AMD: R9xx Speculation

So to your mind
GTX480/470/465/460 GTS450/440/430
i7 900/800 i5 700/600/500 i3 400/300
PX6 1000 PX4 900/800 PX3 700 AX4 600 etc

is confusing? You have to guess?
How ignorant can you be if you can't figure out the numbers still count?
In this way you can immediately tell that GTS/i5 etc is the mainstream part instead of meaningless numbers that tells you nothing but relative performances -- which is fine if you already know the full product line.

 

So if a person is right about something, every word comes out their mouth is golden? I think not.

The whole situation is clearly orchestrated by AMD's marketing department.
I tend to believe if a source got something right, they must also got (or intentionally released) something wrong, vice versa.
That's why I won't discredit the Barts=6700 slides just because the specs are off.

 

Of course the numbers still count, but do the prefixes affect something? You just have to know the products, and G/GT/GTS/GTX just adds to the confusion. How the hell are you supposed to just know that GTS is better than GT? Or that GTS is worse than GTX?

The same goes for iSomething, it's completely meaningless. Core i5 includes 32nm and 45nm parts; some with 2 cores, some with 4; some with integrated graphics, some without; some parts with a TDP of 18W, or 35W, or 73, 82, 87 or 95W; some with HyperThreading, some without; some with 3MB of cache, others with 4MB… or 8! How the hell is that not confusing? iSomething makes an otherwise fairly understandable naming scheme completely obscure. In fact, the best thing to do if you want to actually "navigate" Intel's lineup is to completely ignore the iSomething part and focus on the following number.

X2/3/4/6 for AMD CPUs is actually nice because it clearly tells you how many cores you get.

 

From this slide the following is clear now:

1. There will be 3 HD 6xxx series of cards.
Most liekly Barts, Cayman and Antilles

2. The Model numbers will be 6x50, 6x70
6x30 is not applicable at the moment, since only 2 Models for each family are listed.
This will also rule out any 6x95 naming or the like.

So in conclusion, only the number (or maybe character), that is still open would be the one for the family. Thinking conservatively, one could conclude that we will see indeed
69xx, 68xx and 67xx Model numbers, as we are used to, which would mean, that most likely the Barts family will be named 67xx.

Oh damn, now I have to leave too

 

I think he never said this. He just said, that anyone still believing that to happen should leave the thread. Thats only an implication, which would not necessarily mean, that it could not happen.

 

I am sorry. It's very sad but I think we can expect everything from AMD now, if they are able to kill our favourite ATi brand, why can't they surprise us with that weird numbers like 6990, 6995 and so on bs.

 

Why should they? There is no need. The only need would be, if they have more different cards than before trying to squeeze them into the old naming scheme. The number of cards we are up to now expecting seems to be in analogy to the old 5xxx series, with one exeption, that we might see 2 Antilles cards (Pro/XT). But that could be easily handeld with 6950 and 6970.

Squeezing the numbers would only be necessary, if they would rebrand the old 57xx cards to 67xx.

 

Speculating on a bloody name of all things....how terribly boring. Lets get back to speculating on the real stuff...yeah...like hardware specs and performance compared to last gen/current competition(Nvidia).....please...I beg of you all....please leave this naming nonsense to rest...at least till after the launch.

 

I think there will be no two Antilles. There is no logical need for this.

 

Just seen this...

http://bbs.pczilla.net/forumdata/imagecaches/11247_200_150.jpg

 

I can't, 'cos it is too small.

 

So, Barts XT will be name AMD Fusion Graphics X1280? *SCNR*

Seriously, though - the whole naming mess is just that: A mess, No one can really expect ordinary consumers (i.e. non-nerds) to really get the underlying idea. I can understand that X2 is less than X6, but how the hell does an Athlon II X4 645 compare to a Phenom II X3 705 for example (intel is no better, mind you!)?

 

Somebody over at 3dcenter.org posted from some catalyst driver .inf, implying Antilles Pro and Antilles XT. I just can't find it now ad hoc.

 

I think I can read Cayman 480(x4) Shaders...

 

So small that the blurry version was almost easier to read…

 

He knows what's in the presentation. Do you think, that he is gonna embarrass himself publicly and purposely? Why would he do it? He leaked the info to embarrass another person pretending to know real specs, not to harm his own ego.

AMD's marketing department wants to convince people, that they're going to launch a better card, than they will actually launch? That's nonsense. Additionally, AMD has no local PR office, here's just a hired organisation, which isn't even able to distribute press materials on time. Let alone to prepare a misinformation campaign

 

And what if everything on those slides is wrong?

Some people are just way too focused on what's coming out of chiphell.

 

I think u should change the we can expect to i can expect. And also our favorite ATI to my favourite ATI.

 

Just found it on ht4u.net:

http://ht4u.net/news/22583_catalyst...hr_performance_und_verraet_weitere_codenamen/

 

Wasn't it already in Cat 10.7's?
And it was from some .dat file, not the .inf IIRC?

Regarding the smallsmall pic posted few posts up, I think the blurred one really was easier to read