backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by z3R0C00L.. on Sep 13 at 11:07 AM


ATI RV570 Details

ATI Desktop Discrete PCIe transitions
New performance and mainstream offerings

During the recent Games Convention 2007 in Germany, we received a new roadmap that outlines ATI’s pre-R600 plans for its complete graphics card lineup. At the top of chain of ATI graphics cards is the previously released Radeon X1950XTX and CrossFire graphics cards. Slotted right below the Radeon X1950XTX and CrossFire cards will be the Radeon X1900XT 512MB which will be a carryover product. The Radeon X1900XTX is discontinued and being phased out. This completes ATI’s enthusiast offerings for the time being.

On the performance side of things is the previously released Radeon X1900XT 256MB. Slotted right below the X1900XT 256MB will be the unreleased Radeon X1950 Pro. The Radeon X1950 Pro replaces the current X1900GT. Radeon X1950 Pro will be based on the RV570 core, which is one of ATI’s first 80nm products. Specifications of the RV570 core include 12 pipelines and 36 pixel shaders with a 600 MHz core clock. Memory will be clocked at 1.4 GHz and have a 256-bit interface. Radeon X1950 Pro cards will be equipped with 256 MB of graphics memory and sport a single slot cooler. This will also be ATI’s first card with internal CrossFire compatibility for dongle-less CrossFire. Availability of the Radeon X1950 Pro is expected in October. ATI claims performance of the Radeon X1950 Pro will be faster than the 7900GT.

On the mainstream side of things is the Radeon X1650 Pro. This is based on the RV530 core and replaces the previous Radeon X1600XT. Joining the mainstream lineup later in September will be the Radeon X1650XT. The Radeon X1650XT will be based on ATI’s upcoming RV560 core that like the RV570 is an 80nm part. It will also have 8 pipelines with 24 pixel shaders and go up against NVIDIA’s GeForce 7900GS. Radeon X1650XT cards will have 256MB of memory on a 128-bit interface. Core and memory clock is unknown. Availability of the Radeon X1650XT is expected around the same time as the Radeon X1950 Pro.

ATI’s value lineup will consist of the Radeon X1300XT, X1300 Pro, X1300, X550HM and X300SE. The Radeon X1300XT is essentially identical to ATI’s previous mainstream offering the Radeon X1600 Pro while the other four products are simply carryovers.

Also mentioned in the roadmaps is ATI’s high definition video compatible mainstream part, the RV550 with ATI’s Universal Video Decoder. The UVD equipped RV550 is expected to start sampling in September and availability starting in December. It will be based on ATI’s R515 core, which is the equivalent of a Radeon X1300 series.

ATI plans to move most of its product lineup over to an 80nm fabrication process too. While the Radeon X1950 Pro and X1650XT will launch as 80nm products, the Radeon X1650 Pro, X1300XT and X1300 series are still based on a 90nm fabrication process. ATI will switch the RV530XT based Radeon X1650 Pro over to 80nm with the RV535XT while the RV530 Pro based X1300XT will switch over to the 80nm RV535 Pro core. ATI’s RV515 and RV516 value based products will switch over to the 80nm R505 variants as well.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: RV560=interesting
By coldpower27 on 9/5/2006 10:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go look at the steam survey. Latest it's from March 06 to April 06. It's showing 28,000 7800 series cards and 2,000 X1800 and another 2000 X1600. Grand total of 4,000 X1k vs 28,000 7800 class. So in that case, Nvidia commands greatly more than 80% of this generation of cards. And that reporting period is almost done, this cards are head to head competitors for that time period past.


1. The steam survey doesn't represent sales of graphics cards, of Q2 2006. It represents what is used for Steam and that is all.

2. The figures I listed for discrete are more accurate for what is sold. That includes OEM and Retail sales for the Q2 of 2006, a 3 month segement.

That is only what is being USED during the month of Mar to Apr 2006, not surprising there are alot of 7800's as that has been on the market 10 month prior to the survey vs what 4 or 5 for the X1800 and X1600's. It isn't what is being sold during that month.

quote:
I already told you my definition of discrete. What I mean are cards that somebody goes out and buys. Not IGP, etc. In THOSE CARDS (not sure what they're called, you tell me?) I sincerely believe Nvidia has 80% market share, and I think you probably know it too. And those are really the real battleground anyway, those are where people are making a choice (as opposed to locked into OEM contracts that take great time to shift) and also where profits are highest.


