ATI R520 Details (not sure if true).. is this XBOX 2??

[persiannight]

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=284495

24 "Pipelines"
32 Texture Units
96 Arithmetic Logic Units (ALU)
192 Shader Operations per Cycle
700MHz Core
134.4 Billion Shader Operations per Second (at 700MHz)
256-bit 512MB 1.8GHz GDDR3 Memory
57.6 GB/sec Bandwidth (at 1.8GHz)
300-350 Million Transistors
90nm Manufacturing
Shader Model 3.0
ATI HyperMemory
ATI Multi Rendering Technology (AMR)
Launch: Q2 2005
Performance: Over 3x Radeon X800 XT !!! (for single R520)
16x stochastic FSAA
FP32 blending, texturing
Programmable Primitive Processor/Tesselator

 

[jvd]

No the r500 is the xbox 2 part . This will be the next desktop part. I expect the r500 to be more powerfull than this

 

[persiannight]

yummy! Just read the XBOX 2 will essentially be compromised of R600 technology...

 

[AzBat]

yummy! Just read the XBOX 2 will essentially be compromised of R600 technology...

Actually it should be a cross between the R520 and R600 PC parts. I'm expecting the R500 has more in common with R520 except that it has a unifed shader architecture. Whether or not it will be substantially faster than the R250 I'm not sure. However, it's been said that it should be faster than anything currently on the market at the time of its release.

Tommy McClain

 

[jvd]

The r520 is a continuation of the r420 / r300 .


The r500 is a continuation of the r400 which broke away from the r300 . This tech will first show up in the xenon then followed by the r600 in the desktop.

 

[persiannight]

All these codenames!!! AAHAHAHAA WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!????!!!!!

 

[chrisrt2]

Quote from the 'other' forum...

http://endian.net/roadmap.asp?MapNo=5

Quote:
2005-H1 ATI R520 ATI graphics chip said to be nicknamed Fudo (after philosofer or theInq's newsman). Earlier rumoured to be the PC-version of the XBox2-specific R500, but more recent sources indicate that it is closer to the R420, while the R500 is part of a new generation. Hyper Memory included.



Quote:
2005-H1 ATI R500 High end ATI graphics chip for XBox2 built in a 90 nm process. Part of a new generation, comparable to R600 for the PC.
Early on reported to "have 10 times higher geometry and 4 times higher pixel performance compared to the RADEON X800 XT".
May support WGF and Pixel and Vertex shaders 3.0 with 128 bit precision.



Quote:
2006 ATI R600 PC-equivalent to the R500 for XBox2. Likely to support WGF.



I think this has a little bit to do with what Cesar was trying to imply. I'm not saying that I know exactly what he was getting at with that statement but I've heard all of the information above from other sources on the internet. Don't read too much into the naming conventions for these VPU/GPUs. They are just names after all.

 

[jvd]

We've known on this forum for a long time now that the r520 and r500 are diffrent tech

Also the r600 will most likely be a faster version with increased clocks and or pipelines considering it will be coming out early 2006 vs late 2005 for the r500 and of course the board can cost 500$ by itself where as the xenon has to cost that all togther

 

[Qroach]

A board retails for 500 or more, it doesn't cost that to produce. That is a common thing people tend to mis.

 

[jvd]

A board retails for 500 or more, it doesn't cost that to produce. That is a common thing people tend to mis.

Right but it still costs more than the chip that will go into xenon and wil lbe produced later on and most likely have acess to faster ram than the umd nature of the xenon will offer .

 

[chrisrt2]

and of course the board can cost 500$ by itself where as the xenon has to cost that all togther

Well, considering M$ R&D has/had a good deal of money to spend I believe that they can take a loss on the console if it came to it. Sony on the other hand has exhausted a great deal on CELL tech alone granted it is 'expected' to be implemented in a wide range of products it still cleaned out allot of their reserves...

 

[Guden Oden]

I don't expect the GPU in nextbox to beat the fastest available PC chip at the time of launch, there's basically no way in hell that could be possible, and I can't help but think anyone who does expect that is setting themselves up for (bitter) disappointment.

It'll be a nice powerful all-round package that through tighter integration and uniform hardware will produce better than PC-average gfx for a while like when the original xbox was released, perhaps for a longer time period this time as games are still lagging significantly behind the cutting edge of PC hardware... However, I can't for my life see how nextbox's GPU could be laying the smack down on PC from a raw performance standpoint. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS take a loss on the console? I'm sure they'd never even thought of such a thing!

