mobile Radeon 9700 available now
- Thread starter mboeller
- Start date
RussSchultz said:
What you state is not insane at all, because that is exactly the relationship between mobile and desktop parts.
Please take your advice and read what you just wrote, and realize that this is the point (at least, as far as my own comments), because we are indeed talking about something that has "Mobility" as an integral part of its name.I think you are bypassing the actual problem with the name, which is apparently the simple reality of the mobile space in this generation: a lack of a 256-bit bus or higher clock speed RAM. This is the issue because those who use pipelines as a measure of performance are given, up front and directly, the pipeline count to go with the clock speed for this mobile part... and those who use model number and see "Mobility 9700" are actually getting a perfectly accurate representation of a high clocked 9600 core, because they are getting in that core exactly the performance of the featureset conveyed by that name.
Perhaps you should have mentioned the particular equivocation you have in mind as illogical, to avoid confusion. For contrast to equivocation, as far my comments on the issue, I'm saying it isn't stupid at all for the core offered, and it is a significant issue (or, if you prefer, "stupid") for the RAM bus width and clock speed.
ATI's stance seems to be that they delivered on the core performance for the naming (they did, as would a 200 or thereabouts MHz R300 core, aside from being a likely failure as far as power usage and lacking in performance compared to this part), and laptop makers/RAM makers are not delivering on the bandwidth. Question: would you be complaining about the name if it was a R300 core in the same product? If yes, then we're not disagreeing in principle, just emphasis, but you should flesh out your commentary a bit to make it clearer.
Again, reading what you have written, what you are attacking is perfectly logical, informative, and even serves the consumer...as far as the core. We should be wondering what has gone wrong with the delivery of higher speed mobile graphics RAM as we were expecting last I remember the topic being discussed.
? Well, looking back, I remember wondering whether the mobile and mainstream part would be 8 pipe with low clock speed or 4 pipe with higher clock speed, and viewing the distinction between the two as a matter of clock speed target. So as far as talking about the core, I don't think I'm going to wondering anything 6 months from now either, especially as the decision reaps significant benefits in the mobile space.
I also look back and note that I propose the 9500 Pro would have been better named the 9700 "LE", or "SE" per currently established convention, and that the 9800 SE's name is simply a bad name even though the the core is the one used in the "9800".
Doomtrooper said:
OT...but I'm hoping that Armageddon doesn't occur now that Russ and Doom actually agreed on something.
Seriously, I am not feeling the M9700 name since my first ATi product was a 9700 Pro for many reasons mentioned above. However, it seems to be all about the marketing...
Has anyone read te Anandtech review? It goes into the name, but the thing that caught my attention is this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1957&p=8
Does that make any sense?
Back to the name thing. If ATI had plonked a R300 chip into a laptop design, who whould buy it? Someone why wanted 30 minute battery life? Someone who wants a lap heater?
If they built a .13micron R300, would they make their money back? If they were going to do that, wouldnt you think they would have done it for the R9800?
The desktop 9700 is faster than the desktop 9600. The mobility 9700 is faster than the mobility 9600. As far as Joe blogs cares, thats what matters.
As for us hardware geek types, we know what it is, so the name doesnt matter. Seems simple to me. If they had hidden the fact that its a 4pipe 128bit bus chip, THEN it would be a different matter.
Ali
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1957&p=8
Does that make any sense?
Back to the name thing. If ATI had plonked a R300 chip into a laptop design, who whould buy it? Someone why wanted 30 minute battery life? Someone who wants a lap heater?
If they built a .13micron R300, would they make their money back? If they were going to do that, wouldnt you think they would have done it for the R9800?
The desktop 9700 is faster than the desktop 9600. The mobility 9700 is faster than the mobility 9600. As far as Joe blogs cares, thats what matters.
As for us hardware geek types, we know what it is, so the name doesnt matter. Seems simple to me. If they had hidden the fact that its a 4pipe 128bit bus chip, THEN it would be a different matter.
