R350 at 400MHz or more

[druga runda]

Well

from the inq:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7381


EVEN THOUGH hasn't completely finished R350 as they are waiting for production silicone as we speak, we believe we have some solid information about what to expect from the cards.
ATI's magic goal is to achieve 400MHz/800 MHz for the card and memory while we know that it can easily clock it to 375 MHz, which can be considered as the lowest frequency of R350.

The final silicon should be back from TSMC any day now, as product is almost ready and when it does we will try to confirm the information about the final clock. 400 to 425 MHz is a dream target.

R350 is likely to stay with the Radeon 9x00 branding name, where x will be replaced with 8 or 9, so it may well be named the Radeon 9800 or 9900.

We heard that ATI's R350 will beat Geforce FX in eight out of 10 benchmarks, and we learned that one of benchmarks they will lose will be Quake 3. This could be true since the R350 will have 6Gb/Sec memory bandwidth more than the 9700 Pro.

The card will be equipped with 128 MB memory while it will support 256MB configurations and 128MB variations will be priced around the €400 mark.

It will, we think, be introduced in the first week of March and we reckon that's intended to throw dust into Nvidia's eyes.

But will the R350 be faster than the GeForce FX? That remains to be seen.. µ


Ha well here is the estimation, 400+ no less than 375 mhz... well 375 mhz would be low IMHO 425, now that would be cool.

Not bad at all and add 800mhz memory and you have even more memory bandwidth with extra power to kick NV30 around.

So if we go for a more lucky version at 425 mhz and 800 mem, you have 3400 Mpixels/sec and 25.6 GB of raw bandwith...

compare that with 4000 Mp/sec for NV30 and 16GB of bandwidth... to win 8 out of 10 tests... I bet all of those are with some AA and/or AF ;)... but that is what counts isn't it?

[Uttar]

All of that is a reasonable target for the R350.
Beside the freaking price, damnit!

400 Euros? In your dreams. That monster is easily going to cost as much as the GFFX ( 600 Euros ) , if not slightly more.

ATI *is* becoming very aggressive, BTW. But you'd be doing a HUGE mistake if you supposed nVidia wasn't becoming aggressive too. A really, really big one :)


Uttar

[nick800]

hehe nvidia doesn't have much choice, they need to become extremely aggressive with getting their next set of cards out 31,34,35, the geforceFX is becoming one massive money pit =o).

also in the inquirer article, I know its the inquierer so even the answer to this question doesn't matter becuase the question is in question, but did they mean introduced as in for sale the first week of march, or introduced as in, shown/displayed somewhere, or 500 cards sent out for testing...?

[Uttar]

Originally posted by nick800
hehe nvidia doesn't have much choice, they need to become extremely aggressive with getting their next set of cards out 31,34,35, the geforceFX is becoming one massive money pit =o).

also in the inquirer article, I know its the inquierer so even the answer to this question doesn't matter becuase the question is in question, but did they mean introduced as in for sale the first week of march, or introduced as in, shown/displayed somewhere, or 500 cards sent out for testing...?

My personal guess is that they meant ATI traditional paper launch: some performance figures, a lot of paper specs, and cards in stores 1 month later.

Oh, and I wasn't refering to the NV35 when I was talking about becoming aggressive. Of course, it is a good example. But the NV35 won't be out before the R400.

The R350 will be fighted with a beefed-up GFFX. Wondered why the GFFX is suddently priced at $400 instead of $500?
My explanation is that nVidia wants to counter the R350, which will probably be a $449-$500 product with another similarly priced GFFX ( also based on the NV30 core )
Note that it's mostly speculation so far. But there are many small things which points in that direction.


Uttar

[Gar]

Originally posted by Uttar
All of that is a reasonable target for the R350.
Beside the freaking price, damnit!

400 Euros? In your dreams. That monster is easily going to cost as much as the GFFX ( 600 Euros ) , if not slightly more.

