AMD: R7xx Speculation

1,699.00 HK$ = $210 USD

Another beautiful photo -> here

 

4850 3DMark Vantage Benchmark

The image is too big so here is jimmyz's post from xtremesystems:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3057586&postcount=2373

 

he got X2808 for Vantage

Looks in-line with all the other scores we've seen so far

 

So times 1.25=X3500 for 4870?

And GTX280=X4800.

GTX280=~40%>HD4870?

So game X=30 FPS on 4870, Game X=42 FPS on 280...

So, maybe 260 is a tad faster than 4870 also? 399 versus 349 slots sound about right..

 

Add in TDP, amount of VRAM and there's a clear winner.

 

Also, he confirmed that GPUz needs to update its database according to W1zzard, the GPUz author...

Sound like 800sp units is right as romour!!

 

Assuming relative 3dmark performance translates into game performance which has seldom (never?) been the case.

 

GoldenTiger at XS is posting this amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Radeon-4850PE3512-512MB-GDDR3/dp/B001ASJJ4Y

 

http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=432522

Here is the comparison Radeon HD4850 vs. GF9800GTX

Intel QX9650 @ 4000MHz
GF9800GTX
core @ 675MHz
memory 1100MHz

Intel QX9650 @ 4000MHz
Radeon HD4850
core @ 670MHz
memory 1100MHz

3DMark06 score
GF9800GTX SM2.0 5997, SM3.0 5789
Radeon HD4850 SM2.0 5345, SM3.0 6742

I guess Radeon HD4850 Texture limited under SM2.0 test.


EDIT: With similar GPU clock speed HD4850 & GF9800GTX; it's save to say RV770 has (160 *5D = 800SP's).

 

Everyone's cranking out 3DM scores like there's no tomorrow, but no one's bothering to do several runs with increasing levels of AA or AF, to see how they "stress" the GPU. Bah! At the very least, I'd like to see performance hits from no to 16x AF and from no to 4x AA, if anyone who's got a 4850 can spare the time.

 

Hopefully this time around 3DMark number might translate into real world gaming performance a little bit better than recently for AMD.

 

It's XS, what do you expect?

 

HD2900XT @ 840MHz core / 1000-memory; scores SM2.0 5178, SM3.0 5691.
HD2900XT @ 742Mhz core / 825-memory; scores SM2.0 4625, SM3.0 5220.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt_performance_preview/page8.asp

98MHz GPU clock increase / 175MHz memory increase - you get boost in 3DMark06.
Approx increase: 553 points under SM2.0
Approx increase: 471 points under SM3.0

For Radeon HD4850 - 98MHz GPU clock increase / 175MHz memory clock increase - you get boost in 3DMark06.
core @ 768MHz = almost equal to HD4870
memory 1275MHz = slow compare to HD4870

My guess estimate based on calculation:
3DMark06 score
Radeon HD4850 SM2.0 5898, SM3.0 7213
Basic idea how 4870 is going to be, but with GDDR5 you probably score 6000+ points under SM2.0

 

Fudo has some thoughts on pricing: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7889&Itemid=1

and: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7890&Itemid=1

See also: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7888&Itemid=1

If the GTX260 really comes all the way down to $350, that could make it quite an attractive proposition. It could even put GTX260 SLI systems within financial reach.

I've been burned by misplaced optimism where ATI is concerned too many times to get excited just yet; but if the rumours are correct then it does sound as though ATI may actually finally be back in the game. Not in absolute performance terms, of course, but certainly in price/performance. People have often attempted to claim that ATI's previous two generations were price/performance-competitive, but frankly they never were. R600 was intended to be an enthusiast part that could compete with 8800GTX. It ended up selling at the same price as 8800GTS 640 but often being outperformed even by the 8800GTS 320. RV670 was supposed to be a performance part that could trade punches with 8800GT and 8800GTS 512, but it was often outperformed even by the 9600GT. It sounds as though maybe, finally, ATI have actually hit their (modest) target this time round. (fingers firmly crossed)

 

GTX 260 at 350$?

You will see it at 450$++ then 350$.
ATI this time have much more power to reduce prices then Nvidia. The GT200 die is huge and 350$ kill all Nvidia margins.

 

People talk about margins and margins, but unless you really know the cost behind the underlying production related costs one just cant assume at X price Y card will have horrible margins.

Its not like these cards cost up to $300 to produce/manufacture and ship them off to the retail stores near you!

 

The Inq was right (for once) though about the costs of the GT200 chip... AMD does have the upper hand when it comes to being able to lowering the prices. NV needs GT200b.

 

FUD was seriously wrong about most stuff ATI did this time anyway. I thought they said somehow on the line of "as fast as 8800GT"


And really. A big chip in early production and a rather complex PCB, and you see prices for competitiveness? Wasn't nVidia promising better margins? I'm not unconvinced with the $400 GTX260, but the $500 280 is simply hurting nVidia at this point.

 

NV doesn't "need" GT200b because GT200 won't compete with RV770 per se.
GTX260 might compete with 4870 for some time but it's hard to say what _card_ will be more expensive to produce since G200 in GTX260 is a "salvage part" and GTX260 uses potentially less expensive GDDR3 instead of GDDR5 (plus it may be that GTX260 448MB will be a direct competitor of 4870 512 MB, not GTX260 896MB).