R520 specs +spy pictures

[kilmas]

here is the link to specs r520.the link dont say any thing about pipelines,but it has other specs for r520.
"Internally the chip will use 512-bit memory transfers.However, the external memory interface will still be 256-bit"

http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?5127
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/05-09-07/r520front.jpg
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/05-09-07/r520back_small.jpg

[superklye]

Two different memory busses? is that possible?

[SH64]

Internally the chip will use 512-bit memory transfers. However, the external memory interface will still be 256-bit - expect some nice marketing from ATI regarding that "feature".


So how do you think this compare to the current 7800 & is it really going to improve performance over 256-bit memory transfer , or just another marketing gimmick from ATi like the 3Dc ?

[AthlonXP1800]

The spec was what The Inquirer confirmed, 512bit memory interface has 89.6GB memory bandwidth with 512Mb RAM but that just good for FSAA and that it. ATI still hadnt learnt from NV30 and now Matrox Parhelia mistakes. When Parhelia came out back in 2002, it not full 512bit graphic card but with 512bit memory interface with 20Gb bandwidth, it was good for FSAA but terrible performance in games, that what killed the card and Matrox exited the 3D games market. I think the reason why Parhelia with 512bit memory interface got terrible games performance because it choked with 256bit graphics bus, it couldnt managed with 512bit memory interface unless it moved to 512bit graphics bus, even a 128bit Geforce 6600GT simply owned a Matrox Parhelia in every games.

Look like that both R600 and G80 will be full 512bit graphics cards in 2006. :angel:

[SH64]

You did reliase it said internal bus , didnt you ? .. the external bus is only a 256-bit memory interface just like the G70.

[AthlonXP1800]

So how do you think this compare to the current 7800 & is it really going to improve performance over 256-bit memory transfer , or just another marketing gimmick from ATi like the 3Dc ?

512bit memory transfer on 256bit graphics will improve FSAA but will hurt performance. If ATI did launched R520 first in June and G70 in July then G70 will be alot faster but this time it quite different with ATI aggressive increased the clock speed to 600MHz. I dont understand why ATI need to redesign the memory interface, why didnt they saved it for R600? Maybe R520 wasnt fast with SM3.0 when it first taped out last year, that could be the reason they need to redesign the memory interface.

[nutball]

Two different memory busses? is that possible?

It might explain what Dave Baumann at B3D has been going on about for months now about the "new memory [bus] architecture".

EDIT: Just to clarify that: I'm not sure how a 512-bit internal and 256-bit external bus is supposed to help any (unless maybe there's some extra large caches on-die), but Dave B has been hinting at something novel in the memory [bus] area for some time now. So it wouldn't be a surprise.

[AthlonXP1800]

You did reliase it said internal bus , didnt you ? .. the external bus is only a 256-bit memory interface just like the G70.

Oh I see, I was confused like many people from Rage3D forum, I guess that mean R520 is still 256 bit graphics and memory but only 512bit memory transfer, I think that do not make sense, it probably will give less or no performance improvement over 256bit memory transfer. I believe 512bit memory transfer will require a 512bit graphics chip and 512bit memory interface, looked at completed 256bit Radeon 9700 Pro for example.

[halduemilauno]

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/r520firstlook-e.htm
;)

[SH64]

Oh I see, I was confused like many people from Rage3D forum, I guess that mean R520 is still 256 bit graphics and memory but only 512bit memory transfer, I think that do not make sense, it probably will give less or no performance improvement over 256bit memory transfer. I believe 512bit memory transfer will require a 512bit graphics chip and 512bit memory interface, looked at completed 256bit Radeon 9700 Pro for example.

Hmm that makes me wonder if the 512bit transfer has anything to do with bieng able to get AA to work with HDR somehow even if that ended with low performance ?! ..

[AthlonXP1800]

Hmm that makes me wonder if the 512bit transfer has anything to do with bieng able to get AA to work with HDR somehow even if that ended with low performance ?! ..

Or it could do something to improve SM3.0 dynamics branching.

[AthlonXP1800]

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/r520firstlook-e.htm
;)

Huh? why R520 chip is upside down on the card, I never seen a graphics chip upside down on the card.

[tertsi]

Wow, it's big!

btw. this thread is worthless without pics :)

http://www.skenegroup.net/misc/wowitsbig.jpg

[Toss3]

Wow, it's big!

btw. this thread is worthless without pics :)

http://www.skenegroup.net/misc/wowitsbig.jpg
Hmm yeah that's was acutally the first thing that concerned me; ATI's cards have recently all been smaller than NVIDIA's... But besides that the new card from ATI looks promising, with high clocks from the start so that you won't have to overclock anything (Which I'm never doing again)! Which is nowadays an important factor for me at least! :) It sounds like they've pushed the card as hard as they could; having fast memory, high clocks and everything a little bit faster than on the 7800gtx except for 8pipelines.. (there's gonna be a 24pp and 32pp models too it seems, but they'll probably be very expensive!)
So bring back the competition ATI so we'll see a price drop! :D

EDIT: And they have a dual slot cooling solution :thumbdwn:

[Graphicmaniac]

this discussion is going to be a bit confusional
is there some people who know what means 512bit in and 256 bit out? what are the gains?