ATI *is* becoming very aggressive, BTW. But you'd be doing a HUGE mistake if you supposed nVidia wasn't becoming aggressive too. A really, really big one :)


Uttar

On the contrary, the R350 cost much MUCH less to make than the NV30. Wanna know why?

1. DDRI cost much less than DDRII even at 400mhz. Its not pushing the limits of DDRI quite yet (maybe 500).

2. Yeilds for the R300/R350 are way over what the NV30 is getting. NVidia is actually taking a hit (especially their partners) by selling it at 399 instead of 499 which would have been harder, but more profitable to do (considering the chip costs so much to make, plus the 10 layer pcb doesn't help). Why do you think Nvidia is considering buy MSI? Maybe because they can't convince enough companies to make the NV30 due to its high price and low profit margin.

3. The R350 doesn't come with teh dust buster unit which will also cut costs.

There are more, but these are the primary reason. Don't expect NVidia to be able to competitively price their Ultra verison near what the R350 will.

[nick800]

the NV35 won't be out before the R400.

aren't they both aiming at late q3,early q4?

[Gar]

NV35 is expected to be out late fall early winter, while the R400 is expected in Aug/Sept.

[suburbanguy]

Nvidia is going to fall further and further behind.

[tazdevl]

OK Uttar, I want you to say 3 times... "nVIDIA can make mistakes, they can err".

As others have said... I highly doubt the R350 will cost more than the FX, though I do agree with you that the R350 is the reason for the change in FX pricing.

If you look around, the R300 seems to be having pretty good yields with average OC's high enough to meet the low end of estimates for the R350 clockspeed. Let's also remember that ATI didn't sink $400MM into the development of the R300 core, nor is three quarters of the price of the card tied up in the cooler and RAM. :D

I do LIKE the fact that the FX seems to magically have dropped $100 in MSRP all of a sudden. For $500, the damn thing better wax my car and make me a frappacino in the morning.

[StealthHawk]

i agree with that assessment. it is unreasonable to assume that ATI will price the R350 higher than the gfFX. historically ATI has always priced their products lower than nvidia.

i fail to see why this will be any different. especially if R350 is faster overall. price it the same as gfFX or lower and nvidia looks bad. very bad.

[netape]

400€?!? :eek: Man if that's true, R350 here I come! :D

[tazdevl]

One other interesting thing to see between the two is how they scale with slower processors... I'm waiting for Springdale before I hop on the bandwagon. I want to be sure I get decent performance out of one of them before I pull the trigger since I have two months before I upgrade some major portions in my rig.

Definitely right Stealth, ATI has always been priced lower than nVIDIA. I'd assume part of that is due to nVIDIA being the performance leader in the market for quite some time. It'll be interesting to see if nVIDIA drops in price and ATI charges a bit more since they (could) continue to hold the performance crown, supply chain dymanics aside.

[RipItup]

To me AA and AF are over-rated.

I don't play games where you wander around looking at the scenery and how pretty that butterfly is.

There is a name for people who do that :-

My Granny.

I'm too busy being killed most of the time to study walls.

No, blasting away and ramping the hardware till it bleeds is what I like.

Regards

Andy

[Uttar]

Originally posted by RipItup
To me AA and AF are over-rated.

I don't play games where you wander around looking at the scenery and how pretty that butterfly is.

There is a name for people who do that :-

My Granny.

I'm too busy being killed most of the time to study walls.

No, blasting away and ramping the hardware till it bleeds is what I like.

Regards

Andy

Then why in the freaking world aren't you running on a GeForce 2 MX 200?!
Because you know, all recent GPUs give you is better graphics. You could run Doom 3 at 640x480x16 with low detail settings on that card. And you'd get a good FPS, so killing others would be as easy.
So, unless you've got a GF2 MX 200 or slower than that, I'm sorry to say your arguments are ridiculously illogical.


