[Razor1]

Originally Posted by bigtabs

I was of the understanding that the X1800XT was performing very nicely in modern titles against the 7900GTX.



So the parts where the G80 is bandwidth bound are to be removed by the massive bandwidth advantage of the R600. 0.5 - 1 to 1 you say? Hardly diminishing is it? Though it is lower than 1 to 1 as you say.

I'm not sure you meant diminishing returns, as much as you meant, or at least meant to imply low return. Even so... it's still quite a hefty return by your calculations wouldn't you say?

Well from a theoretically stand point the r600 should have at least a 50% advantage if it going with 140+ bandwidth actually should be more like 75% advantage, but what if it ends up at 20% only in real world testing? Thats why I say diminishing returns.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Razor1

Well from a theoretically stand point the r600 should have at least a 50% advantage if it going with 140+ bandwidth actually should be more like 75% advantage, but what if it ends up at 20% only in real world testing? Thats why I say diminishing returns.

However, what if the advantage is 20% in real world applications when both cards are doing 8x AA and 16x AF at 1920x1200 res.

And what if the advantage remains 20% if the ATI card is doing 16x AA and 16x AF while the competition is doing 8x AA and 16x AF at 1920x1200 res?

And what if the advantage remains 20% if ATI is doing 24x AA/16x AF while Nvidia is doing 16X AA/16X AF at 1920x1200 res?

And what if the advantage is 0% for ATI if there is no AA and no AF at 1280x1024 res?

Or how about if ATI has an greater than 20% advatage at 2560x1600 res with AA/AF?

Not to say that any of that is true, but until such time as various scenarios can be tested, it's rather difficult to come out with a blanket statement that the bandwidth will only afford XX% of an advantage.

Myself I'll just sit and wait to see how it performs in various situations before declaring it a good idea or a bad idea for them to have done this. Granted much of that bandwidth has been eroded by going with GDDR3 for the initial launch.

Regards,
SB

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Razor1

edit if I remember correctly after thinking about it, it was an article that showed both bandwidth and fillrate due to over clocking gave a 1 to 1 increase on the g80.

I'd like to find an article that shows how G80 responds just to higher memory clocks. (IIRC, I Googled for one for a reply to Shtal, possibly earlier in this thread.) All I could find was an Anandtech article that overclocked the ALUs and the rest of the GPU separately, demonstrating that it responded better to more fillrate than to more shader power.

[Razor1]

hmm looking myself I came across that anandtech article too, weird I remember there was at least one that was done, if I can't find it by morning tomorrow, I'll run a test with Oblivion tomorrow and do a quick analysis.

[trinibwoy]

I'm surprised the B3D guys didnt do something like that in the performance review. The AF impact graphs were cool but considering how much we've debated G80's bandwidth (in)sufficiency it's strange that no attention was paid to the issue in the article.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by theinquirer.net

WE HAVE CONFIRMATION of AMD's final naming convention for the R600. And the top end card is now the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT.

The new series of cards, including the 2600, will drop the 'X' that has accompanied the model number since the X800, and harks back to the heady days of the Radeon 9700 series. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38911

(I though X was = to 10) that what it should have represented at the first place anyway....

"Original Idea!"
Radeon 7000, 7200, 7500 was represented DirectX 7
Radeon 8500 was represented DirectX 8
Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800 was represented DirectX 9
X = 10 So Radeon X600, X700, X800 should have represented DirectX 10, but their was no support for SM3 or SM4
Radeon X1600, X1800, X1900 should have represented DirectX 11 SM5

I think ATI finally realize that they are no longer following Microsoft DirectX path steps anymore.

And here we go again! No X. yahooo
Radeon 2600, 2900 series; what's next - no X anymore at the front!

But next will be 3xxx series, 4xxx series, 5xxx series, 6xxx series and then we are going to reach to Radeon 7000, 7200, 7500 series, number scheme!

[Geeforcer]

They haven't been following Direct X since Radeon 9000/9200.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Geeforcer

They haven't been following Direct X since Radeon 9000/9200.

I know it was their first misleading number scheme, especially renamed Radeon 8500 to 9100....

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by _xxx_

That will happen in a year or so and G80 will be very old by then.

Based comparison with Geforce 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB

I see how 8800GTS-320MB suffers from limitation the amount of memory, because this game requires minimal 512MB video memory.

The Croatian developer Croteam’s project demands that the graphics card had 512 megabytes of memory. If the card doesn’t meet this requirement, its performance is going to be horribly low. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_13.html

I wonder what would be minimal requirements for upcoming Crysis game.
It will be very interesting R600 1GB video memory vs. G80 768MB video memory.

[Silent_Buddha]

That's one of the things that might make me hold off on HD 2900 XT. With a few games on the horizon taking advantage of up to 1 gig of memory on the video card (UE3 is a prominent one) I'm a bit hesitant. Optimally this next card will last me 2 years, but I'll be happy with 1.5 years.

Still that 400 USD price tag makes it tempting to grab it as an impulse buy rather than waiting for the XTX.

Regards,
SB

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

That's one of the things that might make me hold off on HD 2900 XT. With a few games on the horizon taking advantage of up to 1 gig of memory on the video card (UE3 is a prominent one) I'm a bit hesitant. Optimally this next card will last me 2 years, but I'll be happy with 1.5 years.

Still that 400 USD price tag makes it tempting to grab it as an impulse buy rather than waiting for the XTX.

Regards,
SB

I'm also interesting if their is going to be any impact for near future 384bit vs. 512bit memory bandwidth - to see how extra bandwidth will serve for ATI/AMD.

