X600Pro, X600XT, X300, X300SE are going to be way too slow....

[RussianSensation]

Ok these are the latest specs provided by Anandtech:

X600 XT (RV380) = 500/740, 4x2, 128bit, 130nm low-k
This is nothing but a faster memory clocked PCI-Express version of the 9600XT.

X600Pro (RV380) = 400/600, 4x2, 128bit, 130nm low-k
This is the 9600Pro with PCI-Express interface only

X300 (RV370) = 325/400, 4x2, 128bit, 110nm low-k
This seems like a lower clocked 9600 card. With these speeds, a Geforce 4200 will be faster than this card. Even my 2.5 year old 8500 will be very close ... this is sad

X300SE (RV370) = 325/400, 4x2, 64bit, 110nm low-k
No need to comment
________________________________

By looking at this, it seems a 9700, 9700Pro, 9800Pro, 9800xt, 5900xt, 5900, 5950 Ultra will ALL be faster than any of the above cards. Now of course normally a midrange card doesn't outperform last generation's high end card but is very close to its performance (for instance 9600Pro/XT vs. Geforce 4600). In this case, highly contrasting the performance jump on the high-end parts (X800Pro/X800xt vs. 9800xt), the jump in the mid- and low-range is pathetic and is the lowest jump between generations i've ever seen.

It will make things a little more difficult for developers to create amazing games as none of these cards will be able to play Far Cry, HL2, Doom 3 and so on smoothly, yet the majority of computer users will own these cards. There is only 1 thing that can save these cards in my eyes right now, and it's price. If X600XT debuts at $150 like 9600xt did, these cards are doomed right from the beginning.

So for everyone who is on a budget and cannot spend more than $200 on a card in the near future, go out and get a 9800Pro (or 5900xt) before the stock runs out and the price for these cards starts increasing just like it did with the 9500Pro back in the days.

 

[LTC8K6]

I thought the 9600 series was 4X1 not 4X2?

Most people still use on board graphics or low-end video cards. I do not see this trend ending any time soon.

The X800SE will be the new 9800pro class card, but I don't know if the cost will be worth it over a 9800.

If you buy a new board or a new computer, you are likely to want the new PCI Express stuff, even if it's just marketing hype.

No matter how much you tell them it's not any faster, they will want PCI express cards. Just like they wanted AGP 8X cards.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I thought the 9600 series was 4X1 not 4X2?

I'm fairly sure that it's 4x1 with 2 vertex shaders (there are 4 on the 9800s, and 6 on the X800s). I'd have to double-check the specs to be sure, but I think that's what the 9600-series all has.

Most people still use on board graphics or low-end video cards. I do not see this trend ending any time soon.

Exactly. These cards are *replacements* for the current 9200 and 9600 cards, not a "new generation". The AT article even says that

Of course, after this first round of PCI Express graphics card releases, ATI will be slowly moving its new R4xx style architecture down through the mid-range and low end as well.

conclusions

Implying that there will be a 'new' line of PCI-E cards at some point, all using the R420 core in some fashion. But ATI has not said anything about this (at least that I've heard).

If you buy a new board or a new computer, you are likely to want the new PCI Express stuff, even if it's just marketing hype.

No matter how much you tell them it's not any faster, they will want PCI express cards. Just like they wanted AGP 8X cards.

Well, PCI-E offers advantages over AGP, but performance for graphics cards is not really one of them. So, yes, in this sense it's just marketing hype. But since Intel says they're moving completely over to PCI-E/BTX by the end of the year, they're going to need PCI-E cards for midrange and low-end systems.

 

[Todd33]

Ya, I bought a 9800 pro. I knew what I was buying and it was out now. I hate waiting for the next best thing just to be ripped off or let down. Maybe things will settle down next year with all the new chipsets.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I guess I'm fortunate to find games that last me years like Tribes has...with luck T:V will last me as long as T1 and T2 and I'll only need to find a card that runs T:V better than good and I'll be set for another 2-4 years.

 

[SneakyStuff]

What was said above pretty much sums it all up, the VAST majority of consumers buy cards based on buzzwords, 256MB! that's more than 128! That's like 2 times faster! AGP8x!? I'm still stuck with AGP4x!? They'll buy what looks good to them. I see people all the time, walk into compusas, bestbuys, circuitcitys, with no idea what they're talking about, go in, and just buy a card based on the box. And I don't see any of that changing any time soon. Besides, those cards will play those games, provided the settings are toned down. Just equate it to this, what they don't know, won't hurt them. If they've never experienced a 9800 pro, they'll never know.

