ATI`s R600 News Thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-16-2006, 08:36 AM
JuanFlaiter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syn.

The reason why R580 louched shortly after the R520 is becouse that was the planned R580's lounch window, so they are not behind scheduel.

I´m more into the conspiracy theory and think that R580 was always what ATi thought about R580, but couldn´t achieve (yields, libraries, call it how you like it).
10-18-2006, 03:06 PM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuanFlaiter

I´m more into the conspiracy theory and think that R580 was always what ATi thought about R580, but couldn´t achieve (yields, libraries, call it how you like it).

Considering how ATI already moved towards unified shader array with X1800XT, I think many people will be surprised at how un-spectacular the R600 will be.

As for the yields.. you can't possibly expect good yields on new unproven 90nm process (X1800/X1900), and to make matters worse, huge die size, and complex design with lots of dynamic logic. Its not necessarily whoever goes all out and creates the fastest design that wins, but those that make it the most efficient and thus most profitable.

X1950pro goes a long way to set ATI back on the right track.
10-18-2006, 07:23 PM
brandinb

Quote:

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Each successive DX generation, neither ATI nor nVidia have been well ahead. Even in the infamous NV30 vs R300, 5900's were about as fast if not faster than ATI's cards in vast majority of games out there. Just because performance was lackluster in DX9 mode in a few new DX9 games (including infamous HL2 2003 FX series benchmarks that smeared nVidia with bad reputation.. and the game didn't come out till Nov 2004, half a year after 6800/X800, making FX series a mut point).

So basically, if either ATI or nVidia comes out well ahead it will be an uprecedented first. Dont count on it.

Time and time again, I repeat ad nasaum that Mhz doesnt count. So these folks resort to counting their pipelines. I tell them that pipelines aren't definitive measure of performance either. So, now they resort to arguing over number of "shaders". Please, just let this ridiculous insanity stop. It very well might be a good rough way of seperating product lines from one company.. but a very poor comparison between ATI and nVidia chips!!

HYPOTHETICAL example: CPU-A 1 SSE unit. CPU-B 2 SSE units. CPU-B faster? What if CPU-A clockspeed is higher? What if CPU-A executes SSE instruction in 1 cycle, and CPU-B executes in 3. With equal clockspeeds, now CPU-A is faster, right? But, maybe CPU-B can pre-fetch more intelligently, and has wider decoders. Thus it wouldn't matter how fast CPU-A can theoretically execute the instructions when CPU-B can process them faster... and even if you factored in all dozens of factors, you're still just left with hypothetical synthetic numbers. In actual applications/games and drivers with optimizations, the performance could be totally different than expected.

Bottom line: dozens of factors. Speculation is just speculation. Need real test with real hardware running real games to actually measure which is faster. Nobody cares if their video card has 8, 16, or 1024 shaders... if it cant run 60 fps in Quake3.

good post man good post :toast:
10-19-2006, 02:00 AM
mursaat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Each successive DX generation, neither ATI nor nVidia have been well ahead. Even in the infamous NV30 vs R300, 5900's were about as fast if not faster than ATI's cards in vast majority of games out there. Just because performance was lackluster in DX9 mode in a few new DX9 games (including infamous HL2 2003 FX series benchmarks that smeared nVidia with bad reputation.. and the game didn't come out till Nov 2004, half a year after 6800/X800, making FX series a mut point).

So basically, if either ATI or nVidia comes out well ahead it will be an uprecedented first. Dont count on it.

Time and time again, I repeat ad nasaum that Mhz doesnt count. So these folks resort to counting their pipelines. I tell them that pipelines aren't definitive measure of performance either. So, now they resort to arguing over number of "shaders". Please, just let this ridiculous insanity stop. It very well might be a good rough way of seperating product lines from one company.. but a very poor comparison between ATI and nVidia chips!!

HYPOTHETICAL example: CPU-A 1 SSE unit. CPU-B 2 SSE units. CPU-B faster? What if CPU-A clockspeed is higher? What if CPU-A executes SSE instruction in 1 cycle, and CPU-B executes in 3. With equal clockspeeds, now CPU-A is faster, right? But, maybe CPU-B can pre-fetch more intelligently, and has wider decoders. Thus it wouldn't matter how fast CPU-A can theoretically execute the instructions when CPU-B can process them faster... and even if you factored in all dozens of factors, you're still just left with hypothetical synthetic numbers. In actual applications/games and drivers with optimizations, the performance could be totally different than expected.