Ali
Well, I have trouble imaging a hard-code gamer getting a laptop and playing such games on a battery in the first place. I do alot of business travel, and I've never seen anyone playing a 3D game on a flight or in a hotel lobby or cafe. DVD playback? Yes. Productivity apps? Yes. Music? Yes. Games? Usually a Gameboy brought with them.
If I wanted a portable PC to gake on the road, say, to LAN parties, I'd go with a real R300/350 and a SFF PC.
I'm really skeptical about this "mobile laptop gamer" market. Yeah, it sounds cool to get 1 hour of high performance 3D gaming when on battery, but really.
My notebook spends 90% of it's life plugged in, and 10% on the road on battery.
If I wanted a portable PC to gake on the road, say, to LAN parties, I'd go with a real R300/350 and a SFF PC.
I'm really skeptical about this "mobile laptop gamer" market. Yeah, it sounds cool to get 1 hour of high performance 3D gaming when on battery, but really.
My notebook spends 90% of it's life plugged in, and 10% on the road on battery.
Ali said:
Yeah, and concordantly the desktop 9700 is faster than the mobility 9700 etc. I heard about this product a long time ago and even back then it was being referred to as "mobile 9700". It offers the same performance as a hypothetical "Mobility R300 non-Pro" and the nomenclature adopted is step in the right direction IMHO (away from the LE/SE/EZ/XT mess).
To a degree it's lose-lose for ATi. Call it MR9600XT and the general public and OEMs complain about yet another 9600 to add to the confusion; call it MR9700 and us uber-dorks kick up a fuss. Hardly a difficult choice when you look at it that way though.
MuFu.
Joe might be disappointed though that the mobility 9700 is not necessarily faster than the mobility 9600 (pro turbo). The minimum spec for the mobility 9700 is 390/200 core/mem, the maximum for the mobility 9600 (pro turbo) was 350(?)/260 - thus probably faster in quite a few situations. That's not even considering the stupid 64bit memory versions (thankfully though, it's restricted to the 32MB parts, thus easily recognizable).Ali said:
I don't really care much about the name though, what IMHO is really a problem that even if you know the name it doesn't really tell you much. It is very hard, usually impossible (without the help of people in forums which already bought the thing) to figure out at what frequency some chip in a notebook really runs (not to mention the 64bit/128bit memory bus, which is also often impossible to figure out). These minimal and maximal clock speed ranges ATI uses is IMHO for the customer a problem - the OEM want that I guess, but IMHO ATI should require them to publish their chosen clock speeds / mem bus width.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Chalnoth said:
Nah...
They'll just call it the Radeon5 1xxx. Why Radeon5 ? Can't very well use 2-4 since it might appear "weaker" than the GeForce4 cards.
OK, I just read most of the previews, and I'd like to throw some more uber-dork comments into the mix.
Andrew's (Anandtech) explanation of the decision to go with MR9700 seems remotely plausible. It makes me feel a little less worse about the choice, I guess. Wait--no, it doesn't. The Overdrive argument seems lame. Firstly, I thought OD was introduced as a mobile concept? Still nothing on that front. Secondly, does the 5% speed boost OD offers for desktop cards really make a lick of difference? I don't think ATi risks tarnishing the XT name by intro'ing a mobile part that doesn't give you an extra piddling 5% when the going gets cool, especially since it can't match its desktop counterpart's performance by a bit.
Speaking of Joe Shmoe with a 9700 in his desktop, what if he picks up a laptop with a Radeon 9700 sticker on it expecting the same performance? That's why this cockamamie name is (at best) misleading the consumer.
To end this on a lighter note, I find it hilarious that ATi published 3DM03 PS numbers in their marketing material. They must know that nV is cheating somehow on that test, per FM's warning? Or is ATi now cheating as well?
In short, a tiny to this piddling shmegagle. Bring on the R420!