And I already told you what I listed are discrete graphics cards. Your terminology is very poor then, your talking about retail, and that isn't where the most money is to be made, OEM contracts are very important for companies like ATI and Nvidia, as these keep good revenue coming in for both companies. Retail is only a small portion of their sales. It doesn't matter if Nvidia is winning in retail as that is not where most of the revenue is coming from. As long as ATI has revenue coming in from this source they are fine. OEM Revenue is important due to the volume sold there.
I am not going to go into discussing retail marketshare as there are no figures and that is all speculation, total discrete share makes the most sense as it represents sales of all the graphics processors both OEM and Retail.

quote:
How about this "Nvidia has 88% of SM3 market"


Well considering Nvidia has Shader Model 3.0 GPU's since the Geforce 6 Series, I don't find that surprising. This doesn't say anything on how well ATI is doing now though.

quote:
How can you say this with a straight face? You and I both know ATI is losing momemtum big time in EVERY. MARKET. SEGMENT. Nvidia mildly in desktops..and gaining. ATI in laptops..and losing. Intel: completely irrelevant, please dont bring them up to try to make yourself look better. We're discussing ATI vs Nvidia and only ATI vs Nvidia.


I can say this with a straight face because sales of all GPU's are important, actually ATI increased share from Q1 2006 for desktops, so I don't agree with you there, though they did lose some laptop share. I am not trying to bring up Intel to make myself look better, your the one who brought in the steam survey with Intel IGP's in it, in the first place. We are discussing ATi and Nvidia so maybe you should rmeember that and not bring in data that includes Intel like the Steam survey?

quote:
Yes, it is. Nvidia does not take a large hit with AF. All benchmarks are typically run with AF on and Nvidia competes very well, thanks. There is no large hit with AF on Nvidia cards. There are alledgedly some shimmering issues but apparantly, people still buy the cards in droves. The people have spoken. ATI has plenty of their own IQ issues. On balance you cannot say ATI has better IQ than Nvidia.


All benchmarks are typically run with AA and AF, so it's hard to isolate that, as well yes there is if you want to make Nvidia's AF look almost as good as ATI's with their HQ mode which drops performance. ATI does have better image quality in the sections where you can actually use it comfortably, Angle Independent AF and OpenEXR HDR + MSAA.

quote:

What is your argument? That ATI is making the choices consumers dont want and losing market share in every segment? If so, then yes. Sales figures support your argument.


They are making choices consumers want, just not what you want, and as I said ATI gained marketshare in desktops from Q1 to Q2 2006.

quote:

They were 15% smaller than NV40 dies that they directly competed with, and were generally faster than. The polar opposite of ATI today in other words. How hard is this to understand? THE X850 was a DIRECT COMPETITOR VERSUS 6800 ULTRA. IT WAS SMALLER. IT WAS JUST AS FAST OR FASTER. DO I NEED A FRICKEN DICTIONARY TO GET ACROSS THE MOST BASIC OF FRICKEN CONCEPTS HERE.


You need to get your information checked, X850 (R480) is not smaller then NV40. There is no 15% smaller or whatever.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x800xl...

"The R480 is about 18mm by 16.5mm, or 297mm2."
"The NV40 powering NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 cards is about 288mm2."

Overall it is about the same. Nvidia was more feature rich and mildly slower, while ATI was less feature rich and was faster. I already cover this before however.

quote:
Well, we already know it's buggy and irrelevant and only a couple games support it. Beyond that, we only know tha you like it, and that apparantly consumers dont find it a compelling feature in it's current incarnation (as I dont, it's simply not supported enough).


It's works just fine in the games that do support it and quite relevant as it offers a new level of image quality. We know that you don't like it, and some consumers do find it a compelling feature to buy ATI cards.

quote:
Who says ATI has better image quality? Proof? Further, it really doesn't matter if MORE consumers prefer cards that are faster with lower IQ. Which we have established, they do by huge numbers.

I guess Ford should come out with a new car that runs very quietly but only gets ten miles to the gallon. Then when consumers stay away from it in droves, Ford can tell them what to think. That they should prefer a smoother ride and quieter engine instead of prefering a car that is still decent in those areas, but also happens to get 30 MPG.

That again and again is the crux of our debate. You are trying to tell me what is "right" or somehow "better" in GPU's. When it's bullshit and down to personal preference. FOR ME AND YOU BUT NOT ATI. ATI BETTER SELL CARDS.