 

[Bateluer]

Stop me if I am wrong, but the 9600 XT would get a sizeable speed boost from an increased memory clock, ie X600 XT?

My jury is still out on the whole high end debate right now, need to to see retail available cards from both companies before I can make an informed decision.

 

[Mikeyb01]

The Buzzz words is very true I know two people who have 5200 256mbs and brag cus it 256MBS! When in reality its not that good! I know my 9800 could whoop it!

 

[otispunkmeyer]

yeah the buzzwords thing sure does suck.....i succumbed to it when i first got into computers.....i bout a GF4 MX440......because i saw the GF4 bit i thought "wicked pie".........alas no pixel or vertex shaders and crap performance...i even got fooled by the guy selling it coz he was demoing it on 3dmark 2000!!! and it looked class!!!

i did save sum guy the otherday tho.....he walked into game (computer store mainly games and consoles but they sell PNY graphics cards and creative ones too which are a mega rip off)

he was gonna buy a 5200 256mb....wasnt even ultra i dont think....i steered him away from buying this turbo etcha-sketch and that felt good

 

[Pete]

RS, so much of your OP is wrong that it's not worth correcting. I agree that ATI is lame for "pulling a 9000" and slapping the X name on old tech, but at least the 9600 series will offer halfway decent PS2.0 performance at 10x7 or less for those on a budget.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Ok these are the latest specs provided by Anandtech:

X600 XT (RV380) = 500/740, 4x2, 128bit, 130nm low-k
This is nothing but a faster memory clocked PCI-Express version of the 9600XT.

X600Pro (RV380) = 400/600, 4x2, 128bit, 130nm low-k
This is the 9600Pro with PCI-Express interface only

X300 (RV370) = 325/400, 4x2, 128bit, 110nm low-k
This seems like a lower clocked 9600 card. With these speeds, a Geforce 4200 will be faster than this card. Even my 2.5 year old 8500 will be very close ... this is sad

X300SE (RV370) = 325/400, 4x2, 64bit, 110nm low-k
No need to comment
________________________________

By looking at this, it seems a 9700, 9700Pro, 9800Pro, 9800xt, 5900xt, 5900, 5950 Ultra will ALL be faster than any of the above cards. Now of course normally a midrange card doesn't outperform last generation's high end card but is very close to its performance (for instance 9600Pro/XT vs. Geforce 4600). In this case, highly contrasting the performance jump on the high-end parts (X800Pro/X800xt vs. 9800xt), the jump in the mid- and low-range is pathetic and is the lowest jump between generations i've ever seen.

It will make things a little more difficult for developers to create amazing games as none of these cards will be able to play Far Cry, HL2, Doom 3 and so on smoothly, yet the majority of computer users will own these cards. There is only 1 thing that can save these cards in my eyes right now, and it's price. If X600XT debuts at $150 like 9600xt did, these cards are doomed right from the beginning.

So for everyone who is on a budget and cannot spend more than $200 on a card in the near future, go out and get a 9800Pro (or 5900xt) before the stock runs out and the price for these cards starts increasing just like it did with the 9500Pro back in the days.

this makes no sence why make the x300 110nm and not the x600? in my mind you'll actually be able to get higher core speeds overclocking the x300 than the x600. you'll still be held back by the ram though

 

[Pete]

It makes sense to take more of a manufacturing risk at the low end for two reasons:

1. Its simpler GPU is probably easier to switch to a smaller process and less likely to be defective. It's also possibly a gentler intro to the quirks of the process, which may help you get bigger GPUs working with less trouble on the same process.
2. It's not a problem if they don't clock that high.
3. The smaller process yields more dies per wafer, and volume is important at the low end.

BTW, X300 is NOT built using low-k. 110nm is basically die-shrunk 130nm, so the RV370 seems likely to be just a scaled-down RV350 (which maxed out at 400MHz retail in 9600 Pros).

 

[Falloutboy]

but we all know the 9600's commonly clock to 500mhz plus the fact its on a smaller process says to me they should in theory clock to 600mhz

 

[Lonyo]

The lowest end (X300) will still be faster than nVidia's current lowest end offering (5200) and it's an improvement over the 9000/9100/9200 cards. Plus it offers DX9 support across the range for ATi.
We will have to see what and when nVidia do.

