The LAST R600 Rumours & Speculation Thread

[chavvdarrr]

R600 a good indicator of AMD's new architecture? in notebook land it's still the other way around, low end ATI chips still offer more performance for the same Watt.

[offtopic] Then why is ATi losing market share in notebook market too? Surely this has nothing to do with "strategy" company had chosen in last 2years?
I just don't how can anyone claim that in last 2 years ATi is constantly being outrun in every field.
Bad luck, coincidense, wrong shape of the Moon...

Fact is, having DX10 solution NOW gives big advantage to one that has it.
Just today my compane had decided to buy 20 new PCs - and they'll be fitted with 7300GT - ATi just has nothing comparable for 100$. My boss wanted to buy "best gamer PC" for the New Year - and he bought 8800, of course. Simply because there was no choice.
Denying that ATi has big problems in executing their plans on time won't change facts .

 

[CJ]

Just today my compane had decided to buy 20 new PCs - and they'll be fitted with 7300GT - ATi just has nothing comparable for 100$.

Excuse me for saying this, but your company could've done their homework a bit better. ATI has plenty of cards underneath the $100 pricemark that beats the crap out of a 7300GT. If they would've done some research they'd come across cards like the X1300XT (most come OCd out of the box) and the X1650Pro. You can already get them for around €70 which converted to dollars is about $90.

 

[INKster]

Excuse me for saying this, but your company could've done their homework a bit better. ATI has plenty of cards underneath the $100 pricemark that beats the crap out of a 7300GT. If they would've done some research they'd come across cards like the X1300XT (most come OCd out of the box) and the X1650Pro. You can already get them for around €70 which converted to dollars is about $90.

There are sub-$100 7300 GT's with GDDR3 that "beat the crap" out of any X1300 XT too.

 

[leoneazzurro]

Excuse me for saying this, but your company could've done their homework a bit better. ATI has plenty of cards underneath the $100 pricemark that beats the crap out of a 7300GT. If they would've done some research they'd come across cards like the X1300XT (most come OCd out of the box) and the X1650Pro. You can already get them for around €70 which converted to dollars is about $90.

He's talking about the GDDR3 version, with OCed core (500/1400, if I remember well) that has the G73 chip with 8 pipelines active. That's almost a 7600 GS.
But OK, there are ATI alternatives (X1650 Pro).

PS: I'm not convinced ATI lost margin because R580 being late. Yes, R520 was late but that was an accident. And R520 market is not huge (even if high end market drives often the sales in the lower segments). What really disappointed was X1600, late AND with low performances for the mainstream discrete card market. And there was an huge void between X1600 and X1800. a GT/GTO version should have appeared before. X 1600 was OK for the notebook market (and it has a good share there) but after that ATI left a void between it and the high end (X1800 mobile). Nvidia has proposed new models with low power usage and/or better performances than X1300-X1600 (7300-7600 Go). Mobile chips based on RV560/RV570 were needed for that market for not losing share.
These were real ATI's faults, and if the USA mobile parts are really almost ready, I think they have learned the lesson.

 

[CJ]

There are sub-$100 7300 GT's with GDDR3 that "beat the crap" out of any X1300 XT too.

[offtopic]I'm sure you're correct, although I can't find any links to prove it (most reviews I found of OC 7300GTs with GDDR3 still fall behind AMDs lineup both technically as well as in performance). My point being is that it's not true that ATI has nothing to offer in the $100 range as was implied. At this pricepoint both the regular X1300XT and X1650Pro are very competitive to the 7300GT (regular). All three cards have OC versions so that evens things out quite nicely again. And even a X1650XT is already coming close in the same price segment.[/offtopic]

Pricedrops have been going on all around Europe and it makes you wonder if AMD did that just to be competitive to nVidia or if they're doing it to make room for something new. The X1950XTX is slowly dropping to the €300 pricepoint whereas the X1950XT can already be bought for €240. The X1950Pro can already be bought for €160 and the X1650XT is selling for €110. Or did they really listen to the Jon Peddy results that state that 75% of the graphicscards sold are in the $200-$300 pricerange?

 

[INKster]

[offtopic]I'm sure you're correct, although I can't find any links to prove it (most reviews I found of OC 7300GTs with GDDR3 still fall behind AMDs lineup both technically as well as in performance). My point being is that it's not true that ATI has nothing to offer in the $100 range as was implied. At this pricepoint both the regular X1300XT and X1650Pro are very competitive to the 7300GT (regular). All three cards have OC versions so that evens things out quite nicely again. And even a X1650XT is already coming close in the same price segment.[/offtopic]

Pricedrops have been going on all around Europe and it makes you wonder if AMD did that just to be competitive to nVidia or if they're doing it to make room for something new. The X1950XTX is slowly dropping to the €300 pricepoint whereas the X1950XT can already be bought for €240. The X1950Pro can already be bought for €160 and the X1650XT is selling for €110. Or did they really listen to the Jon Peddy results that state that 75% of the graphicscards sold are in the $200-$300 pricerange?

You forgot that there are faster versions of G73 (used in 7300 GT, 7600 GS and 7600 GT) around already.
G73-B1 (80nm), is clocked way higher than the previous 90nm part.
For instance, the XFX version comes with 650MHz/1800MHz (core/mem), whereas the "old" one came with 560MHz/1400MHz. Power consumption is slightly lower. These memory chips have the same factory speed rating as those of a 8800 GTX.
It's a very big difference right there.

 

[CJ]

You forgot that there are faster versions of G73 (used in 7300 GT, 7600 GS and 7600 GT) around already.
G73-B1 (80nm), is clocked way higher than the previous 90nm part.
For instance, the XFX version comes with 650MHz/1800MHz (core/mem), whereas the "old" one came with 560MHz/1400MHz. Power consumption is slightly lower. These memory chips have the same factory speed rating as those of a 8800 GTX.
It's a very big difference right there.

