X1300LE 128-bit is the third lowest X1k card. X1300LE 64-bit and X1300HyperMemory are lower. This info is at anandtech and a copy of that info is in the link metro provided.
Printable View
X1300LE 128-bit is the third lowest X1k card. X1300LE 64-bit and X1300HyperMemory are lower. This info is at anandtech and a copy of that info is in the link metro provided.
Yes, and there is the Pro, and LE. I don't see where it specifies which one it is.
You think this is the 64-bit or the HM? Wow. Besides, metro said it was the 128-bit.
There is a LE with 128-bit memory.... It says right there.
Then what were you asking?
You assumed it was the LE when it didn't specify. He only said it has 128-bit memory which both the Pro and standard LE support.
I'd like to think it was the Pro, since I'd scarcely think they'd be getting 9800 Pro performance out of a 4-pipe card without some high clockspeeds. I mean this is more than double the performance of the X600 Pro. 30% improvement in pipeline efficiency isn't going to give you THAT much improvement. Clockspeed would have to compensate for the rest.
EDIT: blah, I'm blind
He absolutely said it was the LE 128-bit :stick:
Nevermind, I was looking at the page he linked to.
EDIT: Still though, I find this sort of improvement hard to believe.
It's a welcome improvement though :D
Oh no I know you weren't picking a fight, I just figured I better clarify, as always there's no point in making a weak statement with no backup :)Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieate
And I totally agree with your last statment... I am very hopeful if a four pipe card is doing that in LE version...
and to Martijn-I think that pro can do better :) in the 4K range at 05 .... and over 8K on 03 ....might be fun to try anyhow!
Indeed. I know pipelines don't necessarily improve performance linearly, but at this rate if a X1300LE clocked at 450MHz and with less memory bandwidth than a X600 Pro can double its performance, then the X1800XT should theoretically be MASSIVELY improved over the previous gen. Enough so to beat the GTX not just by a little, but by a significant amount. That would sort of go against all the rumors saying it would only marginally beat the GTX.
I'm on the same boat :)Quote:
I don't like seeing that this budget card almost beats my oc'ed X700 pro (-200 at 05). I want to see the X1600!! I am already knowing that's gonna be my new card
Perkam
Holy crap...... That is *most* impressive. That just added a great deal of motivation to look at getting a new Radeon 1k0 card :slobber:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7758/44nq.jpg
HYB18T256161AF-25 256Mb, 16Mx16,400MHz, 1.8V (GDDR2)
Something isnt adding up. How could it score that well on 400mhz DDR2? That is worse than what the 6600 non-GT has. :stick:
There's more to a graphics card than memory.....I'm sure if we had a TSMC Tech Support guy on the forum he'd look at the small core and think the same thing ;)
Direct link to coolaler site
http://www.coolaler.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=67545&st=0
ATI has greatly improved the efficiency of their memory subsystem. Faster does not always equate to better performance. Working smarter can outpace working faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
Yup... i'm liking what I'm seeing though. The amount of improvements that ATI has attempted is what delayed and fubared it and caused the respin's, but it looks like its massively paying off
I agree completely. It just doesnt feel right. Granted this team was the same ones who made the miraculous 9700PRO so I do not doubt their skill. It just feels *unusually* fast for a 4 pipe card.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRiT
More power to em tho if this reflects the rest of the series people will stop :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about how late the R520 was.
How reliable is this sorce anyway?
i dunno doesnt seem like someone would just make stuff up for no reason though.
btw one thing to consider is that it is probably much lower latency DDR2 then what we have seen on older cards. as we all know timings can effect performance almost as much as clocks can.
DDR2... WTF mate... ever since the 5800 and 9800XT 256mb not a SINGLE video card has used DDR2...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
EVGA special edition FX5700Ultra used DDR2, which came after the 5800.
Actually it was the 9800Pro 256MB that had DDR2...the XTs used DDR1 and the ASUS 256PROs used DDR1 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
Anyway, I don't care what it uses as long as it's a good performer for the price and ATi makes good money off of it.
why has the guy hidden all possible references to what the card might be, in those pics? I can't get onto the forum, but that means that the card is about 2x as efficient as previous 4 pipe cards. Tough to swallow - although it would be a welcome suprise. I guess a combination of more efficient memory, more efficient pipes, and whatever else ATI have cooked up COULD make it that fast.
Looking forward to seeing further results though.
btw link to that forum doesn't work.