AMD: R9xx Speculation

This looks way more realistic with Barts having 1280SPs rather than measly 960. (but they fu RV840/Juniper specs 144x4 :) weird)
That site shows no evidence of having official information of any kind, merely some pictures of cards. I think the specifications are pure speculation.

Additionally the Futuremark numbers appear to be a scam. Compare the numbers to those linked way back here:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1480635&postcount=2847

3 of the 4 scores are identical, with only HD6870 Vantage P being different: old = 16270 and new = 17083.
 
At Chiphell was posted an interesting 3DMark Vantage screen which is supposed to be from a HD 6850. The interesting stuff are the feature test.


Feature Test 1 (texture) & Feature Test 6 (perlin noise ALUs) ~ HD 5750 level
Feature Test 2 (Pixel ROPs) & Feature Test 5 (GPU particles, with high vertex shader load) ~ HD 5850 level

It seems to turn out that was only a 800SPs @ 650MHz evaluation or developer sample.
According to Fuad and the pictures of XFX HD 6800 boxes, final HD 6850 clocks 775MHz and has 960SPs.
This allows a boost of ~34% over this sample card.
 
How can there be a total lack of solid information < 1 week before release?

Have they put a 6-series block in the old drivers and are going to release the working ones with a steam update? :p
 
The 6870 has 65% more shader troughput than 6850 and ends 15% faster in vantage :rolleyes:
Overclocking the 6850 to 900 MHz could be more than enough to reach that (and for a lot cheaper).
65%? I calculate only 42%, did I miss something?

Anyhow, this would show vantage isn't compute bound. 42% in shader output and only 5% in memory gives 15% faster vantage. I wonder why didn't they specify the mem clock at 1200mhz, like cypress. Maybe because it would end up faster? ;)
 
I'm sorry, but I find myself totally uninterested in Barts (although I realize it's the money maker). Aren't there ANY good leaks on Cayman??
 
Posted yet? saw this posted somewhere else.

Chinese site with some new pictures and some benches:
http://tech.sina.com.cn/h/2010-10-16/06171529120.shtml

Assuming the numbers are right, Barts is...
...40% improvement on perf/mm^2 compared to Cypress...
...12% improvement on perf/mm^2 compared to Juniper...
...15.6% improvement on perf/watt compared to Cypress...
...8% improvement on perf/watt compared to Juniper...
...in 3DMark Vantage

(Edit: assuming 155W TDP for Barts, which may be over or under that in reality)
 
If those Vantage and 3D mark 06 numbers are legit it's actually more like 40%. Remains to be seen how it does in games.
Based on the Vantage scores, Barts XT delivers ~32,3% better performance than [strike]Cayman[/strike] Cypress XT per mm² and clock.

According to Fuad and the pictures of XFX HD 6800 boxes, final HD 6850 clocks 775MHz and has 960SPs.

If Barts Pro has indeed 960SPs, wouldn't that render The_Mask's idea of 1120SPs for Barts XT rather probable after all? (though I still don't like his Cayman/Antilles specs).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the Vantage scores, Barts XT delivers ~32,3% better performance than Cayman XT per mm² and clock.
Check your math, per mm^2 the vantage score is just slightly over 40% better than Cypress XT's. (I'm assuming your Cayman XT there is a typo meaning Cypress since there's no Cayman XT to be seen)
 
http://www.chiphell.com/thread-129902-1-1.html

BFBC2 1680X1050 4Xaa 4AF:
6870 Avg 71.8fps Min 47fps
460 Avg 61fps Min 43fps

mtl011.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are those numbers from the same part of the game? If you look at reviews BFBC2 numbers are all over the place depending on what the reviewer tested.
 
Back
Top