Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R600?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 5:21:28 AM

Its still to early to tell but so far it looks like
nvidia is
@ ati. 8O

Dont think drivers can fix the early reports of high power consumption
or the fact that r600 is comparable to the nv gts :?
And not the gtx 8O

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwx...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSwx...

More about : r600

May 14, 2007 6:11:08 AM

Well it was supposed to compete against the GTS... not the GTX, the 65nm XTX version will go that route.
May 14, 2007 6:13:35 AM

Having seen the early reviews, I'm not disappointed with the performance, but the noise issue puts me right off.
Related resources
May 14, 2007 6:26:39 AM

Why would you compare a $400 card to a $550-650 card?
May 14, 2007 6:29:22 AM

Quote:
Having seen the early reviews, I'm not disappointed with the performance, but the noise issue puts me right off.


Eh, it is supposedly audible, but when you compare it against my 125CFM fan.... I wouldn't hear a thing :wink:
May 14, 2007 6:29:41 AM

Quote:
Why would you compare a $400 card to a $550-650 card?


Exactly....
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 2:22:42 PM

Quote:
Why would you compare a $400 card to a $550-650 card?


I didnt.

Quote:
or the fact that r600 is comparable to the nv gts [code:1:50e03c1ca2][/code:1:50e03c1ca2]
May 14, 2007 3:03:38 PM

Quote:
Why would you compare a $400 card to a $550-650 card?


I didnt.

Quote:
or the fact that r600 is comparable to the nv gts [code:1:5003d25cb3][/code:1:5003d25cb3]

What if the 8800 GTX was $400? Would you still compare it then?
May 14, 2007 3:17:59 PM

Well, I think the best news is that we won't have to put up with a flood of "Should I wait for R600" threads, and the like.
May 14, 2007 4:04:40 PM

I'm thinking of creating a "Should I wait for the R630?" thread :lol: 
May 14, 2007 4:07:41 PM

Nooooo. :lol: 
May 14, 2007 4:08:50 PM

It's a vicious cycle. 8O :lol: 
May 14, 2007 4:10:28 PM

Impressive! You managed to quote yourself out of context!
What you actually said is:
Quote:

Dont think drivers can fix the early reports of high power consumption
or the fact that r600 is comparable to the nv gts :?
And not the gtx 8O


Why would you want to "fix" the fact that r600 is comparable to nV GTS? It's obviously intended to be so (more or less the same price, more or less the same performance).
There is no r600 card costing $500-$700 to go against the GTX. It's not a driver issue and it's not something that anyone would think of or care to fix.
Unless what you intended was to complain about the lack of an XTX flavour of the 2900 series that would cost more, perform better and compare to the GTX.
As far as comparing it to the GTS, from what I've read so far, (and I've spent the better part of the day reading online reviews) the ATI card performs favourably on average.
The power consumption and noise are indeed sore issues but performance-wise you can't fault it at its price range
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 5:59:31 PM

I havent fualted the card at all.
most of the benchies show the cards (all of them)
are pretty close. but like you said the extra power consumption
and the fact that it is the same price or more than the gts.
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 6:01:04 PM

Quote:
Impressive! You managed to quote yourself out of context!
What you actually said is:

sirheck wrote:

Dont think drivers can fix the early reports of high power consumption
or the fact that r600 is comparable to the nv gts
And not the gtx




What.
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 11:15:19 PM

Quote:

What if the 8800 GTX was $400? Would you still compare it then?


Sure but only architecturally or as a bang/buck. You wouldn't compare them head to head as if equals in their price range.

But then again right now the GF8800GTS-640 isn't there either so they're all kinda all over the map.

It's liek the GF8600 launch you compare what's in it's price range for value, and then you compare architecture for interest sake. Most people don't buy for architecture alone, they usualy go for value.
May 15, 2007 2:36:32 AM

Quote:
Why would you compare a $400 card to a $550-650 card?


