Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OMG!! Real pics of the X2800!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 9, 2007 12:57:10 PM

SUP, dam i'm soo excited to post this up for all of my ATI fanboys brothers!! heres the link http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4622 . Have fun guys!!!!

L8er :) 

More about : omg real pics x2800

a c 86 U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 1:15:16 PM

eh it's even longer than the 8800gtx :roll:
February 9, 2007 1:17:50 PM

dear god it's massive! 8O
Related resources
February 9, 2007 1:19:16 PM

20 bucks says it will take on an 8800GTX in sli :D 
February 9, 2007 1:25:24 PM

8O

thats huge. hopefully for something that size and with those power requirements it has the beef to stand up.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 1:27:06 PM

anyone read the article?

say the retail will be 9 inches :roll:
February 9, 2007 1:28:25 PM

240 watts... it better beats the 8800gtx balls outs. otherwise, major amd flaw
February 9, 2007 1:39:22 PM

Wow, these card gets more and more ugly these days. I wonder if the card comes with a computer case to fit it?
February 9, 2007 1:39:45 PM

270 watts 12 inches lol. Wouldnt be suprised if this beats 8800gtx by 50% or more.
February 9, 2007 1:45:29 PM

jesus humperdink christ that thing is hucking fuge!
February 9, 2007 1:48:42 PM

That is one ugly ooking card. I really hope ATI are innovating, and not just relying on brute power for the R600 but I fear I may be disappointed.
February 9, 2007 1:51:48 PM

Kinda funyn how everyone looks at the OEM version and says its huge and ugly. The pic is obviously the OEM, the retail will look like a normal card I'm sure.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 1:56:29 PM

Quote:
anyone read the article?


Nah man, like JJMan's article I posted proved, few people know how to read, they see a picture and graphs and their brains shutoff.

Quote:
say the retail will be 9 inches :roll:


Exactly. OEMs don't care if it's 12 inches long as long as it doesn't mess up their power and heat envelope. There's a heck of alot of room in a case, you just need to know how to place it, and OEMs are going to want a cool quiet card more than somethig that's going to fit in an SFF Shuttle case.
February 9, 2007 1:57:14 PM

i think the only thing that will change is a decal on the cover of the hat sink housing and a clear red blower, this monster has 4 heat pipes; it has to that big to dissipate all of the heat created from the GPU.
February 9, 2007 1:58:13 PM

damn....I mean....damnn......well if this damn brick doesn't beat the 8800 for at least 10-20% it would totally suck :evil:  .
February 9, 2007 1:58:54 PM

I commented on this before in another thread. This card shot confirms what I stated there.

Quote:
By looking at the scale between the PCIe bus connector and the PCB length, it's pretty clear that the length figure they give refers to the overall card including the cooler. If you do the math to scale down their number and get actual PCB length, you will find that it is 21cm. This is actually shorter in length than an X1900XT, which is also shorter than an 8800GTX.

In summary, you have nothing to worry about for length, because the PCB is a very reasonable length, and you can just put an aftermarket cooler on it. Honestly, how many people are going to keep the stock cooler if it makes that card that much longer? Not so many, I would wager...


The picture I refer to in that post is the CAD rendering that was posted a week or two ago. It's pretty clear that from both that picture and the one here that the cooler is the largest part of the card. For whatever reason, they decided to have the air intake on the back side of the card, which means it has to stick out beyond then end of the card. This can be remedied with an aftermarket cooler since the card itself is a tad shorter than an X1900.
February 9, 2007 1:59:44 PM

I'm betting that the cooler is what makes it 12 inches long. Look where the power ports are. If it is like the 8800 then that would be near the end of the PCB and the cooler extends beyond it because they couldn't put a fan on top of the heatpipes making it a three slot design.
February 9, 2007 2:01:03 PM

Don't care how ugly it is, this passage makes me cringe:
Quote:
The power consumption of the card is huge at 270W for 12" version and 240W for 9.5" version. As for R600XT, it will have 512MB of GDDR3 memories onboard, 9.5" long and consumes 240W of power.
I mean. I mean it's just, it's...
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 2:09:37 PM

I want one!!!!!! Just one... and in time for dx10 too. Maybe the drivers will work also? Wonder how much?
February 9, 2007 2:09:53 PM

How many watts do the 8800's draw?
February 9, 2007 2:10:22 PM

Damn bro 8O
That thing is monster, I like it :D 
I will bet $50 and a box of Crispy Creme doughnuts :lol: 
Nobods says that technology and fast, have to be small.
Nice thread :wink:
February 9, 2007 2:11:32 PM

that is the size of my litte friend :lol: 
February 9, 2007 2:12:42 PM

Quote:
Don't care how ugly it is, this passage makes me cringe: The power consumption of the card is huge at 270W for 12" version and 240W for 9.5" version. As for R600XT, it will have 512MB of GDDR3 memories onboard, 9.5" long and consumes 240W of power.
I mean. I mean it's just, it's...

Well, and now all together :"cross-fire".

