GTX 580 appears (briefly) on NVIDIA website

[OCGuy]

How does a 580gtx fit in the lineup? Would it not make a lot more sense if we were talking about a leaked slide that showed a 485gtx or a 490gtx? Why is the inconsistency of the name of this, as of this point, fictional card being completely dismissed by those who support it's likely existance in the near future?

It doesn't make a lot of sense for a 580gtx to be released in the near future. There's not any conspiracy behind the reasonable thought that presents such an argument.

Those who think it is a conspriacy are still hanging on to the "GTX580" being a fully unlocked GF100. If this was the case, it is just a power-sucking band-aid that nV will be using to stay relevant until Keplar.

I have a feeling that GF110, or whatever it ends up being, will have more to the story than just being what GTX480 was supposed to be.

 

[Idontcare]

Folks, please tone down the thread-crapping and thread-derailing.

I understand people are amped up with the imminent release of HD6xxx reviews and information wave, but that doesn't excuse the posting trend I see in this thread.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[J-Money]

Fermi can only get so fast, we know that - it's a filed architecture as it is now, at least for gaming cards and even so calling it GTX5xx would require a new architecture, even by NV's crooked, customer-deceiving naming practices, nothing less.

Well there is your proof right now that AMD could release a dog turd with a DVI output and T2K would defend it.

NVidia uses "NV's crooked, customer-deceiving naming practices" yet ATI is flawless with it's current performance line up of a 5870 being faster than a 6870. Yeah no customer confusion gonna happen there.


17 posts in 7.5yrs and you choose to make your 17th post a personal attack post that immediately follows a mod-post specifically highlighting the fact that such posting was not acceptable in this thread?

Are you daft man? (don't answer that, seriously, if you need to talk about it further take it to moderator discussions forum)

Moderator Idontcare

 

[badb0y]

Well there is your proof right now that AMD could release a dog turd with a DVI output and T2K would defend it.

NVidia uses "NV's crooked, customer-deceiving naming practices" yet ATI is flawless with it's current performance line up of a 5870 being faster than a 6870. Yeah no customer confusion gonna happen there.

Yea man and look at those damn price they are charging us...oh wait

 

[StrangerGuy]

Well there is your proof right now that AMD could release a dog turd with a DVI output and T2K would defend it.

NVidia uses "NV's crooked, customer-deceiving naming practices" yet ATI is flawless with it's current performance line up of a 5870 being faster than a 6870. Yeah no customer confusion gonna happen there.

At least ATI doesn't take a GPU and proceed to rename the hell out of it. *Cough G92, cough*

 

[Dark_Archonis]

If it's a fully enabled GF100 chip it makes more sense to call it a GTX 485 or 490 than a GTX 580. Either way, I'm personally not interested. Fermi isn't a bad chip (just warm), but with the 6-series launch imminent I just don't see why someone in the market for a high end card would want this.

Perhaps because the 6000-series cards so far are disappointing and slower than their 5000-series counterparts?

As for any additional 6000-series cards coming in the next few months ... well that is the next few months. Those rumoured cards are likely to be higher-end offerings with high power consumption and noise.

We have no idea what the GTX 580 could be. It could be a GF104 core on steroids. The power/performance ratio of the GTX 580 could be very good. We just don't know yet.

By the time those high-end 6000-series cards come out, it's likely this GTX 580 will be out, and also likely that 470 and 480 prices will drop.

How does a 580gtx fit in the lineup? Would it not make a lot more sense if we were talking about a leaked slide that showed a 485gtx or a 490gtx? Why is the inconsistency of the name of this, as of this point, fictional card being completely dismissed by those who support it's likely existance in the near future?

It doesn't make a lot of sense for a 580gtx to be released in the near future. There's not any conspiracy behind the reasonable thought that presents such an argument.

How do the 6850 and 6870 fit into AMD's lineup? Higher-branded cards numerically, yet slower than the 58xx cards.

The GTX 580 would guaranteed be faster than any 4xx series card, so at least the naming would make sense. Besides, we don't know what this 580 card will be. The rumoured GF110 could be a significantly reworked core, enough so that it warrants a 500 series designation. We just don't know, so let us wait and see shall we?

