• 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.

Question Curious if anybody else is bothered by the RX6800 naming.

EliteRetard

EliteRetard

Diamond Member
I know the name wont change at this point, but if it could do you think RX 6700XT makes more sense?

The 6800 suffers a much larger performance drop then the 6800XT does from the 6900XT.

AMD also suggests their x69/x68 against the RTX3090/3080, why not an x67 vs the 3070?

-

I also feel like the MSRP needs to be reduced to $550, but that's a separate topic.
 
EliteRetard said:
I know the name wont change at this point, but if it could do you think RX 6700XT makes more sense?

The 6800 suffers a much larger performance drop then the 6800XT does from the 6900XT.

AMD also suggests their x69/x68 against the RTX3090/3080, why not an x67 vs the 3070?

-

I also feel like the MSRP needs to be reduced to $550, but that's a separate topic.
Click to expand...

I think the RX 6700XT will be Navi 22.
Yes, bigger drop in performance compared to the 6800XT than the 6800Xt compared to the 6900 XT, but they realized than it can hang easily with the RTX 3070, and it has 16GB vRAM, so the 8 in the name implies superior product.
Personally I wanted the 6800 to be 64CU. I DO NOT think AMD has a natural competitor to the RTX 3070, hence why they cut an additional 4CU to Navi 21
 
I’m more upset by the Radeon 6800XT. How am I supposed to keep this straight from the NVidia 6800XT?
7G3zITG.png

176-front.jpg

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-6800-xt.c176
 
This is very similar to AMD's 5000 series and by that I mean Evergreen. AMD had a similar lineup with their Cypress die where they released the 5870, 5850, and 5830 (which came a few months later) which had 1600, 1440, and 1120 shaders respectively. To make the comparison a little easier, we can look at the TMUs for each card where they had 80, 72, and 56 respectively. Notice anything with that?

It's pretty much identical with the only difference being that the 6800 is slightly less cut down (75% of the full die as opposed to 70%, at least in terms of shader count) but the 5830 was pretty much regarded as a salvage part that only existed to save dies that failed validation as a 5850 from being scrapped completely. What's really cool is you compare the prices for the 5850 and the 5870 at $259 and $379 the difference works out to the 5850 being 68% of the cost, which is really damn close to the 65% difference between the 6800XT and 6900XT. The price difference for the 5830 fits into the same pattern as we see with the 6800.

It's almost like AMD has done all of this before or something.
 
I guess I don't have a preference so long as it performs to my liking. They could name it "ATI RX Navi 72 HD 6800XT OC+ 4K Extreme LOLZ" for all I care, just get some solid driver support and I'll be more than happy to spend the money.

Also, I can certainly tell the difference between a 2005 card vs a 2020 card, but that's neither here nor there.
 
one thing that is not great is one company having RX and the other RTX
numbers being reused are a little annoying, 6800 is also some Intel CPU, some Radeon from 10 years ago and so on...

5700 was a mid range sized chip,
6800 isn't, it wouldn't make sense to call it 6700XT
 
The numbers look solid for the 6800xt. Might be a blessing in disguise I didn't get a 3080 lol. Provided the actual reviews show good results. The only thing from the leaked benchmarks I find disappointing is the ray tracing performance. They lag behind Nvidia by a good margin. I know ray tracing isn't used everywhere and Nvidia invested some time in getting good performance out of their hardware, but I want my next card to be able to use it without really hurting performance. I guess we will have to see how it translates to actual games using ray tracing. 3dmark doesn't always tell the whole story.
 
i have a bigger issue with nv using the 3070 name for what would normally be a xx60.

historically it has been big die =xx80, cut down big die =xx70, med die =xx60, cut med die =xx50. (with the odd titan being the huge die). excepting the outliers for the odd ti tag, the gtx 680, and the 2060 being a very cut big die.

the 3090 is just the xx80 with a titan-like jump in ram but not much else.
 
gorobei said:
i have a bigger issue with nv using the 3070 name for what would normally be a xx60.

historically it has been big die =xx80, cut down big die =xx70, med die =xx60, cut med die =xx50. (with the odd titan being the huge die). excepting the outliers for the odd ti tag, the gtx 680, and the 2060 being a very cut big die.

the 3090 is just the xx80 with a titan-like jump in ram but not much else.
Click to expand...

I've made arguments for that before as well.

The response from the Nvidia fanbase:
"If we aren't getting scalped, abused, or tortured, then we wouldn't like it".
 
Mopetar said:
This is very similar to AMD's 5000 series and by that I mean Evergreen. AMD had a similar lineup with their Cypress die where they released the 5870, 5850, and 5830 (which came a few months later) which had 1600, 1440, and 1120 shaders respectively. To make the comparison a little easier, we can look at the TMUs for each card where they had 80, 72, and 56 respectively. Notice anything with that?

It's pretty much identical with the only difference being that the 6800 is slightly less cut down (75% of the full die as opposed to 70%, at least in terms of shader count) but the 5830 was pretty much regarded as a salvage part that only existed to save dies that failed validation as a 5850 from being scrapped completely. What's really cool is you compare the prices for the 5850 and the 5870 at $259 and $379 the difference works out to the 5850 being 68% of the cost, which is really damn close to the 65% difference between the 6800XT and 6900XT. The price difference for the 5830 fits into the same pattern as we see with the 6800.

It's almost like AMD has done all of this before or something.
Click to expand...

While this is a good example, I feel it's a bit different.

