backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by subarusvx.. on May 15 at 10:21 AM

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT puts up some impressive numbers in benchmarks

After several delays, AMD plans to launch its long-awaited R600 graphics processors. AMD is currently briefing select members of the press on its R600 architecture in the Tunisia, but there is no embargo date on the R600 for DailyTech -- we can show you benchmarks now.

AMD plans to launch a completely new DirectX 10 lineup with the flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX. Other models such as the Radeon HD 2900 XT, Radeon HD 2600-series and Radeon HD 2400-series will also join AMD’s DirectX 10 family after the initial high-end launches.

AMD equips the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT with 320 stream processors to take on NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800 GTS, which features 96 stream processors. However, AMD and NVIDIA have taken different approaches towards their unified shader designs. AMD pairs the R600 GPU with 512MB of GDDR3 memory clocked at 1.65 GHz across an eight-channel, 512-bit memory interface. In comparison, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS features 640MB of 1.6 GHz GDDR3 memory on a 320-bit memory interface.

AMD equips the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT with a dual-slot, blower-type heat sink. Unlike the OEM Radeon HD 2900-series previously pictured, which is an 11.5” long card, the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT makes use of a smaller cooler so everything fits within the 9.5” PCB. Although the R600 GPU supports HDMI audio and video output, the reference design only features dual dual-link DVI.

Onto the benchmarks. The tests were conducted on an Intel D975XBX2 BadAxe2, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and 2x1GB DDR2-800 MHz. The operating system on the test system was Windows XP, with a fresh install before benchmarking each card. Testing of the AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT was performed using the 8.361 Catalyst RC4 drivers, while the GeForce 8800 GTS used ForceWare 158.19 drivers.

All game tests were run with the maximum detail settings at resolutions of 1280x1024. Futuremark’s 3DMark06 was tested with the default settings. Although we ran the benchmarks on our PC, we were not supplied a monitor for testing higher resolutions.

Gaming: Maximum Quality, 1280x1024
Game
AMD ATI Radeon
HD 2900 XT
NVIDIA GeForce
8800 GTS 640MB
Call of Duty 2
73.5 FPS
56.7 FPS
Company of Heroes
92.1 FPS
90.1 FPS
F.E.A.R.84.0 FPS
83.3 FPS
Half Life 2: Episode 1 112.0 FPS57.4 FPS *
Oblivion
47.9 FPS
39.5 FPS
3DMark06
11447
9836

* Our benchmarks for Half Life 2: Episode 1 showed an abnormal framerate for the NVIDIA GeForce  8800 GTS card that scaled with lower resolutions -- we believe there was a copy error. We reran the tests this morning and achieved 119.2 frames per second with the GeForce 8800 GTS.

The following benchmarks were performed under SPECviewperf 9.

Workstation: Maximum Quality, 1280x1024
Game
AMD ATI Radeon
HD 2900 XT
NVIDIA Quadro
FX 5500 (G71)
Cadalyst C2006
314
243
Autodesk 3ds Max v8 OpenGL
129
101
Autodesk 3ds Max v8 D3D
342
242
Catia 02
56.73
44.87
Maya 02
224.59
142.18

Expect AMD to pull the wraps off its DirectX 10 product line up in mid-May, with value, midrange and high end models to boot. AMD’s flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900-series will have two models at launch – the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX and the HD 2900 XT. The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX models feature 1GB of GDDR4 memory while the lower HD 2900 XT features 512 MB.

The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is poised to have a street price approximately the same as the GeForce 8800 GTS, which currently has a suggested retailer price of $449.


Comments     Threshold


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

Impressive
By osalcido on 4/24/2007 5:46:52 AM , Rating: 3
those numbers are damn good for an equally priced competitor to the 8800gts.. let's hope that this is not another ati paper launch tho




RE: Impressive
By ashishmishra on 4/24/2007 5:58:18 AM , Rating: 3
Impressive numbers indeed, though FEAR numbers somehow seem too low in comparison to 8800GTS, may be some driver issue holding back performance there. Also 8800GTS's score for Episode 1 seems low, unless maximum quality means something like 16X MSAA 16X AF.


RE: Impressive
By Hypernova on 4/24/2007 6:23:50 AM , Rating: 3
At 1280x1024 I would say it's CPU bottle necked. Definitely needs more testing at high res.