[Graham]

Perhaps DX10 memory managment + PCIe 2.0 will help ease the burdon on board graphics memory...

That graph is interesting. Are the lower numbers minimum frame rate? The 8800 seems to be consistently very low there... ? It really does show how well the x1950 scales though. It's not *that* much slower, and at the highest resolution and it's bang on the stock GTS (pretty amazing actually)

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Graham

Perhaps DX10 memory managment + PCIe 2.0 will help ease the burdon on board graphics memory...

That graph is interesting. Are the lower numbers minimum frame rate? The 8800 seems to be consistently very low there... ? It really does show how well the x1950 scales though. It's not *that* much slower, and at the highest resolution and it's bang on the stock GTS (pretty amazing actually)

I'm not going to paste directly more examples here, but if you click on that link, it shows more examples how GTS-320MB suffers based amount memory it has.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...gts-640_9.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_11.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_15.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_16.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_19.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ts-640_21.html
But in 3Dmark it does not suffers from that issue, only it does at extreme settings.

{Edit: if you look at the graph it shows 7FPS minimum and 30FPS average. "Serious Sam 2 game chart" }

[Gelanin]

Originally Posted by Shtal

Based comparison with Geforce 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB

I see how 8800GTS-320MB suffers from limitation the amount of memory, because this game requires minimal 512MB video memory.



I wonder what would be minimal requirements for upcoming Crysis game.
It will be very interesting R600 1GB video memory vs. G80 768MB video memory.

Hmmm, are the "abyssmal" G80 drivers the most likely culprit for its really low minimum numbers ?

Both the X1950XTX and the 7950GX2 seems to do alot better in the minimum framerate department, which is surprising, considering how most thought Unified shaders should smooth out fps curves.

[w0mbat]

http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-749836-1-1.html

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6...t239ce1nt9.jpg

[IbaneZ]

Originally Posted by w0mbat

http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-749836-1-1.html

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6...t239ce1nt9.jpg

R600 series? Hopefully it's the XL or Pro then.

[leoneazzurro]

It's a E6600 - default at 1280x1024.

So not to shabby even if it's a XT

[neliz]

Originally Posted by IbaneZ

R600 series? Hopefully it's the XL or Pro then.

driver says 8.351, remember fudzilla's item about 8.361 providing a lot of improvements over that version...(8.351)
Current highest score for non-OC 6600 plus SLI 8800GTX is 11339

[CJ]

Originally Posted by Shtal

I know it was their first misleading number scheme, especially renamed Radeon 8500 to 9100....

Actually at first everyone thought that the first number stood for the DX version that was common at that time. But later on ATi stated that this wasn't true and the first number stood for the generation of ATi GPU. So the 7x00 serie was based on the 7th ATi GPU ever. The 8x00 serie was based on the 8th ATi GPU generation. Etc etc etc. This is of course not taking into account any crappy renaming stuff that they pulled (eg 9600 -> X300 -> X550 -> X1050 or 8500 -> 9100).

The removal of the X and replacing it by HD looks to me like this was a decision made by AMD management. It wasn't until long ago that it still was X2900, which you tell by the fact that even the AMD website mentioned the X2900. Now it's time to let go of all we ever knew about the naming scheme. It's a brand new start. nVidia will have a GF9700 and or GF9800 at the end of this year/beginning of next year and who knows what will happen next.... GF X800 series?

[Nv500]

According to the guy in this post (you may need a reviewer permission to see the stuff):

http://we.pcinlife.com/attachment.ph...es&nothumb=yes

The card is a 2900XTX 1G DDR4 version, and in Windows XP with a OCed E6600 (edited, it is a E6600@300x9 as the guy suggested), it got a 3D MARK 06 of 10572.

[neliz]

Originally Posted by CJ

This is of course not taking into account any crappy renaming stuff that they pulled (eg 9600 -> X300 -> X550 -> X1050 or 8500 -> 9100).

9600 became x600

The removal of the X and replacing it by HD looks to me like this was a decision made by AMD management. It wasn't until long ago that it still was X2900, which you tell by the fact that even the AMD website mentioned the X2900.

True, they allready released the X2300, so a HD2400 is a definite derivative.
But What about SmartShader, SmoothVision, Videoshader etc. they allready had the HD moniker in the x1k series...

[Anarchist4000]

Out of curiosity wouldn't it be possible that ATI tweaked the early drivers so they didn't work well with R600 to prevent the early release of benchmarks? Sort of how they did the memory controller optimizations in the past but in reverse.

I'd imagine the HD naming has more to do with AMD attempting to sell the HD video acceleration as the main feature over speed or performance of the card. Plus it would get to damn hard to differentiate between CPUs and GPUs for the average consumer the way they've been naming things.

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by Anarchist4000

I'd imagine the HD naming has more to do with AMD attempting to sell the HD video acceleration as the main feature over speed or performance of the card. Plus it would get to damn hard to differentiate between CPUs and GPUs for the average consumer the way they've been naming things.

I think thats a plausible explanation, true HD gaming has finally come of age.

[IbaneZ]

Originally Posted by neliz

driver says 8.351, remember fudzilla's item about 8.361 providing a lot of improvements over that version...(8.351)
Current highest score for non-OC 6600 plus SLI 8800GTX is 11339

1000k+ with a newer driver this close to launch is impressive.

I hope they haven't pulled an NVIDIA ala' NV3x.

[trinibwoy]

Well we haven't had a driver cheating fiasco in a while and you know how much everybody loves those

Colored mipmaps ftw! But seriously, I think those scars run deep and won't soon be forgotten.