx 480 is way better than a 5870 for single card benchmarks, not really for clocks but scaling with clocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Ask an bencher and they will tell you that a gtx 480 is way better than a 5870 for single card benchmarks, not really for clocks but scaling with clocks.

---

This is what I was trying to get at. I'm just hoping the coming AMD designs scale upwards better.

I've spent a fair amount of time with a friends 480 system and despite the fact his was running on stock air, it still clocked better and with more tangible real world results than my 5870 on water.

Running on water I'd take a 480 over a 5870 any day but given I bought mine at launch I'm not dissapointed for the use I've got out of it.

But a 480 is a lot louder and use more power and was outdated when nvidia got it on market.

I bought a 5870 359€ and just sold it 255€. It was a good deal. :D

And the million dollar question is: how well can we extrapolate performance from 3dmark? This is a genuine question as I haven't been keeping up with futuremark scores in reviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

And the million dollar question is: how well can we extrapolate performance from 3dmark? This is a genuine question as I haven't been keeping up with futuremark scores in reviews.

---

Probably more than your giving credit for. Not close to ideal but 3dmark shows raw potential in processing a 3d image. It probably the reason why it is such a valuable marketing tool.

The performance of a 900mhz gtx 480.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

The below benchmarks are to compare it to a 5970.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/12

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/13

Bad company 2 is a worst case scenario(worst benchmark for the gtx 480) and a 900mhz gtx 480 is only 5 fps or 7% behind a 5970 at 1920*1200. Modern warfare is probably a best case scenario(bad scaling on 5970) and it is 39fps ahead or 30% faster.

I don't think a 200mhz overclock on the 5870 could bring the 5870 close to a 5970 unless scaling was broken.

is it possible tajoh that the renaming was done because of the introduction of fusion parts ... and now that the ati branding is the start of such thing ... so renaming parts one slot higher would mean a higher end part is comming after the dual gpu top dog .... at least thats my logic here ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

is it possible tajoh that the renaming was done because of the introduction of fusion parts ... and now that the ati branding is the start of such thing ... so renaming parts one slot higher would mean a higher end part is comming after the dual gpu top dog .... at least thats my logic here ...

---

There is so much room for naming. They have room in the 64xx or 63xx. 62xx etc, they don't need to shift anything. Zacate performance being such a lower power part would justify a naming convention probably in the 63xx or 62xx or 61xx range anyways.

In addition, I thought fusion GPU was based on 5xxx, technology and this was confirmed somewhere.

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

To me this is why they are reshifting the naming scheme, the answer to the above question is obvious to me.

Not being able to use 63xx or 62xx seems like such an esoteric answer, that I don't know why you think fusion introduction needs a new naming scheme since there is so much room for products with AMD current naming setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

---

That's been answered 100x already and that's why so many of us are upset...
ATI will fool the general public into thinking that they are getting more for their money when they really are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripken204

let's hope those results are fake

---

no, its not fake....HD6850/HD6870 replaced HD5750 and 5770 ! Hope, this old news u know...for replacing HD5850/5870 coming later HD5950 and HD5970. So, do u still think, its bad performance?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

There is so much room for naming. They have room in the 64xx or 63xx. 62xx etc, they don't need to shift anything. Zacate performance being such a lower power part would justify a naming convention probably in the 63xx or 62xx or 61xx range anyways.

In addition, I thought fusion GPU was based on 5xxx, technology and this was confirmed somewhere.

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

To me this is why they are reshifting the naming scheme, the answer to the above question is obvious to me.

Not being able to use 63xx or 62xx seems like such an esoteric answer, that I don't know why you think fusion introduction needs a new naming scheme since there is so much room for products with AMD current naming setup.

---

the 6400 would have the same power as Llano if the Llano specs are correct .. so forget the 6400 series ... so that leaves us with 6700 6800 6900 ...

the specs of the fusion parts will take that space left in the radeon naming left over .. wich is the 6400 and and the lower end laptop fusion parts etc... the rest is all radeon .. it does make sense if we look at it this way .. for a future way of thinking that 2 years down the line bulldozer will probably be close to having a gpu into the cpu ... so that would fit quite well with the new naming scheme etc... much more to learn once the nda is over ... so i wouldnt put all my hate towards amd before the nda is even over ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripken204

That's been answered 100x already and that's why so many of us are upset...
ATI will fool the general public into thinking that they are getting more for their money when they really are not.

---

if the renaming scheme is how i pointed it out its not fooling people up .. its getting the proper parts for the proper markets ... no more need for cheapo 5450 type of gpu ... because now amd will have a gpu inside a cpu very soon .. so no more need for that .. that 5550 is out of there also ... 5570 also ... leaving the essentials ... 6700 6800 ... 6900 ... so since most people think higher numbers are good .. they inflated the line by one notch .. it does sound bad ... but we dont have the whole deal .. the pricing etc.... ;) if the pricing is done nicely i think it might be brilliant ...

Keep in mind the 3870 and 4870 were priced in the sub $300 markets. The 5870 was the one outside the norm.

