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

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
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

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

Hehe... I just want to see some new ATI/Nvidia cards available real soon with real benchmarks so I can decide on my next video card in month or so.I must resist buying a 8800GTS right now.

 

[apoppin]

why?

you will be assimlilated anyway

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
why?

you will be assimlilated anyway

Actually I have ATI and Nvidia cards in my PCs so consider myself neutral .

 

[apoppin]

you have been assimilated, Mem

*already*
:Q

--just waiting for your upgrade

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
you have been assimilated, Mem

*already*
:Q

--just waiting for your upgrade

Yep,got a Sapphire 9700NP card years back when 9700 rocked Nvidia's dustblower .

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: apoppin
you have been assimilated, Mem

*already*
:Q

--just waiting for your upgrade

Yep,got a Sapphire 9700NP card years back when 9700 rocked Nvidia's dustblower .

yea, but in all honesty, the 5800ultra was really no louder than my x1800xt... tho it didn't bother me that much. my 1950 is an HIS so it's whisper quiet

still, it's nice my GTS is much quieter; i hope ati's line will be quiet as well.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: apoppin

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?
: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?

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

Why are you still comparing a 3D Mark 2005 figure to a 3D Mark 2006 figure? Did you even read the article?

? are only there because the codename isn't for sure known, but there should be from Dailytech roadmap 3 variants for the RV630 line.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: apoppin
Who really knows?

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

For once I can agree with you Furen.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: apoppin

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?
: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?

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

Why are you still comparing a 3D Mark 2005 figure to a 3D Mark 2006 figure? Did you even read the article?

? are only there because the codename isn't for sure known, but there should be from Dailytech roadmap 3 variants for the RV630 line.

what's the difference? 800 points ... 1,200 or 2,000 vs 12,000... big deal ... one is ridiculously high and the other seems *normal/low*
:thumbsdown:*

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what's the difference? 800 points ... 1,200 or 2,000 vs 12,000... big deal ... one is ridiculously high and the other seems *normal/low*
:thumbsdown:*

You also have to factor in the performance level of the Core itself, but at any rate 2000 for 3D Mark 2005 and 1200 for 3D Mark 2006 for a card that is meant to be a replacement for an IGP motherboard is not bad. This is the slowest budget card (RV610) vs the fastest mainstream (RV630). The slowest budget cards each generation barely get any faster each generation. They basically just alleviate the usage of system memory and not too much more then that.

To give you an example, try comparing a Geforce 7300 SE to the Geforce 7600 GT. Or to do the analogy in the mid range to the high end, Geforce 7600 GS vs Geforce 7900 GTX, the former is going to be substantially slower then the latter.

It's also not unreasonable to expect the fastest RV630 even if it is an 128Bit card to perform on the level of the last generation high end products. Nvidia has done it with the 7600 GT outperforming the fastest Geforce 6.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

It's also not unreasonable to expect the fastest RV630 even if it is an 128Bit card to perform on the level of the last generation high end products. Nvidia has done it with the 7600 GT outperforming the fastest Geforce 6.

let me try once again ...

twelve thousand points in 3DMark)5 with a 128-bit interface card
12,000 ...

doesn't it seem even a little exaggerated to you?


perhaps

 

[Munky]

Given a powerful enough gpu core, I don't see why it would be impossible to get 12k in 3dmark05 even on a 128-bit bus. If the card used 1ghz ddr4 memory, it would give it roughly the same bandwidth as the the 256-bit x1800xl, and nobody complained that the latter was starved for bandwidth.

 

[imported_thefonz]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: coldpower27

It's also not unreasonable to expect the fastest RV630 even if it is an 128Bit card to perform on the level of the last generation high end products. Nvidia has done it with the 7600 GT outperforming the fastest Geforce 6.

let me try once again ...

twelve thousand points in 3DMark)5 with a 128-bit interface card
12,000 ...

doesn't it seem even a little exaggerated to you?


perhaps

some 256 bit cards get more then that, and with core improvements it is possible. It could have a "ring bus" just like the r580. I read somewhere the 8600gts is getting around 6000 in 06 3d mark, so its going to be getting around 12000 in 05. I'm hoping this rumor is true, 630xt looks like a beast!

 

[apoppin]

it is possible
could have
I'm hoping

i get it



hope so too

 

[AVP]

[/quote] some 256 bit cards get more then that, and with core improvements it is possible. It could have a "ring bus" just like the r580. I read somewhere the 8600gts is getting around 6000 in 06 3d mark, so its going to be getting around 12000 in 05. I'm hoping this rumor is true, 630xt looks like a beast![/quote]

Wait how can the 8600gts get 6000 in 3d mark 06 when according to toms vga charts the 8800gtx gets 4302 on default quality and trilinnear filtering. I am confused

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: AVP

some 256 bit cards get more then that, and with core improvements it is possible. It could have a "ring bus" just like the r580. I read somewhere the 8600gts is getting around 6000 in 06 3d mark, so its going to be getting around 12000 in 05. I'm hoping this rumor is true, 630xt looks like a beast![/quote]

Wait how can the 8600gts get 6000 in 3d mark 06 when according to toms vga charts the 8800gtx gets 4302 on default quality and trilinnear filtering. I am confused
[/quote]

huh?

8800GTX gets 4302 in 3dmark06?

I get 6500 in 3Dmark06 with my X1900XTX so either Tom is an idiot or he was running it at a higher resolution than default. Could be both those scenarios as well.

 

[apoppin]

so now it looks like 12,000 was a complete load of BS ... the r600 apparently is struggling to beat g80

:disgust:

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin
so now it looks like 12,000 was a complete load of BS ... the r600 apparently is struggling to beat g80

:disgust:

Which may also be more BS. I've seen so many conflicting rumors about r600 I'm not even sure what to believe.