The LAST R600 Rumours & Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
R300King! said:
I said software, this includes compiler and/or drivers.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
We don't know for sure all the interaction between Vista, DX10 and AMD's new hardware tech. No one knows! And like I said, I believe there is some kind of software issue that is keeping the performance from being high(as they intended). Possibly in some apps or games the performance is just not there(as in way too poor).
Click to expand...
When I see a blanket statement, I like to try to understand it and see if it could potentially make sense. Because the thing is: we know much more than you suggest. There are experiences from the past, there is already quite a bit of information about existing Vista drivers, both DX9 and DX10. There is the understanding about how drivers work in general, and articles about the Vista driver model. There is plain old common sense reasoning and technical insight. Based on that, it's not a waste of time to analyze, extrapolate and make an educated guess about the feasibility of a 29% reduction in performance loss in just a few weeks, and my conclusion is that it's very unlikely.

Clearly, this kind of exercise is of no interest to you and that's your right entirely.

So, yes, let's leave it at that.
 
trinibwoy said:
It's gonna launch at $400? :oops: :devilish:

It's obviously not something technical since they don't have enough time to change that so it has to be pricing, doesn't it? Or is there something else that we'd consider "pleasant" that AMD has the power to change at this late stage?
Click to expand...

Not with a gig of ram. The chip is huge and it has alot of high end ram, the cost for the cards alone i bet is going to be damn near $350 so unless they're going to nix income.

Sound_Card said:
My thinking as well.

Considering how late R600 is, I believe R680 is just about almost ready to go. I don't think ATi wants another R520/580 fiasco again. With this said, I believe they are holding off R600 to put the last finishing touches on R680 for a big product luanch that will cover all segements of the market meeting all the price points.


Only thing I can think of. I know it's not performance because they would have known by november. Can't be hardware problem either.
Click to expand...

there was no fiasco with the R520 launch, those cards performed beautifully, even against R580 based parts. The only bad was limited production run. Killing a revision alltogether would be just wasteful.

Or maybe R600 is DX 10.1 and ATI made a little mistake by printing DX 10.0 on the boxes instead?
Click to expand...

Considering 10.1 isnt finalized yet....
 
Anarchist4000 said:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3668

These would be the 20-40% performance increases I was talking about. They only applied to OGL with AA enabled in bandwidth limited scenarios but improved most OGL games. Not entirely across the board but fairly close. I'm sure more gradual improvements came over time as they performance tuned in addition to this big jump.

All i'm trying to say is that we've seen significant jumps before with just driver tweaks.
Click to expand...

Interesting article. It supports your claim that it is possible to increase performance by a significant amount with a software tweak, but it basically also confirms my statement that ATI wasn't able to compete in the OGL games arena due to an MC that wasn't running at its designed-for efficiency. ;)

Makes me wonder, btw, why OGL handling of AA is so much different from DirectX.
 
there was no fiasco with the R520 launch, those cards performed beautifully, even against R580 based parts. The only bad was limited production run. Killing a revision alltogether would be just wasteful.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was saying.
 
SugarCoat said:
Not with a gig of ram. The chip is huge and it has alot of high end ram, the cost for the cards alone i bet is going to be damn near $350 so unless they're going to nix income.



there was no fiasco with the R520 launch, those cards performed beautifully, even against R580 based parts. The only bad was limited production run. Killing a revision alltogether would be just wasteful.



Considering 10.1 isnt finalized yet....
Click to expand...

r520 was a fiasco, it launched what, almost half a year after g70? then a new card launched 2 months later? sucks to be someone who actually bought r520. i dont even recall it being much faster than g70, wasnt it a win some lose some?
 
icecold1983 said:
r520 was a fiasco, it launched what, almost half a year after g70? then a new card launched 2 months later? sucks to be someone who actually bought r520. i dont even recall it being much faster than g70, wasnt it a win some lose some?
Click to expand...

4 months and 3 months. Am I correct in remembering this is not the first time your memory has made AMD problems 50% worse than they already are. Why is that?
 