Now that ATI might have a design for the top single GPU, something it was reluctant to do before, it might very well push the x8xx's back down the < $300 range, and re-introduce big powerful single GPU's with the x9xx's. When considered in that light... Cayman should be a beast!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

the 6400 would have the same power as Llano if the Llano specs are correct .. so forget the 6400 series ... so that leaves us with 6700 6800 6900 ...

the specs of the fusion parts will take that space left in the radeon naming left over .. wich is the 6400 and and the lower end laptop fusion parts etc... the rest is all radeon .. it does make sense if we look at it this way .. for a future way of thinking that 2 years down the line bulldozer will probably be close to having a gpu into the cpu ... so that would fit quite well with the new naming scheme etc... much more to learn once the nda is over ... so i wouldnt put all my hate towards amd before the nda is even over ....





if the renaming scheme is how i pointed it out its not fooling people up .. its getting the proper parts for the proper markets ... no more need for cheapo 5450 type of gpu ... because now amd will have a gpu inside a cpu very soon .. so no more need for that .. that 5550 is out of there also ... 5570 also ... leaving the essentials ... 6700 6800 ... 6900 ... so since most people think higher numbers are good .. they inflated the line by one notch .. it does sound bad ... but we dont have the whole deal .. the pricing etc.... ;) if the pricing is done nicely i think it might be brilliant ...

---

That still leaves the 63xx, 62xx and 61xx though. NV I remember started using numbers like 6100 or 6150 for their integrate parts when their 6xxx series was out. They can still use numbers in the 64xx series, just not 6450 or 6470. 6430 is obviously an option as is 6410.

The naming is scheming people thinking they are getting a 2 generation gap increase from buying a 68xx, upgrading from a 48xx. And to a much lesser quantity, it is fooling the people upgrading from a 58xx to a 68xx. Hopefully no one does this, but there are stories of people apparently upgrading from 8800gt to 9800gt(story I have yet to see for myself, but some AMD owners have claimed).

If I didn't know any better, I would be pretty pissed off from the upgrade difference between a 4870 and a 6870. It's an upgrade but not two generations(especially the rate AMD and NV as of late) worth. When considering the price of the 4870 and the 6870 might be pretty similar, this might be a common mistake as price is one of thing things that help a consumer from making this mistake.

This naming scheme is going to really hurt the value for 58xx owners trying to resell their cards to the general public though. Its going to be hard to sell like the above individual did, a 5870 for 255 euros, when a 6870 is the same price new or less when it comes out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

That still leaves the 63xx, 62xx and 61xx though. NV I remember started using numbers like 6100 or 6150 for their integrate parts when their 6xxx series was out. They can still use numbers in the 64xx series, just not 6450 or 6470. 6430 is obviously an option as is 6410.

The naming is scheming people thinking they are getting a 2 generation gap increase from buying a 68xx, upgrading from a 48xx. And to a much lesser quantity, it is fooling the people upgrading from a 58xx to a 68xx. Hopefully no one does this, but there are stories of people apparently upgrading from 8800gt to 9800gt(story I have yet to see for myself, but some AMD owners have claimed).

If I didn't know any better, I would be pretty pissed off from the upgrade difference between a 4870 and a 6870. It's an upgrade but not two generations(especially the rate AMD and NV as of late) worth. When considering the price of the 4870 and the 6870 might be pretty similar, this might be a common mistake as price is one of thing things that help a consumer from making this mistake.

This naming scheme is going to really hurt the value for 58xx owners trying to resell their cards to the general public though. Its going to be hard to sell like the above individual did, a 5870 for 255 euros, when a 6870 is the same price new or less when it comes out.

---

no it doesnt ... all the parts lower then 6400 will be fusion parts ... carried out by amd's fusion line .. Llano ontario bobcat etc...


was there a part lower then 5450??? NO ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

Keep in mind the 3870 and 4870 were priced in the sub $300 markets. The 5870 was the one outside the norm.

Now that ATI might have a design for the top single GPU, something it was reluctant to do before, it might very well push the x8xx's back down the < $300 range, and re-introduce big powerful single GPU's with the x9xx's. When considered in that light... Cayman should be a beast!

---

that is actually a good observation point mate ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Probably more than your giving credit for. Not close to ideal but 3dmark shows raw potential in processing a 3d image. It probably the reason why it is such a valuable marketing tool.

The performance of a 900mhz gtx 480.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

The below benchmarks are to compare it to a 5970.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/12

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/13

Bad company 2 is a worst case scenario(worst benchmark for the gtx 480) and a 900mhz gtx 480 is only 5 fps or 7% behind a 5970 at 1920*1200. Modern warfare is probably a best case scenario(bad scaling on 5970) and it is 39fps ahead or 30% faster.

I don't think a 200mhz overclock on the 5870 could bring the 5870 close to a 5970 unless scaling was broken.

---

true, the real issue is when you run a 5970 on 5870 clocks... that whole theory breaks apart like a cookie... and still just like you I do know and have seen that a 200Mhz overclock does not bring a 5870 anywhere near a 5970 running on turtle clocks of 750Mhz, I run the clocks on mine at 940-950Mhz per core on air... so yeah ONE beast of a card

**edit** I usually get 110+ fps on bf2 max settings...