RE: Impressive
By Roland702 on 4/24/2007 9:01:38 AM , Rating: 3
While I would normally consider this res to be bottlenecked I would like to see a comparison at the higher resolutions to see how they fair. I would assume both cards to be bottlenecked at this resolution.

AMD/ATI Also claims to have "free AA", but I would say they are using bottlenecked resolution and turning on AA/AF as "free and not performance taxing"...


RE: Impressive
By retrospooty on 4/24/2007 10:00:32 AM , Rating: 3
yes... Todays cards cant be stretched until at least 1600x1200@4xAA.


RE: Impressive
By Slaimus on 4/24/2007 10:35:39 AM , Rating: 3
Something is not right here: these 1280x1024 frame rates are quite low for these super high end cards.


RE: Impressive
By Justin Case on 4/24/2007 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 3
I take it that "maximum settings" includes maximum AA, which means that in fact the card is rendering at much higher resolutions.


RE: Impressive
By Araemo on 4/24/2007 4:34:36 PM , Rating: 3
No, I don't know of any consumer-level card that still renders at a higher resolution for anti-aliasing. Every card I know of does multi-sampling(rather than super-sampling, which is what you are referring to.)

Multi-sampling involves running PART of the rendering pipeline at a higher resolution, and then tossing out the rest for most pixels. Only pixels that are identified to be on a triangle boundary get rendered as more pixels(and then down-sampled into one pixel).

Both ATI and nVidia are trying to do partial texture anti-aliasing, but neither seems to do it all the way unless there is a transparency affecting the current pixel.

I would really like to see real SSAA again, but I don't expect it any time soon.

That all said: Yes, MSAA still incurs a performance hit, but it is much less than it would actually take to render the scene at a higher resolution and then downsample it to your screen resolution.


RE: Impressive
By Justin Case on 4/29/2007 12:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
Determining if a pixel lies at a polygon boundary requires a good deal of calculations. And with high polygon count models, a very significant number of pixels does lie on a polygon boundary. So 1280x1024 is likely to mean at least 4x that much in terms of samples per frame.

As long as you have good anisotropic filtering, there is no real advantage to full supersampling.


RE: Impressive
By StarOrbiter on 4/25/2007 4:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
It is indeed ...


RE: Impressive
By puffpio on 4/24/2007 12:57:44 PM , Rating: 4
If it's CPU bottlenecked, shouldn't they both achieve around the same framerate as both cards would be waiting on the CPU?

some of those test show this..but CoD doesn't look CPU limited since the framerate is so different


RE: Impressive
By idconstruct on 4/25/2007 12:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
they were only talking about teh FEAR benchmark... in which they DO have almost identical framerates.

It makes sense though since FEAR is frequently bottlenecked by the cpu


RE: Impressive
By tuteja1986 on 4/25/2007 3:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
Woo , My buddy is angry after i sent him a link... a month ago he bought a used FX 5500 for $1700 and now he see it getting beaten up so badly by a $400 to $500 card. Anyways the card is looking very good and i would love to see my DX10 benchmark of games like Crysis , UT2007 and Alan Wake.


RE: Impressive
By ssidbroadcast on 4/25/2007 5:42:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Woo , My buddy is angry after i sent him a link... a month ago he bought a used FX 5500 for $1700


lmao. Really wow? I'd have to be super-retarded to pay $1,700 for a FX 5500 ...

/giving the benefit of the doubt. U prbly meant something else.


RE: Impressive
By PlasmaBomb on 4/25/2007 8:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
He is referring to the Quadro line of professional cards for the like of CAD, which cost a fortune.


RE: Impressive
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2007 10:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agreeing with you and adding that ATIs FireGL line are also in the same high price range.


RE: Impressive
By Justin Case on 4/29/2007 12:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Why would anyone buy a CAD card (optimized for ultra high polygon counts and low textures) to play games (that use medium polygon counts and lots of texture passes)...? It's like using a chainsaw to make sushi.


RE: Impressive
By Psychless on 4/30/2007 10:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
A gem bladed chainsaw that is.


RE: Impressive
By Conman530 on 5/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Impressive
By Nightmare225 on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By BZDTemp on 4/24/2007 8:13:10 AM , Rating: 3
Well so far we know nothing about the price - it's simply speculation so can it.


RE: Impressive
By Spoelie on 4/24/2007 9:06:57 AM , Rating: 4
Learn to read, AMD aims to have the street prices the same.
"The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is poised to have a street price approximately the same as the GeForce 8800 GTS"

The 499 number is only in reference to nvidia's suggested retail price. There is no such price yet for the ati card.


