R520...?

[KeepItRed]

Guys check this out, seems like BS to me lol

R520 3DMARK 05

Radeon X950 XT

 

[Saga]

With a core that high I find it extremely difficult to believe.

 

[KeepItRed]

There were lots of rumors regarding the R520 to go 700MHz+, and it is possible, but I just wanna know how this dude got hold if this card, IF he actually did.

 

[McArra]

I call BS

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
There were lots of rumors regarding the R520 to go 700MHz+, and it is possible, but I just wanna know how this dude got hold if this card, IF he actually did.

A lot of things with computer hardware are POSSIBLE, but they are in no way PRACTICAL. I will not believe a core that high unless it is coming from someone reputable with factual evidence to back it up.

 

[thelanx]

Does it always say 32-bit under architecture for the processer for amd64 cpus?

 

[blckgrffn]

Wait and see, this is pretty pointless. What is more intersting is what will be happening tomorrow from the guys in green. The R520 has reached "wait and see and disregard all hype" status with me

 

[ZobarStyl]

Very much doubt they'll hit a core clock that high unless it's those 16 'extreme' pipelines instead of 24/32, and of course if that's the case, it won't matter much. My money's on Photoshopped.

 

[hans030390]

its such a low quality picture, i wouldnt doubt if it was photoshopped.

Besides, I thought ATI had to lower the card's specs because it was overheating or something.

I really doubt that picture to be true.

 

[Noid]

The driver that listed doesnt exist.
But the numbering isnt 'out of line'
I'm thinking its real.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

bag enough compression on the image.

i think its a photoshop.

 

[KeepItRed]

That site I got it from was some Czech (European) site who claims they got it from "Asia" and as we all know they get most new and future tech stuff before we do

 

[Fraggable]

I say it's reasonable enough to be it. The clock speeds aren't totally out of reason. The only thing that looks off to me is at the top left of the shot where it says 'Architecture: 32 bit' when it's plainly a A64 system - but that's irrelevant as far as photoshopping goes.

 

[tbooth]

I could swear I saw this image a couple months ago and it was fake. I'll try and find out where I saw it.

 

[KeepItRed]

Originally posted by: Fraggable
I say it's reasonable enough to be it. The clock speeds aren't totally out of reason.

That's exactly what I was thinking, only about the AMD 32-BIT thing that looked rigged. Other than the possible photoshopping it looks possible.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: hans030390
its such a low quality picture, i wouldnt doubt if it was photoshopped.

Besides, I thought ATI had to lower the card's specs because it was overheating or something.

I really doubt that picture to be true.

You dont believe one rumor, because another rumor contradicts it? Heh.

 

[prosser13]

Something you missed - not only is he using a X950, he's using an FX57. It's clocked at 2.8Ghz.

 

[biostud]

the memory clock sounds more off.... 900Mhz that would be 1.8Ghz

 

[Ackmed]

Thats what its supposed to be clocked at. 14x200.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: Noid
The driver that listed doesnt exist.
But the numbering isnt 'out of line'
I'm thinking its real.

If the driver doesn't exist, why does it list the date as being feb 8, '05? Why would "nonexistant" drivers for an x950 be 6 months old?

 

[asearchforreason]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
If the driver doesn't exist, why does it list the date as being feb 8, '05? Why would "nonexistant" drivers for an x950 be 6 months old?

Eh, 2-08-2005 could mean August 2nd...?

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Noid
The driver that listed doesnt exist.
But the numbering isnt 'out of line'
I'm thinking its real.

If the driver doesn't exist, why does it list the date as being feb 8, '05? Why would "nonexistant" drivers for an x950 be 6 months old?

it could be written in the british format making it Aug 2nd 2005. i still call this picture fake, specs are way too high. (900Mhz memory..sheesh thats about ~1.8ghz) totally off!!

 

[kylebisme]

It is old and fake.

 

[Lonyo]

BTW, AMD64 running Windows XP regular is a 32 bit CPU with 64 bit extensions running on a 32 bit architecture, so it's a 32 bit architecture effectively, unless 3D Mark 05 reports it differently.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

Fake all the way. the new cards are not part of the radeon 10 series!!! they will be the 11 series, like the geforce cards are the 7 series. Anyway i need to see the card itself to believe it.