Andrew's (Anandtech) explanation of the decision to go with MR9700 seems remotely plausible. It makes me feel a little less worse about the choice, I guess. Wait--no, it doesn't. The Overdrive argument seems lame. Firstly, I thought OD was introduced as a mobile concept? Still nothing on that front. Secondly, does the 5% speed boost OD offers for desktop cards really make a lick of difference? I don't think ATi risks tarnishing the XT name by intro'ing a mobile part that doesn't give you an extra piddling 5% when the going gets cool, especially since it can't match its desktop counterpart's performance by a bit.
Speaking of Joe Shmoe with a 9700 in his desktop, what if he picks up a laptop with a Radeon 9700 sticker on it expecting the same performance? That's why this cockamamie name is (at best) misleading the consumer.
To end this on a lighter note, I find it hilarious that ATi published 3DM03 PS numbers in their marketing material. They must know that nV is cheating somehow on that test, per FM's warning? Or is ATi now cheating as well?
In short, a tiny
to this piddling shmegagle. Bring on the R420!Well it would be no different than picking up a mobile 9600 and expecting 9600 level performance, you aren't getting it in a laptop.
While the name 9700 does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth it likely is the best choice for ATI. 9650 would still leave questions about it compared to pro/se or turbo 9600 versions. Creating a new name might have been a better option but then the oems would lose brand recognition so it would be a hard sell to oems. I think they really do need to separate the mobility brand more definitively from the desktop versions in the future.
How about henceforth we just ignore the Radeon name and just think of and refer to it as the M11? I agree that 9700 is a bad designation, but also agree 9600 does make for some more confusion. There's already far too many cards with that designation. . . I'll further agree that with the next generation it'll be time for ATI to abandon the Radeon name and numbering.
Anyway, I feel quite relieved that I was correct in the assumption that the M11 isn't an R300.
I agree that 9700 is a bad designation, but also agree 9600 does make for some more confusion. There's already far too many cards with that designation. . . I'll further agree that with the next generation it'll be time for ATI to abandon the Radeon name and numbering.Anyway, I feel quite relieved that I was correct in the assumption that the M11 isn't an R300.
I dont see why you guys are all so pissed off about the mobility 9700 name.
You werent upset at the mobility 9600 name, and it is outperformed by the desktop part.
You werent upset at the mobility 9000 name, and it is outperformed by the desktop part.
What makes this so different?
Your expectations were too high?
Too bad. Doesnt make it a bad name.
You werent upset at the mobility 9600 name, and it is outperformed by the desktop part.
You werent upset at the mobility 9000 name, and it is outperformed by the desktop part.
What makes this so different?
Your expectations were too high?
Too bad. Doesnt make it a bad name.
A true mobile 9700.
Slap a $115 sticker on a real Radeon 9700 and watch that sucker fly off the shelves.
Slap a $115 sticker on a real Radeon 9700 and watch that sucker fly off the shelves.
Does anyone think maybe the naming choice of mob rad 9700 was to pre-empt the mobile gf 5700 especially with regard to marketing their technology generation numbers.
This sounds better performing to the average consumer regardless of its actual increases in performance.
*mob radeon 9700 >= mob geforce 5700
*mob rad 9600 xt < mob geforce 5700
People will also look up the desktop benchmarks and see the r9700 outperforming the gf5700 in most cases (here is where the only issues lie with the marketing).
Nvidia are unlikely to call the 5700 mobile chip a 5800 mobile to make it sound greater, now are they???
This sounds better performing to the average consumer regardless of its actual increases in performance.
*mob radeon 9700 >= mob geforce 5700
*mob rad 9600 xt < mob geforce 5700
People will also look up the desktop benchmarks and see the r9700 outperforming the gf5700 in most cases (here is where the only issues lie with the marketing).
Nvidia are unlikely to call the 5700 mobile chip a 5800 mobile to make it sound greater, now are they???
Similar threads