RE: Impressive
By Nightmare225 on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By PlasmaBomb on 4/25/2007 8:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
If you read the article it suggests that the ati card is priced around $449.


RE: Impressive
By PlasmaBomb on 4/25/2007 3:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
A dutch site has the HD 2900XT on preorder for 319 euros ex vat!


RE: Impressive
By defter on 4/24/2007 6:44:39 AM , Rating: 4
Never compare future price of a product Y with the current price of a product X.

It's quite obvious that currently 8800 GTS 640MB and 8800 GTX are relatively expensive simply because there isn't any competition. Current price for 8800 GTS 640MB is about $400 while 8800 GTX costs about $550.

When R600 will become available, NVidia will introduce new high end card (Ultra) and naturally prices of existing cards will decrease. 8800 GTX will definitely cost less than $500 when R600 will be widely available. That's why those benchmarks numbers aren't very exciting, sure R600XT is clearly faster than GTS, but the gap between GTS and GTX is also quite large. Where are the comparison against GTX???


RE: Impressive
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 6:46:38 AM , Rating: 4
NVIDIA's current documentation says $999 for the Ultra. I think it's going to be very low volume though.


RE: Impressive
By BladeVenom on 4/24/2007 5:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
The Inquirer reported that it was going to be less than a 100 cards.


RE: Impressive
By defter on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By AnnihilatorX on 4/24/2007 8:33:12 AM , Rating: 5
You should not compare it to GTX.

R600XTX is the direct competitor to GTX, not R600XT


RE: Impressive
By Phynaz on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By DingieM on 4/24/2007 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 4
No it is not canned, there will be an XTX with GDDR4, next to the XT.
The XTX will as well be build on 65nm.
AMD is releasing ALL flavours on 65nm that includes the XTX as well.

Power issues and leakage was with the 80nm builds.


RE: Impressive
By Min Jia on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By idconstruct on 4/25/2007 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
so basically what defter proved is that the r600xt (the second best r600) is roughly equal in 3dmark to the 8800gtx (the best nvidia has)

I've been waiting for this for so long :D

I'll probably end up saving for the r600xt... since it gives near-8800 performance and i probably won't be able to afford the r600xtx...


RE: Impressive
By idconstruct on 4/25/2007 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
so basically what defter proved is that the r600xt (the second best r600) is roughly equal in 3dmark to the 8800gtx (the best nvidia has)

I've been waiting for this for so long :D

I'll probably end up saving for the r600xt... since it gives near-8800 performance and i probably won't be able to afford the r600xtx...


RE: Impressive
By kiwik on 4/24/2007 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
See any mention of an XTX?

It was canned due to power issues.


"AMD’s flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900-series will have two models at launch – the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX and the HD 2900 XT. The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX models feature 1GB of GDDR4 memory while the lower HD 2900 XT features 512 MB."

What part of that can't you read?


RE: Impressive
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 5
Unless something changed -- Sven got an XTX about 2 hours after Anh got the XT. Sven is benchmarking now and we should have that up this week.


RE: Impressive
By slacker57 on 4/24/2007 12:23:15 PM , Rating: 3
Um, yes. Illiterate much?

quote:
AMD’s flagship ATI Radeon HD 2900-series will have two models at launch – the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX and the HD 2900 XT. The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XTX models feature 1GB of GDDR4 memory while the lower HD 2900 XT features 512 MB.


Unless the article was edited in the last two hours. That would make me look like an ass. :)


RE: Impressive
By Min Jia on 4/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Impressive
By Armorize on 4/25/2007 5:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldnt that be nice. At most they'll probably drop $50, unless their going to play a behind the scenes intel vs amd war here. Although I wouldnt mind to see a price war with high end video cards ;).

Hopefully we'll see more benchmarks as we get closer to the paperlaun... I mean launch of the 2900. Heres to hoping though.


RE: Impressive
By DTAllTheBest on 4/28/2007 3:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's right.
Maybe 8800 GTX is more better if compared to this.


RE: Impressive
By GoatMonkey on 4/24/2007 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 1
...most impressive.


RE: Impressive
By ajfink on 4/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Impressive
By TheDoc9 on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Impressive
By Polynikes on 4/24/2007 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 3
It's not the top of the line card. The 2900 XTX is the 8800 GTX's competitor.


