AMD Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 confirmed to be launched on 22.10.2010

[Eagleclaw]

Read some speculation at a few places of $599, I hope that is wrong but if a single cards matches that performance count me in.

So we should expect a 6990 for $450-$500 then.Sounds great actually,faster and $100 cheaper than a 5970.

[Manicdan]

i just saw a post by BeepBeep2 and its gone now

[Eagleclaw]

I as well, didn't see anything wrong with it, maybe he deleted it?

i just saw a post by BeepBeep2 and its gone now

[Manicdan]

I as well, didn't see anything wrong with it, maybe he deleted it?

was gonna ask where he sees a 460 at 900mhz beating a 5850 at 1ghz.

this is the closest i found: and it shows 2 things, that almost no 460 was able to hit 900mhz, and that even if they did, only a few games which were strong on nvidia at first, did it surpass the 5850 which was at stock

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3810/n...vendor-cards/7

[MrMojoZ]

+1

either that or you guys underestimate how stupid people really are.
get away from a computer every now and then and you will be amazed.

Nah, I can see it clearly in posts on this forum. Anyone who thinks new model numbers for new parts is the same as just renaming the same parts for example.

[cegras]

I find it funny how when it's NVIDIA most people scream at the top of their lungs for protecting random consumers who will not be informed. When it's AMD who might be possibly confusing consumers it's perfectly acceptable, and the burden should be on the consumer, and it's their fault.

How is this confusing customers? If you didn't know what core went into the naming bracket then your ONLY valid complaint (and indeed even now it is the only valid complaint) is that the 6870 is not shaping up for much of a boost over the 5870.

If ATI's 4 number naming policy still holds true, the 6870 and 6850 will still give 'enthusiast' class performance while the 69xx provide flagship performance. Although this is relative, based upon the assumption that the 6870 will perform better than the 5870, it's still true.

This is entirely different from nvidia, that actually took a chip from a previous generation and positioned it in the new one with nothing but a new name. ATI's supposed dicey business with renaming the 57xx to 67xx is exactly the sort of thing we didn't like nvidia doing, and that's bad.

[flopper]

well, if a 5770 give the same performance as a 6770 would do, there isnt any difference except features.
depends if people buy those cards for those or not

[BeepBeep2]

was gonna ask where he sees a 460 at 900mhz beating a 5850 at 1ghz.

this is the closest i found: and it shows 2 things, that almost no 460 was able to hit 900mhz, and that even if they did, only a few games which were strong on nvidia at first, did it surpass the 5850 which was at stock

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3810/n...vendor-cards/7

It was up for about two seconds, then I sorta gave up trying to defend myself and deleted it. (Because not all 460's can hit 900)

I will infact, have a post showing the evolution and confusion about Barts XT and PRO for you guys to flame, and this time it will be back up with info, charts and reproducible math. I'm working as I speak.

[Baron_Davis]

To those saying how informed buyers will KNOW the 6870 is slower than their 5870, you are being very short sighted. This isn't about the <1% (ppl on XS) that build their own systems, this is about the mainstream. BestBuy and jabroni stores like it will have desktops with 6870's, and laptops will start carrying 6870M and random Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster". If you don't comprehend this type of thinking, you must live alone in a cave. ANY NORMAL, NON-TECHNICAL PERSON ASSUMES A BIGGER NUMBER MEANS FASTER.

[Manicdan]

actually a 6870M could have alot of power
if perf per watt is better, then a Xwatt tdp in a laptop part can hold more power in the new gen over the old gen. since we dont have specs at all for that segment, i wouldnt even wonder about it yet

anyone who bought a 5870, and plans on getting a 6870 without reading any info, deserves to be fooled. i wish i could dump 2000$ a year on computer parts (i assume they also buy other components each year if they are already buying top end gpus yearly)

[BeepBeep2]

To those saying how informed buyers will KNOW the 6870 is slower than their 5870, you are being very short sighted. This isn't about the <1% (ppl on XS) that build their own systems, this is about the mainstream. BestBuy and jabroni stores like it will have desktops with 6870's, and laptops will start carrying 6870M and random Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster". If you don't comprehend this type of thinking, you must live alone in a cave. ANY NORMAL, NON-TECHNICAL PERSON ASSUMES A BIGGER NUMBER MEANS FASTER.

It doesn't matter, because apparently this type of thinking makes you a "cry baby" and you are just whining about something that is insignificant.

