I did not claim that an X1600 is the same as an X1800. I said it was derived from the X1800 core and not the X1900.
It's not derived from the X1800 core, they are completely different designs.
And like I said in the other thread, if anything is more close to the X1900 in design with the 'unbalanced' design, which has nothing to do with DX10, and if you're trying to go there, it has nothing to do with a unified design either.
I felt you were being needlessly technical.
When you're wrong I'm sure you would feel that way.
It's not just sites selling the cards, but Neoseeker's
Like cleeve mentoned they're wrong. Few early reviews understood the way the design worked. It unbalanced so it can give more ops with less transistors, and really until the R580 came out few people understood how that worked, and even then many reviews mistakenly called them 48 pipelines, even THG.
For all practical purposes, this is effectively described as 16 pixel pipelines in tech articles, while ATI's website calls it 12 shader operators. It's very much like a discussion of Intel's quad pumped FPS which describes an 800fsb instead of a 200 quad pumped. When 4 pixel shading quads equal 16 pipelines on the X1800XT, then what's your problem?
MY problem is you don't understand what you're talking about, and you're telling people they can Xfire an X1600 with an X1800 and X1900, which ATi says you can't (and there's no benifit to it). That's my problem. Your inability to understand that to comprise a 'pipeline' in the old term you need a texture unit for each one, and while I will cal them 4 pipes 4 brevity, Cleeve is right there's really no such thing anymore. But even if using the old terminology the X1600 is 12 shaders units and 4 pipes, not the 12 pipes you keep calling it.
You did not link to articles.
I already did that in the previous thread, and you still didn't get the point, obviously.
Here they are again, starting with the core designs (X1600 does not resemble X1800 in balancing units);
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/06/ati_enters_the_x1000_promised_land/page8.html
"Radeon X1000 architecture de-couples components of the rendering pipeline."
B3D goes on to explain in detail the mistake of most people with regards to the X1600;
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r580/
"It wasn't until RV530 (Radeon X1600) was fully understood did these descriptions become clearer as to their intent; with a configuration signalled on the roadmap as 4-1-3-2 for RV530 it become clear that the numbers represented the number of "pipelines" (even though ATI's engineering didn't like this terminology), the number of texture units per pipeline, parallel shader ALUs per pipeline and the number of Z samples per pipeline."
You simply trolled, which means you threatened to come over and blah blah blah.
Threatened nothing, simply called you the idjit that you are being, when posting information you obviously know nothing about. You end up giving people false hope telling them you can do things ATi says you can't.
That's so typical of the internet. I don't mind learning from the more technically savvy than I am but I refuse to learn from an idiot who does not back up their claim.
You refuse to learn, that's obvious. I back up my claim and you ran from the other thread. You still hold on to the mistakes of other reviewers and never actually learn what people are telling you. I was nice at first, but your resitance to understand that the X1600 has 12 shader units not 12 pipelines show you're not interested in learning you just want to defend your ignorant assumptions about Xfiring an X1600 and 1800/1900.
Also, you mentioned (paraphrased) 'just get a couple of X1800GTOs". I was not aware that they were capable of Crossfire software operation like the X1300 and X1600 (the X1600XT is IMHO, the lowest end viable Crossfire as reports equate it to a single X1800XL). [/quote]
Where are you getting than an X1600XT equates to a single X1800XL. Maybe 2 in Crossfire, but not "it" a singular X1600XT. And the X1800GTO is below an X1800XL, but is capable of dongle-less Xfire.
Edited to add that I did more research and ATI does not make it as clear on their FAQ...Bit Tech[/url] says that the X1800GTO does not need a Crossfire card. ATI needs to update their FAQ info.
Yes, obviously to specifically restate that the same series means no X1300+X1600, no X1600+X1800/1900. Because people like you are imply going to give people hope of doing something that isn't supported, and that's gonna mess people up.
The reference on so many sites seems to be a holdover from the days before GPUs, when pipelines, and clockspeed, were much more important than they are today when things are more programmable.
And if you understand how those errors occur, understand why your perpetuating them makes things harder. Even by the old standards, those descrptions don't hold water. It was excuseable in the first few weeks of the X1K series, it's not acceptable now.
I think the argument over pipelines as reported is academic. If cards are sold and reviewed (ie at Tom's, Anandtech etc) as 12 or 16 pixel pipelines.
Except it doesn't matter how many times Anand messes up, it's still WRONG! When the R580 review here was misnamed, we fought to correct that error. And there's a reason, because it's wrong, and creates issues when discussing technical aspects as we see with your string of posts and resistance to understand that other people's mistakes and your repeating them could easily cost people money in building expectations that will never occur. Understand one thing, you call me a troll, that's fine, you wrong and ignorant about it, and as long as you keep repeating it I will troll every oneof your posts and drum you out of the forum because what you're doing is detrimental to other readers. Stop perpetuating other peple's mistakes and I'll ignore you like I do many other posters. I'm not going out of my way to harass you but it's targeting your misinformation.