The x30 x50 and x70 were all clearly separate denominations.

Switch it to a 5870XT, 5850XT, and a 5850, and this is the kind of situation I think we are in now.
Normies can see the x70 and x50 and kinda understand the price and performance difference.
Then they see another x50, well that looks just like a cheaper 5850...must be a good deal.
In reality it's the most brutally harvested and the worst part and worst value.
I understand it's great for AMD/shareholders...but it still sucks.
 
There should be no XT, Ti, or any characters after the number. Use numbers only when determining the level, a 6800 is faste/better than a 6700 and if they add a new card don't call it Ti or XT call it 6750. Make it simple on your customers, but I am sure marketing believers they benefit from obfuscation.
 
JimKiler said:
There should be no XT, Ti, or any characters after the number. Use numbers only when determining the level, a 6800 is faste/better than a 6700 and if they add a new card don't call it Ti or XT call it 6750. Make it simple on your customers, but I am sure marketing believers they benefit from obfuscation.
Click to expand...

AMD should also stop recycling model numbers. I can see some eBay scammer selling 10 year old cards with the very similar looking model number to unsuspecting consumers this holiday season.

I mean, look at this list of prior Radeon products. It's confusing AF:

List of AMD graphics processing units - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It's going to be even worse if they do a 7000 series model number scheme next time, as they already used the "Radeon 7000" model numbers twice before.
 
Last edited:
JimKiler said:
There should be no XT, Ti, or any characters after the number. Use numbers only when determining the level, a 6800 is faste/better than a 6700 and if they add a new card don't call it Ti or XT call it 6750. Make it simple on your customers, but I am sure marketing believers they benefit from obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Whoa there!

The American market is the by far the largest, this is way to much logic for them.

Just trying to imagine the horror *shudder* I dare not put it into words.
 
At the end of the day, I don't really care. That being said, if something irks me, it's that the numbers and the underlying die don't correspond cleanly anymore.

6970/50/30 instead of 6900/6800xt/6800 is a much cleaner naming scheme for N21.
 
gorobei said:
i have a bigger issue with nv using the 3070 name for what would normally be a xx60.

historically it has been big die =xx80, cut down big die =xx70, med die =xx60, cut med die =xx50. (with the odd titan being the huge die). excepting the outliers for the odd ti tag, the gtx 680, and the 2060 being a very cut big die.

the 3090 is just the xx80 with a titan-like jump in ram but not much else.
Click to expand...
GTX 680 was never the big die, it was GK104, mid die. (Which will tie into the following quote.)
They skipped a series altogether and went BIG die with GK100/110 aptly named the GTX 780/Ti

EliteRetard said:
I've made arguments for that before as well.

The response from the Nvidia fanbase:
"If we aren't getting scalped, abused, or tortured, then we wouldn't like it".
Click to expand...

As I recall from those days, the fanbase disregarded the die sizes with " If the performance is there, what difference does die size matter"
 
DaaQ said:
*snip*
As I recall from those days, the fanbase disregarded the die sizes with " If the performance is there, what difference does die size matter"
Click to expand...

Die size doesn't matter, don't know how that relates to what I was discussing.

Historically the high end GPUs were $500, with a few blips around $600
The second best were typically $350, sometimes $400
Third tier were $200-250.

Then they started playing name games, and especially during RTX straight up raised prices.

Ignoring the actual Titan class GPUs (separate die from the top consumer GPUs)
Top tier GPU is now $1500
Second tier now $700
Third $500

So how much is the (realistically x50) fourth tier gonna cost? $375?
For a GPU that would be in line with a GT450-750 around $120.

Even the GTX950 and 1050ti that that seemed inflated at $150+ are amazing in comparison.

The x30 class GPUs (1660, 2660?) are $230-280! What the 3070 should cost (as a 3060)

The IGP class garbage like the GT 1030 is now holding the sub $200 market.

If they hadn't played these stupid name games, I would have been fine with a small price climb over time.

Apparently stupid wishful thinking:

3090 (really 3080) $700
3080 (really 3070) $525
3070 (really 3060) $350
3060 (really 3050) $250
2660 (really 3030) $175
2650 (really 3010) $125
1030 class GPU eliminate

Realistically I would have actually liked to see a price drop from the RTX 2000 even with the gains.

As they are named:

3090 $1000 (2080ti was "$1000" but realistically $1200)
3080 $600
3070 $400
3060 $300
 
Slightest bit of validation from this:


First topic is the RX cards and how stupid the 6800 vs XT is, with the same 6700 suggestion.
 
I wish they'd name the cards kind of like Vega, where the engineering code name is used in the marketing name. Then repeating the numerical SKUs every so many years would not be confusing or seem arbitrary.
5700XT could have been Navi 170X while 6800XT could have been Navi 280X/280XT. [Archetecture] [Gen of arch] [performance tier] [special OC version]
 
Last edited:
Zepp said:
I wish they'd name the cards kind of like Vega, where the engineering code name is used in the marketing name. Then repeating the numerical SKUs every so many years would not be confusing or seem arbitrary.
5700XT could have been Navi 170X while 6800XT could have been Navi 280X/280XT. [Archetecture] [Gen of arch] [performance tier] [special OC version]
Click to expand...

Navi-69

1604196220060.png

...and Navi-68, Navi-68-
 
I think two things: the first is that they didn't want to get into the whole nvidia 7/8/9 marketing strategy, and secondly they are trying to market the non-XT as being closer to the XT version which it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top