It's hilarious to me, because the whining was totally tolerable when NVIDIA did the same thing. (rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster.)

actually a 6870M could have alot of power
if perf per watt is better, then a Xwatt tdp in a laptop part can hold more power in the new gen over the old gen. since we dont have specs at all for that segment, i wouldnt even wonder about it yet

anyone who bought a 5870, and plans on getting a 6870 without reading any info, deserves to be fooled. i wish i could dump 2000$ a year on computer parts (i assume they also buy other components each year if they are already buying top end gpus yearly)

Perf per watt is not better which I will show you guys in a few minutes.
5850 > Barts XT...in several ways.

[Manicdan]

Perf per watt is not better which I will show you guys in a few minutes.
5850 > Barts XT...in several ways.

what about vs Barts Pro in perf per watt. the top mhz parts will always have horrible perf per watt compared to the lower end stuff.



in there you see the stuff ending with xx70 are all behind the stuff ending in xx50 (i used the 460 review cause it has alot of newer cards in the past year, the 5850 review was from way to long ago)

[BeepBeep2]

what about vs Barts Pro in perf per watt. the top mhz parts will always have horrible perf per watt compared to the lower end stuff.



in there you see the stuff ending with xx70 are all behind the stuff ending in xx50 (i used the 460 review cause it has alot of newer cards in the past year, the 5850 review was from way to long ago)

I'm working on it.

There's a lot of math involved due to leaked slides only giving some of the info.

But seriously, if any of you think that Barts XT is an upgrade over Cypress (even if you don't own Cypress) then you are mistaken. I'd still buy a Cypress card over Barts.

[Vardant]

So it seems, the final spec. of HD 6850 are 775MHz/4GHz with 960SP. Price still $229?

[BeepBeep2]

So it seems, the final spec. of HD 6850 are 775MHz/4GHz with 960SP. Price still $229?

No, it's 775/???? with 800 SP...

6870 will have 960 @ 850/????

[Eagleclaw]

But the 6870 will be what? $50-$75 cheaper than the 5870?

So ATI just saved dumbass Joe that much money.

But the bigger point being you can't mother everyone like the government
and blame everyone but yourself if you are not smart enough to google a review.

If Average Joe is not smart enough to google reviews are you going to baby sit him when he
goes out and gets that new washer and dryer at Sears and the sales person talks him into the worst model?

Sorry but no amount of labeling is going to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.

Warning this coffee is HOT!


edit:

On the serious side. I really do see your point about higher numbers, but come on at leased wait for the
full lineup to be released before complaining about it.

Sure until the 5870's are off the shelves this is going to cause some problems but oh well.


edit 2:

On this comment "Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster"."

How will he ever know it's not faster? He would have to read a review, oh wait he doesn't read reviews. See that is why I don't think
you are making much of a point with those comments.

To those saying how informed buyers will KNOW the 6870 is slower than their 5870, you are being very short sighted. This isn't about the <1% (ppl on XS) that build their own systems, this is about the mainstream. BestBuy and jabroni stores like it will have desktops with 6870's, and laptops will start carrying 6870M and random Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster". If you don't comprehend this type of thinking, you must live alone in a cave. ANY NORMAL, NON-TECHNICAL PERSON ASSUMES A BIGGER NUMBER MEANS FASTER.

[Eagleclaw]

Where is AMD "rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster"

?
?

It doesn't matter, because apparently this type of thinking makes you a "cry baby" and you are just whining about something that is insignificant.

It's hilarious to me, because the whining was totally tolerable when NVIDIA did the same thing. (rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster.)



Perf per watt is not better which I will show you guys in a few minutes.
5850 > Barts XT...in several ways.

[BeepBeep2]

But the 6870 will be what? $50-$75 cheaper than the 5870?

So ATI just saved dumbass Joe that much money.

But the bigger point being you can't mother everyone like the government
and blame everyone but yourself if you are not smart enough to google a review.

If Average Joe is not smart enough to google reviews are you going to baby sit him when he
goes out and gets that new washer and dryer at Sears and the sales person talks him into the worst model?

Sorry but no amount of labeling is going to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.

Warning this coffee is HOT!


edit:

On the serious side. I really do see your point about higher numbers, but come on at leased wait for the
full lineup to be released before complaining about it.

Sure until the 5870's are off the shelves this is going to cause some problems but oh well.


edit 2:

On this comment "Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster"."

How will he ever know it's not faster? He would have to read a review, oh wait he doesn't read reviews. See that is why I don't think
you are making much of a point with those comments.

Because his game runs slower.

Oh, and cool ego dude.

Where is AMD "rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster"

?
?

HD5750's are now to be called HD6750, and HD5770's will be renamed to HD6770. It just adds on to the pile of misleading trash...


Okay, I give up.

I guess I wasn't satisfied with the high core clock combined with almost no increase in performance at the same price point. The fact that it saves a considerable amount of power over the 5-Series (and apparently GTX4xx) is great...

