New rumor about ATI Southern Islands

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! :)