hmmm.. RV630XT - DX10 & faster than a 1900XTX?

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
not that 3dmock05 is all that, but still... where might that put amd's "high end" if it ever gets released?

Article
 

imported_thefonz

Senior member
Dec 7, 2005
244
0
0
12k in 3dmark05, really good for midrange, wonder how this will compare to a 8600. Still waiting for some dx10 games though.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Looking at the size of that cooler it better perform at least as well as the x1900xt. Initially I thought that was some version of the r600, but if that's rv630 then I can't wait to see what the r600 can do.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,979
2,201
126
Originally posted by: happy medium
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: happy medium
These are AGP cards right?

It says it here at the bottom...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38288

Read the title and the full article properly. Nowhere does it say the RV6XX shown at Cebit is AGP...although they say it will come later.

I read the article and it dosen't say pci-e or agp

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about the RV630XT, which is what was posted originally. That article is about the AGP X1950XTX.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I think all this speculation is pointless. Anand will have some sort of review up by the end of the month I bet.
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think all this speculation is pointless. Anand will have some sort of review up by the end of the month I bet.

'Nuff said
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: thefonz
12k in 3dmark05, really good for midrange, wonder how this will compare to a 8600. Still waiting for some dx10 games though.

where are you getting 12 thousand? :p
:Q

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4757
Also, we have gotten hold of an early performance test of the RV610LE running on 965 board with Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. At 1024x768 resolution, 3DMark05 scores stood at 20xx and at 1280x1024 resolution, 3DMark06 scores stood at 12xx. The performance suffers largely due to its 64-bit memory

that's TWO thousand and Twelve hundred

low end for the 610

EDIT:
i see ... rv630xt gets 12K ...

doubt it .... their sources are a joke ... theInq

so they are saying a 128bit memory card will score over 12,000 and a 64 bit will score 12 hundred

sure

sounds about ridiculous
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: thefonz
12k in 3dmark05, really good for midrange, wonder how this will compare to a 8600. Still waiting for some dx10 games though.

where are you getting 12 thousand? :p
:Q

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4757
Also, we have gotten hold of an early performance test of the RV610LE running on 965 board with Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. At 1024x768 resolution, 3DMark05 scores stood at 20xx and at 1280x1024 resolution, 3DMark06 scores stood at 12xx. The performance suffers largely due to its 64-bit memory

that's TWO thousand and Twelve hundred

low end

:roll:

damn lucky if r600 gets 12-20000
:laugh:

He was talking about the RV630XT. You're article is only giving numbers for the RV610LE.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4795

"As our sources revealed that RV630XT will score over 12K in 3DMark05 "

edit: fixed quote
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
read my edit ;)

4 minutes before you replied :p
that's TWO thousand and Twelve hundred

low end for the 610

EDIT:
i see ... rv630xt gets 12K ...

doubt it .... their sources are a joke ... theInq

so they are saying a 128bit memory card will score over 12,000 and a 64 bit will score 12 hundred

sure

sounds about ridiculous
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
Well I started my response before your edit, but then I got distracted looking at all the nifty pictures. ADD ftw! :p
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
i know --looking at the pics is what caused me to miss it in the first place
and .. no prob ... i just caught my error myself - but still think 12K is ridiculous if the next step down gets 1200

of course we can always hope .... :)

the 'conclusion' we are supposed to draw is that r600 will be well over 20,000 in '05

too much speculation and conflicting-info overload :p
-- i think AMD *intends* it this way ;)
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
That's roughly in line with next gen midrange 'roughly' equates to the previous gen top of the line i suppose...

Remember that a 64-bit mem interface sucks royal donkey balls, and it's a LE at that.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: thefonz
12k in 3dmark05, really good for midrange, wonder how this will compare to a 8600. Still waiting for some dx10 games though.

where are you getting 12 thousand? :p
:Q

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4757
Also, we have gotten hold of an early performance test of the RV610LE running on 965 board with Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. At 1024x768 resolution, 3DMark05 scores stood at 20xx and at 1280x1024 resolution, 3DMark06 scores stood at 12xx. The performance suffers largely due to its 64-bit memory

that's TWO thousand and Twelve hundred

low end for the 610

EDIT:
i see ... rv630xt gets 12K ...

doubt it .... their sources are a joke ... theInq

so they are saying a 128bit memory card will score over 12,000 and a 64 bit will score 12 hundred

sure

sounds about ridiculous

Complete apples to oranges comparisons.

