AMD: R9xx Speculation
- Thread starter Lukfi
- Start date
any idea if it is a HD6000 feature only or if it is available to previous generations ? Haven't kept up on the whole thing.
Don't know how good that is, if barts hits at $175 then that extra cash (which seems to be mir) might not be worth it.
If 6850 is close enough to 5850 performance even the ultra overclocked stuff is going to drop like a rock
PSU-failure
Newcomer
One word comes to my mind: disappointing.
Not only they call Barts "HD6800" with less juice than Cypress XT, but in fact it's just Evergreen done right (or less wrong, time will tell). No way I would have called that HD6800.
Even the advertisement is disappointing, they talk die size although it doesn't have anything to do with the end product.
Not only they call Barts "HD6800" with less juice than Cypress XT, but in fact it's just Evergreen done right (or less wrong, time will tell). No way I would have called that HD6800.
Even the advertisement is disappointing, they talk die size although it doesn't have anything to do with the end product.
A ~$239 151W HD 6770 would be better?
I think personally HD 6870 as HD 6830 and HD 6850 as HD 6770 at a bit lower prices would be better. Also Cayman should be launched at same time.
Yes.
They did a good job convincing a legion of Internet jehovas that this stuff is something end users should care about with the last gen, so I'm not really sure how it is disappointing that this is the major focus again.
These slides are marked AMD confidential, which doesn't seem to indicate they are intended for mass advertising.
Die size is an interesting point of analysis of the implementation, but yes, as far as the product is concerned a 1 mm2 die priced at $200 is not better than a 400 mm2 die at the same price, all else being equal.
Die size is an interesting point of analysis of the implementation, but yes, as far as the product is concerned a 1 mm2 die priced at $200 is not better than a 400 mm2 die at the same price, all else being equal.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Yeah, I have to agree with you. Everything is disappopinting, just everything. The averall performance, the price, the tesselation performance, the naming scheme. Just everything. For me there is only one word which can describe the things: FAIL.
If they can not use more advanced technology process, then why haven't they changed this so boring architecture?
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Why 239$?? GF104 is bigger yet NV sells it for less.
Simple. Because a GTX460 is slower!
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Simple, but this doesn't create any market advantage of this particular product. It's normal that more expensive product is faster. I mean it is not direct competitor. The same performance for less money, or more performance for this money.
Yeah, I have to agree with you. Everything is disappopinting, just everything. The averall performance, the price, the tesselation performance, the naming scheme. Just everything. For me there is only one word which can describe the things: FAIL.
If they can not use more advanced technology process, then why haven't they changed this so boring architecture?
How would you describe GTX 460, good or fail?
UniversalTruth
Veteran
FAIL, because of the time. They needed one whole year just to release this????
????????????????????????????????????????????
WHY???
I don't use to describe or define any NVidia product.
Ok, lets' call it BETTER. At least it is not called GTX570 or somethin...
Last edited by a moderator:
The rest as I can't put all images in same post
Can someone explain this slide? Is the improvement dependent on the tessellation factor?
UniversalTruth
Veteran
This means that in heavy tesselated areas, there is no performance improvement. The answer is Yes.
Similar threads