RE: Impressive
By TheDoc9 on 4/24/2007 6:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, I see now the extra X at the end of the name. That's the one I want to see.


RE: Impressive
By BucDan on 4/24/2007 1:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
im liking the benchmarks...seems impressive...im not a guy with a pocket full of cash but, im lookin forward to a hd 2600 model


RE: Impressive
By Armorize on 4/24/2007 6:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
Paper launch? whats a paper launch, ati never lies about release dates and releases them 6 months later pfh. lets hope that since AMD hopped on the boat that there will never be a paper launch ever again DAMMIT =P


RE: Impressive
By cocoviper on 4/25/2007 12:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
agreed. Especially when you consider Nvidia has had a good 6 months to refine the 8800 drivers whereas the R600 drivers have got to be at least somewhat immature.


RE: Impressive
By Spoelie on 4/25/2007 6:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily, as ATi's team has been familiar with the architecture in the R600 since the Xenos cpu. Since this is their second stab at this, they should conceivably have a bit of an advantage.


RE: Impressive
By Goty on 4/25/2007 8:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
I think there's just a slight difference between programming for a console and programming for a computer running a complex OS.


RE: Impressive
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2007 10:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but ATI has a bit more experience with fully programmable shaders (what we're calling stream processors) since it's had a GPU out with them for over a year longer than Nvidia.

I'm not saying ATI's drivers won't need to mature. But ATI does have an advantage in experience.


RE: Impressive
By boe on 4/25/2007 10:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
The street price for the 640mb 8800 gts is now about $360 so these are pretty good marks for a mid level card.

What I'd love to see is a comparison of their two top cards. Actually a great comparison would be these marks, the two top cards, and the two top DX9 single GPU cards since we aren't doing DX10 benchmarks anyways.


RE: Impressive
By veloxletalis on 4/27/2007 12:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
This is hilarious considering the nearly $200 cheaper 320mb GTS outperforms the R600 and 640mb GTS at that resolution. The ATI fanboys think they are getting such a great deal, when all they are getting is a higher price and less frames, all more than 6 months after Nvidia released their proven superior product.


RE: Impressive
By DingieM on 4/27/2007 7:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
Are you stupid or something??
The price is not fixed and these are only release candidate drivers. Remember AMD can drop the price significantly due to 65nm parts.
nVidia (should) had enough time, say, 6 months to deliver mature drivers.
Expect AMD to vastly improve driver speed of this beast.
And did you see the scores for workstation graphics application? That XT (with release candidate drivers) utterly crushes the GTS. Look again if you've missed that.
Fully integrated ability to stream (video and sound) via HDMI is already a reason to buy this card or a slightly cheaper one of the R6xx generation.
Now where is nVidia at that??

You are bluffing as hell, don't expect a $200 cheaper 320mb GTS to outperform either 640mb GTS or XT unless you overclock it to the maximum. We are talking about stock speeds.

So your post says absolutely nothing.
If I was a vendor and I would recommend a graphics card I would definitely NOT recommend the nVidia based on all specs of the card speed and feature wise, and I'm objective here.

I wouldn't buy the XT because I don't want to spend the money on it and there are no DX10 games yet (wait at least a half year). Other reason is the heavily bloated Windows Vista that totally sucks.


RE: Impressive
By veloxletalis on 4/27/2007 6:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
Stop with the insults, fanboy.
Look at the benchmarks of the 320mb GTS and the 640mb GTS, at any res at or below 1600 the 320mb gts outperforms it because of higher clock speeds. With a stock 320mb GTS at the above tested resolution I get upwards of 15FPS better than the XT on all the above games. All for over $200 less.
Now head on over to the newest news post, fanboy, and see your precious little XTX get smashed by the GTX.


Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By Schmeh on 4/24/2007 6:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe I am retarded, but in Anandtech's review of the 8800GTX and GTS, the 8800GTS scores over 120FPS in HL2: Episode 1 at 1600x1200. But here it is only listed at 57.4FPS at 1280x1024. Something isn't right about that.




RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 6:20:20 AM , Rating: 2
We're aware of the discrepancy and we were a little alarmed when it scaled with resolutions as well. I recommend taking that particular benchmark with a grain of salt.


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By MartinT on 4/24/2007 6:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Besides that HL2 issue, could you clarify exactly what "MAXIMUM QUALITY" entails, if it includes AA and/or AF, and, if yes, at what settings?


