Full R6xx line revealed

[AthlonXP1800]

RV610LE = Radeon HD 2400 Pro
RV610PRO = Radeon HD 2400 XT
RV630XT = Radeon HD 2600 XT
R600 512MB = Radeon HD 2900 XT
R600 1GB = Radeon HD 2900 XT 1024?

http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=38923

R600 512MB will be the flagship sporting GDDR3 but R600 with 1GB GDDR4 will have very limited quantities only, it will produce about 150 cards. R600 1GB are in the same footstep as 3dfx Voodoo 6000 which made about 200 cards.

Maybe AMD knew if they sell Radeon HD 2900 XT at £400 to £500, nobody will want it that were 8 to 9 months late. Look like they have to sell it on £300 price tag, they probably sell it at loss for every card, if the sales not pick up then they are finished.

[Greasy]

We heard more details, and now you need to order at least 100 cards to get it, it will be available in limited quantities only.

How exactly did you get they're only going to make 200 of them out of that?


As for it being late, we know Nvidia will have something ready to take the high end. That's a given.

Keep in mind though that Nvidia still hasn't released its full line of low/mid range cards. This is where they both make their money, and this is wear I expect ATI to be very strong.

[Saintster]

This is going to be very interesting. At least people will have more choices as DX10 games come out. It's good for everyone the bad thing with ATI being late is that we the consumer has paid top dollar for six months.So now we will get price cuts and new cards and the high end guys can upgrade because 6+months is a long time for most of the xtreme guys.

[slaWter]

Seriously, 150 cards?

[Mr_LoL]

I am willing to bet the RV630XT will be significantly faster than Nvidias crippled mid range offerings.

[shabby]

I am willing to bet the RV630XT will be significantly faster than Nvidias crippled mid range offerings.

If ati uses 256bit for midrange then ya, but i doubt it. They'll probably release a 256bit 2900xl or something in the future, that would make more sense for ati but not for us. No... we want 512bit for $99.95.

[Redeemed]

I'm doing my best to remain neutral on all of this- but as it is shaping out, ATi might just pwn nVidia.

I'm going purely off of the specs released thus far, and assuming both cards function similarly (in regards to stream processors and such).

[AthlonXP1800]

I am willing to bet the RV630XT will be significantly faster than Nvidias crippled mid range offerings.

Well it do not seem RV630XT will be faster than Geforce 8600GTS which already available on sale. I seen posts from people who bought it were very pleased with higher scores than benchmarks results The Inquirer (http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=38769) posted with 3D Mark 2005 scored 11340 and 3D Mark 2006 scored 7243. I found RV630XT benchmarks here (http://www.fx57.net/?p=581), 3D Mark 2005 score slight better at 12500 but 3D Mark 2006 did not perform well at 5600.

Look like Geforce 8600GTS perform better with new games but really not worth get one for £130, people will best off get fantastic Geforce 8800GTS 320MB with 320 bit memory interface for just £30 more best gangbang for money. :D

Nvidia need to stop using 128 bit interface and move to 256 bit interface as new standard for mainstream cards and also move from 64 bit interface to 128 bit interface for bottom end value cards.

[tacos4me]

I'm doing my best to remain neutral on all of this- but as it is shaping out, ATi might just pwn nVidia.

I'm going purely off of the specs released thus far, and assuming both cards function similarly (in regards to stream processors and such).

That's the thing. They don't. The R600's 320 "stream processors" aren't the same as those in the G80. It's not realistic and doesn't even make sense. 320 SPs just looks a whole lot better to a marketing team than 64*Vec4+1=320.

From what I've been gathering, I believe the 2900 XT will be pretty much dead even with the 8800GTX in most cases, which would really suck for ATi. Hopefully the rumors about the low prices are true.

Anyway, I hope I'm not coming off as a fanboy here, because I'm not. I go where the performance is. But I just can't stand when everyone gets all excited when they read R600 has 320 SPs, therefore thinking it must blow G80's 128 out of the water when they don't even operate the same way. :p

[grey_1]

I just want to see reliable benchmarks, that's all I want to see.

[Xion X2]

A pal of mine just sent me this. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish; we have no idea how reliable it is, although some seem to think it is so far.

http://www.bilgiustam.com/?p=125

http://www.bilgiustam.com/resimler/donanim/test1.jpg
http://www.bilgiustam.com/resimler/donanim/test2.jpg

It would sorta make sense. 8800GTX is slightly better w/ DX9 games due to it coming out first. 2900XT comes out later and is slightly better oriented for DX10 games such as Crysis.

If Crysis runs at 1600 res at 50fps w/ high quality and 4xAA on a single GTX on average, then I'm happy.

[jAkUp]

Crysis?? I dunno about that. And 50FPS at 1600x1200 with 4x/16x? I seriously doubt that.

[Xion X2]

Like I said, no idea if it's legit. I thought the Crysis demo wouldn't be out for another few months, but occasionally stuff is leaked for testing purposes. Seems unlikely, though, unless the demo is closer to release than we previously thought.

I don't really have a problem w/ believing a single GTX could run it at those settings at 50fps, though. All the videos I've seen of the game look as if they're running some AA and are mostly smooth with good detail. And none of us have any idea how well games are going to run under DX10/Vista, so I don't see how we can make an estimated guess at this point. SLI, at least as far as we know, wasn't working in DirectX10/Vista until a month or so ago, and a lot of the videos have been out since January. That means they were most likely running on a single G80 if they were in fact running in DX10--which they sure as hell looked like they were. I've never seen a DX9 game come even close to something like that.

I still believe the G80 has a ton of untapped potential. I'm of the opinion that most drivers are complete crap right now and are very poorly optimized. I could be wrong, but that's the way I view the current situation.

[Edit: Something else I just noticed, is if you look at those graphs and scale down the resolution, the 2900XT pulls out further and further ahead of G80. Wasn't DX10 supposed to offload a lot of resources from the CPU? If so, that seems to scale right since the 2900 is the more recent DX10 card and would be better optimized for that kind of thing. Moreso than G80 would. At least according to theory.

But all of this is speculation, of course. There are so many questions right now. Like was this benchmark taken for average or just a specific point in the game. Max or Min, for example. Or if there even was a real benchmark in the first place.]

[slaWter]

Crysis?? I dunno about that. And 50FPS at 1600x1200 with 4x/16x? I seriously doubt that.

Perhaps with the final game but not with an early demo.

But thanks anyways for sharing Xion!

[john19055]

You know ATI is haveing trouble getting the R600 to be as fast as the 8800GTX and looking at some of the pictures I seen on some website with the cooler looking like a jet blower,the chip runs plenty hot at frequncies to get it to run at the performance they want,but they could have been fake but I doubt it since they would already have it out if it was fast enough.I just hope they can get something out before long ,I hate seeing nvidia haveing no competition because you know the prices will just go up with no competition,but if they come out with 256bit midrange and lower range cards they should be back in it since nvidia has 128bit and the 7900gt is faster in most games.

[shabby]

If you watched the latest cyrsis interview you'd know that crysis is only in alpha stage now, theres no way its running at 50fps at 1600res and 4x aa.

[Xion X2]

Has there really been a "recent" interview, though? So many people have been posting videos and such they thought were recent but were from all the way back in January.

And I've also seen the team contradict themselves on at least one occasion in regards to when the game would be ready. The last one I read said they were through Alpha already and were beta testing the game. Do you have a link?

[tacos4me]

Supposedly the Crysis demo being shown at GDC 2006 got leaked, so that might explain where they got it.

[kevJ420]

I don't know if the benchmarks are legit, but think about all of the things they use to make graphichs worse to gain performance, and also a lot of DX10 has code that's faster than DX9.

Finally, think about Tomb Raider AOD (one of the 1st DX9 titles), it came out 9-10 mos. after the 9700 Pro, and it ran no less than 40 fps on average, with everything you could throw at it, save maybe resolutions greater than 1280x1024.

Think about how well Halo 1 ran on the 9700 Pro.

The 512 MB is going to be a serious handicap though.

[shadow001]

I still say that if the 2900XT runs neck and neck with the 8800GTX in games and benchmarks,while costing over 100$ less,since it seems ATI will release that particular version at 399$ MSRP,then i can't really see how anyone can call that card a failure,as it's priced to compete with the 8800GTS version,yet will easily beat it,and even the 8800GTX is suddenly a much less atractive buy from a performance/price perspective....


Good thing about this is that at the very least,it'll force Nvidia to sell both the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX cards quite a bit cheaper once the 2900XT is out,with the 320 MB 8800 card getting down right ridiculous in terms of price...:D


Now i'm curious about the top of the line beast,the 2900 XTX with that 1 gig of ram and even higher clocks,as one of the Daily tech staff did run benchmarks with that particular version,and even ran overclocking tests,wich when combined with a QX6700 CPU,kicked out a rather impressive 14 500 3D mark score...:D


It also discredits what fudzilla and the enquirer have been stating that the XTX version is only going to be released in Q3 and in very limited numbers,since this guy is already playing with one right now....;)

[shadow001]

Here's the 2900 XT numbers from Daily tech once the card is overclocked....Shows at least the overclocking potential and scores,even though it's only 3Dmark,and compares those with an overclocked 8800GTX running at 650 core and nearly 2 ghz,wich seems to be what the 8800 ultra will be once it's released shortly.....Seems we got ourselves a good old fashioned race on our hands,and the 399$ price for a 2900XT that can kick out numbers like that is truly impressive,and puts to shame an 8800 GTS...:D


http://www.dailytech.com/Overclocking+the+R600/article7044.htm


Thought these scores were actually from the XTX version initially,but it turns out that sven hasn't posted them yet,but is running an XTX ATM....Can't wait to see the scores out of that beast :afraid:

[AngelGraves13]

They didn't even mention the drivers being used or operating system. Was it 32 bit or 64? Oh well. We'll know in due time. No worries mate.

[shadow001]

They didn't even mention the drivers being used or operating system. Was it 32 bit or 64? Oh well. We'll know in due time. No worries mate.


True,that would be nice to know,but given that's it's not really an official review,guess we can let it slide for the time being....


I am really tempted by the 2900XT though,given it's suggested retail price,to the point that i wouldn't even care for the XTX version,as it's main advantage is the extra ram,but games using 1 gig of ram aren't coming out anytime soon,and by the time they do,we'll have even faster cards to pick from,so it's a moot point....

So likely paying 150~200$ more for that extra ram and perhaps another 50~75mhz on the core with the XTX version,doesn't seem worth it,as with regards to the core itself,there's no difference in terms of features,unlike what happened with the 8800GTS vs the GTX version(disabled shaders,narrower bus for the GTS)...