RV630XT, RV630 & RV610 Spotted

Link.

Posted already??

Edit: There's also a note that the R600 may be 65nm but it sounds a bit shakey.

Possibly, but according to the VGA charts a 7600GT can lock horns with an X850XT pretty well and is slightly above par against a 6800Ultra so it's not that far fetched. It's still probably a bit of assumption on VR-zone's part though.

i agree. have messed a lot with the 76gt,s x800xl,s and 68gt,s

they are all pretty close performance wise.
except for the x8## series and their lack of sm3.0.

i now have an 8800 so im doin ok

''Compared to the solution of NVIDIA, which will give the R600 in terms of performances?
You will be surprised…''


well i sure hope i will =D haha, thanks for the link :b

Yeah, but lets say 2.0GHz GDDR4 over a 128-bit bus vs. 1.55GHz GDDR3 over a 256 -bit bus. Obvious advantage in mem bandwidth to the X1900XTX. The 7600GT did impress, Just saying it's alot to overcome having half the bus, and the X1900XTX sure ain't a X850XT.

Yeah, but lets say 2.0GHz GDDR4 over a 128-bit bus vs. 1.55GHz GDDR3 over a 256 -bit bus. Obvious advantage in mem bandwidth to the X1900XTX. The 7600GT did impress, Just saying it's alot to overcome having half the bus, and the X1900XTX sure ain't a X850XT.

Yeah it's gotta be damn fast memory to make up for that. And I wonder how much more expensive it would be to use GDDR4 than to put 256bit memory controller.

Now of course Samsung has been talking about using the 1.23(2.5), 1.4(2.8) and 1.6(3.2) ghz GDDR4 for a while, not to mention that 2.0(4.0) stuff I posted last time, but nothing has even the 1.25(2.5) stuff yet, and it's not going to be cheap. In that 2.0/4.0 article they mentioned issue with using the 3.2 on PCBs, so it's unlikely they will be able to match the bandwidth just through fast memory alone.

The thing is I doubt the X2600 will ever equal the X1900XTX at hi resolution, but these numbers they're using for 3Dmark are all at low resolution and no AA, so they aren't memory bound there. That's why the numbers make sense to me, but also don't mean much for games and real-world situations.

I think that the X2600 will remain a primarily 1024x768-1280x1024 range card, just like all the mid-level cards before it, so probably won't matter as much. But, man, I betcha they would just sing on 256bit, like an X1650XT or GF7600GT could likely use some more memory (just look at hyper-clocked GSs). Also for a laptop a slow 256bit memory configuration would be better than a fast and hot 128bit solution. I'd rather have 500mhz 256bit than 1/2ghz 128bit.

I'm just looking forward to the media aspects, especially after all the various sources (including yours), and the confirmation that ATi will go the nV route with dedicated UVD hardware on die. VC1 acceleration never matter much to me (it's less intensive than H.264) but if it helps watch an epic HD-DVD like Blazzing Saddles or Army of Darkness all the better. 8)

edit: WTF is it with the forum and 'you title has too many upper case characters' BS !?! :x

Yeah I tried replying to the AGP vs PCI-E thread at work and got it and thought it was an IE thing or something since I'd never seen it before and I was getting a division by 0 error today too.

But it seems to be with all editors, so it's a new forum addition.
Mentioned it in the bug section hopefully it'll be fixed soon because the number of acronyms in this area is pretty much all we talk about...

ATi/AMD WDDM2.1 / D3D10 PCIe GDDR4 RV630XT-X2600XT w/ H.264 + VC1 UVD AVIVO DLDVI HDCP HDMI & SPDIF 5.1 DTS HD , ETA & MSRP.

seems so.?

i am in the middle of reinstalling windows. 8O

not blaming (thg).

i got a virus or my hdd is failing :?

I think according to all of atis plans (including the originals), the rv610 and rv630 were both meant to be 65nm and the r600 was meant to be 80...

Keep in mind guys that the article states "supports GDDR4". That doesn't mean they will be using it right away. IIRC the G86 supports GDDR4 but so far all info I've seen indicates models with GDDR3 at launch.

EDIT: And TGGA...this might interest you.

GDDR4 isnt instantly better.

The 8800GTX uses 900MHz/1.8GHz GDDR3, while the x1950XTX uses 1GHz/2GHz GDDR4.

Thats only a 200MHz difference, and lets not forget that GDDR4 has terrible latencies compared to GDDR3.

I know that the 8800GTX has a 50% wider bus, but I'm just showing the cards with the fastest example of GDDR3 and GDDR4 currently availible.

If you dont believe me, compare an x1900XTX to an x1950XTX, the only difference being 775MHz/1.55GHz GDDR3 vs 1GHz/2GHz GDDR4. Due in part to the latencies of GDDR4, the advantage of the x1950XTX over the x1900XTX is tiny when you condiser the 30% memory clock increase!

I'd much rather have 1GHz/2GHz GDDR3 than 1GHz/2GHz GDDR4, and GDDR3 of that speed is attainable on almost every 8800GTX, while some ship with this speed @ stock.

Unless ATi DO use one of the much faster varieties of GDDR4, I'll be as unimpressed as I was by its addition to the x1950XTX.

Yeah actually I saw that at B3D, and the thing that interested me the most was the mention of Quantum Effects. To me that implies that there will be VPU physics available to just a single card/chip solution, and that you can load balance on the GF8 series so that some portion of the sream processors et al can be used for physics and others for graphics.

It'll be interesting to see how that fleshes out.

I think the GF86 in a laptop will be very interesting. I'm most interested to see whether ATi brings audio over HDMI and UVD stuff to their laptop offerings, but knowing tha the GF86 is there as another option is very comforting. Just need to see these suckers in action.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38292 all r600 will be 65 nm

^^

Nah darkstar is right, the ones shiping now have higher latencies, but they are not a factor of just GDDR4 itself, but of the modles used and the speeds they are running at.

One of the other advantages of GDDR4 is slightly lower power consumption, which is nice for laptops, but like I said I'd prefer slower/wider memory that uses less power overall.

Oh yes, if we do see some 2GHz/4GHz chips on a card I'll be worshiping at the GDDR4 altar, and latencies be damned it just seemed that the 1GHz/2GHz chips we saw were being marketed as better because of the "4" rather than their pretty marginal clockspeed advantage.

You are correct about the lower power consumption, but the cards likely to use GDDR4 right now are high end parts with GPUs that consume stupid amounts of power, meaning the RAM is barely a factor

The Laptops that are likely to have it are also the "Desktop replacement" kind that is more of a portable desktop than a laptop, and will usually be used near a power source.


Still, lower power is never a bad thing