At least ATI doesn't take a GPU and proceed to rename the hell out of it. *Cough G92, cough*

No, all they did was take a GPU, tweak it a bit, add some new features, give it a HIGHER numerical product name, yet it performs WORSE than its 5000-series counterparts.

I'd say what AMD did is worse than what Nvidia did.

Not only are the 6850 and 6870 higher numerically than their 58xx-series counterparts, but they are SLOWER.

This is keeping in mind that these 6000 series cards were HEAVILY hyped by AMD fanboys and AMD PR personnel posting on forums.

I saw many tech, computer, and gaming sites and forums inundated with AMD 6000-series card hype. I saw people saying ridiculous things like the 6000-series cards would destroy the GTX 480 in performance.

 

[blastingcap]

the slides were showing Cayman at "<300w" which means it probably pretty close.......if the slides turn out to be accurate

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-HD-6870--6850-GPUs-Debut/?page=3 (scroll down to the second slide) These roadmap slides were leaked even before launch...

The AMD slides show the roadmap for Barts/Cayman/Antilles, and the Antilles card is clearly shown as 2 Cayman-sized chips. Do you really think Antilles will be 600w TDP? More likely Cayman will have TDP similar to 58xx. Although 5870 was listed as 188w TDP, it's realistic max power draw in games like Crysis was a bit lower than 188w. Specially binned Cayman chips can then make up an Antilles card at 150 + 150 = 300w that's begging to be oc'd past the PCIe 300w limit, sort of like how the HD5970 could handle ~400w despite its officially being a 300w card.

 

[Arkadrel]

I dont understand why people think the 6800 are a disappointment....
The 6850-6870 are the placements for the 5750-5770.

They just perform so well, their being benchmarked against 470 cards.
The renameing scheme has to do with AMD soon introduceing the Fusion line (APUs).


If your looking for cards that ll replace your 5850-5870, you ll have to wait for the 6950 and 6970 cards. IF you already own a 5970, then your atleast looking to get a 6990 card.

so

5750->6850 = about equal to a 5850 beating the 460 1gb in most things
5770->6870 = about equal to a 5870 tradeing blows with a 470 in most things.
5850->6950 = no idea how fast will be
5870->6970 = no idea how fast will be
5970->6990 = Crossfire scaleing is much better now, so ALOT faster than 5970.


Now the differnce between the 68xx and 69xx will be the architecture of the chips. Apperntly their buildt on differnce ones, and the 69xx should feature ALOT of new improvements over the 68xx.

 

[Gloomy]

5750->6850 = about equal to a no don't exaggerate beating the 460 1gb in most things
5770->6870 = about equal to a 5850 tradeing blows with a 470 in a few things.

It makes me wonder if you've read the same reviews I have.

 

[tannat]

No, all they did was take a GPU, tweak it a bit, add some new features, give it a HIGHER numerical product name, yet it performs WORSE than its 5000-series counterparts.

I'd say what AMD did is worse than what Nvidia did.

Not only are the 6850 and 6870 higher numerically than their 58xx-series counterparts, but they are SLOWER.

This is keeping in mind that these 6000 series cards were HEAVILY hyped by AMD fanboys and AMD PR personnel posting on forums.

I saw many tech, computer, and gaming sites and forums inundated with AMD 6000-series card hype. I saw people saying ridiculous things like the 6000-series cards would destroy the GTX 480 in performance.

This is nonsense.
1) You don't take away 80nm2 Si while keeping similar performance by just "tweaking it a bit"
2) Isn't top 6000-series cards (69xx) still expected to be better than GTX480?
3) Hasn't AMD explicitly and clearly stated 68xx to compete with GTX460? And as honestly and openly as possibly explained that HD68xx will be slightly lower in performance than HD58xx, while HD69xx will be the high end series?
4) Doesn't HD6870 cost >100$ less than HD5870 while giving similar performance?


Who are the AMD PR personnel and fanboys you're talking about BTW, and where is the extensive hyping? I thought Anandtech forums where notoriuos for letting nvidia shills roam freely and actually have nvidia focus group members as moderators.

 

[Dark_Archonis]

This is nonsense.
1) You don't take away 80nm2 Si while keeping similar performance by just "tweaking it a bit"
2) Isn't top 6000-series cards (69xx) still expected to be better than GTX480?
3) Hasn't AMD explicitly and clearly stated 68xx to compete with GTX460? And as honestly and openly as possibly explained that HD68xx will be slightly lower in performance than HD58xx, while HD69xx will be the high end series?
4) Doesn't HD6870 cost >100$ less than HD5870 while giving similar performance?

Who are the AMD PR personnel and fanboys you're talking about BTW, and where is the extensive hyping? I thought Anandtech forums where notoriuos for letting nvidia shills roam freely and actually have nvidia focus group members as moderators.

Just like the 68xx cards were "expected" to blow away all Fermi cards according to AMD supporters right? Well that didn't quite turn out like that.

For how long has AMD explicitly and clearly stated that the 68xx would be lower in performance than the 58xx? Don't answer this, it's rhetorical. I will answer this for you, not long at all.

Look at all the reviews of the 68xx cards so far. Even some reviewers and tech websites themselves were surprised that the 68xx cards perform worse than the 58xx cards. What does that tell you? That up until recently, the hype was that the 68xx cards would be noticeably faster than the 58xx cards. The hype was so prevalent that some reviewers and tech websites bought into it and believed it.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about AMD and what they recently said. I'm talking about all the online hype from fanboys and PR people that has gone on for several MONTHS now regarding the 6000-series of cards.

My point still stands that AMD has now released cards with a higher numerical rating/naming scheme yet they perform WORSE than their 58xx counterparts.

As for the personal questions, I will not name any names nor will I engage in some of the baiting arguments you have brought up. I know what I know, I believe in what I know, and I stand by what I know.

Undercover marketing and ghost blogging exists. Without naming names, these PR people are out there on all kinds of forums.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Just like the 68xx cards were "expected" to blow away all Fermi cards according to AMD supporters right? Well that didn't quite turn out like that.

You are only kidding yourself if you claim this nonsense. Barts was very early positioned to be between the HD5870 and HD5850 in performance while in single card. The 69xx cards are the ones people belive will beat GTX480.

Not even sure if you deserve a response seeing your vigor in putting out false statements/claims, but i want to be nice.

 

[Dark_Archonis]

You are only kidding yourself if you claim this nonsense. Barts was very early positioned to be between the HD5870 and HD5850 in performance while in single card. The 69xx cards are the ones people belive will beat GTX480.

Not even sure if you deserve a response seeing your vigor in putting out false statements/claims, but i want to be nice.

I'm not kidding anyone. The only ones who thought they were kidding anyone were the AMD PR people and fanboys hyping the 6000-series cards to death.

You can continue to act like there was no hype for the 68xx cards, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

No, all they did was take a GPU, tweak it a bit, add some new features, give it a HIGHER numerical product name, yet it performs WORSE than its 5000-series counterparts.

I'd say what AMD did is worse than what Nvidia did.

Not only are the 6850 and 6870 higher numerically than their 58xx-series counterparts, but they are SLOWER.

This is keeping in mind that these 6000 series cards were HEAVILY hyped by AMD fanboys and AMD PR personnel posting on forums.

I saw many tech, computer, and gaming sites and forums inundated with AMD 6000-series card hype. I saw people saying ridiculous things like the 6000-series cards would destroy the GTX 480 in performance.

....

1. An HD5450 is higher numerically than the HD 4800. I suppose it should be faster too? Weak argument.

2. Obviously AMD did more than enough to justify naming the 6800 as a new architecture. Shader count is down, die size is down, and power consumption is down from the 5800 series along with other changes. Now the 8800GT -> 9800GT: Tell me the difference, and then try to tell me that isn't "worse" than AMD.

3. You are very confused. The HD 6000 series was indeed hyped, but there are more cards coming. Nobody was really expecting the current 6800 series to blow away the GTX 480. That is the job of the 6900 series. So, quite frankly, it is very much possible, as I'll quote you, that the 6000 series will blow away current cards, because we have yet to see what the 6950 and 6970 can do.

