If there is a MAXX version of the Radeon, how will it compare to the next gen stuff?

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
I'm impressed by the Radeon's performance (and it is THE card to get if you are buying a card now) but I have mu doubts about the MAXX version.

1) I heard that the MAXX will be here in 2 1/2 to 3 months from now--around the same time as the next gen stuff.
2) I don't know about Windows 2000 support as ATi had problems with the first MAXX and Win2k because of Chip ID's or something like that.
3) I wonder how its performance will compare to the new boys in town a few months from now.

Two things is does have in its favor though:

1) It will probably show up before the Voodoo 5 6000 sees the light of day:D
2) After looking at its current performance, dual Radeons should kill the 6000 anyway (2 chips vs 4 for the 6000, hehe;))
 

OneEng

Senior member
Oct 25, 1999
585
0
0
As I have pointed out before on this topic, nVidia is is trouble with respect to multi-chip. The GeForce chip was soooooo much more powerfull than the new 3dfx chip that a single chip solution could handle the best 3dfx could provide even with 2 processors.

This is obveously no longer the case with ATI's Radeon chip. With the bandwidth limitation having no end in sight for another year or more, multi-processor is the only solution.

A multi-chip Radeon should easily be the fastest card money can buy. I see no hope that NV20 will be able to compete with this card.

Now........when will prices of high end video cards come down out of the stratosphere?????
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
Now........when will prices of high end video cards come down out of the stratosphere?????I must agree with that statement. These prices have become so incredible that I really question the utility of a 6 month product cycle. If the prices were half of what they are now (i.e., $100-200) I would have little trouble justifying a card every 8 months or so - however, at the current level this "hobby" has become a little to rich for my blood...Napalm
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
My philosophy is that I upgrade my videocard when I have to, not when there is the fastest one available.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
Wel, my SDR GeForce 256 is plenty fast enough for me in my games...but I want a card that is going to be fast enough to do FSAA in ALL of my games.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
"With the bandwidth limitation having no end in sight for another year or more, multi-processor is the only solution."

Besides tiling and HSR??

Multi chip solutions are still a cop out for not being able to develop technology to deal with all circumstances(now the two fastest products both use single chip solutions). It hurts the cost of the product, reduces the effective useful lifespan as a direct by product of cost factors, and creates compatibility problems in many circumstances(only AGP 1X support in the V5, no Win2K support for the Maxx).

As far as nVidia competing with a Radeon Maxx, the 5ns GF2 looks like it would be quite competitive, and we are talking a few months off(with production starting up now on 5ns DDR, that sounds like the approximate timeframe). With HSR for nV and possibly Matrox, and tiling for PowerVR multichip solutions are truly only a viable solution for the short term.

With QDR and faster memory in the works, coupled with tiling or HSR, multichip solutions are an easy stop gap solution and nothing more. Eliminating overdraw by utilizing either available/upcoming method will get you nearly "free" 4x FSAA when compared to current cards using current memory bandwith, not the upcoming offering. GF2 non FSAA performance using 4x FSAA can easily be reached using current memory technology, the 6ns variety not 5ns or QDR, by building a chip that eliminates overdraw. With overdraw in the 2.5X-3X range for most games, there is a lot of bandwith wasted right now.

I honestly don't think that fillrate will be nearly as important to people when the T&L games start coming in force later this year(check out E3 coverage for anyone who doubts it, or read some of the ATi interviews). Even if fillrate still is a huge factor, memory bandwith is an obstacle that can be worked around avoiding using multi-chip solutions and running into problems such as 3dfx is having now.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91


<< As far as nVidia competing with a Radeon Maxx, the 5ns GF2 looks like it would be quite competitive, and we are talking a few months off(with production starting up now on 5ns DDR, that sounds like the approximate timeframe). With HSR for nV and possibly Matrox, and tiling for PowerVR multichip solutions are truly only a viable solution for the short term. >>


Yeah, I forgot about the 5ns memory. Would anyone be kind enough to post the 32bit scores from Tom's review of that tarted up GeForce to the numbers from Matt's review?? :)

I would do it, but I have class in 9 minutes :p
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Q3 Timedemo HQ-

GF2 400MHZ mem / GF2 472MHZ mem / Radeon Default / Radeon 410MHZ

1024x768-

96.4 / 111.4 / 78.6 / 83.4

1280x1024-

59 / 70.6 / 51.3 / 55.3

1600x1200-

39.4 / 47.7 / 36.3 / 38.9

The Radeon stacks up fairly well when OCed to comparable speeds(ie- 5ns GF2 v OCed Radeon) when the resolution is up(why else drop $400 on a vid card), but looking at default v default, or the more realistic OCed vs OCed numbers the GF2 has a rather noticeable edge. What was the boost the original Maxx had in terms of percentage? Also of note, this board, a 64MB 5ns offering is expected to be roughly the same price as the 64MB Radeon, wonder what the Maxx is gonna cost:Q
 

obeseotron

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,910
0
0
Probably would be the best thing on the market for a month or two. Then it will be crushed by whatever nVidia has coming. If 3dfx gets the Rampage out, it will also be far superior to the Radeon, but you know how they are with releasing products on time. This, and the G800 seem like too little too late from companies that can't keep up with nVidia and 3dfx.
 

