-The_Mask-
Newcomer
That seems promising since they can get Barts specs right...
(had to restrain myself from using rolleyes)
I know, but it doesn't make the Cayman specs wrong. (insert rolleyes smiley
)
Last edited by a moderator:
AMD: R9xx Speculation
- Thread starter Lukfi
- Start date
I know, but it doesn't make the Cayman specs wrong. (insert rolleyes smiley
)
Oh wow, the 6850 and 6870 have 160 SP less than everybody else, including AMD, told us. Never knew that.
And I guess NHW do not even mention where they got those numbers in order to protect their sources?
too high and too lowOh come on , 45 days ago , I would have chosen 11.1 and 900/100 , and it would turn out right
re: NH, some things are right and some are wrong..
I think a bona fide facepalm is in order here
I think a bona fide facepalm is in order here
I agree. If you're going to make a fake slide at least get the numbers right for existing products.
I know, but it doesn't make the Cayman specs wrong. (insert rolleyes smiley
No, it doesn't mean that... but they are wrong, as neliz pointed out.
I'm pretty sure they got core clocks wrong, especially after neliz's response to David, but what did they get right other than the names? Memory clocks seem a little low, was expecting 5.6-5.8ghz for the XT and 5.2ghz for the Pro. Obviously they got the interface right and maybe the frame buffer. Hmmmm....
Well even if they somehow got the clocks right, the rest was kinda know already and the SP info is missing.
So yeah at best a good guesswork.
http://www.fudzilla.com/games/item/21128-radeon-hd-6970-is-10-20-faster-than-gtx-480
faster than 480 and slower than 580?
if true a little disappointing considering the speculated size and thermal of a new architecture
faster than 480 and slower than 580?
if true a little disappointing considering the speculated size and thermal of a new architecture
NathansFortune
Regular
It would fit my model of delays, but I don't believe it until it comes from a more reputable source. Faud makes up a lot of crap...
Edit: It looks like his article is based on the normalised graph from a couple of pages back, so my suspicion was well founded!
Edit: It looks like his article is based on the normalised graph from a couple of pages back, so my suspicion was well founded!
fuad obviously quotes the fake-slide
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1500313&postcount=5539
Even if the numbers he quoted were genuine -his statements still contradict themselves. How could a card that's ~ 20% faster than GTX480 lose to GTX570?
3dmark vantage the 570 does quite a bit better than the 480
Even if the numbers he quoted were genuine -his statements still contradict themselves. How could a card that's ~ 20% faster than GTX480 lose to GTX570?
That's Fudzilla for you. Even when you think there's a possible interpretation of Fudo's writings for which they would make sense… they still don't.
3dmark vantage the 570 does quite a bit better than the 480
Yes, but not by that much.
At Muropaketti for example the difference between 480 and 570 was 7.6%
Yeah, no doubt fudo reads all the numbers from the fake slide. Just compare the text and the bars
Unless just possibly the slide isn't faked. I mean yeah it looks chopped but that doesn't mean some AMD clerk might not have been the one doing the chopping, reusing an old chart to save time.
Yeah I know, doubtful.
NathansFortune
Regular
It could happen I suppose. I mean it wouldn't be the first time we've seen ameteur looking slides from ATi or Nvidia.
NathansFortune
Regular
Maybe, but it depends on whether it was the tech team or some low level guy doing the slide. If it was the latter then it could be legitimate. It's unlikely at best though...
I think we need to keep all options open until Friday.
I think it's nonsense. Almost half of the bars are untouched. It's impossible, that the delta between GTX460/HD6800 is exactly the same as between GTX480/HD6900. Additionally, AMD always provides detailed FPS results at the end of their presentation (or as a separate PDF file) and this graph wouldn't be in line with that numbers. I don't believe they'd include such a mess in their presentation of the next-gen product. Even mspaint editing would produce better and artifact-free result...
Similar threads
