Ati Radeon X1900

[coldpower27]

xbitlabs said the XTX to be 650/1550 .. or am i missing something here ?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20051227220826.html

I was using VR-Zone for my information.

[MUYA]

EDIT : ditto MUYA! :D
(xmasgrin)

[jAkUp]

It says its 16 pipes in all the info... 48 shaders, 8 vertex.

[SidMeier]

As everyone knows, R580 is the big brother of the RV530, which is the Radeon 1600XT.

And don't worry people, just like every round in the graphics war, there will be no "clear" winner, the 1900 will come, one/two months later the 7900 and both will trade blows in benchmarks.. that's the way it goes..

[AthlonXP1800]

I read the news also one from VR Zone, I am a bit surprised that it still use same core speed but less memory, I find that a bit strange. R580 turned out to be R520 with 48 pixel shaders units and nothing more!

To me Radeon X1900 XTX at 695/1550 did not seem that powerful to face to face with Geforce 7900 Ultra sport with 32 pipelines, their pixel shaders could be increase to 24 pixel shaders. I dont know how Radeon X1900 will benefit from 48 pixel shaders on a 16 pipelines but I think maybe it will became the bottleneck.

[SidMeier]

I read the news also one from VR Zone, I am a bit surprised that it still use same core speed but less memory, I find that a bit strange. R580 turned out to be R520 with 48 pixel shaders units and nothing more!

It's not the same speed and it does have something more


To me Radeon X1900 XTX at 695/1550 did not seem that powerful to face to face with Geforce 7900 Ultra sport with 32 pipelines, their pixel shaders could be increase to 24 pixel shaders. I dont know how Radeon X1900 will benefit from 48 pixel shaders on a 16 pipelines but I think maybe it will became the bottleneck.

Instruction wise, it won't matter too much Everything is still limited to 16 ROPs, if you want more data to feed, you need more bandwidth.. and since the g71 will still use 256-bit memory, there is no way they can feed 24 or 32 ROPs.

So the 1900 will not seem powerfull in much of the dx8 benchmarks, just like the 1800 doesn't look very powerful, but if you compare the situations with games like FEAR then you'll get very, very impressive results.
so R580 is emphasizing the strongpoints of its design and g71 is leveraging overall performance..

and you know what the outcome will be? a tie.. again.. like for the last three years.

The only good thing about this is that the silly gtx512 can finally rot away like it should, the 1900XT will be launched under the MSRP of the GTX 512.. and we all know the 512 isn't even comming close to MSRP.

[Marvel_us]

The only good thing about this is that the silly gtx512 can finally rot away like it should, the 1900XT will be launched under the MSRP of the GTX 512.. and we all know the 512 isn't even comming close to MSRP.

I hope you're right about that.

[SidMeier]

I hope you're right about that.

Hmm.. I forgot where I read that on the MSRP's but since the 1900 will replace the 1800, their price at launch should be the same, the XTX will be $50 more.
1800's will be available untill march when the PRO's appear.
Maybe we'll see an XTX-PE appear around then since the 7900 will be release end of feb/ beginning of march as well.

[nemecb]

So what are they going to name the mid-range version of this? they can't use X1600 again, so X1700? Or isn't there a mid-range part? I hate ATI's naming scheme so much.

[SidMeier]

The new midrange part will be the 1700, yes.
To the best of my knowledge, the 1700XT will be a 16 pipeline part which will place it well away of the 1600, but close enough to the 1800XL.

Btw, what is there to "hate" about ati's naming scheme? if you don't like 1300, 1600 and 1800.. why DO you like 6200, 6600 and 7800?
Naming schemes are there to confuse consumers, nV labels their budget parts as XT, ati rebadges their chips they have to get rid of as GTO and it sells like hotcakes.

after march it's 1300/1700/1900 only, just like 7200,7600 and 7900.. it's hard to explain a normal consumer that a 6800GS is faster than a 7200, or even an 7600LE..

Naming schemes in general suck, but it will never get as bad as intel's numbers

[nemecb]

It's not so much the numbers, it was the change from X800 to X1800. The X800 name is pretty cool, but just adding the 1 felt like they were trying to milk it for too much.

Intel's is definitely the worst. I have no idea what any of their numbers mean, nor do I really care ATM.:)