Isn´t there some regulation forcing them to sell those high voltage devices with a fire extinguisher?

I´ll wait until i see real benchmarks showing the actual power consumption. If it really takes that much power i won´t let any of those near me - not even as a gift. :evil: 
February 9, 2007 2:14:51 PM

Whatever happened to the Power over money that enthusiast used to state, if by all means its superior in technology and specs, then yea, who wouldnt want to get it? :roll:
February 9, 2007 2:15:21 PM

Well, **** me blue 8O ..... that thing is huge... I mean, even the 8800GTX looks comparatively tame compared to that. I placing my bets that it will at least equal the performance of the 8800GTX, because nothing that huge should have a performance any less than what Nvidia is offering and use so much power. I mean, even for retail, I would have to get a new PSU just to provide the juice this thing would require.

By the way, nice thread.... some more morsels to keep ATI fans (like myself) waiting patiently for the real thing.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 2:19:25 PM

The GTX was predicted to consume 220W of power and yet only consumes about 160W in most reviews, so I would take any early guesstimations with a grain of salt.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 2:24:14 PM

Quote:
that is the size of my litte friend :lol: 
Is this pron? 9 & 12 inches?? Hide it from the capt....
February 9, 2007 2:31:50 PM

Quote:
that is the size of my litte friend :lol: 
Is this pron? 9 & 12 inches?? Hide it from the capt....

Nah. I've got ticklers that are bigger than that. You gotta talk jumbo salami to compare with the Captain! :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 2:37:58 PM

LOL Hope they dont come with vibration? Powerin one of those up...that gets me to thinking..4x4, 1080 watts for the gpu's....damn Ill stick (pun intended) to my blowup doll and collect the static. Anyways, this card should be killa
February 9, 2007 2:47:32 PM

That one is huge hope the performance will be good cuz in not AMD dies!
February 9, 2007 2:49:28 PM

Any one on this forum old enough to remember 3dfx? How about the 3dfx Voodoo5 card, that wound up being stupid big for it's time. You always know that a company (Nvidia included) is pushing the limits when things get that big and that power hungry.

I understand that the fan at the end of the card is adding the length, but damn the power specs!
February 9, 2007 2:51:49 PM

Have ATI gone completely over the top?


:lol: 
February 9, 2007 2:57:05 PM

ok, from what i found on the most recent data on this card i made a little comparison between the 8800GTX and the X2800XTX, obviously i could be wrong and feel free to comment;

8800 GTX
Stream Processors: 128 I donno if it’s unified too
Core Clock (MHz) 575
Shader Clock: (MHz) 1350
Memory Clock: (MHz) 900
Memory Amount: 768MB GDDR3
Memory Interface: 384-bit
Memory Bandwidth: (GB/sec) 86.4 64
Texture Fill Rate: (billion/sec) 36.8


X2800XTX
Stream Processors: 64 unified
Core Clock: (MHz) 700
Shader Clock: (MHz) couldn’t find
Memory Clock: (MHz) 1000
Memory Amount: 1024MB GDDR4
Memory Interface: 512-bit
Memory Bandwidth: (GB/sec) 153.6
Texture Fill Rate: (billion/sec) I donno

l8er :) 
February 9, 2007 3:01:01 PM

What i find somewhat interesting is the Nvidia's 8800 GTX needs at least a C2D X6800 to make full use of the card. Anything below that CPU, the card bottlenecked by the CPU.

So the R600 will experience the same thing. There are going to be so few people that will actually see the full potential of the card unless they have a $1000 CPU to go with it (and high end RAM).

It's great that ATI/AMD and Nvidia are releasing new technology like they are and pushing our visuals to the point we're at now, but the rest of the world can't keep up yet. I find it almost humerous that ATI/AMD is releasing this card that their own current high end CPU won't be able to keep up with (I know they have Barcelona coming out soon too)...could be a little funny.
February 9, 2007 3:06:06 PM

Thr R600 doesn't have a independent shader clock. The shaders run at the core clock speed. The Nvidia's 128 shader's are unified.

EDIT: I sound like a monkey again. :roll:
February 9, 2007 3:09:19 PM

that is just insane, those Canadians are nuts!
February 9, 2007 3:11:51 PM

Also the R600 does not have Stream Processors. They are 64 unified shader's that can do 128 shader operations per cycle.
February 9, 2007 3:11:56 PM

lol, if were going to be known for something, why not graphic cards?
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 3:22:34 PM

Quote:


8800 GTX
Stream Processors: 128 I donno if it’s unified too


Yep unified


Quote:
X2800XTX
Stream Processors: 64 unified


Not the same type of processors, they are more complex processors though.

Quote:
Core Clock: (MHz) 700


Last core report was 825+mhz

Quote:
Memory Clock: (MHz) 1000


I got a link from a source to the Samsung memory being used and it specs between 1ghz and 1.4ghz depending on the timing/voltage. Current target seems to be 1.2ghz

Basically the specs mean very little at this point.
February 9, 2007 3:25:26 PM

1Gb DDR4. That is going be a huge seller to people who think video memory is everything.