BTW If R600 is 10x geometry of X800 XT, what's that in vertices/second and how'd's it compare with the Cell predicted 6-8 billion/s on some threads here? How much Cell will need to be given up to matching ATi's geometry performance?

 

[Titanio]

MS take a loss on the console? I'm sure they'd never even thought of such a thing!

BTW If R600 is 10x geometry of X800 XT, what's that in vertices/second and how'd's it compare with the Cell predicted 6-8 billion/s on some threads here? How much Cell will need to be given up to matching ATi's geometry performance?

Without answering this question specifically, I think a couple of issues should be clarified:

1) The 10x figure is rumoured, right, not confirmed?

2) The 10x figure is undoubtedly based on all the shading units working with vertices, which would never happen in a real game? If this is the case it'd be as useful a figure as those Cell vertex processing guesstimates based on all SPEs doing vertex ops Or even less useful, because even with the CPU being 100% occupied with vertices, the GPU could still at least rasterise them and shade pixels, wheras with X2, it couldn't do that at all.

3) Comparisons between Xbox2 and PS3's graphics power is made much more interesting by the possible distributions of work between the CPU and GPU. A lot of people are speculating the PS3 may entirely, or mostly, leave vertex ops up to the CPU, allowing the GPU to entirely, or mostly, focus on pixel shading. If such an approach was taken, I can see PS3 having a comfortable lead over Xbox2 in terms of graphics. However there are many possibile configurations..

To answer your question a little more directly - I believe the figure would be comparable to 6-8bn polys/sec. I think the latest ATi cards have peaks of 600m ish.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Naming aside, what does everyone think of the specs as a potential PC card? Those specs are really, really high. You only have to average 2 FLOPs per shader operation to get about 256 GFLOPs of programmable power. We haven't even covered the fixed sections of the thing yet.

DO YOU KNOW HOW FAST QUAKE 3 WOULD BE WITH THIS THING?!?!?

 

[tEd]

The here posted spec. are BS or do you mean a potential r500 as pc card?

 

[cthellis42]

DO YOU KNOW HOW FAST QUAKE 3 WOULD BE WITH THIS THING?!?!?

*laughs* Ah, Quake 3... The benchmark of champions!

 

[Wunderchu]

I don't expect the GPU in nextbox to beat the fastest available PC chip at the time of launch, there's basically no way in hell that could be possible, and I can't help but think anyone who does expect that is setting themselves up for (bitter) disappointment.

It'll be a nice powerful all-round package that through tighter integration and uniform hardware will produce better than PC-average gfx for a while like when the original xbox was released, perhaps for a longer time period this time as games are still lagging significantly behind the cutting edge of PC hardware... However, I can't for my life see how nextbox's GPU could be laying the smack down on PC from a raw performance standpoint. That doesn't make sense.

correct me if I'm wrong, but Xbox had a more powerful GPU than even the highest end PC GPUs of the time:

- in simplified terms, the Xbox GPU (NV2A) can either be considered:
a) a less powerful GeForce 4
or
b) a souped up GeForce 3

- the GeForce 3 was released in H1 2001 ..
- the Xbox with NV2A was released in H2 2001 ...
- the GeForce 4 was released in H1 2002 ....




AFAIK the Dreamcast's GPU (PVR2DC) was more powerful than the highest end PC GPUs of the time, as well:

- Dreamcast was released in Japan in H2 1998

the latest PC GPUs at the time were:
- the Riva TNT
- the Rage 128
- the Voodoo 2
......

 

[chrisrt2]

A lot of people are speculating the PS3 may entirely, or mostly, leave vertex ops up to the CPU, allowing the GPU to entirely, or mostly, focus on pixel shading. If such an approach was taken, I can see PS3 having a comfortable lead over Xbox2 in terms of graphics. However there are many possibile configurations..

And with this possibility comes the possibility of GT5 cars being even dumber then GT3's, fighters that run off of cliffs, and team mates acting like bees in a jar...
While it could help the PS3 it could also majorly hamper its AI and physics ability.

 

[Qroach]

I can see PS3 having a comfortable lead over Xbox2 in terms of graphics. However there are many possibile configurations..

How exactly? both graphic chips will be capable of rendering so many polygons, how will it make a difference??

I think its safe to say that the amount of polygons when comparing X2 and PS3 won't make a lick of difference. It's going to come down to shading and texturing, and both of GPU's will be handling 100% of that.

Ask yourself, what's the difference between 600 million polys per second and 1.2 billion polys? IMO, a whole lot of really small polys you likely won't see.