I don't have to proof image quality to you, as it's already known this generation Nvidia made consession in that department not including OpenEXR HDR + MSAA, as well as having shimmering with their AF.

And from the sales figures of all discrete GPU's I listed ATI is selling product.

quote:
Blah blah. Everything I said is exactly correct. Why are you wasting your words? You cannot argue with the obvious truth: ATI doesn't have a good 7600 GT competitor. Because it's one more side effect of the fact their architecture sucks, and is too big to compete in that segment and be cost effective. Period. Please, stop talking about this.


Everything I said is just fine as it is, I am not wasting my words at all, the Nvidia 7600 GT wasn't an issue till it was released in March of this year, so overall hasn't been around that long. I will continue talking as long as I see fit thanks. The architecture is just fine as it can offer new levels of image quality over Nvidia.

quote:
WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I'm going to scream.

Preparing for the future..so they'll be a lot faster than Nvidia in the future right?

FUCK NO.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK GOOD DID IT DO THEM?


You obviously don't understand, they implemented improved dynamic branching and their new ring bus memory controller, and a different ratio of TMU to Pixel Shaders, OpenEXR HDR + MSAA so they won't need to on the R600 and have less on their table to do, they already have alot of experience with it now. I am not saying they will be more competitive in the future as that has yet to be determine. It means they don't have to do as much on the jump to R600 and devote resources elsewhere. Well when you do something that is going to pay off in the future, it hasn't come to pass yet has it? So obvious it isn't going to be doing much now besides providing them with much needed experience in the matter, hence why it's called preparing for the FUTURE.

I think I am arguing quite well, and my arguments are not full of any holes, on the contrary, you seem to be talking but not receiving.

The G80 is rumored to be coming out, somewhat earlier, but is rumored to be less of a leap forward as they are going to a hybrid design, as opposed to R600 which will be a unfied design. We will have to see how it performs. R600 has more potential due to additonal time as well as what we have already seen implemented on R580, so they are free to do other things with it, less on their plate since alot of the work is already done.


RE: RV560=interesting
By littlebitstrouds on 9/5/2006 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I get it... If he posts a long post, and I post one longer, than my epeen must be larger.

No offense, and I love this stuff just as much as the other guy, but did we really need to type out THAT long of an arguement. Exchange numbers, call eachother, you're novel's are causeing firefox to take .15 more seconds to load this page.


RE: RV560=interesting
By Sharky974 on 9/7/2006 7:03:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, here's to recap since we're not gonna change opinions:

R580 is 80% bigger than G71.

Yet it is only a few percent faster at best.

The limiting factor appears to be a stupid decision to not provide enough TMU's by ATI, thereby artificially crippling a MUCH faster card.

This further causes issues such as a severe gap in ATI's lineup at mid-range for months on end.

ATI is getting killed in all sales, particularly at retail.

In all past generations, both players were within a few percent of each other in size, yet ATI was often faster.

ATI should be at least 80% faster than Nvidia in all benchmarks if they simply approached past efficiency. This would have been a victory unprecedented in video card history and cause drastic market losses for Nvidia. However, ATI tossed that opportunity in the garbage by artificially crippling their own cards.

ATI was supposedly "preparing for the future", yet they will likely be tardy yet again with their next card relative to Nvidia, and nobody has any clue which will be faster either. Therefore, ATI's advantage by "preparing for the future" is likely zero. Therefore, they simply wasted tons of silicon, millions of dollars in sales, tens of percents of market share, by artificially and stupidly TMU limiting their cards because they were extremely shortsighted.

The end.






RE: RV560=interesting
By Soccerman06 on 9/11/2006 1:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Lets put it this way, if you make an engine twice as big as a 4 cylinder (V8 or I8, whichever) and only double the CU of the engine and gasoline intake, it wont have twice the HP. It wont go twice as fast, it wont get twice the economy, ect. Due to friction and other things you cant get that kind of performance.

There are other limiting factors when it comes to increasing performance with chip design. Dont you think that ATI would have thought about adding more TMUs if it would increase performance by "40%"? Things just dont end up that way.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
Off to Games Convention
August 23, 2006, 4:07 PM
ATI Readies X1950, X1900XT 256MB
August 22, 2006, 1:13 AM
More ATI RV550 Details
July 31, 2006, 1:31 PM
ATI's Single-PCB Dual-GPU Plans
June 25, 2006, 12:31 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki