DailyTech - ATI "RV560" Details Unveiled

Submit News

Hardware ATI "RV560" Details Unveiled
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - October 23, 2006 4:13 PM

23 comment(s) - last by Pino.. on Oct 25 at 7:38 AM

Another 80nm product joins the lineup

ATI previously released its 80nm RV570 Radeon X1950 Pro mid-range graphics card catered towards the $199 MSRP market. Joining the Radeon X1950 Pro will be a second 80nm product known as RV560.

The RV560 Radeon X1650XT is expected to launch next week with a core clock 575 MHz unlike the previously reported 450 MHz. It appears ATI is getting better yields than previously expected, although the Radeon X1650XT was originally expected for an end of August or beginning of September launch. Radeon X1650XT graphics cards will feature 256MB of GDDR3 clocked at 675 MHz on a 128-bit memory interface. The Radeon X1650XT is expected to have 24 pixel-shaders, 12 pipelines and 8 vertex shaders. Similar to the Radeon X1950 Pro, the X1650XT will also feature an internal connection for CrossFire.

There will be a variety of output configurations for Radeon X1650XT cards. These output configurations include dual dual-link DVI and S-Video, dual single-link DVI and S-Video and lastly dual-link DVI, VGA and S-Video. HDCP will be enabled on Radeon X1650XT graphics cards as well. It’s also theoretically possible to integrate an HDMI output, though that will be up to the graphics card manufacturers.

Radeon X1650XT is expected to launch next week with an MSRP of $149 to take on NVIDIA's 7600GT.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Warren21 on 10/23/2006 7:58:55 PM , Rating: 2

I want to refresh with a good DX9 card before DX10 goes mainstream (which will be maybe a year after G80/R600). I am hoping with it's high clocks, ring bus mem controller and 24 pixel shaders that this thing will outperform my current X850.

I cannot spend more than 250 maybe and it can't have a PCB any longer than a 79x0 GT/GS.. 24-pin ATX connector too close to PCI-e slot.

What do you think?
*OC'ed

X850 XT:R480:16rPipes//16 shaders??//6 vertex//580*//1200*MHzDDR-256bit

X1650 XT:RV560:12rPipes//24 shaders//8 vertex//575//1350MHzDDR-128bit

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By FITCamaro on 10/23/2006 9:19:46 PM , Rating: 2

So get a X1950 Pro. Thats $200.

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Brainonska511 on 10/23/2006 9:23:04 PM , Rating: 2

X1950Pro is $299 on Newegg. The X1900GT is $200 (or you can go with an X1800GTO for $40 less).

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Warren21 on 10/23/2006 11:04:41 PM , Rating: 2

I forgot to mention I'm Canadian.

1. We don't have newegg.

2. Pricing here is much worse (they jack the prices, don't follow conversion rates - X1950 Pro is $330+, no where near 200 US equivalent).

3. The X1900 PCB is too long. All X1800's and above use the same PCB, I mentionned no longer than a 79x0 GS/GT... they actually use a shorter PCB than both the 7800 GT/GTX, 7900 GTX/GX2, X1800's and X1900's... And they cost more than 250$ CDN..

I went to buy an X1800 XT 512 MB the week it was released, I had been waiting for that card.. the PCb was too long and hit the 24-pin ATX connector. The X850 is short. That's why I got it -- fastest card that would fit ATM.

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Jkm3141 on 10/24/2006 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2

prices will drop, give it more than 2 days to drop. MSRP is 200

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Calin on 10/24/2006 8:06:35 AM , Rating: 2

X850 is older technology... I would tend to choose a newer card
(but for a budget gaming machine I have suggested a X800GTO - came at a very low price)

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By Loc13 on 10/24/2006 9:26:19 AM , Rating: 2

i would suggest the x1900xt 256mb version if you can find it at the price range. I've seen it below $250 after rebate. :)

Parent

RE: X1650 > OC'ed X850 XT (past P.E. speeds) ?

By phusg on 10/24/2006 11:21:24 AM , Rating: 2

You do get SM3.0 support, so hopefully you'll be able to kick out folding@home units lightning fast with it, see http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-ATI.html

Also you get HDMI/HDCP support and acceleration for HD video.

If it's just for gaming then I doubt it'll be much faster than your X850 XT/PE.

Parent

i hope it's competitive

By Fenixgoon on 10/23/2006 6:29:56 PM , Rating: 1

ati has always sucked in the midrange. x1600 pro/XT both lost to a 7600GS, 6600GT >> x600/700. somehow, they always manage to get it right the 2nd time around (x800 GTO and x1800GTO) so here's to a competitive card :beer;

RE: i hope it's competitive

By blckgrffn on 10/23/2006 6:46:02 PM , Rating: 2

Finally!

I have been waiting for these! Sweet.

Here's to hoping for a silent cooler and low power consumption...

Nat

Parent

RE: i hope it's competitive

By CrystalBay on 10/23/2006 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 2

I hope it's priced competitive, not like the big box price gougers and the 1950Pro...

Parent

RE: i hope it's competitive

By BladeVenom on 10/24/2006 12:19:35 AM , Rating: 2

Just wait a month or two, and it will fall into the proper price range.