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 6:31:42 AM , Rating: 4
I've told Anh to reply to this particular thread when he wakes up. He can better answer that.


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By MartinT on 4/24/2007 6:34:35 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you!


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By Anh Huynh on 4/24/2007 11:30:06 AM , Rating: 6
The quality settings for the games were as follows:

Call of Duty 2 - Anisotropic filtering, 4xAA (in game), V-Sync off, Shadows enabled, a high number of dynamic lights, soften all smoke edges and an insane amount of corpses.

Company of Heroes - High shader quality, High model quality, Anti-aliasing enabled (in game), Ultra texture quality, high quality shadows, high quality reflections, Post processing On, High building detail, High physics, high tree quality, High terrain detail, Ultra effects fidelity, Ultra effects density, Object scarring enabled and the model detail slider all the way to the right.

F.E.A.R. - 4x FSAA (in game), maximum light details, shadows enabled, maximum shadow details, soft shadows enabled, 16x anisotropic filtering, maximum texture resolution, maximum videos, maximum shader quality.

Half Life 2: Episode 1 - High model detail, high texture detail, high shader detail, reflect all water details, high shadow detail, 4x multi-sample AA (in-game), 16x anisotropic filtering, v-sync disabled, full high-dynamic range.

Pretty much as high as you can crank it.


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By MartinT on 4/24/2007 2:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
... and thank YOU, too!


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By Furen on 4/24/2007 7:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Shadows in FEAR, no wonder...


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By PrezWeezy on 4/25/2007 7:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still a little new to DailyTech but I noticed that some people have the little DT next to their name and there are some posts with ratings of 6 but if someone has a rating of 5 my "worth reading" goes away. Sorry it's off topic, I was just wondering.


RE: Half Life 2: Episode 1 Numbers
By Goty on 4/25/2007 7:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Those would be the DailyTech writers (i.e. the ones with the DT adn the rating of 6).


By Anh Huynh on 4/26/2007 1:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
We rate posts that are worthwhile with information thats beneficial to our readers, commenter's with a 6. Only DT staff can rate posts with a 6.


bah
By yacoub on 4/24/2007 7:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is poised to have a street price approximately the same as the GeForce 8800 GTS, which currently has a suggested retailer price of $499.


You must mean $299-399, which is what 8800GTSs sell for these days (that range covers 320MB to 640MB).

If that thing costs more than $375, I'd rather have the GTS, sorry. The cooler on that thing looks like the typical ATi loud jet engine design and it probably runs just as hot as X1800 and X1900 series cards, because they clearly didn't learn their lesson to make quieter and cooler cards that last longer.

They're going to drive me to buy an 8800GTS, aren't they? :(




RE: bah
By DublinGunner on 4/24/2007 8:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think a few people are forgetting thats the XT, NOT the XTX.


RE: bah
By yacoub on 4/24/2007 8:58:13 AM , Rating: 1
so you're saying the XTX will cost even MORE.


RE: bah
By Goty on 4/24/2007 8:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Notice where he said suggested retail price.


RE: bah
By someguy123 on 4/24/2007 8:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
its talking about MSRP, not pricing after the fact.


RE: bah
By DingieM on 4/24/2007 9:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
I read multiple times the new ATI coolers were going to be as good as the nVidia's for the R6xx generation


RE: bah
By GoatMonkey on 4/24/2007 10:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
If you're worried about the design of the cooler then don't get a copy of the reference board. I guarantee that there will be other cooler designs available from other companies.


RE: bah
By Omega215D on 4/24/2007 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about you but to me the cooler on the HD 2900XT looks similar to the one on the 8800GTS/GTX.


Stream processor(s)
By Stele on 4/24/2007 6:20:04 AM , Rating: 3
It's curious to note that for more than 3x the number of stream processors of the 8800 (320 vs. 96), the new ATI card delivers on average roughly 1.5x the performance of the NVIDIA card. As such, I'm very eagerly waiting for Anandtech's detailed study of the R600's architecture when the time comes... For one thing, I wonder if the 320SPs could be referring to some form of 'virtual SPs' instead of 'true SPs', if such a thing were possible - especially considering the amount of memory bandwidth that would be needed to keep the SPs fed vs. that which seems to be actually available on the R600. I guess time will tell :)




RE: Stream processor(s)
By encia on 4/24/2007 6:29:59 AM , Rating: 3
Note that G80’s shaders are double pumped i.e. twice the clockspeed over the rest of the GPU. It's effectively 192 shaders.


