256-bit in the Midrange

[Geo]

This is a very weak reed indeed, but

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28256

And ATI has learned that RV530 based X1600 needs a 256 bit memory interface to stay in the big league

Is this Fudo speculating, or is ATI actually talking about this? Might we actually see 256-bit in the midrange chips going forward? I know there have been a plethora of clearance-sale 256-bit midrange (pricing) cards of late, but I'm talking built-in from the beginning. . . RV530, for instance, is still quite a bit physically smaller than R300. . .

 

[Tim]

This is a very weak reed indeed, but

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28256



Is this Fudo speculating, or is ATI actually talking about this?

The RV530 has plenty of bandwidth to keep the four ROPs and Texture units busy. The performance problem is not lack bandwidth it is lack of texture power (I don't actually think there is performance problem - the lack of texture units is a tradeoff and the RV530 does fine for the transistor count).

Mainstream cards will not move away from 128bit memory interface in the near future - they don't need to especially with the trend towards more math per pixel.

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's fudo speculating.

I believe that the x1600 was built to be positioned against other 128bit parts (6600/6600gt). There is currently a lot of older parts being cleared out which appear to be competing against the x1600 because they are still trickling in near msrp. I expect within 6mos the x1600xt cards will be $150 and less, not competing against anything with a 256 bit bus.

 

[Jawed]

I think the escape route is pretty clear: GDDR4 - 128-bits will be able to provide 35GB/s+.

The issue is really how far away that is. 10 months?

There's also the question of whether we have reliable benchmarks of X1600XT, due to driver quality - with all the focus being on X1800.

The cynic in me thinks Dave's holding off on the B3D review of X1600XT until the driver has bedded-in...

---

There are other dimensions to this. We have RV540 and RV560 - one of which is meant to be 8-1-3-1/2 (can't remember) - meaning that ~22GB/s (as per RV530) prolly won't be enough. Since they're imminent (3 months?), I wonder how ATI is going to equip the 8-1-3-1/2 part with fast-enough memory. It might have to be with 1.1ns GDDR3.

So, is X1600XT running at the limits of 1400MHz memory or is there another wodge of performance to come? Being cynical, I think the former. Which leads me to expect that an 8-1-3-1/2 part requires mondo-expensive GDDR3 or GDDR4...

Jawed

 

[no-X]

RV530 is single-quad design, so it shouldn't be bandwidth limited. RV560 could be another story

 

[DemoCoder]

Drivers can't account for workloads however. If the workload in games are texture heavy, no amount of optimization will help. X1600 depends on ALU heavy shader games. I'm not sure we're there yet despite a few example titles. Maybe in 2006 the X1600 will really start to shine, especially when XB360 titles start to get backported.

 

[Jawed]

RV530 is single-quad design, so it shouldn't be bandwidth limited. RV560 could be another story :smile:

I think it depends how cheap 6800GS gets, and how long it's around.

This question seems to be: 256-bit for $150? I think not, as it happens, but over the next 3-6 months, NVidia might just bite the bullet and throw everything it has against ATI's mid-range.

It's interesting how NVidia held-off ATI with a 128MB part for the last year - curiously it seems that consumers went for 6600GT even though it had only half the memory of its direct competitor (256MB versions were available, but not the focus). Amazingly rational - bizarrely. I bet ATI wasn't expecting that, hahahaha...

So a 6800GSE: 256-bit 128MB part (with slower memory than 6800GS) might be enough to kill X1600XT at $150. So if RV540 is an 80nm re-spin of RV530 sticking to 4-1-3-2, it looks doomed.

Jawed

 

[Jawed]

Drivers can't account for workloads however. If the workload in games are texture heavy, no amount of optimization will help. X1600 depends on ALU heavy shader games. I'm not sure we're there yet despite a few example titles. Maybe in 2006 the X1600 will really start to shine, especially when XB360 titles start to get backported.

I think this is about eye-candy.

If X1600XT is competing against a card with 5-10GB/s more bandwidth (256-bit), is the "more efficient memory architecture" going to cut it when the AF and AA are turned on? I doubt it.

Jawed

 

[Geo]

This question seems to be: 256-bit for $150?

Err, no. That's not midrange at introduction anymore, and hasn't been since. . .errm, not sure I could say. I can find R9700Pro for less than $150.