You making your statements off of the 6800 series release is quite frankly ridiculous. The 6800 series, in relation to the 6000 series as a whole, is going to ultimately be in the same place as the 5700 series was to the 5000 series. They will be midrange cards, not high end cards.

The only difference is that you are extremely confused by the name changed. Or maybe upset. Or maybe just playing out some silly little role. AMD has explained why they changed the naming scheme. I suggest you accept it as the norm and move on, instead of saying they committed some great tragedy.

It's actually quite amazing what they did with the 6800 series. They are pretty much matching last gen's high end (5800 series) with a smaller die on the same manufacturing node.


There were just as many rumors about the 6900 series as the 6800 series. I think you are seriously getting your information twisted and confused in your head. The current 6900 series was the one rumored to demolish the competition. The current 6800 series was mostly rumored to match the 6850/6870, especially in DX11, although a few people thought it would be slightly faster than the HD 6870.

 

[Dark_Archonis]

....

1. An HD5450 is higher numerically than the HD 4800. I suppose it should be faster too? Weak argument.

2. Obviously AMD did more than enough to justify naming the 6800 as a new architecture. Shader count is down, die size is down, and power consumption is down from the 5800 series along with other changes. Now the 8800GT -> 9800GT: Tell me the difference, and then try to tell me that isn't "worse" than AMD.

3. You are very confused. The HD 6000 series was indeed hyped, but there are more cards coming. Nobody was really expecting the current 6800 series to blow away the GTX 480. That is the job of the 6900 series. So, quite frankly, it is very much possible, as I'll quote you, that the 6000 series will blow away current cards, because we have yet to see what the 6950 and 6970 can do.

You making your statements off of the 6800 series release is quite frankly ridiculous. The 6800 series, in relation to the 6000 series as a whole, is going to ultimately be in the same place as the 5700 series was to the 5000 series. They will be midrange cards, not high end cards.

The only difference is that you are extremely confused by the name changed. Or maybe upset. Or maybe just playing out some silly little role. AMD has explained why they changed the naming scheme. I suggest you accept it as the norm and move on, instead of saying they committed some great tragedy.

It's actually quite amazing what they did with the 6800 series. They are pretty much matching last gen's high end (5800 series) with a smaller die on the same manufacturing node.

1.) First off, is a 5450 an equal counterpart to a 4800? I'll answer that for you, no. I specifically and explicitly referred to 68xx cards and their 58xx counterparts. So weak argument right back at you.

2.) You don't get it, do you? 68xx cards are S-L-O-W-E-R performance-wise than the 58xx cards. This is a fact. Nvidia's 9800 cards were for the most part faster than the 8800 counterparts. Do you understand the difference here? Yet Nvidia gets constantly criticized for renaming the G92? Give me a break.

3.) Since you (and others) are totally fine with AMD's backwards naming scheme, then you (and others) have NO right at all to criticize Nvidia for renaming and re-branding the G92. That is all.

Lastly, I STRONGLY think that the 69xx cards will not "demolish" competing Nvidia cards. I strongly think that the 69xx cards will be overhyped just like the 68xx cards. Oh and by the way, the 68xx cards don't match the 58xx cards in performance. So they were overhyped according to 68xx rumors that started months ago.

 

[tannat]

Just like the 68xx cards were "expected" to blow away all Fermi cards according to AMD supporters right? Well that didn't quite turn out like that.

For how long has AMD explicitly and clearly stated that the 68xx would be lower in performance than the 58xx? Don't answer this, it's rhetorical. I will answer this for you, not long at all.

Look at all the reviews of the 68xx cards so far. Even some reviewers and tech websites themselves were surprised that the 68xx cards perform worse than the 58xx cards. What does that tell you? That up until recently, the hype was that the 68xx cards would be noticeably faster than the 58xx cards. The hype was so prevalent that some reviewers and tech websites bought into it and believed it.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about AMD and what they recently said. I'm talking about all the online hype from fanboys and PR people that has gone on for several MONTHS now regarding the 6000-series of cards.

My point still stands that AMD has now released cards with a higher numerical rating/naming scheme yet they perform WORSE than their 58xx counterparts.

