RV560/570 Gemini roadmap

[Skrying]

It isn't super-relevant but IMO there just aren't enough options for X1600 boards. MSI is the only sensible choice for the XT IMO, but if you need a VGA port you're not going to be totally happy with that either. The reference cooler is a pretty hefty proposition while the passively cooled cards are all incredibly bulky.

Totally anecdotal now ... I really wanted to have an x1600XT card but I ultimately decided on a Sparkle 7600GS. It's a single-slot passively cooled card with a VGA output, plus it had a reasonable pricetag. If the same kind of thing existed in an x1600 version, I'd have bought that, even if it were, say, 30% more expensive.

So yeah, if it really is true that x1600s aren't selling well, I think I can understand why.

Ever hear of a DVI to VGA adapter? I dont know of a card that doesnt include them these days. I have around 20 laying around that I never use.

 

[Arun]

First of all, the Notebook X1600 is basically in every high-profile design win you could imagine. From Apple to HP, it's all theirs, and the 7600 has nothing on it. On the desktop side of things, it's not quite as much of a large-scale success. They've got a few nice design wins there, like with Apple, but not anywhere as many of them.

So we'll see. It could simply be a way to help AIBs get rid of their current boards, for example. And, err... Does this mean the RV570 can do Crossfire with the R580+? If not, this is going to confuse a bunch of people even more, I suspect.


Uttar

 

[mboeller]

It's not full-speed HDR and MSAA, but full-speed HDR with MSAA. I think it's a bit different.

IMHO, the reason for the full-speed HDR + MSAA could be rather simple.
The X1650XT has only 4 TMU's @ 600MHz(?) but 1400MHz GDDR4. So this chip has the bandwidth to drive MSAA+HDR at full speed because the fillrate is so low.

 

[Jawed]

IMHO, the reason for the full-speed HDR + MSAA could be rather simple.
The X1650XT has only 4 TMU's @ 600MHz(?) but 1400MHz GDDR4. So this chip has the bandwidth to drive MSAA+HDR at full speed because the fillrate is so low.

From CJ's earlier posting:

RV560 - X1650XT
8 pipelines - 24 pixelshaderengines
600Mhz core
1400Mhz mem
128-bit memory interface

So X1650XT has 8 TMUs and 8 ROPs. I'm going to guess that these ROPs are "double-rate" like those in X1600XT (RV530).

I posted about X1600XT's ROPs and available bandwidth before:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=768099&postcount=141

RV530-style double-rate ROPs aren't enough magic, here's two graphics cards that both have 22.4GB/s of bandwidth:

SC:CT:
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/...index.php?p=13
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvi...index.php?p=09

FEAR:
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/...index.php?p=14
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvi...index.php?p=10

It seems to me that X1600XT has a serious excess of bandwidth. It doesn't have enough TMUs and ROPs to fully utilise the available bandwidth. (I'm not saying 7600GT is using its bandwidth efficiently - it appears bandwidth-starved.)

I'd guess that an ATI GPU would need to have 8 TMUs and 8 ROPs to fully utilise that 22.4GB/s of bandwidth. Supposedly that's RV560.

---

I should amend that to say "have 8 TMUs and 8 double-rate ROPs to fully utilise that 22.4GB/s of bandwidth."

And by the look of it, ATI agrees... Only thing that remains to be seen is if RV560's ROPs actually are double-rate or not.

Jawed

 

[Blazkowicz]

so, RV560 will really be called X1650XT? I saw that and thought it was dumb (it's worth X1700 name), then I saw RV535 is 1650pro, so I thought RV560 couldn't be 1650 as well.

the meaning of "pro" becomes more mysterious with time, originally it meant faster, then crippled a bit but still high end with X800, then just normal (X1300, X1600), then now it means half the power.. shouldn't that be called X1650 anti, X1650 cons or X1650 amateur (or, X1650 LELELE)

 

[Rolf N]

Ever hear of a DVI to VGA adapter?

Yes.
I still prefer a native VGA plug because it doesn't make my PC a couple of inches deeper effectively. But that was just one smallish gripe which didn't prevent me saying that the MSI x1600XT (which is a dual-DVI card) is a sensible choice, because it is IMO.

I do think the cooling situation was a far bigger problem. Take a look here.

ATI has just made a very cool decision regarding their AIB partners. They have chosen to stop adding their stock coolers to some of their regular shipments to AIB’s.

 

[the maddman]

Yes.
I still prefer a native VGA plug because it doesn't make my PC a couple of inches deeper effectively. But that was just one smallish gripe which didn't prevent me saying that the MSI x1600XT (which is a dual-DVI card) is a sensible choice, because it is IMO.