SSP

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
17,727
0
0
Hmm... those numbers you posted, they are from Anandtech review and a Toms hardware guide review.

They were using 2 different systems.. right?

Looks like Nvidia met their match.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91


<< Code-name: SIDEWINDER (RD 200, Radeon Second Generation)
300MHz core
60 MTriangles/sec
1.8 GPixels/sec
Programmable Geometry
Enhanced .18 micron process
Sample: July 2000 (!!!)
Production start: Nov 2000
>>


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
 

HaVoC

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,223
0
0
The apparent lack of any performance drop going from 16 to 32-bit is suspicious to me. Is the Radeon again using the age old trick of a 16-bit Z-buffer with 32-bit color precision while nVidia is using 32 on every buffer? If so, comparing 32-bit between the two cards is apples to oranges.

I'm surprised that the Anandtech review did not mention this. Anyone care to speculate?
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
Multi chip solutions are still a cop out for not being able to develop technology to deal with all circumstances

Ben, thats just plain silliness. Going to a two chip solution involves developing technology does it not? It involves a special chip capable of that feature and it involves special drivers supporting the hardware. It is no more of a cop out than moving to a lower die so that the core operating frequency (and overal speed) can be increased with less heat.

I think that implementing a multichip solution is fantastic as it allows a 3d card maker to pack one core with all the feature flavours of the month and then hit all power segments with cards featuring 1, 2, 4 or more chips. If NVidia were doing it, I'm sure you'd be praising them.


As a side note - I don't think that this VSA-100 core is up to snuff (I agree with you here). I see little (except features) that separates it from the old V3 core. However, does this mean that multichip solutions are stupid. Quite simply - NO.

Napalm

 

Futuramatic

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
728
0
0
If the Radeon is this good, I gotta think that the Radeon Maxx is going to stomp on NV15's sac. Then to have the next generation Radeon out with the NV20... mmmm...

/me performs self gratifying acts

But you know what SHOULD happen.. the prices should go down, but they won't. How does the Radeon fair with FSAA on? Both Quality and speed?
 

KarsinTheHutt

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2000
1,687
0
0
We don't know how well the Radeon chip scales, so unless someone actually cobbles together a bootleg dual system and cooks up the drivers, we won't know.

Any takers?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Come on Ben, your smarter than that. Is it just a cop out to build an 8-way Xeon system?
 

KarlHungus

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
638
0
0
I think a more important question is:

What will ATI release to compete with the GeForce2 MX? Radeon (like GTS) is too pricey for a ton of OEMs to use.
 

KarlHungus

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
638
0
0
Thanks SSP!

Has anyone seen a review of that 32MB SDRAM board? I hope Anand does a comparison between it and the MX sometime soon. <hint hint>
 

Doomguy

Platinum Member
May 28, 2000
2,389
1
81
Hey everyone look at havoc's post his theory may be correct. The radeon just dosent have enough bandwidth to 32 bit that fast.
 

Skaven

Senior member
Oct 18, 1999
835
0
0
I think that the HyperZ technology may explain what Havoc was talking about.

HyperZ compresses the Z-buffer or something right? They claim 20% performance gain. <shrug> So it takes better advantage of the bandwith available.

Also, seems like they focused more on the 32bit performance in the drivers than the 16bit.

Anybody else want to take a guess?

-Skaven

p.s. Anybody else think that ATI's stock is looking MIGHTY attractive right now?

 

OneEng

Senior member
Oct 25, 1999
585
0
0
Ben,
Since ATI seems to be on the cutting edge when it comes to optimising bandwidth usage, it would appear that not only do they have 1 up on nVidia with their multi-chip solution capability, but they additionally have the jump on bandwidth compression (for lack of a better term).

I would add here that nVidia has in its corner much better 16bit performance and (to date) better driver support along with much much more current market (retail).

ATI is an enormous company. Their OEM connections are legendary. Now that their eye has turned to the performance retail 3D accelerator market, I can't see nVidia (or 3dfx incidentally) beating them out.

This SHOULD have a positive impact on 3D accelerator prices!!!! I desperately hope to see a price fued between nVidia and ATI. I can't see 3dfx surviving or participating in this war since its product is signifigantly more expensive to manufacture.

As for the low end, I would expect an ATI Radeon based SDR 32mb card to outperform an equivelent nVidia MX card. This is based on superior usage of availible bandwidth. As the drivers for ATI mature, (hopefully this happens quickly or my entire arguement could be in jepordy) the speeds should increase 10-20% beyond where they are today (SWAG).

I would be in the market for such a low end card at a price point of under $150.00, but even at $227.00 for the 32mb DDR version, it is still quite a ways out of my pain tolerance.
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,647
1
81
in terms of hardware, the MAXX has pretty much DOUBLE the memory bandwidth. And we can see how important memory bandwidth is. so it will pretty much meet with (though slower, in theory) than future parts. I mean, it pretty much depends on how &quot;advanced&quot; next generation (true next gen) technology is. and how good gaming &quot;engines&quot; are.