[GlowStick]

on the memory, haveing more chips dosent have to increase your bitwidth......

and woot, finaly some reliable spy news/pics.

[Mr_LoL]

I am assuming that will be a 16 piper

[harl]

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/r520firstlook/compare.jpg
It doesn't look bigger than a 7800GTX
And it's an engineering sample card.
Maybe the final procut will be single slot and/or smaler :thumbdwn:

[Mr_LoL]

All i can say is :drooling: I wonder what Nvidia are going to use to counter because we have to assume this will be better than the GTX and i love dual slot cards. It makes it look and feel expensive :D

[lightman]

So bring back the competition ATI so we'll see a price drop! :D

Price drop ? Hmm... I wouldn't count on it.

First off, that card seems to use 1.26ns Samsung memory. That thing is expensive. A lot.

That said, it is altogether possible that other manufacturers will use slower spec'd memory modules to keep the price down, but that'd mean cutting the available bandwidth, and so lowering the performance of the card.

Secondly, given the (apparent, at least) yields problems for the R520, it is quite possible that the chip itself could cost ATI quite a lot (compared to the relatively inexpensive G70 for Nvidia), and that'd push the price up, too.

In short, I don't expect R520-based cards to cost less than the 7800GTX, not in with comparable performance.

As for harl comment on the possibility of seeing a one-slot cooling solution, I wouldn't count on it either. That chip, with that die size, that (supposed) transistor count, and that clock (650MHz is *a lot*), will probably run quite hot. I don't think a one-slot solution would cut it. Besides, rumors always had it that the R520 will be a two-slots solution, that pic only confirms that.

[Roliath]

The pics posted in the first post are confirmed fakes.
The front of the picture has 4 screws that don't match up with the backside.

Just thought Id let everyone know if they didn't already.

[superklye]

The spec was what The Inquirer confirmed, 512bit memory interface has 89.6GB memory bandwidth with 512Mb RAM but that just good for FSAA and that it.
Well, if the Inq confirmed it, it MUST be true.

I mean, they also created and then uncreated the 7800 Ultra card, and a site with that kind of power has to be right. All the time. :rolleyes2 ;)

[-=DVS=-]

The spec was what The Inquirer confirmed, 512bit memory interface has 89.6GB memory bandwidth with 512Mb RAM but that just good for FSAA and that it. ATI still hadnt learnt from NV30 and now Matrox Parhelia mistakes. When Parhelia came out back in 2002, it not full 512bit graphic card but with 512bit memory interface with 20Gb bandwidth, it was good for FSAA but terrible performance in games, that what killed the card and Matrox exited the 3D games market. I think the reason why Parhelia with 512bit memory interface got terrible games performance because it choked with 256bit graphics bus, it couldnt managed with 512bit memory interface unless it moved to 512bit graphics bus, even a 128bit Geforce 6600GT simply owned a Matrox Parhelia in every games.

Look like that both R600 and G80 will be full 512bit graphics cards in 2006. :angel:

Your way off man , Matrox Parhelia failed not because of 512/256 bit bus but because they didn't implement any bandwith saveing techniques , was said by Matrox them selfs they thought raw bandwith from 256bit bus will suffice, obviously it wasn't and Geforce4 with only 128bit walked all over it, if ATI can get so much bandwith for AA thats awesome , AA will be much faster then 7800Gtx .

[Ninjaman09]

It doesn't look bigger than a 7800GTX
And it's an engineering sample card.
Maybe the final procut will be single slot and/or smaler :thumbdwn:
ATi's been saying that the XT will be a dual-slot cooling solution. Personally I don't see what the big deal is about dual-slot cooling, it's not like we don't have enough room for it. I'm happy enough that we'll finally get to see some benchmarks in the coming weeks! I'm definitely not going to switch, I LOVE this 7800GTX (especially with the 78.03s), but I really want ATi to regain some market share. Maybe their day in the sun will be the R580...the R520 isn't looking like it's going to shape up to much. :(

[msxyz]

The spec was what The Inquirer confirmed, 512bit memory interface has 89.6GB memory bandwidth with 512Mb RAM but that just good for FSAA and that it. ATI still hadnt learnt from NV30 and now Matrox Parhelia mistakes. When Parhelia came out back in 2002, it not full 512bit graphic card but with 512bit memory interface with 20Gb bandwidth, it was good for FSAA but terrible performance in games, that what killed the card and Matrox exited the 3D games market. I think the reason why Parhelia with 512bit memory interface got terrible games performance because it choked with 256bit graphics bus, it couldnt managed with 512bit memory interface unless it moved to 512bit graphics bus, even a 128bit Geforce 6600GT simply owned a Matrox Parhelia in every games.

Look like that both R600 and G80 will be full 512bit graphics cards in 2006. :angel:
Except that Matrox never really cared about memory saving techniques, unlike ATi. The 512 bit bus on the Parhelia is a scam. Parhelia has "only" a 256bit bus.

But Matrox used to market their dual command queuing implementation as a virtual bus with twice the pratical bandwitdh. (Thus G200 was marketed with a "dual 128bit bus" and G400 with a "dual 256 bit bus").
It's not even a new or earth shattering technique as many processors have been using that for ages!

I dunno if we will be seeing something similar from ATi. Their marketing must be pretty desperate if they resort to.