I do think the cooling situation was a far bigger problem. Take a look here.

My solution has been DVI to VGA cables. Of course, if you're using a monitor that doesn't have a detachable cable, that doesn't help. It does get rid of the adapter on the back though

 

[BRiT]

I still prefer a native VGA plug because it doesn't make my PC a couple of inches deeper effectively. But that was just one smallish gripe which didn't prevent me saying that the MSI x1600XT (which is a dual-DVI card) is a sensible choice, because it is IMO.

You could always use a DVI (Male) to VGA (Male) cable which will solve your length complex. This solution works even if you have fixed cord monitors. Though it will set you back $15.

 

[Pete]

I forget, are RV560/570 still confirmed to be 80nm? They could use the power savings.

 

[Blazkowicz]

while thinking about it I've found a solution for the ugly DVI problem. you know that DB9, DB25, VGA, DVI connectors have those screws so they don't move. So, in the future when I have a DVI-I only card, instead of screwing the DVI adapter into the card, I'll screw the VGA cord into the DVI adapter : it will thus be part of the VGA cord, both psychologically and pratically

(yes, still deeper PC but I won't have to think about the DVI dongle when moving it..)

 

[CJ]

Some benchmark numbers....

1950XTX512 - 11000 3DM05
1950PRO256 - 9558 3DM05 / 5320 3DM06
1650XT256 - 6690 3DM05 / 3724 3DM06
1650PRO512 - 5269 3DM05 / 2943 3DM06
1650PRO256M - 5269 3DM05 / 2943 3DM06

Here are the kickers...

X1950XTX wil be cheaper than a GF7900GTX
X1950Pro will be cheaper than a GF7600GT OC
X1650XT will be cheaper than a GF7600GT std
X1650Pro512 will cost around the same as a GF7600GS512 OC
X1650Pro256 will cost a bit more than a GF7600GS std

It looks like A(Ti)MD is going for a pricewar again.

 

[KimB]

It looks like A(Ti)MD is going for a pricewar again.

That's something that nVidia can handle better than ATI with their current architecture.

 

[Geo]

Was that ATI or AMD/ATI you meant with that, Chal? :smile:

 

[IgnorancePersonified]

Well they are already in a cpu price war why not take one up the challenge on the gpu front ?

 

[Arty]

X1950Pro (RV570) looks very tempting. :smile:

 

[Anon Lamer]

Will there be 512 meg skus for the 1950pro/1650XT? In f.ex BF2 that would make a difference.

 

[asicnewbie]

while thinking about it I've found a solution for the ugly DVI problem. you know that DB9, DB25, VGA, DVI connectors have those screws so they don't move. So, in the future when I have a DVI-I only card, instead of screwing the DVI adapter into the card, I'll screw the VGA cord into the DVI adapter : it will thus be part of the VGA cord, both psychologically and pratically

(yes, still deeper PC but I won't have to think about the DVI dongle when moving it..)

If the separate 'DVI-VGA dongle' bothers you that much, you could always buy a DVI-A to DB-15 cable -- no separate dongle-needed!

 

[Pete]

Thanks, CJ. And to your source(s).

1950PRO256 - 9558 3DM05 / 5320 3DM06
1650XT256 - 6690 3DM05 / 3724 3DM06

[...]

X1950Pro will be cheaper than a GF7600GT OC
X1650XT will be cheaper than a GF7600GT std

You lost me there. Did you mean 7900GT OC vs. X1950P?

To put things in perspective, according to TR's 3DM06 #s in their 7950GX2 review (w/ an X2 4800+):

7675 7950GX2
5950 7900GTX
5865 X1900XT
4588 X1800XT
4514 7900GT

And 3DM05 / 06 #s courtesy of the three latest XbitLabs reviews (FX-60; it's possible the X1900XT is a repeated typo and actually 5902, given TR's #):

10877 / 6040 7900GTX
10709 / 5092 X1900XT
9509 / 4560 X1900GT
9373 / 4625 X1800XT
8013 / 4538 7900GT
7572 / 3762 X1800XL
6906 / 3275 X1800GTO
6060 / 3319 7600GT

 

[KimB]

Was that ATI or AMD/ATI you meant with that, Chal? :smile:

Well, it's still ATI for the time being.

 

[no-X]

That's something that nVidia can handle better than ATI with their current architecture.

But AIB partners could evaluate that ATi's solutions need cheaper memory modules to stay competitive (e.g. X1900XTX 1550MHz vs. 7900GTX 1700MHz).