I'm aware of the revamped 7600GT, but that still isn't the point I was trying to make.... But this is getting a bit off topic.

 

[INKster]

Yep.
But to be *a little* more on-topic, there are rumors of a slightly cheaper, lower-clocked RV570 coming in February, for roughly $150.
Could this mean preemptive action against a "8600GS" or even a "8300GT", or is this a signal that more mainstream versions of R600 are still far from being released ?

 

[seahawk]

I would say Option b.

 

[CJ]

Yep.
But to be *a little* more on-topic, there are rumors of a slightly cheaper, lower-clocked RV570 coming in February, for roughly $150.
Could this mean preemptive action against a "8600GS" or even a "8300GT", or is this a signal that more mainstream versions of R600 are still far from being released ?

The rumours are those of the X1950GT and X1650XL. Both have been mentioned here on the forums several times. I've mentioned them HERE last month. But then I heard that the X1950GT got cancelled in favor of the X1950Pro pricedrops. But it seems that both cards might still see the light of day in February. If the prices still stands that means that AMD has a 330M transistor GPU at around €100. Somehow I doubt that they'll make a lot of money out of this.

 

[Cypher]

You can still support some aspects of D3D10 and loudly proclaim that on the boxes you sell your products in..

No, you can't. At least, not without the internet and market at large basically exploding in anger. Why? Because you can't support SOME aspects of D3D10 and actually use D3D10. If a card is not able to support even one of the required features of '10, MS will never pass any driver that makes the card use D3D10, and it can never be use to run any D3D10 app. Period.

 

[INKster]

The rumours are those of the X1950GT and X1650XL. Both have been mentioned here on the forums several times. I've mentioned them HERE last month. But then I heard that the X1950GT got cancelled in favor of the X1950Pro pricedrops. But it seems that both cards might still see the light of day in February. If the prices still stands that means that AMD has a 330M transistor GPU at around €100. Somehow I doubt that they'll make a lot of money out of this.

Just like AMD did with their CPU price-cuts, in light of Core 2 Duo success.
So, this means option "b" for me too.

So, armed with this new info (for me at least), it will come down to G84/G86/whatever, or a RV570, depending on price vs performance in mid-to-late February.
(since i know Geo will hand his own R580 to someone else )

 

[chavvdarrr]

just to be clear, I'm talking about 7300GT with GDDR3 using very good Zalman cooler, X1600 is more expensive. Yes 1300XT is within 10$, but I'll never recommend such card, because chances are we'll finish with plain old 1300 chip - its not first batch of PCs we buy, so sorry, I can't take that chance , besides 1300 is "the weak" chip, anyone who rebrands and shuffles numbers should be aware about that effect. At least right now NV line is more or less consistent, as for ATi/AMD, God help us : X1300, X1600, which is now X1300XT, X1600Pro, wait, there is also 1650pro, 1650XT, but, hm, same numbers are for different chips... how am I expected to explain that X1300XT is way better than X1300/6600 cards which we bought several months ago ? It has same f*kin number....

Marketing error? sure. Just fire the assholes which came with the brilliant idea to use equal numbers for different chips

 

[Dave Baumann]

Yes 1300XT is within 10$, but I'll never recommend such card, because chances are we'll finish with plain old 1300 chip

What?

 

[Geo]

I'm fairly sure that was a dig at chip/board renaming/substitution. :smile:

 

[levicki]

No, you can't. At least, not without the internet and market at large basically exploding in anger. Why? Because you can't support SOME aspects of D3D10 and actually use D3D10. If a card is not able to support even one of the required features of '10, MS will never pass any driver that makes the card use D3D10, and it can never be use to run any D3D10 app. Period.

I have already explained that to him in this post. So lets stop mentioning DX10 in this thread.

 

[CJ]

How am I expected to explain that X1300XT is way better than X1300/6600 cards which we bought several months ago ? It has same f*kin number....

Then personally I think that's your problem and not AMD/ATIs if you can't explain why an X1300XT is better than a plain X1300 or X1300Pro or GF6600 or even a GF7300GT for that matter. But hey it's your company's money. For the same price you could buy a X1600Pro which has a higher number but performs the same as a non-OC X1300XT. It's not that difficult now is it?

Marketing error? sure. Just fire the assholes which came with the brilliant idea to use equal numbers for different chips

Everybody does it. ATI did it before with the X550. And the GF7100 is a rebranded GF6200TC.

 

[Dave Baumann]

6800...

 

[Razor1]

just to be clear, I'm talking about 7300GT with GDDR3 using very good Zalman cooler, X1600 is more expensive. Yes 1300XT is within 10$, but I'll never recommend such card, because chances are we'll finish with plain old 1300 chip - its not first batch of PCs we buy, so sorry, I can't take that chance , besides 1300 is "the weak" chip, anyone who rebrands and shuffles numbers should be aware about that effect. At least right now NV line is more or less consistent, as for ATi/AMD, God help us : X1300, X1600, which is now X1300XT, X1600Pro, wait, there is also 1650pro, 1650XT, but, hm, same numbers are for different chips... how am I expected to explain that X1300XT is way better than X1300/6600 cards which we bought several months ago ? It has same f*kin number....

Marketing error? sure. Just fire the assholes which came with the brilliant idea to use equal numbers for different chips

on the ATi chips different clocks speeds . The 1650 series, are quite a bit faster then the 1600 series but much more expensive.

 

[neliz]

6800...

3dmarks in 07?