I have a friend who thinks his AGP Raedeon 1950 is better than my GeForce 6600Gt PCI-Exp because he has 256mb and I only have 128mb.

He looks at a game requirements and sees requires 128MB video card and thinks he has 256 so he can play NFS Carbon full graphics no prob. The 1GB is going to help the launch of the ATI as opposed to the wierd 768MB of RAM the 8800 has.

Having a 12" OEM card is a marketing strategy I think to try and get gammers to buy into the smaller 9" retail version for more money. Lets see how that pans out. ATI may get a bad vibe going abut his and hurt their rep which is not good considering the rep AMD is in now. What I like about ATI is their video in feature. No video capture card required. If NVidia had this on all their cards they would have another chunk of ATI once again.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 3:27:03 PM

Quote:
Is the following benchmark of the R600 for real?


No, it's fake FUD.
February 9, 2007 3:35:06 PM

Quote:
I have a friend who thinks his AGP Raedeon 1950 is better than my GeForce 6600Gt PCI-Exp because he has 256mb and I only have 128mb.

Did you tell him his was better because it's a faster card?
February 9, 2007 3:35:44 PM

ATI has been making graphics cards for what? more than a decade? What have they learned in all that time? you gotta release a card that goes faster than the competition or it's a BUST and very few people buy it. They (ATI) already knows what NVIDIA hand is (8800GTX) and to win they just have to best it.

Judging by the size, heatsinks, and power consumption of that thing - they may have taken ye olde overclocker's theory to make the card better - MORE POWER, MORE HEAT, MORE MEMORY, MORE SPEEEEED....

my predictions, feel free to laugh and point if i'm wrong, r600 (the top end flavor) goes 10-20% faster than NVIDIA's top end card

now what the he|_|_ is it gonna cost?
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2007 3:43:23 PM

Quote:

I have a friend who thinks his AGP Raedeon 1950 is better than my GeForce 6600Gt PCI-Exp because he has 256mb and I only have 128mb.


Yeah however in his case he's right, but for the wrong reason. The people getting confused are the 128mg GF7900GT people seeing the X1300-512mb and making the wrong choice.

Quote:
The 1GB is going to help the launch of the ATI as opposed to the wierd 768MB of RAM the 8800 has.


And the 768 is of similar issue no more/less so than ATi's.

The thing is that these cards are getting to the point where they can make use of that amount of space. There's little point of hooking up either massive bandwidth with a small buffer or huge buffer to small bandwidth. Both are trying to reacht the balance. 2GB is defiitely overkill for most current and future games, but the workstation market is going to be wicked happy for the extra space on the FireGL version of the R600.
February 9, 2007 3:43:56 PM

Quote:
1Gb DDR4. That is going be a huge seller to people who think video memory is everything.

I have a friend who thinks his AGP Raedeon 1950 is better than my GeForce 6600Gt PCI-Exp because he has 256mb and I only have 128mb.

He looks at a game requirements and sees requires 128MB video card and thinks he has 256 so he can play NFS Carbon full graphics no prob. The 1GB is going to help the launch of the ATI as opposed to the wierd 768MB of RAM the 8800 has.


It's not like having more available memory is useless. When you're pumping up the AA and AF effects to the max it does actually make a difference. Which is precisely what most people willing to lay out the big bucks for a card like this are going to want it for.

I agree there are plenty of people out there that don't know what most of the tech specs actually mean in terms of performance and cant see past the memory size which isn't the most important factor in the cards performance, but since all of the other specs for this card seem to be as good if not better than the 8800gtx there isnt any reason not to expect it to outperform it.
February 9, 2007 3:48:11 PM

More pics at http://www.overclockers.com/articles1411/

An article today over at xbitlabs talking about Geforce 7950GT comparisons with 256Meg vs 512meg of memory, and 512meg offers *very* little over 256meg in current games. I'm guessing 1024 offers very little more as well. That might change in the future, but maybe not in the "technology lifetime" of this card.


This thing is a hog: a power hog and a space hog. Two slots is one too many, and card length was already becoming a problem in my systems.

By the time you get to $500/$600/$700+ graphics adapters, you could have a console, or a 37" LCD TV, or a nice C2D Notebook... or what have you. It would be interesting to know how many 8xxx adapters cards has sold.
February 9, 2007 3:50:25 PM

Are they going to be bundling it with an independent power supply? I do seriously think that is needed for this thing.
February 9, 2007 4:03:29 PM

The x2800 XT and XTX had better outperform the 8800 series by a wide margin. the x2800 has some major drawbacks that I think will keep enthusiasts away UNLESS it's performance margin is in the 50% area.

And ATI better pray it's midrange cards can stack up to nVidia's midrange 8xxx series.

I'm a little disappointed with ATI at this point.
February 9, 2007 4:06:12 PM

power supply? i think you mean power supplies, the DFI mobo with the RD600 can handle 3 of these Goliaths! thats two for graphics and one for physics! a total of around 730 watts of power!! perpetual energy any one?

l8er :) 
!