Because someone is desperate to make the $400 card look bad? Actually, when compared to the performance of the 8800 GTS 640, I think the 2900 XT does fairly well. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the power useage, heat, and noise of the 2900 XT put me off a bit. Add in that today I've seen a couple of the 8800 GTS 640 cards in the area of $50-$60 cheaper and the 2900 XT has another problem.
May 15, 2007 2:40:16 AM

Give it time folks. Here is an example of what a driver revision can do


posted by w0mbat on rage3d



It is only a matter of time before the full potential of this card is realized.
May 15, 2007 2:57:55 AM

I agree that it will take time for ATI to get their shit in order driver wise, but what I really want to see is nVidia's refresh due in June (last I heard from the rumor mill).
May 15, 2007 3:42:33 AM

Why is a card with 320 stream processors losing, well barely beating a card with 96? This doesn't make sense here for me.

Edit: NVM anandtech had a pretty good explanation.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2007 3:46:34 AM

Yes i hope so.

I would like to see ati jump ahead of nvidia.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2007 4:01:51 AM

Quote:
Give it time folks. Here is an example of what a driver revision can do

posted by w0mbat on rage3d


It is only a matter of time before the full potential of this card is realized.


Yeah but all the gains are lost in the next driver revision (back to 100%). :wink:
May 15, 2007 5:11:36 AM

I was excited to read the reviews, but just like previous generations of cards, there aren't really any titles out there that give us the whole picture of what these cards can do because, as usual, the hardware is so far ahead of the software available. I mean, we're often looking at both cards getting 100+ FPS in benchmarks. I can't help laughing looking at Doom 3 benchmarks (a 3-year-old title) on the 8800GTX and 2900XT, although the OpenGL issues were worth expounding because of Vista problems. There are no true DX10 titles out yet, so in my opinion everything is pretty much up in the air. I do appreciate ATi's modest pricing for the card, at least.
May 15, 2007 5:06:03 PM

Quote:
Give it time folks. Here is an example of what a driver revision can do

posted by w0mbat on rage3d


It is only a matter of time before the full potential of this card is realized.


Yeah but all the gains are lost in the next driver revision (back to 100%). :wink:

These drivers leave me wondering. As you say, the latest driver puts the card back to where it began, which looks pretty dumb to me. At the same time, I wonder if the revision was meant more to make it usable with DX10 rather than with DX9. Is so, a person using the card in XP should stick with the older driver.

Performance wise, I think the card is doing pretty good, especially when compared with the 8800 GTX, which I don't think should be the main comparison, but rather with the 8800 GTS 640. My big objections at this point are the power usage, the heat, and the noise. If the heat and the noise problems, in particular, could be cured, then the card would look a lot more interesting to me. Power usage is a problem, but I feel that's part of penalty of being in the enthusiast market. After all, people who buy performance cars like Vipers don't usually complain about the bad gas mileage, so why should people who buy high performance graphics cards be complaining about the high power usage of the video cards.

For myself, I'm going to wait a couple more weeks before buying a card from either ATI or Nvidia. That way the dust can settle a bit and maybe some drivers or tweaks can come out to help the 2900 XT. The heat and the noise, though, remain a troublesome problem.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2007 7:25:57 PM

I thinnk you need a better history of the W0mbat in order to understand that graph, and my wink at the author.

In regards to what you mention, the noise is the reference cooler, in some rigs the XT is generating less heat than the GTS and GTXs. So those can change the power we are stuck with until a 65nm refresh or they find a way to reduce leakage with the current design (unlikely to happen in it's short lifespan and not worth the effort of a respin).

It is what it is for now, a little noisier, and definitely more power hungry, as for hotter, the fact that it uses more power means the heat created is greater but that noisey HSF seems to often keep it cooler but is also dependant on a good case (many of the hot cards I've seen have had above 50C as ambient).

I think if cool and quiet is what you're looking for neither is great and neither is power concious (the GTS isn't like a GF7900GS or something for power), people whose main focus is that should wait for the XL/GTS refreshes on 65nm, but for performance pure and simlpe the lines are well drawn, and drivers will change things somewhat, it's just somethng that people shouldn't count on to dramatically change the world, they will generally add 10-30% over time, not 50+% But being a complex design who knows what the future holds for them under the newer apps better geared for heavy lifting.
May 15, 2007 7:52:59 PM

I think I understand the concept that more power means more heat and a bigger, noisier fan. I guess I'm hoping for some company to come up with a fan that not only provides adequate cooling, but is a bit quieter. The last time I tried to find better cooling and less noise led me to Sapphire's Toxic version of the X1900 XTX. It was fine for a few months, but then the pump got noisy, overheating started and the card broke down. Then Sapphire's attitude was that since the pump went bad, the card wasn't covered. That makes me leary of dealing with them again. So, for the moment, I'm in a wait and see what happen's in the next couple weeks. I'm not in a desparate hurry, so I have time to for the consideration.

