Since ATI is already producing .11, will the R500 be on .11 as well?

[PreservedSwine]

I know the X800 and GF6800 have just been unveiled, but, frankly, I'm already looking forward to the next batch. The new cards are very impressive, but I'll be skipping this generation for the next....The X300 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2066&p=3) (value part) is produced on .11, does this mean the R500 will be built on .11 as well?

[Johnmcl7]

I guess it depends on how well .11 turns out - if they have a lot of trouble with it then I would think they'll stick with .13, and if .11 turns out well then it would make sense to use .11 for the R500.

John

[Quasar]

0,11µ does not have a lowK Option available yet.
Chances are, that the IHVs will go for 0,09µ, where lowK's already on schedule.

[Omega53]

Ive heard .09 with low-k.

[anzak]

Meh, the damn graphics technology industry is moving way to fast. We are just now getting a batch of games that take advantage of the power provided by the Radeon 9600 cards. Yes, I can run any game available today at 1024x768 2xAA and 8xAF, what more can I ask for. So why is there such a need for graphics cards faster than the NV40 and R420 which are already CPU limited. And to boot the midrange segment is being left in teh dust (i.e. Radeon X600 and X300 which is just repackaged versions of todays tech) and that is the largest selling segment in graphics today. :lame: I guess nVidia and ATI are in a race to see who can reach the physical limit of circuitry.

Sorry for my little rant and dragging your thread off topic. Im just upset about having to buy a new graphics card every 6 months and my processor and mobo lasting me 2 and a half years.

[Omega53]

^^ no one forces you to buy anything. Thats why games scale so far back because of people who are too lazy or dont have the money to upgrade thier computer. Me on the other hand, I like to be state of the art. While you may be gaming at 1024x768 w/ 2aa 8af Im gaming at 1280x1024 w/6fsaa 16af at speeds at least three times faster than yours.

[PreservedSwine]

0,11µ does not have a lowK Option available yet.
Chances are, that the IHVs will go for 0,09µ, where lowK's already on schedule.

That would go against what ATI's been doing as of late, ie producing next generation high end parts on proven technology, such as the R300 on .15 (when the value R9600 was .13) and the R420 on .13 (while the value X300 is .11)

Do you feel they would throw away this (so far) succesfull strategy and take a gamble on unproven methods with their far more sophisticated and complicated design?

[CaptNKILL]

Meh, the damn graphics technology industry is moving way to fast. We are just now getting a batch of games that take advantage of the power provided by the Radeon 9600 cards. Yes, I can run any game available today at 1024x768 2xAA and 8xAF, what more can I ask for. So why is there such a need for graphics cards faster than the NV40 and R420 which are already CPU limited. And to boot the midrange segment is being left in teh dust (i.e. Radeon X600 and X300 which is just repackaged versions of todays tech) and that is the largest selling segment in graphics today. :lame: I guess nVidia and ATI are in a race to see who can reach the physical limit of circuitry.

Sorry for my little rant and dragging your thread off topic. Im just upset about having to buy a new graphics card every 6 months and my processor and mobo lasting me 2 and a half years.
I *KNOW* you arent running Farcry, Battlefield Vietnam or Unreal Tournament 2004 at those settings on a 9600 Pro(at least not smoothly). I play BF1942 at 1280x960 2xAA 8xAF(no higher), and that game is 2 years old, and not very graphics intensive at all.

Also, how can you complain about buying a new graphics card every 6 months if all games out now run fine on your 1 1\2 year old 9600 Pro? Id say that those are two opposite perspectives on the hardware vs. software thing...

[Drumphil]

I *KNOW* you arent running Farcry, Battlefield Vietnam or Unreal Tournament 2004 at those settings on a 9600 Pro(at least not smoothly).

er, that how I run my 9600pro with those games.. But mine is overclocked a lot, and I have a lot beefier CPU that you, so maybee that makes the difference.

note: 9600pro running at 485/345. Got lucky with the ram on this one.

[Snooka]

It might be running okay, but everyone has their own standards when it comes to game 'smoothness'.

I've got a
A64 3400+
1GB PC3200 OCZ CAS 2
Radeon 9800XT

And I don't use any AA/AF because of the performance drop in certain situations. I'm not satisfied with the performance.

You either aren't very picky when it comes to FPS, or you've got a better system than me. :drooling:

[Drumphil]

And I don't use any AA/AF because of the performance drop in certain situations. I'm not satisfied with the performance.

if you can't use AA and AF with a 9800xt there is something else wrong with your system. Either that or you like having 200fps more than your refresh rate, rather than 100fps more. I guarntee that you are the exception rather than the rule not thinking that gameplay is smooth enough on an 9800xt with these things enabled. Games that are just about to be released might be a different matter with the 9800xt. But practically all current software should fly with that GFX chip.

My 9800pro certainly flies with AA and AF enabled..

good way to check if you have the settings up too high.. Run fraps, and see if you are ever dropping below your refresh rate. If no, then you gain nothing by disabling AA and AF. (unless you leave V-Sync off, which gives you tearing, and still can't display more complete imagaes a second than your refresh rate.)

And if you performance is too low, why is it specifically because of AA and AF and not because you are running at too high resolution. Everything is a IQ/speed tradeoff.

[Snooka]

if you can't use AA and AF with a 9800xt there is something else wrong with your system. Either that or you like having 200fps more than your refresh rate, rather than 100fps more. I guarntee that you are the exception rather than the rule not thinking that gameplay is smooth enough on an 9800xt with these things enabled. Games that are just about to be released might be a different matter with the 9800xt. But practically all current software should fly with that GFX chip.

My 9800pro certainly flies with AA and AF enabled..

good way to check if you have the settings up too high.. Run fraps, and see if you are ever dropping below your refresh rate. If no, then you gain nothing by disabling AA and AF. (unless you leave V-Sync off, which gives you tearing, and still can't display more complete imagaes a second than your refresh rate.)

And if you performance is too low, why is it specifically because of AA and AF and not because you are running at too high resolution. Everything is a IQ/speed tradeoff.

You can guarntee nothing, I'm afraid. You just don't know the facts. I play at 1024x768 with all the details set to HIGH and vsync enabled. And there is nothing wrong with my system. I built it for one thing, and that's PC gaming. I'm very picky.

I've tested DM-Antalus with zero and seven bots using AA/AF @ 1024x768. It plays smooth. And if I disable vsync, I'll see around 140 FPS. However, depending on what I'm seeing, my system will either chug along or momentarily choke, as in, my frames will drop and I'll notice it.

Again, it all depends on what I'm seeing. lf I see a couple of bots shooting each other near the flak on DM-Antalus, big deal, it's smooth sailing and I'm seeing great performance. If I see seven bots spamming rockets/flak/combos near the Bio rifle, you can bet your toosh I'll see a performance hit, and it's a hit that I wouldn't notice had AA/AF not been enabled. It isn't a constant drop in frames, it just depends what I'm seeing on screen. And that's what I can't stand. I want fluid gameplay, without any noticable drops in performance. Unfortunately, disabling AA/AF comes pretty damned close, too.

I'm a competitive gamer. And believe me, the last thing I want is for my frames to drop when my team (Team Curse) is scrimming against other teams like Kaizen, Xeno (Halo CPL winners) or Continuance. Especially when infinite is on your ass strapped with an amped lg.

Again, I'm very picky. And those minor slowdowns matter to me. It can make the difference between losing control of a map or retaining it.

I'm hoping the new generation of video cards can *truly* provide me with the ability to enable AA/AF without a loss in performance, at least with the games that I play. The important thing I notice in a video card is the minimum FPS, and the 9800XT's minimum FPS can get pretty damn low with AA/AF enabled.

[anzak]

I *KNOW* you arent running Farcry, Battlefield Vietnam or Unreal Tournament 2004 at those settings on a 9600 Pro(at least not smoothly). I play BF1942 at 1280x960 2xAA 8xAF(no higher), and that game is 2 years old, and not very graphics intensive at all.

Also, how can you complain about buying a new graphics card every 6 months if all games out now run fine on your 1 1\2 year old 9600 Pro? Id say that those are two opposite perspectives on the hardware vs. software thing...

Your right, 6 months is an exaggeration.

I just picked up Farcry today, awesome game and it runs smoothly at 1024x768 with low AA (2x) and 4xAF set in the game not the CP. UT2004 also runs great at 2xaa and 8xaf (to bad unrealed 3.0 has issues with AA since I spend alot of time mapping). As for Battlefield Vietnam I have no idea.

If you are judging farcry in any way by the demo stop and buy it. Because the demo ran sluggish due to my 512mb of memory. I guess the full game has much better memory handling.

[Geforce4ti4200]

gpus are so far ahead of themselves I will be going thru a few cpu upgrades before I even upgrade my gpu once, then once I do, itll last me many years. I hear the r500 will be .11u but low K and comming in mid 2005