remember that rumor monger site..... how real can these be?

http://it-review.net/index.php?optio...1&limitstart=1

Well if they're not real I give them 10 points for imagination. If real those points go to ATI for most impressive performance in the WTF category this year. I mean, there is absolutely no friggin way R600 should be losing to the GTS in ANYTHING.

if they are fake, man lots of sites are going to be loosing their reputation:lol:

No, but you can make XL's. ;)

Good thinking. This is very intriguing.

8-2-8 appears to be read as:

• clusters
• number of ALU arrays per cluster
• number of pixels per array

So 4-4-4-5 would need to be interpreted as:

• clusters
• number of ALU arrays per cluster
• number of pixels per array
• number of co-issues per pixel

By this nomenclature, RV630 would be 3-2-4-5 and RV610 would be 2-1-4-5.

Smaller batches, better dynamic branching.

The "level" might be referring to the fact that R600 is 5 scalars co-issued, rather than G80 which (sort of) is just scalar. Dunno.

These ideas could indicate far more scheduler complexity in R600 than in R580. We need a leaked slide that says R600 is 16 SIMDs to confirm this, I think. Otherwise it's subtler and not as exciting :lol:

Jawed

Its a give away when the author/reviewer himself asks you to resort to salt .. ;)

If their real, then alot of well known respected editors are going to be losing their credibility.

Why must you put faith in a review that looks half ass to say the least?

hmm i questioned the results :wink:

Without pictures, without driver info, without any real information about benchmarking method, i say like 1% :wink:

That was in reference to a specific set of results.

And Sound Card what do you want people to do? Ignore everything that you don't like? The rumour mill is churning and you can't conveniently filter out the stuff you don't want to see/hear. Just take it for five more days. You've stood strong this long, a little while longer won't kill you :) It's not like people are taking this stuff as gospel - it's just the usual hullabaloo that surrounds every launch.

I don't think you'll find any.

Reaon: Take the slide from p193 - RV630 is supposed to have 120 SPUs in 3 SIMDs. Now what would that give for 16 SIMDs? Definitely more than 320, right?

From the looks of it, the HD 2900 XT is loosing to a X1950 XTX (yeah, right... :D).

How convenient .. :lol:

Anyway, their benchmark numbers are .. "whack" to state it in a very 80's way, but also conveniently compatible with DT's "OMG AMD IS d00meD!" review.

Bah, fake! N00bs!! Everybody knows that you have to be a rocket scientist to benchmark a video card, and I'm sure that the guys at dailytech and it-review don't qualify. :wink:

Seriously though, the early previews/fakenews/whatever, and hints from people that the gaming performance ain't that good is a little spooky.

Less than five days left now, and you just know a few sites will post their stuff early. I'm thinking vr-zone. :smile:

Just wanted to make sure you weren't taking the statement out of context that's all :)

Fruitzilla:

Link

But eight?

All three of these GPUs have varying ALU:TEX ratios, so I don't see how RV630 can lead to such a specific conclusion.

---

I think the smaller GPUs might need their smaller batch sizes for general batch throughput reasons.

Forgetting the advantage that smaller batches brings to dynamic branching, when the GPU is trying to timeslice amongst primitive, vertex and pixel batches, smaller batches make for more finely-grained scheduling.

I don't know how important this is...

Jawed

DX10.1 important, methinks.:wink:

Just take a look at the components used:

I have my doubts that they even used the same platform.

A SIMD in this ATI nomenclature would be each main ALU cluster.
The basic "tile" of this architecture is the group of 20 SP, arranged in a 4x5 fashion.
Let's call it a "quad block". Each level of "Quad block" is tied to a TU.
So R600 is a 4 SIMD, with each SIMD being 4 Quad blocks, 4 TU GPU.
RV630 is a 3 SIMD, with each SIMD being 2 Quad Blocks, 2 TU GPU.
R610 is a 2 SIMD, wich each SIMD being a Quad Block, 1 TU GPU.

In any case, RV630 is much less texture limited in relation to R600 (in terms of ALU:TEX), because one TU serves 4 SIMD in R600 but only 3 in RV630.

EDIT: if this is really how R6XX GPUs are organized...

IT-reviews could have benchmarked one of those 65nm R600s they have been insiting on. It had trouble keeping up with other cards, being imaginary and all.

Yeah I'm not even sure what they're trying to say there....

OK, I don't know the validity of those benchmarks but to be fair the reviewer said to take the 'CoH benchmarks with a tiny grain of salt' ! :smile: