• 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.

Cayman XT photo leak

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I just came in here to say I thought the title said 'Caveman XT photo leak' and was thinking to myself 'well, that's not a very good name for a video card!'

Carry on
 
dug777 said:
Can't be right, on the mem bandwidth figures alone I think...

IIRC a 6600GT was ~16GB/s with 128bit/1ghz DDR3.

This is 128 bit/800mhz from that, and 25GB/s.

EDIT: 14GB/s was the AGP version, fixed for the 1Ghz figure.
Click to expand...

Any further thoughts on mine above re that gpu-z shot of the 6300?
 
Oh how I love the rumor mill and early reports. 😛 Even the low end card looked good for a half height, fanless card.

If 6000 turns out to be as nice as the rumor mill is currently making it sound, I may finally get to retire this damn 4870 1GB. I love it but even with the Zalman cooler I put on it it still runs too hot for my tastes. A 6770 or 6850 might be just what the doctor ordered.
 
ExcaliburMM said:
Oh how I love the rumor mill and early reports. 😛 Even the low end card looked good for a half height, fanless card.

If 6000 turns out to be as nice as the rumor mill is currently making it sound, I may finally get to retire this damn 4870 1GB. I love it but even with the Zalman cooler I put on it it still runs too hot for my tastes. A 6770 or 6850 might be just what the doctor ordered.
Click to expand...

Imagine my situation, I have two of those in CF!! You can feel the heat in my feet under the desk! They're 160W cards, I hope the HD 6870 doesn't reach the 220W.
 
Daedalus685 said:
Not sure what you mean...

800Mhz * 2 (for DDR3) * 128bit / 8bit/B = 25.6GB/s

Exactly what GPUz is reporting. If it were DDR5 the value woudl be 50.2GB/s
Click to expand...

Haha... I did the math earlier but forgot about the x2 for being DDR. I was confused too. I wondered why I kept getting 12.x GB/s.
 
PCB pics

Cayman XT Sample Cards, PCB likes HD5870, core 900mhz, but I don't know if it is the final frequency, 6+8pin

0018361t6ondytzqytavye.jpg


From Chiphell/nApoleon^_^
 
HurleyBird said:
Huh, looks like 256-bit again after all.
Click to expand...

It's likely cheaper to manufacture a 256-bit PCB with faster GDDR5 memory chips than go 320/384-bit. Given the direction of current game design, ambient occlusion, tessellation, shadow mapping, geometry/particle performance, etc. are far more critical than 250+ GB/sec memory bandwidth.
 
It's also a new architecture which may be less sensitive to bandwidth. It's also possible that the die size hasn't really increased and there isn't enough room. In any case, the good news is that we should be looking at a 2GB frame buffer instead of a 1.5GB one. Or to put it another way, another ~2 years before we start coming up on the limits of 2GB as opposed to ~1 year for 1.5GB (and yes, we are already just beginning to come onto the limits of 1GB)
 
Last edited:
HurleyBird said:
It's also a new architecture which may be less sensitive to bandwidth. It's also possible that the die size hasn't really increased and there isn't enough room. In any case, the good news is that we should be looking at a 2GB frame buffer instead of a 1.5GB one
Click to expand...
Do the current 2GB cards have to use a clamshell design or can the entirety fit on the 8 GDDR5 chips?

Wondering if the lack of memory on the back side excludes the possibility that it is 2Gb or not. How large are the new high speed GDDR5 chips?


EDIT:

I just found a pic of the 5870 toxic 2Gb without the back plate on (finally):

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire__hd5870_toxic_2gb/2.htm

The 2GB are clamshell and on the front AND back. Thus, unless the 6000 series has double the density (I don't know how things have changed with the new faster chips) the card pictured in the posts above is a 1GB version.
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
It's likely cheaper to manufacture a 256-bit PCB with faster GDDR5 memory chips than go 320/384-bit. Given the direction of current game design, ambient occlusion, tessellation, shadow mapping, geometry/particle performance, etc. are far more critical than 250+ GB/sec memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Exactly. AMD has been doing this since the 48xx series and my guess is it has been working well for them. If the leaked GPU-Z shots are correct, GDDR5 @ 1600MHz should give 204GB/s bandwidth, which should be more than sufficient. I'm not sure how the 256-bit bus mates up with the larger core, but I'd imagine it all flows well.
Daedalus685 said:
Do the current 2GB cards have to use a clamshell design or can the entirety fit on the 8 GDDR5 chips?

Wondering if the lack of memory on the back side excludes the possibility that it is 2Gb or not. How large are the new high speed GDDR5 chips?


EDIT:

I just found a pic of the 5870 toxic 2Gb without the back plate on (finally):

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire__hd5870_toxic_2gb/2.htm

The 2GB are clamshell and on the front AND back. Thus, unless the 6000 series has double the density (I don't know how things have changed with the new faster chips) the card pictured in the posts above is a 1GB version.
Click to expand...
Supposedly, the new 7Gbps GDDR5 comes in double the density, so they might not need to put the chips on the back. I'd love to see 2GB be the reference design.
 
MrK6 said:
Exactly. AMD has been doing this since the 48xx series and my guess is it has been working well for them. If the leaked GPU-Z shots are correct, GDDR5 @ 1600MHz should give 204GB/s bandwidth, which should be more than sufficient. I'm not sure how the 256-bit bus mates up with the larger core, but I'd imagine it all flows well.
Supposedly, the new 7Gbps GDDR5 comes in double the density, so they might not need to put the chips on the back. I'd love to see 2GB be the reference design.
Click to expand...


If the card is 256 bit, I hope there is a reference 2GB card then that is not hard to come by in the market.
 
Daedalus685 said:
Not sure what you mean...

800Mhz * 2 (for DDR3) * 128bit / 8bit/B = 25.6GB/s

Exactly what GPUz is reporting. If it were DDR5 the value woudl be 50.2GB/s
Click to expand...

I am confused now, then how was the 6600GT with 1ghz DDR3 only 16GB/s on a 128-bit bus?

EDIT: I am sure I am missing something painfully obvious!
 
Last edited:
dug777 said:
I am confused now, then how was the 6600GT with 1ghz DDR3 only 16GB/s on a 128-bit bus?

EDIT: I am sure I am missing something painfully obvious!
Click to expand...

The memory frequency of the 6600 GT was only 500Mhz. The 1000 you are quoting is already double pumped for GDDR3. 500Mhz*2*128bit / 8bit/B = 16GB/s


The AMD HD6000 series card has MUCH faster GDDR3 memory, GPUz quotes the base clock, not the effective. 800Mhz vs 500Mhz (which makes sense given how long it has been since the 6600GT).
 
Daedalus685 said:
The memory frequency of the 6600 GT was only 500Mhz. The 1000 you are quoting is already double pumped for GDDR3. 500Mhz*2*128bit / 8bit/B = 16GB/s


The AMD HD6000 series card has MUCH faster GDDR3 memory, GPUz quotes the base clock, not the effective. 800Mhz vs 500Mhz (which makes sense given how long it has been since the 6600GT).
Click to expand...

Awesome, thank-you! That was all I could think of, but it's so long since my 6600GT I couldn't remember how GPU-z reported it 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top