Xabre II 8x2 architecture...

OK, so which is it.

On one hand, it's claimed Xabre will support "500 Mhz" memory, which if keeping consistent across that chart, means 250 actual Mhz, and 500Mhz "effective."

On the other hand, they claim 16 GB/sec bandwidth, which implies 1 GHz effective memory....
 
parhelia said:
Taken straight from XabreGamers (http://xabregamers.dgwh.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=166)

x2.jpg
Click to expand...

umm, it's 1 Ghz DDR2, not 500 MHz

you can easily tell by the fact that the article says something like:
"The Xabre 600 had 300/300 Mhz clocks while the Xabre 2 has 350/500 MHz clocks"
well in any case they also state 16 GBs so obviously something got screwed up ;)
 
parhelia said:
maybe it means actual 500Mhz, which implies 1 GHz effective memory....
Click to expand...

yeah but why would they then list FX as 1 GHz?

and in any case they've got the specs wrong for the 9700 memory too


and what's this "2.0+" that's just silly
9700 also exceeds the 2.0 specifications

the "(+CineFX)" is also cute ;)

and I thoiught it was pretty clear by now that the FX doesn't have 8 pipes, rather it does 8 pixels per clock under cerain circumstances
 
Ante P said:
umm, it's 1 Ghz DDR2, not 500 MHz....

...well in any case they also state 16 GBs so obviously something got screwed up ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. The specs aren't consistent. SOMETHING is wrong, just don't know which.

Unless, of course, they are using 500 Mhz SDR DRam. ;)
 
Well, here's what I read :

With more than 80 million transistors, the Xabre 2 will include support for Direct X 9 and offer a 350MHz core clock speed and a 500MHz memory clock speed. The Xabre 600, currently the top of SiS's graphics chip line, supports DirectX 8.1 and has a 300MHz core clock speed and a 300MHz memory clock speed.
Click to expand...


And we all know that Xabre 600 has a 300MHz core, 300MHz (600MHz DDR) memory so I guess that means Xabre II has a memory of 500Mhz (1Ghz)
 
Xabre II will have a 4 channel 128 bit DDR/II/III memory interface. And 4x multisampling.

Ante P,
why is PS 2.0+ silly? It's short for PS 2.0 extended, which is a set of optional features a chip can support through D3D. GeForceFX supports some of them, R9700 doesn't.
 
Maverick said:
But the 9700 does go beyond PS 2.0, so it should be deserving of the "PS 2.0+" tag as well.
Click to expand...
You mean the 32 temporary registers? Are they available in the current drivers?
 
Xmas said:
Xabre II will have a 4 channel 128 bit DDR/II/III memory interface. And 4x multisampling.

Ante P,
why is PS 2.0+ silly? It's short for PS 2.0 extended, which is a set of optional features a chip can support through D3D. GeForceFX supports some of them, R9700 doesn't.
Click to expand...

Both R300 and NV30 exceeds 2.0 ("basic") specifications, ok so NV30 exceeds them a little bit more, that still doesn't make it sensible to put a "+" there IMHO
Ati sorta exceeds them a lot wen using virtualizations on the R350, thus ATis sarcastic comments about them supporting "2.0++"

in any case: silly

:)
 
Ante P said:
Both R300 and NV30 exceeds 2.0 ("basic") specifications, ok so NV30 exceeds them a little bit more, that still doesn't make it sensible to put a "+" there IMHO
Ati sorta exceeds them a lot wen using virtualizations on the R350, thus ATis sarcastic comments about them supporting "2.0++"

in any case: silly

:)
Click to expand...

'Pixel Shader 2_0 Extended', or 'ps_2_x' (though it's more convenient to write 'PS 2.0+') is a fully specified optional feature set. Which part of it does ATI currently support with its R300?
 
Xmas said:
Ante P said:
Both R300 and NV30 exceeds 2.0 ("basic") specifications, ok so NV30 exceeds them a little bit more, that still doesn't make it sensible to put a "+" there IMHO
Ati sorta exceeds them a lot wen using virtualizations on the R350, thus ATis sarcastic comments about them supporting "2.0++"

in any case: silly

:)
Click to expand...

'Pixel Shader 2_0 Extended', or 'ps_2_x' (though it's more convenient to write 'PS 2.0+') is a fully specified optional feature set. Which part of it does ATI currently support with its R300?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that NV30 didn't fully support PS2 ext.
If it does then ok, then I see the point.
 
Ante P said:
I was under the impression that NV30 didn't fully support PS2 ext.
If it does then ok, then I see the point.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. I don't think we'll see a chip that supports all of 2.0 extended, but not 3.0, since they're very close.
 
Xmas said:
Ante P said:
I was under the impression that NV30 didn't fully support PS2 ext.
If it does then ok, then I see the point.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. I don't think we'll see a chip that supports all of 2.0 extended, but not 3.0, since they're very close.
Click to expand...

So then we're back two:
two chips which exceed PS2.0 specs.

So calling NV30 PS2.0+ capabale and R300 "just" PS2.0 is silly.
 
Xmas said:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3671

I don't know what has changed with current drivers, but according to this link R300 (or the driver) does not exceed PS2.0 specs. NV30 does.
Click to expand...

It supports a higher max instructions than 2.0 specifies, simple example but yet: it does support more than just 2.0.

So if both cards fails to meet the demand of 2.0 extended then there's simply no reason to call either of them "+"

in my opinion that is
 
Ante P said:
It supports a higher max instructions than 2.0 specifies, simple example but yet: it does support more than just 2.0.
Click to expand...
According to those caps ram posted, it does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top