As for the personal questions, I will not name any names nor will I engage in some of the baiting arguments you have brought up. I know what I know, I believe in what I know, and I stand by what I know.

Undercover marketing and ghost blogging exists. Without naming names, these PR people are out there on all kinds of forums.

Your point of the same numerical rating but slightly less performance is of course correct. And that is definitely possibly confusing, especially if they are sold at a similar pricelevel. However AMD have done their job pointing out the situation.

It's not, in my eyes comparable with renaming the same card for 3 generations. Maybe I'm in minority here though.

What more or less eliminates the possible confusion is that these cards are at a much lower pricepoint, forcing the main competitor to immediate pricecuts. This is usually a sign of a successful launch.

AMD is as usual nowadays extremely good at leaving us in the dark until the launch date. Speculations have been all over the place.

If anyone have hyped that that the whole 6000 series would leave the GTX480 in the dust I would agree with your previous post. However now I don't get it. We all are aware that the 69xx series will be around 400mm2 and is aimed towards high end. It's highly likely it will beat GTX 480 appreciably.

To say that these expectations were wrong and only hype from fanboys and pr-people right in the middle of the launch seem to me weird at least. And that was what i got out of your post. Maybe I misunderstood it.

 

[tviceman]

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-HD-6870--6850-GPUs-Debut/?page=3 (scroll down to the second slide) These roadmap slides were leaked even before launch...

The AMD slides show the roadmap for Barts/Cayman/Antilles, and the Antilles card is clearly shown as 2 Cayman-sized chips. Do you really think Antilles will be 600w TDP? More likely Cayman will have TDP similar to 58xx. Although 5870 was listed as 188w TDP, it's realistic max power draw in games like Crysis was a bit lower than 188w. Specially binned Cayman chips can then make up an Antilles card at 150 + 150 = 300w that's begging to be oc'd past the PCIe 300w limit, sort of like how the HD5970 could handle ~400w despite its officially being a 300w card.

I'm not saying that Antilles won't be 2x cayman gpu's, but that second slide does not clearly show anything definitively other than antilles will be a higher class card than cayman. I think you're probably right, but it'll be interesting to see exactly what specs and at what speeds the two gpu's will be running at.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

1.) First off, is a 5450 an equal counterpart to a 4800? I'll answer that for you, no. I specifically and explicitly referred to 68xx cards and their 58xx counterparts. So weak argument right back at you.

2.) You don't get it, do you? 68xx cards are S-L-O-W-E-R performance-wise than the 58xx cards. This is a fact. Nvidia's 9800 cards were for the most part faster than the 8800 counterparts. Do you understand the difference here? Yet Nvidia gets constantly criticized for renaming the G92? Give me a break.

3.) Since you (and others) are totally fine with AMD's backwards naming scheme, then you (and others) have NO right at all to criticize Nvidia for renaming and re-branding the G92. That is all.

1) You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

2) And here you show us you don't understand what I'm saying. The HD 6800 series is analogous to HD 5770 series which is analogous to the HD 4600 series. What do all of these cards have in common? Oh, that's right, they're all AMD's midrange cards of that generation and are slightly slower than the previous gen's fastest card. HD5870 > HD6870, HD4890 > HD 5770, HD3870 > HD 4670. We can't really go back any further because the pattern changes drastically with the introduction of DX10 cards. As obvious it looks I'll spell it out for you: The midrange cards of one generation have, in recent history, been slightly slower than the high end cards of the previous generation. The HD 6800 series is this generation's mid-range.

The only thing that's troubling your mind is that AMD changed the naming scheme, but IT STILL MAKES SENSE. Why? BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS FOR A VIDEO CARD YOU CAN ONLY COMPARE NUMBERS IN THE SAME GENERATION. That's why we have generations: HD 5400 < HD 5500 < HD 5600 < HD 5700 < HD 5800. If you want to compare cards solely by numbers you have only ever been able to do that when their first number is the same (meaning the same generation of cards). When you compare cards of different generations there has hardly ever been (lasting) consistency from both AMD or Nvidia.

AMD is following the same (similar) trend, they just changed how they name them. Now the high end will be using the x9xx moniker which only like four cards ever have used for AMD - the HD 5970 and the X1900 cards. Now "9" represents the high end, and I'd imagine "7" and "8" will be mid-range, and etc.

