backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by VooDooAddict.. on Jan 9 at 3:21 PM

Details of AMD's next generation Radeon hit the web

Newly created site Level 505 has leaked benchmarks and specifications of AMD’s upcoming ATI R600 graphics processor. The upcoming graphics processor is expected to launch in January 2007 with an expected revision arriving in March 2007. These early specifications and launch dates line up with what DailyTech has already published and are present on ATI internal roadmaps as of workweek 49.

Preliminary specifications from Level 505 of the ATI R600 are as follows:
  • 64 4-Way SIMD Unified Shaders, 128 Shader Operations/Cycle
  • 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs
  • 512 bit Memory Controller, full 32 bit per chip connection
  • GDDR3 at 900 MHz clock speed (January)
  • GDDR4 at 1.1 GHz clock speed (March, revised edition)
  • Total bandwidth 115 GB/s on GDDR3
  • Total bandwidth 140 GB/s on GDDR4
  • Consumer memory support 1024 MB
  • DX10 full compatibility with draft DX10.1 vendor-specific cap removal (unified programming)
  • 32FP [sic] internal processing
  • Hardware support for GPU clustering (any x^2 [sic] number, not limited to Dual or Quad-GPU)
  • Hardware DVI-HDCP support (High Definition Copy Protocol)
  • Hardware Quad-DVI output support (Limited to workstation editions)
  • 230W TDP PCI-SIG compliant
This time around it appears AMD is going for a different approach by equipping the ATI R600 with less unified shaders than NVIDIA’s recently launched GeForce 8800 GTX. However, the unified shaders found on the ATI R600 can complete more shader operations per clock cycle.

ATI's interal guidance states the R600 will have 320 stream processors at launch; 64 4-way unified shaders only accounts for 256 of these stream processors.

Level505 claims AMD is expected to equip the ATI R600 with GDDR3 and GDDR4 memory with the GDDR3 endowed model launching in January. Memory clocks have been set at 900 MHz for GDDR3 models and 1.1 GHz for GDDR4 models.  As recent as two weeks ago, ATI roadmaps had said this GDDR3 launch was canceled.  These same roadmaps claim the production date for R600 is February 2007, which would be after a January 22nd launch.

Memory bandwidth of the ATI R600 is significantly higher than NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800-series. Total memory bandwidth varies from 115GB/s on GDDR3 equipped models to 140GB/s on GDDR4 equipped models.

Other notable hardware features include hardware support for quad DVI outputs, but utilizing all four outputs are limited to FireGL workstation edition cards.

There’s also integrated support for multi-GPU clustering technologies such as CrossFire too. The implementation on the ATI R600 allows any amount ofATI R600 GPUs to operate together in powers of two. Expect multi-GPU configurations with greater than two GPUs to only be available for the workstation markets though.

The published results are very promising with AMD’s ATI R600 beating out NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800 GTX in most benchmarks. The performance delta varies from 8% up to 42% depending on the game benchmark.

When DailyTech contacted the site owner to get verification of the benchmarks, the owner replied that the benchmark screenshots could not be published due to origin-specific markers that would trace the card back to its source -- the author mentioned the card is part of the Microsoft Vista driver certification program.

If Level505's comments seem a little too pro-ATI, don't be too surprised.  When asked if the site was affiliated in any way to ATI or AMD, the owner replied to DailyTech with the statement that "two staff members of ours are directly affiliated with AMD's business [development] division."


Comments     Threshold


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

By Comdrpopnfresh on 12/30/2006 11:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Your average electrical outlet supplies 10 amps. Average 10 amps times average 115 volts= 1150 watts. I know they just came out with 1000watt psu's, but you figure if you have a system with so many parts that are able to draw that much power theres going to be a surge protector to plug it into, which are susceptible to efficiency issues, let alone the psu itself which cannot have 100% efficiency. Figure a loss of 20% from both (which would be extremely good), and you're left with 920 watts. Then you take out a 65 watt processor (which will undoubtedly be overclocked, so figure at least 120 watts, as efficiency drastically does goes down as cache speed and voltage increase). Now you have 800watts. Now take away another 60-150 for the overclocked motherboard and ram (now you have 650). This isn't assuming a high-end sound card with its own ram, or the essential raid array, fans or optical drives. So lets assume your left with 400 watts. And where is there room for 2 of these behemoths (and I say this because with this type of video card, we might see the first triple-slot design)? Also- people tend to plug in a monitor (23 watts with the most efficient of lcds), lamp, and any thing else into the outlet. Eventually the graphics industry is going to have to change its ways like the processor manufacturers did months back, or computers will have to be hardwired (or maybe plugged into) to a 220 line.




By ajfink on 12/30/2006 11:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
What is the TDP of the 8800? Does anyone know off-hand?

A 1kw PSU can handle two of these things fine in a modern system. Luckily most other computer parts have been DECREASING over the past two years in the amount of energy they require.


By JumpingJack on 12/31/2006 12:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
Careful, a PSU steps down the voltage, for example take the amperage drawn by a 12 volt rail, say at 60 amps, the power is 720 watts, but at the wall, 110 volts at the socket, corresponds to 6.5 amps.... care must be taken when thinking of power at the wall vs power at the PSU when calculating amperage. If a computer really drew 60 AMPs, it would require a 3 phase, 220 volt line to the socket :) .... most residential circuits break at 15 amps for typical usage, some break at 30 amps if it is to a utility room or garage.

Jack


By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2006 12:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
> "Your average electrical outlet supplies 10 amps"

No, it supplies anywhere from 15 to 30 amps....though UL standards prohibit pulling more than 15 amps from any single plug (with the standard NEMA 5-15 socket). That puts a hard limit of 1500 watts on your draw.


By Spoelie on 12/31/2006 12:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
or 8 amps out of your general 220v socket
that's 1760w


By carl0ski on 1/1/2007 5:27:04 PM , Rating: 1
hmm you americans and the stupid single 220V in the laundry

Why? What is the point/benefit of 110V outlets

most countries are 220V
or 240V like here in Aus

PS do the 110 and 220v outlets have different plug formats?


By smackum on 1/1/2007 10:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Because us Americans prefer not to fry our children when they stick a knife in the outlet ... which I did as a child and lived to tell about it, though my mother tells me the toaster on the same circuit did not:}

much of the world was on 110v until post WWII when Europe switched and others followed. Europe did it for efficieny of transmission (though 50Hz is less efficient then our 60Hz, so I'd love to know why they stuck with that - I do know they chose 50Hz originally because it worked better in the metric system - 60Hz was chosen by Tesla or Sprague (great engineers for Edison in the early days of EE but I don't know if there was a specific reason why) as higher voltages loose less energy in transmission. Since Europe was in ruins the cost of switching was low, but in the US it would have been very high so we didn't. We did, however, switch to 220V from the utilities pole transformer to the house, converting to 110v within though major appliances can use the 220v (hence, the 220v laundry and stove).

I've no idea how you Aussies ended up at 240v except perhaps you just like to be different and enjoy paying more for your appliances?

Yes, the plugs are different, even within the same voltage in different countries. I don't know, but I suspect that was a primitive form of protectionism for counties domestic manufactuers, which was all the rage back then.


By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/4/2007 5:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
voltage doesn't kill, amps do. So 110v vs 220 wouldn't make the difference in killing infants. :)

at least, voltage doesn't kill unless we're talking about such a potential difference you might see in a lightning storm...


By mindless1 on 1/7/2007 8:05:58 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong in this context. Voltage kills, amps do not. Yes it is the current doing damage but an infinite amount of current will mean nothing, while any country's AC power has more than sufficient current capability to kill so the remaining question is how much of that current ends up flowing through the person - determined by the VOLTAGE. So it IS the voltage that kills, the current is just the weapon per se.


By DocDraken on 1/5/2007 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's a myth, probably created by american officials to avoid their population feeling bad about having an inferior electrical system. ;)
The real reason the US got stuck with 110V is, as you mentioned, the cost of converting the whole system and the early prevalence of electrical appliances in the US. A short sighted decision in my opinion, because it's been costing you ever since. Maybe also part of the reason for the much higher power use in the States compared to Europe.

Europe uses 230-240V like Australia.

I've gotten shocked by our mains (and so has lots of people I know) and yes it hurts, but it's not going to fry you. Both 110V and 240V are dangerous if you get shocked from arm to arm and the difference in danger is negliable. Skin resistance and mains voltage determines the amount of amps you get, not the total amps limit on the mains. So you might get slightly more amps with a 240V hit than 110V hit but since both can be lethal if you behave stupidly the difference has no importance. Another interesting phenomenon is that 110V has a higher tendency of locking your grip to the wire whereas 240V will cause a powerful muscle spasm that throws your hand off the electrical source.

What is important though is the huge difference in efficiency between 110V and 240V. Even more with the utility lines we use in Europe (3 phase 380V) for stoves, dryers etc.

Also ground fault interrupters that shut off power when it detects even tiny leaks to ground is mandatory in the EU (or at least here in Denmark).
This means that electrical fires (and some types of electrical shocks) caused by shorts and faulty insulation is much reduced. A cause of death and injury far far higher than from direct mains electrical shock.

To get back on subject, we enjoy having 2200-2400W available from each fuse group with only 10 amp fuses and 2860-3120W with 13 amp installations (which are the most common here now). :)



By Hawkido on 1/8/2007 10:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
The voltage has little to do with the muscle spasms. It is the Frequency of the voltage, the higher the frequency the more often the convulsions. The difference between 50 and 60 Hz is negligible. However, the lower the Hz the greater the tendency of the voltage to cut across the center of the conductor to get to the other side; therefore, the greater the chance of frying the ventricles of your heart. We "Americans" should be thanked. AC was rejected by everyone else (Hell, Tesla tried to give it away for free). Not only did we naturalize (make him a citizen) it's inventor and give him a chance, we pioneered AC and made it available to the world. Australia has only contributed the 'Roo burger and Crocodile Dundee.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2006 11:54:44 AM , Rating: 1
Just curious who saw fit to downgrade this post, and the reasons why? Do you really believe the information is wrong...or are you just expressing outrage over my political beliefs, expressed in other threads?


By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/4/2007 5:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
my mistake, I forgot the 15 amp is the residential, and the 20 amp is the kind with the t-shaped vertical slot


By Pwnt Soup on 12/31/2006 8:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
small corection, the average home outlet is 15amp, at least in the USA thats the code. while some outlets are 20amp. those are usualy deticated for apliance use, such as window a/c units ect...


By nurbsenvi on 1/1/2007 11:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Thank god for the 1150w limit
because my computer, unlike hair dryers, typically needs to stay on for around 5~24 per day randering 3D!! imagine the electricity bill! no other electric appliance apart form aircon will match 1150Watt per hour x 24 hour power usage!!

Manufacturers will have to work their way around this limit somehow not us.


By Hare on 1/4/2007 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Stop believing the PSU PR-machines. A high end gaming rig will eat around 250W (X6800 and 8800GTX). There is absolutely NO need for 1KW power supplies. It's just marketing BS.

Most gamers hardly break the 200W barrier with their overclocked E6600 and X1950XTX.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer











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