Umm, you get the meaning of the word wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fake
fake
adj.
Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
Printable View
Umm, you get the meaning of the word wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fake
fake
adj.
Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
No, I used it right. Ala "Your fake Canadian girlfriend called, the baby isn't yours because SHE ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL."Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
You just put waaaaaay too much thought and effort into it. :p:
stop wasting this thread space, there needs to be plenty of room for more rumors thanks :p
Sorry!
I heard from my friend that his sister's husband (works for AMD) was flying to India soon in preparation for the launch of the 6k series!
While this doesn't really tell us anything, it is actually true.
Thanks, information like this is ALWAYS (welcome) better than getting a English lesson :rofl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Still 1GB of VRAM. :( Hope 2GB parts will not take 6 months to be released.
Thanks again cold2010 :up:
Google translate not work very well ... The guy is really talking about 5830 performance for HD6850 ? :confused:
Original thread :
http://www.xfastest.com/viewthread.php?tid=51709
barts pro?
No idea, but in any case drivers might just be really bad. WTB more hardware specific info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
223,CAYMAN GL XT (6700),NI CAYMAN
224,CAYMAN GL XT (6701),NI CAYMAN
225,CAYMAN GL XT (6702),NI CAYMAN
226,CAYMAN GL XT (6703),NI CAYMAN
227,CAYMAN GL PRO (6704),NI CAYMAN
228,CAYMAN GL PRO (6705),NI CAYMAN
229,CAYMAN GL (6706),NI CAYMAN
230,CAYMAN GL LE (6707),NI CAYMAN
231,CAYMAN GL (6708),NI CAYMAN
232,CAYMAN GL (6709),NI CAYMAN
233,CAYMAN XT (6718),NI CAYMAN
234,CAYMAN PRO (6719),NI CAYMAN
235,ANTILLES PRO (671C),NI CAYMAN
236,ANTILLES XT (671D),NI CAYMAN
237,BLACKCOMB XT/PRO (6720),NI BLACKCOMB
238,BLACKCOMB LP (6721),NI BLACKCOMB
239,BLACKCOMB XT/PRO Gemini (6724),NI BLACKCOMB
240,BLACKCOMB LP Gemini (6725),NI BLACKCOMB
241,BARTS GL XT (6728),NI BARTS
242,BARTS GL PRO (6729),NI BARTS
243,BARTS XT (6738),NI BARTS
244,BARTS PRO (6739),NI BARTS
245,WHISTLER XT (6740),NI WHISTLER
246,WHISTLER PRO/LP (6741),NI WHISTLER
247,WHISTLER XT/PRO Gemini (6744),NI WHISTLER
248,WHISTLER LP Gemini (6745),NI WHISTLER
249,ONEGA (6750),NI TURKS
250,TURKS XT (6758),NI TURKS
251,TURKS PRO (6759),NI TURKS
252,SEYMOUR XT/PRO (6760),NI SEYMOUR
253,SEYMOUR LP (6761),NI SEYMOUR
254,SEYMOUR XT/PRO Gemini (6764),NI SEYMOUR
255,SEYMOUR LP Gemini (6765),NI SEYMOUR
256,CAICOS GL PRO (6768),NI CAICOS
257,CASPIAN PRO (6770),NI CAICOS
258,CAICOS PRO (6779),NI CAICOS
6739 = BARTS PRO IT SEEMS
-http://ht4u.net/news/22583_catalyst-108-treiber_verspricht_mehr_performance_und_verraet_we itere_codenamen/
According to the device ID it's a Barts Pro. And 5830 performance wouldn't be that bad if it was called 6700, but changing it to 6800 still doesn't make much sense.
Why is everyone so hung up about VRAM? The 5870 2GB version showed a 1 to 2 fps difference even at the highest resolutions. Pretty sure AMD's engineers wouldn't intentionally bottleneck their own card.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
more is better .... we need moarr vram
Every couple of generations, there is always a flagship card to skip.
For example, the 3870's.... or for nVidia, the GTX280's... or even 480's...
The reasons differ. Price, competition, etc.
Will the 6K be a flagship to skip? I'm holding onto my 4870x2, saw no point in going to 5870/5890 (oops mean 5970), and this thread is becoming increasingly depressing as to what the 6xxx flagship will bring to the table.
specially when there was no 5890...:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
So, Bart chips as the base of HD 68xx cards seem to be true. Well, it's rather unpleasant finding for me, but still just half of the story. Gotta know the pricing of these babies to really judge it whether it's just a rather confusing & quite dissapointing resegmenting but still a great value product, or a total bust as AMD cash cow consumer conning product.
Maybe the reign of most powerful card will still reside with the almighty 5970.... oh!... I meant 5890....:rofl::rofl:
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
Just an example:
http://www.thg.ru/graphic/amd_radeon...s_2gb_8xaa.png
More detailed research here.
TL;DR: If you game at 2560x1600 or use Eyefinity it is a good idea to have over 1GB of VRAM.
Hopefully that's 68*50*, or the rumour about the renam is true. I will buy a new radeon if it has 2GB of ram and at least ~40% increase in eyefinity performance. Otherwise I won't.
Edit: barts pro. Should have refreshed my screen. Shame on ATI if true for the annoying, misleading, and uneeded name change. Unless Barts outperforms cypress that is. That would be awesome.
Those pics confirmed the renames, though by definition it's not a rename because the product hasn't even been released :ROTF:
2560 x 1600 or higher resolution demographic ...Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Hmm ....
They never "changed" it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
People are so hung up on the name. Look past the name and realize that this new midrange GPU is performing right with the old highend GPU, Cypress.
I don't understand why people are so mislead about VRAM. Every time we cross over to a new density the same thing happens. I saw this when cards went from 64 to 128, 128 to 256, 256 to 512, 512 to 1024, and (now soon) 1024 to 2048. Someone will review a card with more memory and act surprised that it isn't any faster. Like with your computer's RAM, more only matters if you don't already have enough. If you're paging, things slow way down. If you're not (ie: your content all fits into VRAM already), you aren't going to magically gain anything. It's a bit of a catch-22 as well. Developers don't make games with larger texture sets until there are cards with more VRAM getting to be mainstream. People don't often buy the more expensive cards until they see a benefit. The only things saving us are time (and its implications like DRAM getting cheaper regardless so eventually it isn't expensive to double the VRAM) and fancy extras like AA eating up memory space and bandwidth even if the game's assets don't by themselves.
To quote from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I didn't state that 2GB would be useless with massive amounts of AA combined with 3 monitors.Quote:
I picked a couple of the games that were running plenty-fast in the previous CrossFire chart and added 8xAA to them
However, looking at the 5760x1080 single card section, I still only see a difference of 1 - 3 frames.
So yes, if you want to run 5760x1080 with 8xAA then 2GB will be worth it for you. But realistically, the number of people who even run eyefinity is miniscule, let alone those who think that 8xAA is necessary. Everyone else will not notice a difference between 1GB and 2GB VRAM, so I think most of them would prefer having 1GB of VRAM and lower costs on the cards.