stingerhs Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 ...is the R600. for those that hadn't heard about it before, i have some links below. in a nutshell, the R600 is based on the graphics processor used in the Xbox 360 minus the memory built into the die and plus the individual shader units, and since it will use GDDR4, the memory on the die isn't much of a minus. basically, this chip will seriously outclass the Xbox 360 and come awefully close to outclassing the PS3 in terms of raw graphics power. in other words, the G80 isn't likely to match up in performance. the downside is that you'll probably have to wait for Q4 of this year to get one. teh first linkie teh second linkie anyways, discuss!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 hmmm...those articles are almost 1 year old. This French article says the card is said to be launched in Q1 2007...apparently in March or April according to more recent sources. Apparently the card would beat the GeForce 8800 GTX in some benchmarks by 8 to 42%. I also found the specs of the whole x2800 series here altogether with the European suggested retail prices (today's article): http://www.configspc.com/article1795.html (sorry it's in french again but you won't have any problems understanding the table with the specs ) Pics of the beast: http://www.overclockers.com/articles1411/ (English) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 here's some updated links (beware: extremely tech savvy info that can be confusing): http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37631 http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37614 http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37611 that should give you some really good details on the cards. good stuff, although i'm a bit concerned as to why ATI needed such long cards (one is 9.5 inches and another is a whopping 12.5 inches). and for comparisons on the various flavors, D333's link has a great table to show off the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 that should give you some really good details on the cards. good stuff, although i'm a bit concerned as to why ATI needed such long cards (one is 9.5 inches and another is a whopping 12.5 inches). It looks like the additional 3 inches on the second card is due to the cooling system: http://elephant.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/36714.jpg I am not sure it would even fit in my case Anyway I don't need a new card for now. I'm not planning to upgrade to Vista anytime soon and my actual card should be able to easily handle things untill the next gen of dx10 cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 ATI's card has more X's, it clearly has the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Im an AMD fanboy, but have bever been a huge fan of ATI.... their catalyst control center can verge on bloatware on slower systems... Another thing, all the mainboards I seem to end up with seem to have nvidia chipsets. I know there is cross compatibility(though not 100% friendly in Vista yet) but I like to keep my chipset and my gx card in cahoots... I perhaps am an nvidia fanboy Also, I think we are creeping towards a ceiling effect with GPUs..... A. Think about the numbers with a mid-high end G80 B. Think about the max framerate the eye can detect C. Think about the max rez most of us game at (1280 and under) Thus, 200fps and UHD sounds awesome, but is utterly useless to most people.... fps is becoming less of an issue nowdays when reading benchies, but rather propensity to handle complex textures/shaders etc. I myself cant pick between the higher to mid levels of AF and AA, and I have a huge monitor(27") to stare at. For most people playing away on a 15" or 17" screen, this bears thought too. all I can say that is good about all this is the competition factor still, will watch those benchies and see what happens... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 ^^^^ i respectfully have to disagree. i think the ceiling that we're reaching is due to the limited capabilities of graphic engines built on DX9. there's a limited amount of graphics capabilities in DX9, and the vast majority of games have pushed the envelope about as far as it will go. thus, the cards that are designed for next-gen (DX10) will run the DX9 games at blazing fast speeds. i, for one, doubt that a game like Crysis is going to be able to run much faster than 40-50 fps on a DX10 compatible card (running on a DX10 system, of course) which is in the same neighborhood as the current generation series of DX9 cards when running DX9-based games. thats just my two pennies, anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 MAAAAAAAAN! Look at the heat pipes on that thing! They should come with their own supply of liquid nitrogen and a microfusion reactor. I wonder how many amps will be required to feed that monster. Well, the G80 series ended up requiring less power than I thought it would. R600 will undoubtedly require more, perhaps far more. There's