Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Report: AMD Launching Radeon HD 6000 Oct. 18

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 3, 2010 5:28:40 PM

Is that chart right? Should'nt it say 6750, 6770. That cant be right.
October 3, 2010 5:28:41 PM

It would really suck if they actually do change up the naming scheme of their lineup.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 3, 2010 5:32:28 PM

Charts pretty fake...atleast from what i can tell. At the place they got it from, it lists the 5770 with 256 bit...if they cant get current gen specs right, how can they get future gen? Also, if 960 shaders is equivalent to or above 1440 shaders on cypress, then 1920 shaders on Cayman would be WAY too powerful. Math just doesnt add up IMO...
October 3, 2010 5:34:30 PM

Dam! And I just bought me a 5770!
I should have waited...
October 3, 2010 5:37:51 PM

'Better than 5830' and 'Better than 5850' for the 6850 and 6870 respectively? Well I would certainly hope so unless AMD decided to throw their naming convention into the wind.
October 3, 2010 5:37:58 PM

There are too many rumors out right now. Some say October, some say November. Lets just wait and see.
October 3, 2010 5:39:55 PM

the naming scheme is right, the 68xx will be comparable to the 57xx series
October 3, 2010 5:41:05 PM

Chart is wrong
should be 6750 for Barts pro
and 6770 for Barts XT
October 3, 2010 5:41:50 PM

I've seen this crazy naming scheme on more than one website, I think it's correct. What they were thinking when they picked the names is another story. It should be 67 series= old 57 series, 68 and so on. Really dumb.
October 3, 2010 5:45:03 PM

Oooh fantastic... The only way nVidia can compete with this is through " Paper Dragon 2011" :) ( Like they did with fermi for 5000 series launch ).

Go nVidia( out of GPU market )
October 3, 2010 5:46:49 PM

Can't wait to see the benchmarks.
October 3, 2010 5:55:25 PM

Yet another B.S.
October 3, 2010 6:09:21 PM

they're doing what nvidia did with 9xxx series.
October 3, 2010 6:10:08 PM

I agree the math doesn't add up no way the 6850 will be faster than 5850 based on those specs unless they doubled the rops ( which is unknown)
October 3, 2010 6:10:44 PM

I think I'll wait for a manufacturing shrink to 30nm or so before I upgrade. I'm guessing that will be part of the next line AMD releases.
October 3, 2010 6:14:49 PM

If my understanding is right, the 6xxx series is just the next lineup of cards on a more mature 40nm fab?
Would seem that, going for the same TDP as before, only a minimal performance increase should be expected.
Guess I just have to sit and wait it out for the next die shrink.
October 3, 2010 6:21:59 PM

I agree, this chart's comparison is jacked up. It doesn't make sense.
October 3, 2010 6:35:19 PM

jezzjcthey're doing what nvidia did with 9xxx series.

no they're really not. where'd you get that information from, your grandmother?
October 3, 2010 6:46:33 PM

For those who say the 6850 is inferior or whatever, thats because rumors were flying around AMD was changing the naming system up. 6750-6850, 6770-6870, 6870-6970, 6970-6990. SO keep in mind those are the 6750 and 6770 supposedly, but even considering that, math doesnt add up.
October 3, 2010 6:47:07 PM

burnley14I think I'll wait for a manufacturing shrink to 30nm or so before I upgrade. I'm guessing that will be part of the next line AMD releases.

It might take some time before they get the 30nm to the masses + current gen are really not bad, especially the 5700, I think they run pretty cool at 75*C full load and only 17W in idle. Then again, if you are able/willing to wait, it always seems prudent to just wait for the next gen for better price and maybe twice the performance. But to wait for next, next gen? You really need to have patience.
October 3, 2010 6:47:29 PM

Next year I'm going to have one hell of a DX11 Video Card, keep them coming.
Look how powerful they are now running at 1920x1200 Res that's if the game supports it, by the end of next year I think DX11 should be on every ones list along with Windows 7/8.
October 3, 2010 6:53:44 PM

looks like they are migrating the 67 series to 68 series.. so 68 series might release as the 69 series....
Will bbe real confusion if consumers think that 6870 has more performance than 5870 without knowing that the 6870 is actually 6770 renamed as 6870.. sheesh.....
is amd taking a leaf out of nvidia book.
:( 
October 3, 2010 7:08:26 PM

ares1214Charts pretty fake...atleast from what i can tell. At the place they got it from, it lists the 5770 with 256 bit...if they cant get current gen specs right, how can they get future gen? Also, if 960 shaders is equivalent to or above 1440 shaders on cypress, then 1920 shaders on Cayman would be WAY too powerful. Math just doesnt add up IMO...


I think you misread the chart.Anyway, I think AMD should wait for Nvidia to release a card that beats the 5970 before acting
October 3, 2010 7:10:46 PM

Please tell me that the HD6870 is faster than the HD5870. I waited for months trying to get new GPUs and CPUs :( 

And don't fail me again ATi with those fail resolutions and stuff.
October 3, 2010 7:25:57 PM

With these specs the next generation AMD graphics does not look promising I guess this gives nVidia a chance to pull an awesome line up from it's ass!
October 3, 2010 7:26:30 PM

is it just me but don't the specifications of the HD6850 and HD6870 seem a little meh? or is it just a typo and that suppose to be the HD6750 and HD6770
October 3, 2010 7:30:54 PM

nesto1000Dam! And I just bought me a 5770!I should have waited...


lol
October 3, 2010 7:47:00 PM

youssef 2010I think you misread the chart.Anyway, I think AMD should wait for Nvidia to release a card that beats the 5970 before acting


How did i misread the chart? Nordic got that chart from a german site, the german site has it listed as 256-bit, and the 6850 "worse than a 5830". Now you tell me, what company says their card is "worse" that something? Also, why would they wait for NV to catch up before acting? Makes no business sense...
October 3, 2010 7:55:04 PM

Based on those specs....it looks like AMD is positioning these cards to compete with the GTX 460 (the 6850) and the GTX 470 (the 6870), considering that the 470 is usually slightly better than the 5850 in most benchmarks nowadays, and this says the 6870 will be "better than the 5850." I wouldn't get too worked up about comparing these cards to the 5830 and 5850, AMD has apparently changed their naming scheme a bit. The REAL contest will be to see the performance of the 6900 series, which will be competing against the 480. If AMD launches a 6900 series card that performs equal to or better than a GTX 480, but cooler / lower power, then Nvidia will have to come up with an answer soon, especially since AMD will then most likely launch a dual GPU version later on. Can you imagine a dual GPU card where EACH GPU out-performs a GTX 480? Sign me up!
October 3, 2010 8:02:02 PM

all the confusion answers

68xx will change 57xx lineup these is because of new naming scheme and 69xx will change 58xx and 6990 change 5970

now for less amount of stream core is due to change of setup ( compared to 4 simple+1complex setup to 4 medicomplex ( which is faster then old gen on paper at least )
October 3, 2010 8:30:08 PM

Anyone got a link to the new naming scheme news story? Never heard of this before or are people just pulling it out of their asses? AFAIK those charts are fake no company would do a name scheme change without announcing it before hand it just doesn't make much sense to do it under wraps.
October 3, 2010 8:42:08 PM

LMAO
Quote:
On the other hand, the Radeon HD 6850 will be open for OEMs to customize their designs with layout changes and fancy cooling solutions.


So they will stop anyone / company from adding a decent or more efficient heatsink or after market heatsink to their "when the sit down the sun goes down" products unless sit is the server headless card versions 6750 / 6850 ?

The whole idea about AMD is it is for and by the people to do what they want when they want with it unlike CrApple.

