The LAST R600 Rumours & Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
12"... have a lot more in common with R600 than I expected. (Someone had to do it!)

Anyway, that's huge and would not fit in any reasonable case I've ever used.
 
Anything longer than my 8800 GTX just wouldn't have fit into my case. So I have serious questions as to the wisdom of going longer than the 8800 GTX.
 
Wasn't there mentions long ago by The Inq and OCW that early boards were indeed that long, but ATi was revising the package with a shorter PCB for release? If this indeed is a pre-production board, in which in this case I don't doubt The Inq, it very well could be shorter when it hits retail. Think of this kind of like 7900GX2, in which few were made but showed the product working and was the precursor to the 7950GX2 that actually sorted the problem out.

Of course, like others mentioned, 8800gtx has a 10.5inch PCB, 11inch w/ the bracket. 12inch isn't completely impossible for a retail product, but I sure as hell hope that's not the way things are going. Sure, it'd fit in my Stacker, and i'm waiting for a mid-range card anyway which undoubtabley will be shorter, but every inch of unacceptability you give, it becomes the new standard.
 
Isn't that alot of bandwidth?
Oh, yeah...

geo said:
I'm much more angst-filled by the 12" board part.
Much ado about nothin'... ;)
thirteen.jpg
 
Isn't that alot of bandwidth?

Yes, but 115-179 geebips (1800mhz GDDR3 - 2800mhz GDDR4) has been expected now for going on forever and a day.

One of those reasons I hope it ships with at least 1.2ghz GDDR4 with the 64 Vec4 shaders...AMD/ATi could market it as essentially 2x the shaders/bandwidth of G80 (even if that isn't the whole truth.)

Oh wait, I forgot...They don't have a marketing dept. Crap.

P.S. What is that ungodly creature of a prehistoric gfx card?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you sense the reactions of the average Joe that sees times 2x marketed figures but only a fraction of added total performance?

The usual crowd cares about more about performance in the end than anything else; way too much for my taste in fact but that's another totally different chapter.
 
I find it much more interesting to notice that ATI/AMD are still showing of those 12" boards, which we heard about months ago. If they do not have working protoypes of the shorter PCB today, then it either will not come to the market shortly or the whole card is still a helathy amount of time away from hitting the stores. March sounds increasingly likely.
 
Why would the average joe have a basis for comparison beyond retail packaging? Anyone who ventures to review sites is going to care about total performance in the end - no matter whether the marketing figures are 2x or 3x - as long as prices are competitive.
 
Probably a case of not understanding specs. If they're the 16Mx32 512Mb modules, then 16 ring stops = 1GB of 512bit wide GDDR4 @ 1.1/1.2/1.4GHz (140/153/179GB/s)...

:?:
16MB x 32 = 512MB. Check.
512 pins x 1.1GHz x2 / 8 = 140.8. Check

What specs doesn't Theo understand to get to 1 GB? (And what are ring stops doing in this picture anyway?)

I guess I don't understand your explanation about why Theo doesn't understand it. ;)
 
What specs doesn't Theo understand to get to 1 GB?
:?:
Who mentioned Theo? Although, "sixteen Samsung 32MB memory chips" does equal 512MB. :)

(And what are ring stops doing in this picture anyway?)
Assume = 1 stop/channel/(GDDR4 module)

I guess I don't understand your explanation about why Theo doesn't understand it. ;)

Edit: Assuming Samsung GDDR4 512Mbit chips. These are arranged as 16Mbit x 32bit = 64MBytes. If as reported, there are 16 chips per board, then we have 16 x 32bit = 512bit external bus & 16 x 64MBytes = 1GByte RAM total. I suspect that Theo saw the 16Mx32 & applied the Inq filter. Others then drew their own conclusions...

turtle said:
What is that ungodly creature of a prehistoric gfx card?
RasterOps 24STV NuBus video capture display card. 24bit RAMDAC, S-Video, the whole shebang... Circa '91 ~$1k, IIRC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm much more angst-filled by the 12" board part. There goes a sizable chunk of even the enthusiast market at that size. Sure, some will toss out a chassis to get the big dog on the block, but others will not. . . I had a bit of a wrasslin' match/case mod'ing with 10.6" 8800 GTX. . . But then 7900GX2 was quite a bit bigger than 7950GX2, so hopefully AMD will get that trimmed down before release.

Does it really matter? According to Jon Peddie the enthusiast (+$300) market only takes up 4% of total sales. Isn't all that matters the fact of having the fastest cards out there? Because having the fastest card will sell you cards in the mainstream and lower end segments more easily. I'm pretty sure the cards below $300 have a shorter PCB and it's those $200-$300 cards that are sold the most (about 75%). Of those 4% in the enthusiast market there are plenty of people who do have room for a long card (which btw I really doubt will be so long in the final product). It didn't stop some people of buying a space eating GF7950GX2 combo either.

So even if it's really 12" than they 1) have the fastest card out there, 2) will sell more in the mainstream and lower end because of 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you sense the reactions of the average Joe that sees times 2x marketed figures but only a fraction of added total performance?

The usual crowd cares about more about performance in the end than anything else; way too much for my taste in fact but that's another totally different chapter.

The average joe buys a X1300 at Best Buy because it has 512MB onboard. And so it must be really good.

Personally I look at it like big round numbers, like 512 bit and 1GB, can only help ATI in the marketing wars. Probably in a decently significant way. If it's 10% faster but had a 384 bit/768 config, that's somehow less impressive than the purity of 10% faster +512/1024 config. The guy who wants the very best will be more drawn to the latter, not to mention implications of better future proofing.
 
Price/perf is still the most important factor. Since the speed is excpected to be in about the same ballpark (+/- 10-15%, unfounded rough estimate here), the prices will decide the fate of the products in all ranges.
 
Rangers is right. The amount of memory is THE factor when it comes to Average Joe. I work in a certain country where less than 0.5% of PC owners know what they are buying. They just go for the big numbers, and 512MB and 1GB sure sound great. They think that's where the performance lies. (And who could blame them with all the numbering, Xs Ts)
 
The GTX is 11inches right?

12 inches is just pushing it. 7900GX2 anyone?


GTX is 10.6" with my ruler. Someone once pointed out to me that some spec allowed for up to 12" boards. The problem is, modern cases generally do not. I would guess in my informal survey that a majority (surely not all, however) of current enthusiast chassis would take GTX with varying degrees of sweatin' and swearin'. And that a majority (maybe not all, however) of current enthusiast chassis would NOT take a 12" board. I'll guarantee mine won't.
 
12 inches in the biggest of cases right now the harddrives can't be infront of the graphics cards. So thats really big, and not many cases will be able to fit that in.
 
I measure 14 inches from bracket to my disc drives, still room even with the power/sata/ide connectors, so that's not entirely true. Also, where the gfx card is in many larger/server chassis I imagine there are no drives/cages installed there anyway (unless you're running more than 4-8 drives). Granted, most people have more reasonable size cases in which I imagine you're right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top