Old 6770 slide:


New Barts XT slide:


Note-

Barts XT: Core Clock has gone down 50 Mhz to 850 Mhz from 900, SP's were reduced from 1280 to 960, Texture Units reduced from 64 to 48, as well as board power going marginally up. Board power moves from 146w vs (greater than) >150w, ... Remember, the 5850's max board power is 151w.

Barts PRO: Core Clock is now listed at 700-725 Mhz (was 725), SP's were reduced from 1120 to 800, Texture Units dropped from 56 to 40, and board power went from 114w to (less than) <150w.

You guys have to realize that Barts XT has changed a bit recently.
The HD6770 listed in leaked slides has the card at 900 Mhz core, with 1280 Stream Processors, 64 texture units.

1 multiply+add "mad" (2 FP) ops per cycle * number of stream processors (1280) * core clock (900 Mhz) equals the 2.304 TFlops as that slide states.

This was the 6770, and it's specs are still worse than the "current" 5870. It's closer to the 5850 in performance. (Which is acceptable at a $250 price point.) Pay very close attention to the max board power for Barts XT on this slide. 146w.

The black slide I have above shows Barts XT as 850 Mhz core, with 960 Stream Processors, 48 texture units @ greater than 150w. Again, the 5850's max board power is 151w.
Those specs leave us with 1 multiply+add (2 FP) ops per cycle * number of stream processors (960) (which is cut down by 320 from 1280) * core clock (850 Mhz)
= 1.632 TFLops of Single Precision.

At a $260 price point, that leaves us with something between a 5770 and 5850. (Remember, 5850's can be had for $260 at this time.)

Performance wise (Single Precision only, and ONLY Single Precision) it is equal to a 5770 at 1020 Mhz.
HD5770 (Can be had for $135, or $125 w/ rebate on Newegg.com on Oct. 15 2010):
10 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 800 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 1.36 TFLops/s SP
40 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 34 GTexel/s
16 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 13.6 GPixel/s
64 Z/Stencils * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 54.4 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 76.8 GB/s
Max board power: 108w

Overclocked HD5770 @ 1020/1445 ($140 to $160 for voltage control):
10 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 800 SP's * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 1.632 TFLops/s SP
40 Texture Units * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 40.8 GTexel/s
16 ROP's * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 16.32 GPixel/s
64 Z/Stencils * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 65.28 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 76.8 GB/s
Or for fun: 1445 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 92.5 GB/s

HD6850 (Barts PRO) from black slide priced at $200 (?):
10 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 800 SP's * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 1.12 TFLops SP to 1.16 TFLops SP
40 Texture Units * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 28 GTexel/s to 29 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 22.4 GPixel/s to 23.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 700-725 Mhz 89.6 GSamples/s to 92.8 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s
Max board power: (less than) <150w

New HD6850 (Barts PRO) priced around $200 to $225:
10 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 800 SP's * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 1.24 TFLops SP
40 Texture Units * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 31 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 24.8 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 775 Mhz = 99.2 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 (?) * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 (?) * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 153.6 GB/s (I doubt we will see this on a midrange card)

HD5850 (currently selling for $260 @ Newegg.com on Oct. 15 2010):
18 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 1440 SP's * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 2.088 TFLops SP
72 Texture Units * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 52.2 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 23.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 92.8 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s.
Maximum Board Power = 151w

HD5850 Overclocked to 1000/1300
18 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1440 SP's * 1000 Core Clock = 2.88 TFLops SP (note, this is nearly twice as fast as the stock 6870 below)
72 Texture Units * 1000 Core Clock = 72 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1000 Core Clock = 32 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1000 Core Clock = 128 GSamples/s
1300 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 166.4 GB/s

HD6870 (Barts XT) from the black slide ($260?):
12 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 960 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 1.632 TFLops SP
48 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 40.8 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 27.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils (as noted on black chart) * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 108.8 GSamples/s
1050 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 134.4 GB/s
Max board power: (greater than) >150w

Theoretical HD6870 with completely insane overclock @ 1100/1450:
12 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 960 SP's * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 2.112 TFLops SP
48 Texture Units * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 42.8 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 35.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 140.8 GSamples/s
1450 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 185.6 GB/s

HD5870 (currently selling for $350, as low as $310 with rebate on Newegg.com as of Oct. 15 2010):
20 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1600 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 2.72 TFLops SP
80 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 68.0 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 27.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 108.8 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 153.6 GB/s
Max board power: 188w

Overclocked 5870 @ 1000/1325 :
20 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1600 SP's * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 3.20 TFLops SP
80 Texture Units * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 80.0 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 32.0 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 128.0 GSamples/s
1325 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 169.7 GB/s

Also keep in mind that new Barts 6800 Series cards only feature one crossfire interconnect.