AMD should stop smoking Muse / Elk horns and start living in the real world.
October 3, 2010 8:55:15 PM

so let me get this straight either, the 6870 is the 6770 with amd messing with the names or the chart is wrong.

previous chart we saw had the 6770 on par with the 5850, this is very dissapointing amd messing with a naming scheme that worked
October 3, 2010 10:26:49 PM

chart is "bugged", clearly a fake....
October 3, 2010 10:32:37 PM

Kind of funny were it says a 6850 faster than 5830 and the 6870 faster than 5850. LOL I would hope so. This has to be fake or typo and should be 6750 and 6770.
October 3, 2010 10:54:35 PM

The nordic hardware chart is a proven fake, initially the chart even stated that Juniper had a 256 bit bus.
October 3, 2010 11:06:43 PM

Methinks AMD would have made some sort of official announcement about the product by now if it were being released this month. Just sayin.
October 3, 2010 11:18:42 PM

ares1214Charts pretty fake...atleast from what i can tell. At the place they got it from, it lists the 5770 with 256 bit...if they cant get current gen specs right, how can they get future gen? Also, if 960 shaders is equivalent to or above 1440 shaders on cypress, then 1920 shaders on Cayman would be WAY too powerful. Math just doesnt add up IMO...


well just having more shader doesn't always = more power, if they were used more efficiently than less could be more. but i dont see that happening untill the 7xxx architecture refreshes.
October 3, 2010 11:22:37 PM

I'm waiting for Radeon 3D 7990 in Q4 2011... Because 3D means nothing and HD (also means nothing) is sooo last year!

So about those naming conventions and model names... who cares?
October 4, 2010 1:40:30 AM

I was planning to buy a GTX480 next week, but now I will wait to see if ATI will come up with a card that will get the same speeds at less heat/power consumption.
October 4, 2010 1:49:06 AM

wow! a 6850 < 5850? This is amd's logic. 1>2. somebody needs to smack AMD in the face.
October 4, 2010 2:03:22 AM

oct 17th is when these cards are coming out the November release date has already proven to be false
October 4, 2010 2:16:54 AM

I'm surprised at all the people here going "WTF AMD," showing that they'll believe ANYTHING that they read.

As countless others have said, this chart's a fake, folks. Tons of other places have given more credible information... And all of THAT disagrees with this, and agrees with each other:

- "Barts" is RV940, AKA the upper-mid-range GPU. It's the 6700 series, NOT the 6800 series.
- The 6700 cards are coming out in October; the 6800 cards, utilizing the "Cayman" (RV970) core, will come out in November.
- AMD has been allowing other companies to make tweaks and modifications to the cooler and arrangement for all cards for quite sime time.
- Barts has a total of 1280 stream processors, not 960.
- The 6000 series sees a change to the first new architecture since the 2000 series. Instead of a single core being 4 weak stream processors plus 1 strong one, it'll exchange it for 4 strong ones. Due to AMD's emphasis on optimizing SP design, the new SPs will take FEWER transistors (and hence less power/space) than the old strong ones, and almost as little as the old WEAK ones. Hence, a new 4-SP cluster will be smaller than the old 5-SP cluster, while being more powerful.
- Die size is growing with the new cards, since there's no new fabrication process to counter the increased number of clusters.
October 4, 2010 2:30:06 AM

that's great
October 4, 2010 2:35:36 AM

why all the thumb downs
October 4, 2010 3:06:46 AM

I like AMD, but I really like having the best.
AMD needs to take the single GPU crown back from nVidia if they want me to buy.
I know I can buy a 6970 now and get the best graphics card, but I'd rather run one GPU.
October 4, 2010 3:52:29 AM

Those are supposed to be 6700 series cards. It would be BAD and STUPID to have those cards called "6800" if they are actually slower than the previous series.

Anyone remember the flack with the GeForce 4200~4600 which were "replaced" by the 5200~5600 cards which were (A) easily slower and (B) cost more!?! The 5200 was about half the performance of the 4200. The 5600 was on par with the 4200, but original costs about $170... $70 more than the 4200... ugh!

If the stat charts are correct... the 6750 should be balanced well as a proper replacement of the $125~150 5770. If not... AMD would be dropping the ball, and there is no reason for them to do something that stupid. They want people buying AMD cards... not be confused and ripped off. That's Nvidia's job.
October 4, 2010 4:32:30 AM

the chart is load of **** the got the spec of 5000 series cards wrong and they are comparing with wrong class of product. ie 57xx w/ 68xx instead of 57xx vs 67xx.
!