Parent

RE: i hope it's competitive

By slashbinslashbash on 10/23/2006 7:11:42 PM , Rating: 5

Here's how it slots into the lineup.... wish I could do an HTML table...
we've got
v=vertex shaders
p=pixel shaders
r=raster pipelines
@=GPU/Mem speed
b=Mem bit width
MB=Mem amount

X1950 XTX: 8v 48p 16r @650 256b512MB@1000 $450
X1900 XTX: 8v 48p 16r @650 256b512MB@775 $375
X1900 XT : 8v 48p 16r @625 256b256/512MB@725 $280/$350
X1950 Pro: 8v 36p 12r @575 256b256MB@690 $200
X1650 XT : 8v 24p 12r @575 128b256MB@675 $150
X1650 Pro: 5v 12p 4r @600 128b256MB@700 $100
X1600 XT : 5v 12p 4r @590 128b256MB@690 $???
X1600 Pro: 5v 12p 4r @500 128b256MB@400 $???
X1300 XT : 5v 12p 4r @500 128b256MB@400 $89

It slots into the lineup nicely, and the 24 pixel shaders and 12 raster pipes ought to distinguish it nicely from the rest of the 1600/1650 family, but the 128-bit memory bus might be an Achilles heel especially when it comes to AA.

Parent

RE: i hope it's competitive

By emboss on 10/24/2006 3:02:12 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
but the 128-bit memory bus might be an Achilles heel especially when it comes to AA.

Indeed. My 9800 Pro at overclocked to ~9800XT speeds has more memory bandwidth than the X1650XT. Of course, the 9800 gets crushed when it comes to shading grunt, but it does make you wonder about the balance of the card.

It seems odd that they've pumped up the shading grunt by so much without increasing the memory bandwidth. If you look at (pixel shader * GPU speed) / (memory width * memory speed) the X1650XT is the most biased towards shading grunt of all the cards.

And could SOMEONE do something about the annoying "oops something went wrong" messages. This is the FOURTH time I'm trying to post this (going back to the news page and hitting refresh each time).

Parent

RE: i hope it's competitive

By NullSubroutine on 10/24/2006 8:55:01 AM , Rating: 1

ive not responded so many times to getting that error and being annoyed.

Parent

Benchmarks

By Pino on 10/24/2006 7:57:20 AM , Rating: 2

Digit-Life already have some benchmarks publicated on their 3D Digest showing the X1650XT, and it is not doing good, losing to 7600GT in almost all benchmarks.

Can´t say if they are using the final card, but the frequencies are diferent from the stated above.

Take a look here:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index...

RE: Benchmarks

By Anh Huynh on 10/24/2006 11:24:34 AM , Rating: 2

Doesn't show an X1650XT, just an X1650 Pro which is a totally different GPU.

Parent

RE: Benchmarks

By Pino on 10/24/2006 12:20:47 PM , Rating: 2

Click on a game, and you will see both.
The X1650XT is not in card list, but it´s on graphs.

Look here:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0906/...

Parent

RE: Benchmarks

By phusg on 10/25/2006 6:39:43 AM , Rating: 2

Nice find. In the graph in your link the X1650XT is faster than both the 7600GT and 7900GS, so if this benchmarks turns out to be representative then I don't see a problem with it's performance!

Parent

RE: Benchmarks

By Pino on 10/25/2006 7:38:03 AM , Rating: 2

The X1650XT wins in COD2 and 3Dmark2006 by less then 1%
In all other benchmarks (there are a lot more in their digest http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0906/... the 7600GT wins.

Parent

yup

By ixelion on 10/23/2006 7:13:21 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
ati has always sucked in the midrange. x1600 pro/XT both lost to a 7600GS, 6600GT >> x600/700. somehow, they always manage to get it right the 2nd time around (x800 GTO and x1800GTO) so here's to a competitive card :beer;

QFT

Honestly, many of us do not sped $300-$500 on video cards, ATI seriously needs to improve in the mid-range, as the OP stated every x600-x700 and x1600 has not not been up to par, and have been too expensive.

RE: yup

By Sharky974 on 10/24/2006 6:35:26 PM , Rating: 2

They only suck in the midrange as a consequence of purposely crippling their chips by TMU limiting them.

This leads to extremely huge chips not getting much performance per sqaure mm, which can work though it's not ideal at the high end, but has real problems at mid-range.

Best example of this was the X1600XT, which originally was intended to compete with the 7600GT, both having 12 pixel pipes. In the past an ATI Pixel pipe was always a good match for an Nvidia pixel pipe, but with the X1600 ATI crippled it by giving it only 4 TMU's. This made it a awful performer, and they've been borked in mid-range basically ever since.

This X1650 has 8 (some say 12 but I believe 8) TMU's, so it will perform much better than the X1600. The amount of pixel pipes doesn't matter to ATI, they are only TMU crippled. To prove it, consider the X1800XT which is a 16 pixel pipe card. So why will it likely dust this upcoming X1650XT (which has 24 pixel pipes, or 50% more)? Because the difference is the X1800 has 16 TMU's.

Parent