So $199-249, is the typical definition (I think) of "midrange" at introduction. But I am excluding "6800GS" and such as "introductory" parts. They aren't. They are bargain basement clearance sales. Yippee for us, but not what I am pointing at in this thread.

 

[MulciberXP]

Err, no. That's not midrange at introduction anymore, and hasn't been since. . .errm, not sure I could say. I can find R9700Pro for less than $150.

So $199-249, is the typical definition (I think) of "midrange" at introduction. But I am excluding "6800GS" and such as "introductory" parts. They aren't. They are bargain basement clearance sales. Yippee for us, but not what I am pointing at in this thread.

You think they had an over abundance of nv42s that they had to all of the sudden clear out?

 

[Geo]

You think they had an over abundance of nv42s that they had to all of the sudden clear out?

Either that or competitive pressures and the new 7600 isn't ready to go. Or a combination of the two. For the purposes of this discussion I don't care either way. It wasn't my intent to dis 6800GS --great part at the price. But that gpu is older tech filling a niche temporarily, not the natural fit for the price point. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[MulciberXP]

I think these days mid-range really encompasses anything between $150 and $300. I mean, I wouldn't call a 7800gt a midrange card, nor would I call a 6800 Ultra or an x800xl a high end. As well, x1600xts are going for $175 already, and I certainly wouldn't call them low end cards.

 

[Geo]

Mostly I would agree with that (don't know about the $299 price point tho --wasn't 6800 vanilla introduced at that price?), and I was trying to dance around it with "at introduction". How about "at introduction of the gpu (rather than whatever cards end up with one on it)"? Does that help you focus on where I'm pointing?

 

[no-X]

So a 6800GSE: 256-bit 128MB part (with slower memory than 6800GS) might be enough to kill X1600XT at $150. So if RV540 is an 80nm re-spin of RV530 sticking to 4-1-3-2, it looks doomed.

Jawed

I think X1600PRO 128MB could be very competitive product (cheap DDR2 RAM, price comparable to 6600 DDR2, OC groundwork and performance near 6600GT). I just can't understand, why all major vendors sell only expensive 256MB versions...

6800GS will probably compete with something like RV560PRO. I just looked at 3DMark scores from X1300/X1600/X1800 and I think that the fastest version of RV560 could score higher than X1800XL...

 

[Sxotty]

It's interesting how NVidia held-off ATI with a 128MB part for the last year - curiously it seems that consumers went for 6600GT even though it had only half the memory of its direct competitor (256MB versions were available, but not the focus). Amazingly rational - bizarrely. I bet ATI wasn't expecting that, hahahaha...

That my firend is a lovely and true statement, sometimes people surprise you eh?

About the x1600 competeing with the 6600DDR2, well a lot of those are overclocked and perform near 6600gt levels as well, though their prices actually rose recently...

You know it is all kind of funny right now, I would probably buy a x1800xt if I had the money, but if I was wanted a card and had no money I would get a 6600ddr2, then a 6800gs.
I kind of think that nvidia actually has the better solutions in the low- to low/mid because of basic tradeoffs they made, whereas ATIs nifty features won't do you any good on the x1600. The reason it is strange is b/c it seems like it was just the opposite when the nifty features of the 6800ultra would do you no good on a 6600. (of course they wouldn't do you any good on the 6800 either really )

 

[Deathlike2]

When either NVidia or ATI gets the 256-bit memory bus to a mid-range product... it should have a sizable performance lead over the opposition and be a significantly more appealing product (kinda like the 9700 Pro vs the FX 5800 Ultra in terms of pure raw non-DX9 performance)... I am waiting for that day...

 

[Moloch]

6800 non ultra mid range?

 

[AlphaWolf]

When either NVidia or ATI gets the 256-bit memory bus to a mid-range product... it should have a sizable performance lead over the opposition and be a significantly more appealing product (kinda like the 9700 Pro vs the FX 5800 Ultra in terms of pure raw non-DX9 performance)... I am waiting for that day...

The whole problem with that is that bus width has a cost in terms of manufacturing, its not some arbitrary thing where its better so they charge more.

 

[Deathlike2]

6800 non ultra mid range?

What is the MSRP on it?

The whole problem with that is that bus width has a cost in terms of manufacturing, its not some arbitrary thing where its better so they charge more.

I know.. I just meant when it is available (probably when it becomes cost feasible to manufacture it, or for whatever motivates them to)

 

[Geo]

Die size may be the thing tho. R300 is, oh, a third bigger than RV530.