• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ATi Claims 174.6 GB/s for Radeon 9700 PRO

As far as we know, Nvidia uses either the 3 to 1, or 4 to 1 compression method which gives 48GB/s in the best case.

So: 500MHz x 2 (DDR) x 128bit (16bytes) x 3X compression = 48 GB/s
Click to expand...
ATI said it is using 8.8 to 1 compression method on the Radeon 9700 PRO cards that can deliver an astonishing 174.2GB per second in the best case. A rare bird in practice, we'd suggest.

As in: 310MHz x 2 (DDR) x 256bit (32 bytes) x 8.8 compression rate = 174.2 GB per second
Click to expand...
It's a theoretical figure and certainly does not mean that ATI Radeon 9700 PRO will be three times faster than Geforce FX, but does give an idea of the effective bandwidth of the card.

Real life bandwidth depends what kind of data used, and varies all the time. The real numbers are probably in the median range.

ATI still wants to focus more on actual numbers such as the 19.8 GB/s that they are getting with their Radeon 9700 PRO rather than these theoretical ones.

Surely all of this demonstrates the power of marchitecture, and how in the head-to-head battle for market share, the Fudzilla Monster still growls loudest of all.
Click to expand...
 
I have a file here, it is composed of 10^21 zeros. Now, create that file on your computer!

Wow, I just managed to send a yottabyte of data over the internet (theoretical bandwidth). I r0x0r!
 
We shall see. If the Radeon 9700 Pro is 3 times faster than the GeForce FX (HAR HAR) then that number actually means something. Is ATI getting nervous here?
 
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
I have a file here, it is composed of 10^21 zeros. Now, create that file on your computer!

Wow, I just managed to send a yottabyte of data over the internet (theoretical bandwidth). I r0x0r!
Click to expand...
Surely a yottabyte is 8x10^24 zeros 😉

It just re-inforces the good old saying;
There are lies, damned lies and statistics...



 
<<Is ATI getting nervous here?>>

About what? A card that is 6 months late and wont even see good production numbers till spring? ATI Will have something bigger and better out by then. They've already demo'd a DDRII card and have it tapped out. The real reason that Nvidia is so late is they went back to the drawing board after the 9700 hit production and Nvidia realized it would lose this race. So now they've backtracked and are looking at an 2003 release. I don't think ATI is scared
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
<<Is ATI getting nervous here?>>

About what? A card that is 6 months late and wont even see good production numbers till spring? ATI Will have something bigger and better out by then. They've already demo'd a DDRII card and have it tapped out. The real reason that Nvidia is so late is they went back to the drawing board after the 9700 hit production and Nvidia realized it would lose this race. So now they've backtracked and are looking at an 2003 release. I don't think ATI is scared
Click to expand...

No, nVidia is late because of TSMC...or so they say 😉
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
<<Is ATI getting nervous here?>>

About what? A card that is 6 months late and wont even see good production numbers till spring? ATI Will have something bigger and better out by then. They've already demo'd a DDRII card and have it tapped out. The real reason that Nvidia is so late is they went back to the drawing board after the 9700 hit production and Nvidia realized it would lose this race. So now they've backtracked and are looking at an 2003 release. I don't think ATI is scared
Click to expand...

No, nVidia is late because of TSMC...or so they say 😉
Click to expand...

I say Nvidia is late because building the Xbox set them back quite a bit.
 
They blame TSMC, but It's also been noted that they did change a few things when they found out what ATI had up their sleave. XBox had nothing to do with it, those chips are easily produced and have been around for over a year.
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
They blame TSMC, but It's also been noted that they did change a few things when they found out what ATI had up their sleave. XBox had nothing to do with it, those chips are easily produced and have been around for over a year.
Click to expand...

You missunderstood,all i am saying is if the time they spent on developing Xbox chips would have been used on the NV30 it would allready be out by now,that's all.
 
No I understood, what i was meaning was that the XBox chip has been out over a year. In that time they already have developed the Geforce 4 line of cards. It's not because they have wasted time doing other things, it's that they've had some major setbacks and then had to go back and improve somethings to compete in the market. They originally blamed the problem on TSMC...but now the delays are from changes.
 
I thought that in most companies the size of nVidia, there are divisions of engineers to work on various projects for different market segments?😕
 
Originally posted by: Snatchface
We shall see. If the Radeon 9700 Pro is 3 times faster than the GeForce FX (HAR HAR) then that number actually means something. Is ATI getting nervous here?
Click to expand...

By that "logic", the GeForce FX ought to be about 2.5x faster than the 9700 Pro, since it has a bit over 2.5x times as much "bandwidth" as the 9700 Pro does (using NVIDIA's made up numbers vs. ATI's real numbers). NVIDIA claims that the GF FX will be 30-50% faster than the 9700 Pro and we can assume that that's under absolutely perfect conditions in NVIDIA's fafor.

[EDIT: Where are all the guys that got their panties in a was over XP's "deceptive" marketing? NVIDIA's claim of 48GB/s bandwidth is *at least* as deceptive, if not more]
 
Originally posted by: Snatchface
We shall see. If the Radeon 9700 Pro is 3 times faster than the GeForce FX (HAR HAR) then that number actually means something. Is ATI getting nervous here?
Click to expand...

They're not saying that it's 3 times faster than GF FX. They're just saying that it could have 3 times the memory bandwidth of the FX in the best case.
 
The way I see it, if one company starts posting theoretical nonsense then the other company is just as entitled to do so.

And unfortunately in this case nVidia is the one who started it and it's probably because the FX's memory bandwidth is no match for the 9700 Pro's and they know that all too well.
 
By that "logic", the GeForce FX ought to be about 2.5x faster than the 9700 Pro, since it has a bit over 2.5x times as much "bandwidth" as the 9700 Pro does (using NVIDIA's made up numbers vs. ATI's real numbers)
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize the logic is flawed...that's why I'm satirizing it.
 
Originally posted by: Snatchface
By that "logic", the GeForce FX ought to be about 2.5x faster than the 9700 Pro, since it has a bit over 2.5x times as much "bandwidth" as the 9700 Pro does (using NVIDIA's made up numbers vs. ATI's real numbers)
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize the logic is flawed...that's why I'm satirizing it.
Click to expand...

The point you're missing is that ATI is basically satirizing NVIDIA's made-up bandwidth numbers.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
The way I see it, if one company starts posting theoretical nonsense then the other company is just as entitled to do so.

And unfortunately in this case nVidia is the one who started it and it's probably because the FX's memory bandwidth is no match for the 9700 Pro's and they know that all too well.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's what I was thinking as well.
What's was that saying about those who live by the sword? 😉
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Does this mean if enable disk compression on one of my raid arrays that I can get almost 1GB per sec? 🙂
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, and my sound card gets 12GB/sec, too! My modem gets 128kbps and the NIC gets near-1Gbps with the same compression scheme! Its amazing that such a simple software gimic can unlock so much power!! Can't wait for the AMD Hammer to make that 20GB/sec backplane run at 160GB/sec theoretical!! 😀

Seriously, though, I wonder if they even use compression on hard drives - say for the buffer - at the hardware level. It would be interesting for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top