Maybe more than that. Probably March/April was the original hope. Tho that was probably a best case scenario, and as likely as G80 showing up in the summer instead of November. And how many months after NV40 was G70? (tho, to be fair, SLI was in the middle there, tho that was hardly a flawless launch). This stuff ain't easy for anyone, that's why there are only two big boys left.
 
Geo said:
4 months and 3 months. Am I correct in remembering this is not the first time your memory has made AMD problems 50% worse than they already are. Why is that?
Click to expand...

werent r520s not readily available for purchase until november? thats 5 months, and then 2 months to january when r580 launched. im not anti ati if thats what ur getting at, if r600 is all its cracked up to be ill be buying 1 or 2 on day 1 along with a new motherboard for crossfire, but as a company their execution has sucked on every product since r300.
 
Geo said:
Maybe more than that. Probably March/April was the original hope. Tho that was probably a best case scenario, and as likely as G80 showing up in the summer instead of November. And how many months after NV40 was G70? (tho, to be fair, SLI was in the middle there, tho that was hardly a flawless launch). This stuff ain't easy for anyone, that's why there are only two big boys left.
Click to expand...

wasnt g70 like 13 months after nv40? either way i dont see the relevance, the last launch nvidia screwed up was nv30, they have out executed ati by an incredibly huge margin on every subsequent product cycle. quarterly reports by each company back this.
 
My theory is simple, if Nvidia decides to release refresh of 8800GTX; Ultra version sometime like in March 2007, it will force ATI to make up their mind quickly is to when unleash their secret of R600-XTX - and by doing that it will help ATI to solve their problem by having hard time deciding release or not to release R600.
 
They've certainly had a better last 2.5 years than ATI has. This is incredibly obvious. It does not justify rewriting history to make everything ATI has done crap and everything NV has done perfect, over that period.
 
Geo said:
They've certainly had a better last 2.5 years than ATI has. This is incredibly obvious. It does not justify rewriting history to make everything ATI has done crap and everything NV has done perfect, over that period.
Click to expand...

never said ati was crap, i give their hardware credit, as its very good, but their execution sucks. they screwed up the r420 launch, the r520 launch, and the r600 launch. what history am i rewriting? were the r520s available for purchase by more than 2 or 3 people b4 november? if im wrong correct me, but i recall that being the case.
 
icecold1983 said:
never said ati was crap, i give their hardware credit, as its very good, but their execution sucks. they screwed up the r420 launch, the r520 launch, and the r600 launch. what history am i rewriting? were the r520s available for purchase by more than 2 or 3 people b4 november? if im wrong correct me, but i recall that being the case.
Click to expand...

They didn't screw up the refresh-launches. R350, R360, R480, R580 were all available at launch. R580 even a few days before the launch and it was right on schedule. R520 being late didn't set back R580 releasedate. So it's not really all that bad like you made it look. ;)
 
This is an R600 thread. If we want to do yet another "ATI sucks: reasons why" thread, the Industry forum is available to you, or you can just continue on the "AMD needs money?" thread there, as that is obviously its intent. At any rate, other venues are readily available for it on the site. So let's get back to bitching about R600 being late, okay?
 
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachment.php?aid=497181

If you take the HKEPC configurations seriously, and compare that to what xbit reported for reasoning from AMD, then I think one of the areas you have to look at would be what role did memory configurations play in these decisions?

HKEPC is reporting that XTX is 1GB of GDDR4. Whereas XT and XL are 512MB of GDDR3. And, as we know, R600 supports 512-bit buswidth to external memory.

G80 on the other hand, has 768MB of GDDR3 on 8800GTX and 640MB on GTS, at 384-bit and 320-bit, respectively.

HKEPC also says that the GDDR3 versions would not be ready until April. So between xbit and HKEPC what I've been wondering is if AMD/ATI just decided why they should be at a cost disadvantage at launch with 1GB GDDR4 when they could still have more bw than the competition with less cost at 512MB of GDDR3 in April/May? It seems to me if XTX is even roughly performance competitive with 8800GTX, then the XT that HKEPC is describing should thoroughly trash an 8800GTS 640MB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
The Official G84/G86 Rumours & Speculation Thread
22 23 24
Replies
460
Views
73K
Twinkie
T
Back
Top