 

[Pete]

What about the smaller process allows for higher clocks? Even though a smaller process tends to mean smaller chips that draw less power, things are changing with these ultra-small processes. Firstly, apparently there's more power loss (I'm guessing due to less insulation with traces/conxns this small). Secondly, a smaller core with the same power dissipation as a larger core is actually harder to cool, as you have less surface area to work with. So ATi may not be able to kick up speed without compromising yield or requiring better (thus more expensive) cooling.

And I don't think 110nm GPUs will automatically outpace 130nm low-k GPUs. 110nm may be smaller, but low-k allows for higher speeds on the same process.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Am I only one thinking that the gap between the X600XT and the X800 is simply too huge? 4 pipes vs 12/16 pipes? ATI better release a better highend mid-range GPU soon before the 9700/9800 supplies dries up. Otherwise, NVIDIA may be eating ATI alive in that market segment with a scaled down 6800.

 

[LTC8K6]

X800Se is 8 pipes.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
X800Se is 8 pipes.

Hmm...Now I know..

But then we have to see the X800SE performance and pricing first, before coming up with any conclusion.

 

[RussianSensation]

Alright, the major mistake I've made is the association of these cards as 4x2 when what I meant in my head was 4 pipelines with 2 vertex engines, yet I wrote 4 pipelines with 2 texture units per pipeline - Proper specs. So the cards are 4x1 with 2 vertex engines, STILL making X600XT a higher memory clocked 9600XT and X600 pro an IDENTICAL PCI-Express version of 9600Pro

Regardless of these mistakes, the cards are too slow for a mid-range next-generation lineup.
Even if X600XT sports 23% (740 vs 600mhz) memory clock, it will most likely cost more than 9600xt is right now. Besides you can easily get the 9600xt with 650mhz clocks if you look around. But just look 1 prior generation 8500 was eclipsed by 9700Pro and even a mid-range 9500Pro was still way better! Surely the next generation X600 cards should be at least 90% of the 9800Pro's performance, but it seems they will be NOWHERE near that.

 

[rbV5]

was eclipsed by 9700Pro and even a mid-range 9500Pro was still way better!

The x800XT will eclipse 9800XT, and interestingly enough so will x800pro by a large margin (using the same train of thought)

 

[LTC8K6]

A GF4-ti4600 is still faster than a few GF-FX cards, especially without AA/AF. It didn't seem to bother sales any.

The PCI express cards won't really have any competition when the new boards come out, so comparing them to the AGP cards seems pointless. They don't need to be faster than ATI's old cards, they need to compete with NV's offerings.

 

[ZobarStyl]

I think the point is that it's kind of a waste of the bandwidth of PCI Express have cards come out that are outperformed by 3 year old hardware but charge like it's brand-new. And I agree with the guy who said there's a serious gap here...you can either have slow 9600 or a blazing fast x800...and the only thing in the middle is the x800SE...usually we get quite a few more flavors than this, it does seem a tad bit inadequate but I wonder if ATi is going to release some memory-overclocked 9800 core PCIEx card...I'd look forward to one of those as a economical alternative to X800's.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A GF4-ti4600 is still faster than a few GF-FX cards, especially without AA/AF. It didn't seem to bother sales any.

The PCI express cards won't really have any competition when the new boards come out, so comparing them to the AGP cards seems pointless. They don't need to be faster than ATI's old cards, they need to compete with NV's offerings.

Every card below the FX5600U is slower than the Ti4600.

 

[Childs]

Yeah, the midrange ATI cards are dissappointing. At the least the 9800pro class card should be in the midrange, unless the x600XT is considered lowend by ATI. Unless the x600 is priced at current 9600 price levels, there should be no reason to get one.

 

[SickBeast]

Of course ATi doesn't want to tell us about midrange cards which are very powerful. They want everyone to buy the X800PRO cards right now. On top of that, word of a powerful next-gen midrange card would probably kill the sales of the 9800PRO cards and such. People would just wait for something cheaper/better.

IMO, these new X600 cards will be the new low-end cards for ATi. I'm sure they have something much more serious coming for the midrange. What about the X800 (8 pipeline version)? Isn't that's supposed to be midrange?