The ATI R600 Rumours & Speculation Centrum

I don't contest the differences in the test systems (though the differences between a DC C2E at 2.93 GHz as Computerbase.de used, and a QC C2E at 3.2 GHz as Level505 supposedly used should be minimal at the tested graphics load, besides the infamous 3DMark 06), but rather pointed out that the numbers they published are very close to those available at ComputerBase.de:

Code:

		8800GTX				1950CF				7950GX2		
		CB.de	Level 505	diff		CB.de	Level 505	diff		CB.de	Level 505	diff
3DMark 05	11025	11039		-0,13%		10937	10912		0,23%		7958	7925		0,41%
3DMark 06	6377	6368		0,14%		6280	6280		0,00%		-	4112	
Anno 1701	16,9	17		-0,59%		22,1	22		0,45%		12,7	13,2		-3,94%
Battlefield 2	147	148,9		-1,29%		112	114,1		-1,88%		124	126,8		-2,26%
COD 2		47	47,1		-0,21%		48,7	49		-0,62%		34,2	34,6		-1,17%
Doom 3		126	127,1		-0,87%		142,8	142,9		-0,07%		106,2	106		0,19%
F.E.A.R.	76	75,9		0,13%		92	92,6		-0,65%		62	64,1		-3,39%
HL2: LC		86,4	87,1		-0,81%		84,8	87		-2,59%		62,2	64		-2,89%
Oblivion	19,7	19,5		1,02%		17,9	17,9		0,00%		7,8	8		-2,56%

Of course, that doesn't say that they actually got those numbers themselves, and it especially doesn't say anything about the validity of their supposed R600 scores, but it does clear up that Uttar's 'felt BS' scores aren't completely bogus after all.

.
In the end, ironically, I think the 3DMark 06 numbers are the ones that are the best indication that there's something wrong with the Level505 article, as they don't seem to account for the considerably higher CPU test score their QC C2E should be getting vs. the CB.de DC C2E.

 

Your just in shock or denial that R600 is going to wax G80.

 

Shouldn't that read ...

 

- Fake
- a little incorrect
- mostly incorrect

Which is it?

 

No direct contact information, no names, no useful "About" information. Even the domain name itself was registered through "Domains by Proxy", a company that registers domain names for people/organizations that want to remain anonymous. The whole thing stinks of viral marketing.

 

I agree with whomever said DT (and AT news before it) is seldom wrong. Kris is really standing up for these specs...Kinda curious what's incorrect.

Where's Wavey? He seems awfully silent considering this may or may not be a bombshell...and when one's quiet, you know what that usually means.

No disrespect of course...Just fishing for some answers.

 

Fake and mostly incorrect

 

or Authentic and somewhat incorrect..

 

What is it with everything being branded a 'leak' these days.

And yet Level 505 doesn't consider it so...

So they're abiding by a strict ruleset (I know, it's all bullshit...still. Leak? It's pissing me off that people seem to have adopted this as the buzzword of the minute now.)

*Not too long from now* "Oh look! A demo for GRAW 2!" - "Wow a leaked demo for GRAW 2? I'm going to go download this leak from my ISP's free file list. I love leaks! Leak leak leak".

Bargh.

 

quick question has production stopped on the r580? If it has then I see no reason for ATi not to use GDDR4 memory for the r600 immidiately.

 

Maybe, as someone somewhere else wrote, the first thing we'll see is the XL, say 850MHz with 900MHz RAM - a bit like the X1800XL of yesteryear, which was released "early" to sweep up the "nearly" cores that couldn't be used for X1800XT.

Jawed

 

Well they have to leave some space for an answer to NV's February/March refresh...

 

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. I think it was Orton that said R600 will be released for Vista but there's no way they'll be able to do that unless they just scrape something up with the cores they allready have. Parts with mass production cores (and higher clocked ones) will come somewhere February-March.

Anyway, what the hell is this supposed to mean?:

 

Like a lot of people around Christmas/New Year's, Wavey's on holiday with only spotty internet, so I wouldn't put any particular meaning into his absence.

 

You've got to have a career/reputation before you can fling it into the abyss. This guy is hiding pretty thoroughly. Why would be a relevant question to ask.

Where are the core clock speed on that review? Anyway, 64 shaders has been the clubhouse leader for months on R600, so that's hardly going to prove anything if it turns out correct. 4D instead of 5D (Xenos), if correct, would be a bit more indicative of having some real information.

January 22nd just does not line up, however, unless they are going to paperlaunch "technology preview" without reviews. But as someone noted, if the January date was linked to the GDDR3 version and that version has been cancelled, then the January date isn't operative anymore anyway.

I'm still working with the theory that the launch will not happen in the next six weeks (i.e. thru mid February). But that is based on a real launch. A "tech preview" kind of launch could be cobbled together faster, tho I don't think too many of us really want to see that kind of launch.

Edit: And, btw. . .what about features? Good performance is pretty predictable, it seems to me. What I want to know is what new goodies it brings to the table.

 

I'm still guessing March for the real Launch. My opinion though.

Of course you have reliable news .. where as I have none.

US

 

I have to say Incurable's posting showing that Computerbase.de gets very similar results for 8800GTX, is making Level 505 look less dodgy than I first presumed.

EDIT: by the way, the graphs on this site are groovy:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...ia_geforce_8800_gts_sli/8/#abschnitt_3dmark06

just move your mouse over a graphics card name and see the graph change to percentages. Nice.

Jawed

 

Would we complain too much? B3D's G80 performance review is still pending

Jawed

 

Perhaps it's dependant on location, but over here I saw the x1800xt come out a good month before the XL's. At one stage I was building someone a system who wanted an XL, and we had to just stop partway through because of a lack of XL's.

 

So, do you think a G80 + X6800 (dual-core) @ 2.93GHz = G80 + QX6700 (quad-core) @ 3.2GHz -466MHz OC- ?

Ok...