3) As long as AMD doesn't release a card that's slower than the HD 6850 and call it an HD 6890 then their naming scheme isn't backwards at all. Your argument against the 9800 re-branding is just weak. It is not at all analogous to what AMD is doing now, which is why I used it as an example. The 9800 GT was EXACTLY THE SAME CARD (MANUFACTURED THE SAME) AS THE 8800 GT. From a purely technical standpoint it didn't deserve a new name for a new generation; it was the same damn chip. At least AMD is actually giving us new chips, manufactured differently and with different goals in mind. The HD 6800 is a completely different product than the HD 5800.

 

[Dark_Archonis]

1) You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

2) And here you show us you don't understand what I'm saying. The HD 6800 series is analogous to HD 5770 series which is analogous to the HD 4600 series. What do all of these cards have in common? Oh, that's right, they're all AMD's midrange cards of that generation and are slightly slower than the previous gen's fastest card. HD5870 > HD6870, HD4890 > HD 5770, HD3870 > HD 4670. We can't really go back any further because the pattern changes drastically with the introduction of DX10 cards. As obvious it looks I'll spell it out for you: The midrange cards of one generation have, in recent history, been slightly slower than the high end cards of the previous generation. The HD 6800 series is this generation's mid-range.

The only thing that's troubling your mind is that AMD changed the naming scheme, but IT STILL MAKES SENSE. Why? BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS FOR A VIDEO CARD YOU CAN ONLY COMPARE NUMBERS IN THE SAME GENERATION. That's why we have generations: HD 5400 < HD 5500 < HD 5600 < HD 5700 < HD 5800. If you want to compare cards solely by numbers you have only ever been able to do that when their first number is the same (meaning the same generation of cards). When you compare cards of different generations there has hardly ever been (lasting) consistency from both AMD or Nvidia.

AMD is following the same (similar) trend, they just changed how they name them. Now the high end will be using the x9xx moniker which only like four cards ever have used for AMD - the HD 5970 and the X1900 cards. Now "9" represents the high end, and I'd imagine "7" and "8" will be mid-range, and etc.

3) As long as AMD doesn't release a card that's slower than the HD 6850 and call it an HD 6890 then their naming scheme isn't backwards at all. Your argument against the 9800 re-branding is just weak. It is not at all analogous to what AMD is doing now, which is why I used it as an example. The 9800 GT was EXACTLY THE SAME CARD (MANUFACTURED THE SAME) AS THE 8800 GT. From a purely technical standpoint it didn't deserve a new name for a new generation; it was the same damn chip. At least AMD is actually giving us new chips, manufactured differently and with different goals in mind. The HD 6800 is a completely different product than the HD 5800.

That is all fine and good.

However, I still stand firm with my point and my opinion that it is WRONG for AMD to have each new successive generation of counterpart cards be a "bit slower" than the previous generation. That is not progression in performance, that is regression.

I still stand by my opinion that this is worse than what Nvidia did with the G92 re-branding. Even if it was the "same" chip, the 9800s were still FASTER than 8800s for the most part, as I already pointed out.

Yet AMD in this case has a changed/modified chip, yet it is SLOWER than the 58xx cards.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

However, I still stand firm with my point and my opinion that it is WRONG for AMD to have each new successive generation of counterpart cards be a "bit slower" than the previous generation. That is not progression in performance, that is regression.

I still stand by my opinion that this is worse than what Nvidia did with the G92 re-branding. Even if it was the "same" chip, the 9800s were still FASTER than 8800s for the most part, as I already pointed out.

The 6900 series will be the progression. Get that through your head. The 6800 series is the spiritual successor to the HD 5700 series. You can also say it's the successor (counterpart) to the HD 5830, so in one circumstance the HD 6800 cards exceed the performance of a 5800 card. "Counterpart" is a relative term, and you seem to make up the definition for it all your own. Judging from AMD's pricing, the 6850 is the counterpart to the 5830 and the 6870 is the counterpart to the 5850. Both 6800 cards are faster and cheaper than their counterparts. How is that not progression? AMD has also explained why they had to bump the number up: To make room for more lower end cards.