got to be a reason for all that power consumption, so either the R600 is a very inefficient chip, or it's going to use all of that electricity to effectively stomp the G80. Maybe they could develop a way to harness all of the heat that it will produce and use it to generate more power. i, for one, doubt that a game like Crysis is going to be able to run much faster than 40-50 fps on a DX10 compatible card Agreed. Im an AMD fanboy, but have bever been a huge fan of ATI.... their catalyst control center can verge on bloatware on slower systems... On a fast system or a slow one it can also verge on being a pain in the a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 their catalyst control center can verge on bloatware on slower systems... But there's always Ati tray tools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 But there's always Ati tray tools *points at ATI fangirl* c'mon D333 - we know what card you have @stinger...what are you disagreeing with!! i think the ceiling that we're reaching is due to the limited capabilities of graphic engines built on DX9. there's a limited amount of graphics capabilities in DX9 thats what I said/meant too(though probably not as lucidly - posting in dark and small hours again!!) What DX10 can or cant do is speculation until (in order of importance) 1. Graphics card drivers make a few cycles. Nvidia and ATI have only clocked over one driver release since *official release date* of vista.. Still some games and apps suffering significant problems.... 2. DX 10 Titles are authored 3. Proper benchies are run.... maybe Ive been looking in the wrong place, but I'd like to see someone do some tests on: 'high end apps and DX9 games on high end Dx9 cards with XP' VS 'high end apps and DX9 games on the 8800 and friends with VISTA' Ive seen the 'duh-guess the outcome' benchies for the 8800 with DX9 apps/games in XP but would like to see if Vista is able to pick up where XP is leaving off if anyone has seen such benchies....linky! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 That's what bothers me about Vista, I think it might hog a bit too much of the resources for itself, leaving less for your games meaning your fancy 8800 is worth about the same on a Vista system as the 7800 on XP... A few benchmarks on that would be nice indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 ATI's card has more X's, it clearly has the advantage. nu-uh... what about the XFX 8800GTX XXX Edition. Thats one factory OC'd kickass card that I would like to have I love XFX cards....their numbers speak for themselves.. why dont they ever list my GX2 ! although its numbers would be similar to the x1900/1950 methinks .... just shows the kickassery of these 'next gen' cards. Interesting to see ATIs offerings and how prices will be affected. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 why dont they ever list my GX2 ! although its numbers would be similar to the x1900/1950 methinks It would be slightly better than an X1950XTX, methinks. Hey... Look at that O/C'd 8800GTS. Impressive for a card that costs around $200.00US less than an 8800GTX. Most impressive. EDIT: For anyone interested, here is a chart of current and future Nvidia cards, Nvidia's-answer-to-ATI's-answer-to-Nvidia's-G80, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Thanks for the linky Qliveur I often need to resort to running my own (albeit basic) benchmarks.... as I mentioned the 7950GX2 isnt really chucked in with alot of reviews and quite often they NEVER test at 1366x768 ! But price is often a guide as to how cards are performing and in demand. A 7950GX2 definitely isnt in the bargain bin yet They're still sold at over $900 here(the same price as the OCd 640 8800 or the basic 768 8800) I couldnt even find them on newegg for some reason...maybe I was lookin in the wrong place !! Im just going to wait to see how it handles the newer games(sans DX10 effects of course) Out of curiousity, I wonder when AMD will start branding their GPUs themselves? or will they always keep an ATI reference for marketing purposes?? mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Good question. I would think that they would want to hang on to the ATI name in some form or another. Brand name recognition is important in marketing. I have seen the moniker "AMD/ATI" tossed around quite a bit, but nothing official. If I were AMD I would probably go with something like "ATI a division of Advanced Micro Devices" or somesuch in order to keep the ATI brand name, but at the same time to acknowledge that it is owned by AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 i don't know. even by following http://www.ati.com, you get referred to an amd.com domain. that makes me wonder if the ATI name isn't already swirling down the drain, so to speak. that doesn't bear much of a problem among enthusiasts, though. most of us know the ATI and AMD name well enough. and most of us know that the AMD name is a pretty solid name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.