RV630XT (128Bit, Top Mainstream)is going to score 12K in 3D Mark 2005
RV610LE (64Bit, Bottom Low End) is going to score 2000 in 3D Mark 2005
RV610LE (64Bit, Bottom Low End) is going to score 1200 in 3D Mark 2006

There are many steps down before you reach RV610LE

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/4140_large_AMD_RV610_RV630.png

RV630XT (Kohinoor)
RV630Pro? (Orloff)
RV630? (Sefadu)

RV610Pro (Falcon)
RV610LE (Antelope)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: thefonz
12k in 3dmark05, really good for midrange, wonder how this will compare to a 8600. Still waiting for some dx10 games though.

where are you getting 12 thousand? :p
:Q

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4757
Also, we have gotten hold of an early performance test of the RV610LE running on 965 board with Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. At 1024x768 resolution, 3DMark05 scores stood at 20xx and at 1280x1024 resolution, 3DMark06 scores stood at 12xx. The performance suffers largely due to its 64-bit memory

that's TWO thousand and Twelve hundred

low end for the 610

EDIT:
i see ... rv630xt gets 12K ...

doubt it .... their sources are a joke ... theInq

so they are saying a 128bit memory card will score over 12,000 and a 64 bit will score 12 hundred

sure

sounds about ridiculous

Complete apples to oranges comparisons.

RV630XT (128Bit, Top Mainstream)is going to score 12K in 3D Mark 2005
RV610LE (64Bit, Bottom Low End) is going to score 2000 in 3D Mark 2005
RV610LE (64Bit, Bottom Low End) is going to score 1200 in 3D Mark 2006

There are many steps down before you reach RV610LE

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/4140_large_AMD_RV610_RV630.png

RV630XT (Kohinoor)
RV630Pro? (Orloff)
RV630? (Sefadu)

RV610Pro (Falcon)
RV610LE (Antelope)

Who really knows? :p

i see two out of five of your examples with a *?* ... with many 'holes' in-between

what i am saying IS ridiculous is 128-bit interface getting 12,000

RV630 [like x1700] is the midrange ... 128-bit - 12,000

R130 [like x1300] is the lowend ... 64-bit - 1,200

there would be a LOT in between ...

i think they picked that figure out of the air
 

Furen

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2004
1,567
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Who really knows? :p

i see two out of five of your examples with a *?* ... with many 'holes' in-between

what i am saying IS ridiculous is 128-bit interface getting 12,000

RV630 [like x1700] is the midrange ... 128-bit - 12,000

R130 [like x1300] is the lowend ... 64-bit - 1,200

there would be a LOT in between ...

i think they picked that figure out of the air

The two parts with the "?" are parts that we're pretty much ceirtain will be there but don't know the names to yet.

I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about the memory widths. Having a thinner pipe at higher clock speeds IS better than having a wider pipe at lower clocks, and the clocks on these parts is pretty damn high. Yes, it would be better if the widths were higher (without sacrificing clock speed, of course) but having insanely complex PCBs for mid-range parts is a no-no, since margins on these parts are quite a bit lower than on high-end parts.

Just for comparison's sake: 2GHz (effective), 128bit memory can yield an aggregate bandwidth of around 32GB/sec; 1.55GHz (effective), 256bit memory can yield around 49.5GB/sec. Do remember, however, that you need to have all the memory channels active at full load to reach these numbers, 4 on the 128bit system, 8 on a 256bit system.

Considering that these parts will likely have better buffers, caches, fetchers and the like, not to mention that the new architecture itself is likely to be more efficient, the overall usable bandwidth may actually be even closer.

The numbers for the 64bit parts do seem a bit low, in my opinion, but not by as much as you'd expect. Bandwidth for 800Mhz (once again, effective), 64bit memory should be around 6.4GB/s, which is about 1/5th of what's available on the 2GHz, 128bit parts. So about 1/5th of the bandwidth available to the higher-end part to only achieve about 1/6th of the performance. There are many possible reasons for this, though. Core clock for the low-end parts could simply be too low to utilize even this relatively small amount of bandwidth; the low-end parts may just have a lot less hardware than the higher-end parts (this is the equivalent of the clock being too low, since the effective compute power per second is the product of the number of units and their speed); or, like the RV610LE article mentions, the drivers used for that test could be to blame. Even so, I still think 2k for 3DMark '05 is pretty damn good for the lowest-of-the-low, expect the RV610Pro (with its 1.4GHz-effecive memory) to yield close to 2x that performance.

EDIT: Fixed a stupid sentence, hopefully before anyone saw it :p
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
12K over a 128 bit interface is ridiculous ... imo... even theoretically ... do we have current 128-Bit cards that can do over half that?

anyway, we'll see :p

i just think someone pulled those 'figures' out of their butt ... ;)