Uttar

[RipItup]

Originally posted by Uttar
Then why in the freaking world aren't you running on a GeForce 2 MX 200?!
Because you know, all recent GPUs give you is better graphics. You could run Doom 3 at 640x480x16 with low detail settings on that card. And you'd get a good FPS, so killing others would be as easy.
So, unless you've got a GF2 MX 200 or slower than that, I'm sorry to say your arguments are ridiculously illogical.


Uttar

I do run a Gf 2 Mx 200

I run it pretty well actually :-

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5546989

That's top score at 640 x 480.. like I said " No, blasting away and ramping the hardware till it bleeds is what I like."

Is my argument inconsistent or illogical now eh uttar ?

I also run

S3 Savage 4
S3 Savage 2000
Ati Rage 128 Pr0
Trident XP Blade
nvidia Tnt2
nvidia GF4 MX 440
nvidia GF4 4400 tu

I got 15 700 this morning in 3dmark on the Gf4 4400 as well :)

When I am not benchmarking I play fps online where AA and AF is completely pointless..

So, is my arguement ridculously illogical or are you just talking out of your arse coz you don't know all the facts ?

Thanks for telling me what I do and do not do with my 5 machines here.

Cheers

Andy

[Uttar]

Err, why did you buy a GF4 Ti4400 if you don't care about if things look good?


Uttar

[Gar]

Originally posted by RipItup
[B

I got 15 700 this morning in 3dmark on the Gf4 4400 as well : [/B]


I'm sure you earned 15700 on 3dmark. Was that 3dmark2000 on 640x480 ultra low detail? I highly doubt you got close to what people are getting with the 9700s.

ROFL

[MuFu]

Originally posted by tazdevl
If you look around, the R300 seems to be having pretty good yields with average OC's high enough to meet the low end of estimates for the R350 clockspeed.

I am quite sure it still isn't too great a product in terms of margins.

The fact that they are selling 8-pipe boards underclocked and underpriced as 9500s must be causing no end of grief to certain parties within the company.

IMO, ATi is really pushing for mindshare right now (RV250 remains the staple, mainstream offering so they have some breathing space at the high/ultra-high end). R350 is typical of this - perhaps not necessary from a short-term, financial point of view but obviously may be extremely beneficial in the long run as more and more people start to realise ATi are on top of their game.

MuFu.

[-=DVS=-]

Originally posted by RipItup
I got 15 700 this morning in 3dmark on the Gf4 4400 as well :)

When I am not benchmarking I play fps online where AA and AF is completely pointless..

So, is my arguement ridculously illogical or are you just talking out of your arse coz you don't know all the facts ?

Thanks for telling me what I do and do not do with my 5 machines here.



Lol so what that you get 15 700 marks with GF4 ,do benchmarks with AA and AF , becouse hardly anyone play games without them :rolleyes:

Online games AA and AF pointless ? maybe to you :eek: elemination of jaggies is the point dummy :D

Ohh you have 5 mashines are they 5 years old or are you just rich guy who have no idea how computer works :p

And even if your rich clever all knowing guy , your opinion and playing style isn't the same as everyones else :angel2:

[gokickrocks]

Originally posted by RipItup
I do run a Gf 2 Mx 200

I run it pretty well actually :-

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5546989

That's top score at 640 x 480.. like I said " No, blasting away and ramping the hardware till it bleeds is what I like."


woo freakin hoo


Is my argument inconsistent or illogical now eh uttar ?


its inconsistent


I also run

S3 Savage 4
S3 Savage 2000
Ati Rage 128 Pr0
Trident XP Blade
nvidia Tnt2
nvidia GF4 MX 440
nvidia GF4 4400 tu

I got 15 700 this morning in 3dmark on the Gf4 4400 as well :)


again...woo freakin hoo.... not everyone plays 3dmarks, some of us prefer to play games


When I am not benchmarking I play fps online where AA and AF is completely pointless..


you seem to be playing more benchmarks than you do gaming


So, is my arguement ridculously illogical or are you just talking out of your arse coz you don't know all the facts ?


its not illogical in your view point, but it is a bit ridiculous...