RE: Stream processor(s)
By MartinT on 4/24/2007 6:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For one thing, I wonder if the 320SPs could be referring to some form of 'virtual SPs' instead of 'true SPs'

I fully expect R600 to have a Vec4+Scalar architecture (like, say, the Xbox 360 chip), and that AMD used some "creative math" to arrive at the "320 shader processors" bullet point.


RE: Stream processor(s)
By James Holden on 4/24/2007 6:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
I thought I read somewhere that it was 320 shaders, but that the shaders were 4-way or something. I just assumed that meant 80 physical 4-way shaders.


RE: Stream processor(s)
By Dactyl on 4/25/2007 11:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I fully expect R600 to have a Vec4+Scalar architecture
I fully expect your expectations to be WRONG.

R600 has Vec5. The Inq says so, that means it's true.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39...


RE: Stream processor(s)
By AnnihilatorX on 4/24/2007 8:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
The 320 Stream Processors in ATI's offering runs at a slower clock speed. While in 6800s they run at 1.4Ghz, I think the ones in ATI only runs at 800 or so.

That explains the difference


For engineering, this card might be incredible...
By Toolpost on 4/24/2007 9:17:44 AM , Rating: 4
What I'm really interested in is that this card has much
better numbers than the NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500 when testing
"engineering" features, and the 5500 retails for ~$2.5! If
the numbers hold for real-world applications, I'll be
pulling the FX 3500 from my Dell 690, and throwing one of
these in.

David




By Anh Huynh on 4/24/2007 8:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
The card is an early sample that had all the workstation features enabled. However, we'll reveal more on upcoming workstation products later ;)


By Toolpost on 4/25/2007 12:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hi Anh,

Looking forward to it! If I remember correctly, it's been
easier to unlock the workstation features of the gamer ATI
cards than the Nvidia cards, hope that tradition continues!
(ATI engineers, you didn't read this...)

David


By Anh Huynh on 4/25/2007 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
The NVIDIA products have historically, been a lot easier to unlock, whether its a BIOS flash or simply using RivaTuner to enable a few strings.

I've unlocked a few 6800GTs, 6800 non-ultra's and FX5700s myself for CATIA and Pro E use. In the past, GeForce 2 MX's, GeForce 5-series and 7-series were easy to unlock.


By Toolpost on 4/25/2007 10:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm - I'll adjust my perceptions. I remember reading about
it being fairly easy to make some of the 68xx cards into
their Quadro equivalents, but I'd thought that later cards
were more difficult to unlock. And I thought I'd read that
it was easier to make ATI cards into the Fire versions, but
I can't trace down where I saw this.

I'll still hope it's possible with this new card, as the
specs look great.

David


Why 1280x1024?
By Breogan on 4/24/2007 6:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
Why benchmark them at 1280x1024? If I wanted a card to run stuff at that resolution, I'd rather buy an ATI X1950Pro and save 300$. These cards are meant to run games at 1920x1200 or higher.




RE: Why 1280x1024?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/24/2007 6:11:05 AM , Rating: 3
We had the misfortune of getting one-on-one time with the card but there were no displays capable of higher resolutions at the facility. We'll get more cards and benchmarks later this week.


RE: Why 1280x1024?
By Breogan on 4/24/2007 6:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
Great, can't wait to see further testing on them!


RE: Why 1280x1024?
By JarredWalton on 4/24/2007 6:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
Besides higher res benches, it would be nice to have an 8800 GTX in the table as well. Seems like this card could beat out both 8800 chips in a lot of games.


RE: Why 1280x1024?
By Omega215D on 4/24/2007 4:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing there'll be Crossfire results as well to get an idea on how much effect 2 would have for say a 30" display? I'm just curious, and Crysis is almost due for launch.


512 vs 640
By Stan11003 on 4/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: 512 vs 640
By elmikethemike on 4/24/2007 8:12:05 AM , Rating: 1
If the benchmarks are done at a higher resolution, you're likely to see ATI's lead increase rather than disappear. That little bit of extra memory is meaningless. The fact of the matter is the ATI card is better all around spec-wise, except for the amount of memory.


RE: 512 vs 640
By bunnyfubbles on 4/24/2007 9:15:36 AM , Rating: 1
yeah, pretty sure bandwidth is going to trump capacity in just about every instance in this scenario


RE: 512 vs 640