As to the drivers, w0mbat's graph had me wondering. I want to see more reviews, with more graphs and explanations before making a decision. I also am sceptical that an older driver on the 2900 XT would make the card perform so extremely good. Beyond that, why, if a driver actually did make it that good, would AMD/ATI release a new driver that made it go so much slower? Just doesn't add up to me.
May 15, 2007 8:29:41 PM

I just want to add my thoughts for the XT.
It looks like their main problem seems to be power and heat issues.Some people will have to change PSUs which is a considerable cost.To be honest i was expecting more of it but even the way it is now its not that bad.I`m not familiar with prices in US but in Europe you can buy one at 340 EUR while the GTS 640 is still at 390 and the 320 at 280 EUR.This is a very good price -i was expecting something close to 400.For people that dont mind heat or noise this price makes the GTS 640 not looking good and the 320 look better than before considering the fact that at res as high as 1600x1200 (and maybe more) it offers the same performance for a 100 less.Drivers will improve no doubt but in the end i think the XT will have a very short life.
I dont know when revisions of both companies will hit the streets but they will be interesting.What i dont know is if AMD will continue with the same basic chip desing for their next product (if anyone have any thoughts about it i`d like to read them).And we still have to see the lower end products as well although July seems a bit late.
May 15, 2007 8:50:03 PM

Quote:
I think I understand the concept that more power means more heat and a bigger, noisier fan. I guess I'm hoping for some company to come up with a fan that not only provides adequate cooling, but is a bit quieter.

I`m really surprised with my GTS cooler.Considering it has to cool a huge chip (and OCed as well) temps doesnt go higher than 67 C and it is running at 70% which is not loud at all.
May 15, 2007 8:51:01 PM

Yeah, its been said already. The HD 2900XT is there to compete with the 8800GTS 640 for the time being, while Ati bakes the XTX in the oven a little longer.
The R600 itself is, from a technologies standpoint, superior. It clearly has the early driver syndrome, some CF benchies on THG didnt even run under XP (which makes no sense, i would have expected the cards to fail under Vista). Give Ati a month maybe to get a more mature patch out and then we will see whats up. Things were the same with the G80 when it came out.
B-sides, it pwns and in no way bleeds power or draws too much power. It draws bout as much as any high end card nowadays.
May 15, 2007 8:57:18 PM

It seems like AMD's only been releasing fillers as of late. Look at socket AM2 - it's lasted less than a year, which means that if I as an AM2 owner want to get the most potential out of a CPU upgrade, I need a new motherboard to take advantage of a higher bus speed. If I stick with my current board and just slap in an AM2+ CPU, I'll be bottlenecked. I get a computer thinking that I'll get a few years out of it with upgrades, and I was sort of conned with this socket.

From what I see, it's the same thing with R600 so far. It was hyped, everyone just "knew" it'd be the G80 killer. We figured it'd take more power to run it, and we figured it'd run hotter. We all accepted that, and looked to the performance, thinking that it'd be worth it. Looks like it isn't, and I'm pretty disappointed.

ATI's cards always had longevity to them, for example the 9600/9800 series cards. You got a 9800 Pro, you'd still be using it in a machine, if not your primary. The X800 cards were the same way. They had enough of a benefit at the beginning over nVidia's offering, and still managed to stay competitive well into the GeForce 7 series. I expected better from them, regardless of drivers. And the price! $430 for a card that barely outperforms one that costs over $100 less (8800GTS 640), or even $150 (8800GTS 320) is just bad business.

AMD had better get their act in gear, or they'll lost a lot of face with this one. Hopefully around June or early July there'll be more options from both of them, and I can make a decision about which DX10 card I'll want for a SFF build (so I can ditch AM2... >_>).
May 15, 2007 9:12:08 PM

I almost picked up AM2 over the 965 board i have now , thinking the same .I thought that by May i could just buy the new K8 (or K10 or whatever) and be fine for at least a year.Having the 965 now seems a lot better if in fact i will be able to use a Penryn on it.If not , its the same crap.Intel was always doing it but it seems AMD follows closely on that.I understand its not that simple but i dont have to like it either.
!