 

[jvroig]

However, I still stand firm with my point and my opinion that it is WRONG for AMD to have each new successive generation of counterpart cards be a "bit slower" than the previous generation. That is not progression in performance, that is regression.

(Emphasis mine). That would certainly be wrong, so I agree with your premise. What you don't seem to realize, however, is that the 68xx is not the counterpart of the 58xx series. Rather, AMD changed their numbering scheme, such that the 68xx is now the counterpart of the 57xx, and the counterpart of the 58xx will be the 69xx. This name change has been explained several times.

Anandtech's article on the 68xx series lays that out quite clearly, from both sides: AMD's side and rationale, and the AT staff side/reception of the name change (which is probably echoed by enthusiasts).

Being the 68xx is the counterpart of the 57xx, they quite clearly delivered on the new gen. Now, if the 69xx (the counterpart of the 58xx) was released and was found to be slower for some reason, then you have all rights to complain as you should, and I will bet a lot of members will be there with you, perhaps myself as well.

 

[Nox51]

That is all fine and good.

However, I still stand firm with my point and my opinion that it is WRONG for AMD to have each new successive generation of counterpart cards be a "bit slower" than the previous generation. That is not progression in performance, that is regression.

I still stand by my opinion that this is worse than what Nvidia did with the G92 re-branding. Even if it was the "same" chip, the 9800s were still FASTER than 8800s for the most part, as I already pointed out.

Yet AMD in this case has a changed/modified chip, yet it is SLOWER than the 58xx cards.

Respectfully you are wrong and your opinion is wrong. As it has been previously pointed out ad nauseum, the 6800 series is a replacement for the 5700 and meant to compete with the 460 series. The 6900 series is meant to be the top competition and yet to be released. Stop being blinded by your vehement opinion and look at the facts.

 

[tannat]

That is all fine and good.

However, I still stand firm with my point and my opinion that it is WRONG for AMD to have each new successive generation of counterpart cards be a "bit slower" than the previous generation. That is not progression in performance, that is regression.

I still stand by my opinion that this is worse than what Nvidia did with the G92 re-branding. Even if it was the "same" chip, the 9800s were still FASTER than 8800s for the most part, as I already pointed out.

Yet AMD in this case has a changed/modified chip, yet it is SLOWER than the 58xx cards.

They are slower by a hair. That is correct. But you have similar performance at 30% lower price and 30 % less die size. If we call this regression, what is then progression?

With this reasoning the 69xx chips are discarded from the possibility of being considered progress already right out of the box. Disregarding of price or performance. Just because of the name.

Don't we miss the big picture here?

I don't think anyone thinks that it was an ideal move by AMD to split the x8xx series into two with regards to name but, however I look at it, I can't see a much better alternative with the lineup they will have.

Please tell me what upgraders do they try to fool? The guys with HD5870 that go out and buy a 100$ cheaper HD6870 and expect a performance increase. Not really.
People with lower performance card than HD5870? They should anyway buy a HD6870, not a HD5870. Anything else is stupid.

Who else is left to be fooled?. Really no one.

How is this then this so much worse than re-badging the same card for several generations.

This is advanced hair splitting by focusing on the only thing that really don't matter very much in the long run. And the risk of a high amount of byers being fooled by it? Non-existent.

 

[betasub]

Archonis: for whatever reason, you are still making erroneous statements that the "previous generation" "counterparts" to the 6800 cards are the 5800 cards. Even though cuside has spelled it out explicitly for you that the 6800 cards are the mid-range offerings in the 6000 series.

Edit: Ack, thread is getting de-railed. Any further glimpses of the GTX580, or are we back to speculation?

 

[Arkadrel]

6850 replaces the 5750 in price, beats the 460 1gb in performance.
6870 replaces the 5770 in price, goes even with the 470 in performance.

How as that a bad thing? Their the lower midrange products, not the high end ones.

wait until the 6950 and 6970 and 6990 come out.... also at some point we ll start to see decent factory overclocked 6850/6870 come out

Hopefully that means 6850s factory oc to 850mhz core, and 6870s to about 1000mhz or so.