[Eagleclaw]

Ego? No not at all just trying to make a counter point about average Joe
and no one will answer anything I have brought up.

Like your comment, "his game will run slower"

Slower than what I ask? Slower than his 5870?

Come on you know it's rumored to a wash, but really you think someone
who has a 5870 (paid $400 and installed it) isn't going to look for a review
and blindly go out and buy a 6870 for cheaper and think it WAY faster??

I am also on record that "if" AMD does rebrand I will along with everyone else but not until it happens.

Because his game runs slower.

Oh, and cool ego dude.



HD5750's are now to be called HD6750, and HD5770's will be renamed to HD6770. It just adds on to the pile of misleading trash.

[BeepBeep2]

Ego? No not at all just trying to make a counter point about average Joe
and no one will answer anything I have brought up.

Like your comment, "his game will run slower"

Slower than what I ask? Slower than his 5870?

Come on you know it's rumored to a wash, but really you think someone
who has a 5870 (paid $400 and installed it) isn't going to look for a review
and blindly go out and buy a 6870 for cheaper and think it WAY faster??

I am also on record that "if" AMD does rebrand I will along with everyone else but not until it happens.

Well, the jump from 4 series to 5 series was huge wasn't it?

That average joe that replaced this 4890 with a 5870 is going to think the same about the 6870.

[DosDuoNo]

so if this follows cycle, they will rebrand the 5000 series, and then announce a 'new' card that will be released Q4 2011, but delay that launch among rumours from semi accurate that it runs too hot, and the yeilds are under two percent.

charlie will then witch hunt them down, quoting and questioning every turn they make till they release a card that has 10% less shaders and consumes 20% more power than originaly stated.

welcome my friends to last year, just a differant badge

[Manicdan]

lots of numbers to inhale, thanks for the work

a few things though. did Texture Units really decrease by that much? i dont know how much space is needed for that or how important it is. but it sounds important and i hope those are about the same as a 5850.

the TFlops also i wouldnt worry to much about. theoretical performance is really only used in one place, furmark. we were all expecting that 5th shader to be dropped, and if it is, then its 240 strong SPs vs 320 (Barts XT vs 5870). also the SP cluster per TU is now 5 vs 4.

the raw numbers look bad, but as an architecture it can all work well together.

also i doubt things were changing around that much in the past 2 months, we were just being fed lots of fud i think.

[Eagleclaw]

BTW nice work on the calculations above, good information.

Correct, again my point he must be smart enough to look at review if he is upgrading his card and installing it.

Sure there will be a few that blindly buy but I don't think it is going to be that big a deal in the end.

As one forum member stated a few pages back it should only be a month after Barts when the 6900's are out so maybe that will halt some of these issues.

I understand if they did change the name scheme to deceive they will rightly deserve the backlash they get.

Well, the jump from 4 series to 5 series was huge wasn't it?

That average joe that replaced this 4890 with a 5870 is going to think the same about the 6870.

[MrMojoZ]

Or you could wait for the cards to come out instead of guessing at performance. Also, I don't think you want to get in bed with the Baron there considering all the trolling he has done lately.

On the whole "Average person thinks bigger ## = faster" thing, this is true. However it also means these people think a 5450 is faster than a 4870, shifting between x7xx and x8xx numbers mean nothing to them only price matters. I know thats defeats your whole position, but these things happen.

[BeepBeep2]

so if this follows cycle, they will rebrand the 5000 series, and then announce a 'new' card that will be released Q4 2011, but delay that launch among rumours from semi accurate that it runs too hot, and the yeilds are under two percent.

charlie will then witch hunt them down, quoting and questioning every turn they make till they release a card that has 10% less shaders and consumes 20% more power than originaly stated.

welcome my friends to last year, just a differant badge

I agree 100%.

Instead of G92 it's Juniper this time around.

lots of numbers to inhale, thanks for the work

a few things though. did Texture Units really decrease by that much? i dont know how much space is needed for that or how important it is. but it sounds important and i hope those are about the same as a 5850.

the TFlops also i wouldnt worry to much about. theoretical performance is really only used in one place, furmark. we were all expecting that 5th shader to be dropped, and if it is, then its 240 strong SPs vs 320 (Barts XT vs 5870). also the SP cluster per TU is now 5 vs 4.

the raw numbers look bad, but as an architecture it can all work well together.

also i doubt things were changing around that much in the past 2 months, we were just being fed lots of fud i think.

Yeah, they dropped that much.

Well, considering the black slide is placing 6850 against GTX460 192-bit, and 6870 against GTX460 256-bit, I don't think we will be seeing performance anywhere near what people were expecting. The 5850 is already marginally faster than the GTX460 1GB.