Thanks for telling me what I do and do not do

youre welcome

with my 5 machines here.

Cheers

Andy

one last time, woo freakin hoo...im sure others like myself have tons of spare parts in the closet to build another 5 computers but choose not to cause it takes up too much space

[PreservedSwine]

Online games AA and AF pointless ? maybe to you elemination of jaggies is the point dummy

Well said, I couldn't believe it when I read it..I've been spoiled with jaggy free, sharp textures for a while now, wouldn't enjoy gaming nearly as much without FSAA and AF.....Do some people honestly turn them off???:confused:

[StealthHawk]

can we please keep this thread on topic?

i'm a little erred that every thread on future cards(started with the r9700Pro) seems to degenerate into a "these new cards are overpriced and useless, I don't care about AF/FSAA" 'debate.'

we've covered the subject so many times and i don't see any new arguments being presented. if you guys really want to talk about it, make a new thread in one of the video card forums and please don't hijack this one.

[Gar]

Thank you Hawk. I completely agree. The topic about the R350 has changed to some childish bickering about who uses AA/AF and who doesn't. Lets move on. First does anyone want to delve into the idea of the R350 using a similar heatsink/fan design as the NV30 to reach such high clock speeds on .15 micron? I think reaching 400+ with standard cooling is incredible considering its manufacturing size.

[PreservedSwine]

Thank you Hawk. I completely agree. The topic about the R350 has changed to some childish bickering about who uses AA/AF and who doesn't

Then it is you who is missing the point.......

Even budget solutions such as the GF3 and R8500 have plenty of power to run nearly ALL of todays games at 1024x768 with full details, no AF no FSAA.

The future of high end Vid cards isn't to add 100fps to an already absurd 300+fps in Quake3.

It's to game with FSAA and AF, at high resolutions.
The ERA is no longer simply FPS, but image quality has taken center stage.

I don't think you can talk future Video Cards without including discussion on FSAA and AF.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by PreservedSwine
Then it is you who is missing the point.......

Even budget solutions such as the GF3 and R8500 have plenty of power to run nearly ALL of todays games at 1024x768 with full details, no AF no FSAA.

The future of high end Vid cards isn't to add 100fps to an already absurd 300+fps in Quake3.

It's to game with FSAA and AF, at high resolutions.
The ERA is no longer simply FPS, but image quality has taken center stage.

I don't think you can talk future Video Cards without including discussion on FSAA and AF.

that might be a valid point....if this were a thread about a review of the card, or one of those "which cards is right for me" threads. however, the purpose of this thread is to speculate on specs of future products, not to denounce the need for future products.

that argument is out of place here. and it is one that shoud be addressed in one of the threads i listed above as an example.

and i think it is safe to say that eventually a game will come out that will tax old and current cards. so adding an extra 100fps to Q3 which already runs at 300fps will not be bad. maybe a new game will run at 40fps on a gf3 and the new high end card will add +33% over that. suddenly that extra 33% becomes useful and practical.

as i said, the debate itself is not pointless, but it shouldn't be done here. although i do feel that the debate has been done to death, i don't really see any new arguments besides these basic points

1) i don't notice FSAA or AF.
2) i don't need FSAA or AF even if i do notice them.
3) i notice FSAA or AF but i'd rather have 300fps
4) FSAA and AF add a good deal to the visual experience of a game.
5) i am used to playing games with FSAA and AF on and don't want to play without them.

those are the 5 basic viewpoints on FSAA/AF. that's never going to change. even if we had free FSAA or AF there would still be some people saying that it's useless because they don't notice any difference in screenshots or when the game is actually being played.

anyway, like i said, if you want to continue the discussion, fine. make a new thread.


to get back OT i was wondering, did ATI overestimate gfFX? they said R350 would be 10% faster than gfFX. but R350 clocked at 400MHz is over 20% higher than R300. does this mean R350 is just a speed bump and there are no other changes? i thought ATI would at least add some optimizations to the mix.