Bottom line: dozens of factors. Speculation is just speculation. Need real test with real hardware running real games to actually measure which is faster. Nobody cares if their video card has 8, 16, or 1024 shaders... if it cant run 60 fps in Quake3.

Yes, and companies should put more effort (or stop cheating people) with their naming. No surprise everyone thinks a X1950 Pro is better than a X1900XTX. It has 50+ in its name. Since they invented the suffixes, how many of them have you seen?

LE, SE, Pro, Ultra, TC, GS, GX2, GT, GT0, GTX, XT, XTX, XT PE and that before each brand decided to release overclocked versions of the same chip/mem.

I challenge everybody to order by performance every GPU available from now ATI and nvidia Hint: you still can buy a 8500 from ATI :D

Now tell that to anyone who wants to upgrade its system and has no idea of the insides of a computer.
10-19-2006, 03:00 AM
Lifthanger

you're right. and to make it even more complicated: performance in what application?!
10-19-2006, 01:15 PM
mursaat

Right: DX8, DX9, SM2, SM3, D3D, OGL, shaders, ROPs

If you think about it there's a ton of info what we know, such a waste (well no, it's our hobby :D:D:D)
10-19-2006, 01:30 PM
ewitte

Quote:

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Its not necessarily whoever goes all out and creates the fastest design that wins, but those that make it the most efficient and thus most profitable.

The new cards are 100% about speed and DX10 support. Neither are going to be efficient (or cheap) until the work on revisions.
10-19-2006, 06:36 PM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewitte

The new cards are 100% about speed and DX10 support. Neither are going to be efficient (or cheap) until the work on revisions.

precisely.

but then again, the first of the new generation are always just for the die-hard early adopters... and they dont really care about power, heat, etc.. (ie.. look in sigs of many xtremesystems girls and guys)
10-19-2006, 11:35 PM
Cooper

ATi R600 Card Is Long & Hot

Quote:

News : GPUs & Graphic Cards : ATi R600 Card Is Long & Hot
Since we have to go quiet for the G80 now, we will focus our attention on the ATi next generation R600. We got to know that R600 is a 300W beast built on 80nm process technology. To cool off that beast, you need a 4 heatpipes cooling solution. The R600 card is long from what we have seen, around G80GTX length but the cooler is longer than the PCB. It has two power connectors like the NV flagship card and it is dual slot of course. Also we knew that the last spin at TSMC is less than ideal so we can conclude it is suffering from poor yield at this point of time. It is slated to launch in Q1 2007 according to ATi's roadmap but it might delay further.

Source
10-20-2006, 01:24 PM
Turtle 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

precisely.

but then again, the first of the new generation are always just for the die-hard early adopters... and they dont really care about power, heat, etc.. (ie.. look in sigs of many xtremesystems girls and guys)

So your saying the ATI 9700 pro was an exception to this rule.

I agree 100%

Well the X800xtpe was really good out of the box also.
10-20-2006, 03:38 PM
NickS

Yeah. IMHO, the 97/9800 Pro's were THE BEST video cards ever made.
10-20-2006, 03:42 PM
CedricFP

The 97/98's were what really put ATI on the roadmap. Those cards started the feud that is NV VS ATI - it was monumental to the development of ATi as a firm, and the graphics industry as a whole.

It also threw NV off, allowing for greater competition (ie. innovation) with cheaper prices.
10-20-2006, 04:43 PM
thunderstruck!

Sooner or later you'll have to water cool your video card. Not a problem for me, but the heat is getting ridiculous.
10-20-2006, 05:04 PM
***Deimos***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

So your saying the ATI 9700 pro was an exception to this rule.

I agree 100%

Well the X800xtpe was really good out of the box also.

TNT vs TNT2
Geforce vs GF2
GF3 vs GF4
FX5800 vs FX5900
7800 vs 7900

the first one, new, high heat... the second, refined, more efficient, less heat thanks to die shrinks.
10-20-2006, 10:12 PM
Poodle

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickS

Yeah. IMHO, the 97/9800 Pro's were THE BEST video cards ever made.

I agree. I still have my old 9800pro in my girlfriends rig. Brilliant card for it's day...

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page