The NEXT LAST R600 Rumours & Speculation Thread

Too bad none go too deep into AA IQ yet. I guess we are looking at the bad boy NDA breakers at this point.

Chris

 

I can understand AMD postponing the launch because of hardware related problems but they've had months to work on the drivers and yet the drivers look so unfinished that its not even funny. In some cases its slower than the X1950 ..

 

In R6 Las Vegas and SC DA is better .. . The 2900 have a big bug/problem with Af /AA

http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/radeonhd2900xtreview_test010.gif

AA 4X free EDIT / is the 8.361 driver but is the CD driver

 

Quick comments about a few things.

• Did TweakTown mention hardware problems as a reason for delay or is it just my imagination?
• Generally underperforms it specs... I guess we'll have a while to figure out what's going on. In the mean time, I have to wonder what the margins on that thing are.
• OC picutres that some people were passing off as "air and stock volts!" are actually cascade cooler + voltmod.
• Blurvision 2.0! Yey!?

 

But even with the physical hardware, is it possible for the XT to be at least SOMEWHAT near the GTX?

 

Hmm...does it matter how the second 6 pin goes into the 8 pin slot? ie; any particular side the spare two pins should be on?

Or does it just not matter?

*edit* or can it only really go in one way in particular, like an ATX connection.

 

Yeah I also expected that drivers will be much better - now I want comparison in Vista 64 because thats my OS

 

From VR zone.

Tables seem to have flipped compared to last gen.

 

It looks like people who buy HD2xxx GPUs will have a long wait ahead of them for decent gaming performance. The shortfalls in performance are shocking really.

Then there's the worry of the delays caused by the official Catalyst schedule as it causes months of lead-time for features/bug-fixes.

Jawed

 

On paper, looking only at superficial specs, XT would seem more capable in several areas, no?

320x750 Vs 128x1.35
86Gb/s vs 102 Gb/s

Etc.

 

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/asus/EAH2900XT/g1.htm

Asus 2900XT review.

 

Another one, oops /\ beat my by a few seconds

 

VR-Zone mirror.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/index.htm


*Edit* Delete this as you see fit. If their review site wasnt lagging like crazy ><

 

It's really 256/384 depending on how you look at it. The MUL devoted to special function I suppose makes the 256 number more accurate, although who knows how much of the 320 is used for SF.

 

This part caught my eye on VR-zone:

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4946&s=14

It's possibly wasting much more of it's shader units on vertex shading compared to G80 when running DX9. (Or anything < DX10)

 

There do seem to be some good jumps between the 8.361 and the 8.37 drivers based on the 2 different reviews (the latter 2). Does anyone here know if the 8.38 will be even that much better? If so then the perfomance will be much closer to the GTX speeds but at GTS pricing.

 

I'm sorry, but

 

The synthetic vertex shader tests are reflecting what we expect given the relative shader power of both cards. Note that vertex data probably fits very nicely with R600's vec5 configuration and without bandwidth/texturing/scheduling to worry about it probably gets pretty good utilization.

So in this particular case, it's simply performing as it should

And although Dave has already laughed at you, it might be worth noting that these architectures will balance the workload of vertex/pixel/geometry shaders so what you're suggesting is probably not happening It's not even possible since you'll quickly run out of vertices to shade anyway!

 

seems to win as much as it loses against the gts. i'll take that as a fair trade-off considering the drivers have marked room for improvement in just going from 8.36 - 8.37.
aint .38 supposed to be out? i mean it's obvious when it loses, it loses bad like when it falls short of last gen ati card. if this isnt a driver issue, i wouldn't know what is.
meanwhile, the upside is when it beats the gts there are enough instances which it is closer to gtx performance than anything else.
at the moment [and i'd still like to see better reviews], it looks like a deal to me. hopefully providing they continue to tweak the drivers like they did for quake 4 results, it leans toward steal for me since i def want that black box and i could definitely use the sound output for my hdtv.

 

In that case, no hopes for improvements then with DX10.