RXXX Series Roadmap from AnandTech
- Thread starter lopri
- Start date
Not sure why this hasnt been pointed out before but the X series is 2004....
The R500 line of cores and boards will not be carrying any of the X line names.
Quick example, last couple years of ATI naming sceme.
8XXX
9XXX
X000
Will not be called X9 anything, because that would not only link it as a direct refresh to the X8 cards but also leave no where near enough numbers for low/medium/high models.
The R500 line of cores and boards will not be carrying any of the X line names.
Quick example, last couple years of ATI naming sceme.
8XXX
9XXX
X000
Will not be called X9 anything, because that would not only link it as a direct refresh to the X8 cards but also leave no where near enough numbers for low/medium/high models.
IIRC, the general consensus was that the "X" was simply added to usher in the new PCI-E interface. Otherwise, there would be little difference in going from X800 to X900 vs. going from Radeon 8500 to 9XXX or going from GF6800 to 7800. I agree about the lack of obvious naming schemes for the lower-end RV5XX parts, however.
Regardless, that's not the crux of the question. From what I can tell, this is from a Chinese online retail store and I can't imagine why they would splatter false info to their customers.
Regardless, that's not the crux of the question. From what I can tell, this is from a Chinese online retail store and I can't imagine why they would splatter false info to their customers.
So my AGP X800 TT is sort of an oxymoron?kemosabe said:
I haven't given it much thought, but do you have any novel suggestions for an alternate name for R520?
P.S. Other than the fact that it's not dual-DVI as indicated in the specs, can any of you PCB-familiar guys take a gander at the pic of that alleged Epox R520 board and tell me if it bears any telltale differences to the X850 series?
P.S. Other than the fact that it's not dual-DVI as indicated in the specs, can any of you PCB-familiar guys take a gander at the pic of that alleged Epox R520 board and tell me if it bears any telltale differences to the X850 series?
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like the X850 PCB to me. See http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r480/index.php?p=3
kemosabe said:
No, X's are cool! And if something has an X in the name, it's cool. Windows XP, Athlon XP, Athlon 64 X2, X800 XT, XNA, 7800 GTX, Xbox, etc.
And, instead of going 8xxx -> 9xxx -> 10xxx, they changed the 10 to X, which is 10 in roman numerals, and since it has an X in it, that makes it even cooler and it makes the X800 XT and X850 XT twice as cool.
R520 boards as of last May had a similar cooler to X850 XT, although the copper area is larger, are reasonably longer and have a similar memory layout to NV40/G70.
BTW - I think the picture of the die is also not real. Something that charaterises R520's die is that the package is fk'ing huge (or at least, it was some months back).
BTW - I think the picture of the die is also not real. Something that charaterises R520's die is that the package is fk'ing huge (or at least, it was some months back).
Well, it'd have to be to fit that 20mb of edram daughter die on it.
Oops, I've said too much.
Edit: Yes, I'm kidding. So I'll make it more serious --why does R520 require a huge package? Is there more than one die on it? Does the larger package have something to do with the new bus?
Oops, I've said too much.
Edit: Yes, I'm kidding. So I'll make it more serious --why does R520 require a huge package? Is there more than one die on it? Does the larger package have something to do with the new bus?
Last edited by a moderator:
That's likely to be due to increased pin count for the package, but not because of anything like memory bus width (before someone brings it up) IMHO, but the power pin count, much like x86 CPUs in modern times.Dave Baumann said:
DRAM space count (8 parts per side) is the same as an NV40/G70 board as Dave says, but the pinout should be different. I'd expect it to use 136-pin FBGA devices, rather than 144.
Last edited by a moderator:
So we've narrowed it down to a huge die with unextraordinary performance improvement over R480 despite the 90nm process advantage? Either we're badly misinformed, or there is new silicon dedicated to significant new features, or ATI is parting with its past history of GPU engineering. Which is it? 
Package, not die. It makes a difference.
Edit: Tho one could wonder if the one Wavey saw was power related as Rys suggests, if it might possibly have had something to do with fighting their leakage issues before they realized the soft ground issue was the culprit. . .
Edit: Tho one could wonder if the one Wavey saw was power related as Rys suggests, if it might possibly have had something to do with fighting their leakage issues before they realized the soft ground issue was the culprit. . .
Last edited by a moderator: