R420 will be called Radeon 9900

[AthlonXP1800]

http://www.lindaestelle.com/temp/ati.jpg

ATI fans expected R420 to be twice faster than R360, if that the case then ATI will called it Radeon 10800-10900 or Radeon X 800-X 900. But that wont happen. From R9700 to R9800 gave 15% faster performance, with R9900 will be probably 15% faster than R9800XT. The Radeon number for R420 is not a big jump compared in any generation like R100-R200-R300, R7500-R8500-R9700.

[Ninja Prime]

Lamest. Fanboi. Speculation. Ever.

[Razor04]

Lamest. Fanboi. Speculation. Ever.
Agreed...ATI's target of two times the R300 somehow turns into a 15% speed bump. Definately fanboy wishful thinking.

[jAkUp]

Compare the 9600 to the 9700... big jump there.

[-=DVS=-]

:rofl at AthlonXP1800 :rolleyes:

[Geforce4ti4200]

makes no sense to me at all and I never heard of 9900 either

[AthlonXP1800]

Compare the 9600 to the 9700... big jump there.

it depend on situations, 9600 had the half pipelines that of 9700 and less bandwidth. In some games benchmarks the 9600 had either same performance and outperformed the 9700 like in Half Life 2 benchmarks. With FSAA and AF enabled the 9700 outperformed it due to big bandwidth.

[AthlonXP1800]

makes no sense to me at all and I never heard of 9900 either

I agreed, it make no sense with R9900 name, it make people think it not a big jump from R9800 so R10900 or RX900 will make sense, everybody will know it mean twice faster than R9800, same thing in last generation 9700 was twice faster than 8500.

Some people at Beyond 3D made no sense with NV40 massive bandwidth numbers and think 3D Mark 2001SE score is impossible and it no way 16x1 pipeline can do that at the same clock as NV38.

Lots of questions about R420 will be clearer when it will launch next week and the NV40 on 13 April. :)

Edit: Forget to mentioned last year many ATI fans expected R360 to be called R9900 but it turned to be R9800XT so R420 will take R9900 name, it still does not make sense.

[MUYA]

The R420 will be twice as fast as r360 or was it R300. How is that achived...u know its been speculated how it will. 4 extra pipes (one extra quad per pass i think), higher clocks and also its gets 2 reworked hence better VS units. now that *might* just get it to perform 2X r360. Which is more than 15%

[Arrghman]

Well then... what are they going to name the RV370 and 380? They've run out of numbers! :p

[zakelwe]

The name 9900 sounds better than 10200 for some reason, I wonder what Ati will do when they run out of XXXX numbers and go to XXXXX ?

Even more worrying what happens to Porsche after 997, 998 and 999 ? I don't my new Porsche 911 to be a 1000 !

Regards

Worried from England

[jAkUp]

I was hoping they would change the name :(

Radeon is an old skool name.. same with geforce :) oh well.. maybe soon..heh

[Miksu]

Maybe this thread clear things up a little? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10952

[AthlonXP1800]

The R420 will be twice as fast as r360 or was it R300. How is that achived...u know its been speculated how it will. 4 extra pipes (one extra quad per pass i think), higher clocks and also its gets 2 reworked hence better VS units. now that *might* just get it to perform 2X r360. Which is more than 15%

I am not sure which one it will be twice faster, remember back on Colin McRae 2004 demo, I saw the highest fps was 88fps, that from R9700 Pro in both Nvnews and Rage3D forum. ATI showed off Colin McRae demo ran on R420, it managed 120 fps on 1024x768, that worked out just 37% faster than R9700 Pro.

I dont know how much faster 37% is, I think 1 time faster worked out 50% and 100% for twice, correct me if I am wrong. :)

[MUYA]

I am not sure which one it will be twice faster, remember back on Colin McRae 2004 demo, I saw the highest fps was 88fps, that from R9700 Pro in both Nvnews and Rage3D forum. ATI showed off Colin McRae demo ran on R420, it managed 120 fps on 1024x768, that worked out just 37% faster than R9700 Pro.

I dont know how much faster 37% is, I think 1 time faster worked out 50% and 100% for twice, correct me if I am wrong. :)


I meant R420 will get 2 extra VS units which i think has been confirmed for some time now ie 6 VS units in count.

Hmm i think i maybe have misquoted...the r420 should be 2X as fast as R300 maybe not r360. Still a fast card it will be!

[T-Spoon]

Hey that's the pic I hosted on my friends website. I hope her site doesn't go down if everyone starts linking the pic. :afraid:

[Geforce4ti4200]

:matrix: :flame: god I love those new smilies, anyway theres truth in r420= 2x 9700p thats in highest settings with high aa/af and an overclocked a64 to reduce the cpu bottleneck. with slower cpu and lower resolutions such as 1024x768 the difference is much smaller

[T-Spoon]

Comparisons made to CMR04 still don't say much, since we don't know at what resolution or AA and AF settings it was played.

For all we know the 100-120 fps was reached with 6xAA and 16xAF, which, if true, in fact would end up really being the 2x or 3x faster than the current high end cards.

[Dazz]

If the R420 has no addictional features then they won't go beyond the system.

R8x00 = DX8
R9x00 = 9 (except the 9100 & 9200)

I think they are going to miss out on DX9.1 and move onto DX10

[Razor04]

The Radeon X800 and similiar names make the most sense to me. There isn't a lot of room left in the 9X00 generation and would bring confusion with which generation card you are buying. Likewise they can't go to the 1X000 generation as they said that was for DX10. The long standing rumor has been that after this generation both ATI and NV will drop their current naming schemes and pick up something new. Personally I would love to see this happen as I am sick of the "Radeon" name and especially the "GeForce" name (it just doesn't die...time to move on :)).

[surfhurleydude]

it depend on situations, 9600 had the half pipelines that of 9700 and less bandwidth. In some games benchmarks the 9600 had either same performance and outperformed the 9700 like in Half Life 2 benchmarks. With FSAA and AF enabled the 9700 outperformed it due to big bandwidth.

9800 XT:
8x1 Pipelines
256 Bit Bus
23.4 GB/s Bandwidth
3.3 Gigapixel Fillrate
4 Vertex Shaders

R420:
12x1 Pipelines
256 Bit Bus
At LEAST 32.0 GB/s Bandwidth
~6.0 Gigapixel Fillrate
6 Vertex Shaders

Based off of this information, combined with your quote above, I have no clue how you can also say you think the R420 will provide only a 15% speed bump over the 9800 XT.

[AthlonXP1800]

9800 XT:
8x1 Pipelines
256 Bit Bus
23.4 GB/s Bandwidth
3.3 Gigapixel Fillrate
4 Vertex Shaders

R420:
12x1 Pipelines
256 Bit Bus
At LEAST 32.0 GB/s Bandwidth
~6.0 Gigapixel Fillrate
6 Vertex Shaders

Based off of this information, combined with your quote above, I have no clue how you can also say you think the R420 will provide only a 15% speed bump over the 9800 XT.

You missed something, the 9600 Pro had 9.6GB/s bandwidth, 4x1 pipelines, 2 Vertex Shaders and 128 bit bus. 9700 Pro's 19.8GB/s bandwidth, the difference is 10.2GB between 128 bit and 256 bit bus, twice the memory bandwidth.

This time with R420, it add extra 4 pipelines, extra 2 Vertex Shaders, around 4.95 Gigapixel fillrate (6.0 Gigapixel I think it will need 16x1 to do that) and have 32 GB/s bandwidth on 256 bit bus, unfortunately R420 memory bandwidth is not twice that of 9800XT, it only 8.6 GB bandwidth. I think in some games R420 will be around the same and also 15-30% faster. It likely will be twice in games that use 6 Vertex Shaders.

ATI's R420 memory clock speed target is 1000Mhz = 32 GB/s bandwidth
Nvidia's NV40 memory clock speed target is 1600Mhz = 51.2 GB/s bandwidth

By the way R420's 32 GB/s memory bandwidth is very close to NV38's 30.7 GB/s but many overclockers users ran it fine with 1050Mhz without extra cooling, that 33.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.

[Lezmaka]

If the R420 has no addictional features then they won't go beyond the system.

I see, so what you're saying is that R3xx has features that cause a physical addiction for the users and if R420 doesn't have that, it won't sell very well?

[-=DVS=-]

You missed something, the 9600 Pro had 9.6GB/s bandwidth, 4x1 pipelines, 2 Vertex Shaders and 128 bit bus. 9700 Pro's 19.8GB/s bandwidth, the difference is 10.2GB between 128 bit and 256 bit bus, twice the memory bandwidth.

This time with R420, it add extra 4 pipelines, extra 2 Vertex Shaders, around 4.95 Gigapixel fillrate (6.0 Gigapixel I think it will need 16x1 to do that) and have 32 GB/s bandwidth on 256 bit bus, unfortunately R420 memory bandwidth is not twice that of 9800XT, it only 8.6 GB bandwidth. I think in some games R420 will be around the same and also 15-30% faster. It likely will be twice in games that use 6 Vertex Shaders.

ATI's R420 memory clock speed target is 1000Mhz = bandwidth
Nvidia's NV40 memory clock speed target is 1600Mhz = 51.2 GB/s bandwidth

By the way R420's 32 GB/s memory bandwidth is very close to NV38's 30.7 GB/s but many overclockers users ran it fine with 1050Mhz without extra cooling, that 33.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.


1. AthlonXp1800 you have absolutely no idea what you talking stop spaming with nvidiotic missinformation :rofl
with 12 pipe you need exacly 500Mhz core to get 6.0 Gigapixel fillrate maybe you can't multiply :rolleyes:

2. memory bandwith isn't everything same for cloaks only actual product will show who is faster "9600 Pro had 9.6GB/s bandwidth, 4x1 pipelines, 2 Vertex Shaders and 128 bit bus" outperformed 5950 in HalfLife 2 :rolleyes:.

3. there also rumos that NV40/45 will not have 1600Mhz DDR but rather 1200Mhz DDR thats is 38.4GB/s only 6GB/s more then Rumored R420 32 GB/s :rolleyes:.

[AthlonXP1800]

1. AthlonXp1800 you have absolutely no idea what you talking stop spaming with nvidiotic missinformation :rofl
with 12 pipe you need exacly 500Mhz core to get 6.0 Gigapixel fillrate maybe you can't multiply :rolleyes:

2. memory bandwith isn't everything same for cloaks only actual product will show who is faster "9600 Pro had 9.6GB/s bandwidth, 4x1 pipelines, 2 Vertex Shaders and 128 bit bus" outperformed 5950 in HalfLife 2 :rolleyes:.

3. there also rumos that NV40/45 will not have 1600Mhz DDR but rather 1200Mhz DDR thats is 38.4GB/s only 6GB/s more then Rumored R420 32 GB/s :rolleyes:.

1. Oppp sorry my mistake, I now got fillrate formula, 6.0 Gigapixel number is correct :p but 9800XT fillrate number is quite wrong, it not 3.3 Gigapixel, it is actually 3.2 Gigapixel.

2. Oh dont forget that 9600 Pro can outperformed all either 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro and 5950 Ultra in some Half Life 2 benchmarks, also 5950 Ultra still got poor PS 2.0 performance, it already fixed with NV40. :D

3. Well we will see, Nvidia was very good at met memory targets before, prior to NV35 launch, it ran very fine at 500/1000 but decided to lower both speed down by 50Mhz with good yields to sell lots of cards. This time could be different with Nvidia's patented technology to get the cards up to 100% yields, it possible could met 1200Mhz memory for the NV40 Non-Ultra and 1600Mhz for NV40 Ultra. If the target not quite met, then Nvidia can drop the speed by 50Mhz for the Ultra with 1500Mhz memory. I think I remember 1500Mhz was mentioned on the internet a while ago.