Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RV670 is Radeon HD 3800 Series

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 17, 2007 8:43:34 PM

Seems like AMD will make it easier for us to choose an ATi Graphics card in the future as Pro, Xt and the like will be replaced by numbers. The first cards to change name is the two cards comming November 15, formerly known as the 2950 Pro and XT, that now will be known as the Radeon HD 3850 and Radeon HD 3870.

Finally no wondering what is the best extension for a card :) 

Found the news at http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/RV670_is_Radeon_HD_3800...
October 17, 2007 8:56:39 PM

Guess that's a good thing. It was more confusing trying to figure out if a lower number was an XT was better than a higher number with a Pro.
October 17, 2007 9:01:10 PM

a new name will also draw more attention too, for the better or for the worst. but given the 2900 s reputation...
Related resources
October 17, 2007 9:19:18 PM

Anybody think that this new generation will have driver issues from the get-go like the current 2xxx series?
October 17, 2007 9:25:24 PM

Well if this is true, then maybe ATI are confident that this generation will show a significant leap in performance over the 2900.

Now that would make things very interesting indeed - perhaps it will give the 8800GT a run for its money after all.
October 17, 2007 9:26:55 PM

ailgatrat said:
Anybody think that this new generation will have driver issues from the get-go like the current 2xxx series?


I doubt it - the architecture hasn't changed that much from the info that is out there.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 9:32:35 PM

deuce271 said:
Guess that's a good thing. It was more confusing trying to figure out if a lower number was an XT was better than a higher number with a Pro.


How does this clear things up, other than for the people who wouldn't know the difference whatever method you used anyways?

So now you have a 3800/3850/3888 but you still have the problem where if you removed the suffixes from any generation an HD2600 is slower than an X1950, and likley the HD3600 or at least HD3400 will be slower than the HD2900.

It's cosemtics for the people who really never focused on the HD2800 vs HD3500, but 1GB vs 512MB, and bought GF6200/X300 cards because they had 256MB instead of the 128MB GF6600.

You're still going to have cross over and confusion regardless of what you call them, we've discussed it here a bunch of times and there is no clear solution, but at least we did have a clear formula in the past /generation&modelrange/refresh/performance-bin/ , that may be blown this time around if they move to numbers only, which greatly reduces their SKU options too.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 9:34:02 PM

ailgatrat said:
Anybody think that this new generation will have driver issues from the get-go like the current 2xxx series?


Sure.

Why would it be different than the GF8800/HD2900/GF8600/HD2600 etc.

All new cards have some driver issues, unless there is truely no change, like the GF8800U or X1950XTX.
October 17, 2007 9:50:43 PM

interesting changes in the gpu industry
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 9:52:49 PM

I agree with TheGreatGrapeApe in as much as it really dosent make any differance your still going to have to really check the specs to make sure you are getting what you think you are.
Not so sure its going to limit SKU numbers though, if what the VR Zone has is right and the PRO is going to be 3850 and the XT 3870 then going up in fives they have 3 SKU options between the two cards but they could step in 2's if they wanted i guess ?
As for the drivers i would hope they dont have as many issues as last time but that was a completly different arcitecture as has been mentioned,I would however expect the usual curve of improvement after launch as would be considered normal (if such a thing exists) :) 
Mactronix
October 17, 2007 10:17:43 PM

I suspect they will have some driver issues, but I doubt it will be as bad as the HD2900 had at launch. Just my opinion though.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 10:29:49 PM

yeah, I agree with TGGA and don't see how this would clear things up at all. If anything, I liked the old system.

Besides, wait until we get some non-reference HD3850's with slower clock speeds, GDDR2, or with their memory bandwidth crippled in half. ;) 

To me, if you followed the cards closely, the lame sub reference cards using the same name were the real hard ones to follow. for example, how many 6800XT's were there, clock speeds varied a huge amount and then there were 128-bit ones released too. Other examples would be the 128-bit 9800 pro or various clock speeds on X1650 pro's.

To me all this shows is AMD is a little embarrassed by and wants to distance themselves from the HD2xxx models as they know they failed earn a real performance name.
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 10:31:42 PM

Quote:
Not so sure its going to limit SKU numbers though


Well if they had number letter combo and now only have number of course it limits your SKU options, not in a major way I guess, whether the impact is large or not depends on their numbering ethos/pref, where they go from 'comfortable SKUs' with regular intervals, to something where you have to start dealing with single digits. I can't imagine what the old FX5600 Ultra/SE/LE/LX/XT/EVP/EL/etc and R9600SE/PRO/XT/ProVantage etc would look like as numbers.

Look at the X1800GTO to X1950Pro series and all the combos therin (including the later X1650XT), you'd really have to make sure you have spacing in between that fits the lineup. But hey if they're fast and loose with them like they were with the combos, you could easily see them overlapping again.

But an HD 3850 and 3853 and 3855 while the rest of the series is an HD3600 and 3650 would be a little ugly. You'd definitely have to plan in advance, either that or then adjust clock speeds to fit SKU holes and not max performance/yield, or else simply fudge the numbers like they already do.

I don't know, I'm pessimistic, but if they from end it better with the performance delimiters like they have for CPUs, where you have an high/medium/low line, then the numbers work fine, but even then you have things like a Sempron 3800+ versus and AMD64 3800+ with the various 'cores' etc. Is that even going to be more insightful than XT vs XTX?

I don't know what they'd have as names, but as simplistic Performance / Multimedia / Value lines with an P3800 and V3200.

But based on their shared history I don't trust any of the big 3 to figure this out in a way that everyone is happy and that there isn't overlap.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 10:56:12 PM

Yea see what you mean guess if they did try and fit all variations into for example the 3 diff SKU's i sugested then it would make quite a dent in the performance variations/profitability of the line,bad for us and bad for them.
Its going to be interesting to see how they do handle it. :) 
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2007 11:15:05 PM

pauldh said:

Besides, wait until we get some non-reference HD3850's with slower clock speeds, GDDR2, or with their memory bandwidth crippled in half. ;) 


Exactly, the R9800SE 128bit / 256bit and then the 'PRO-128bit' models, are perfect examples, as are the various 130nm, 110nm GF6800s.
I see this just being as much of a headache, but for different reasons.

Quote:
To me all this shows is AMD is a little embarrassed by and wants to distance themselves from the HD2xxx models as they know they failed earn a real performance name.


Yeah which would be a bad move IMO versus bringing an capable HD2950 and/or HD2650/2700 to the lineup to make thing look better for the line.

But really it doesn't matter even from that logical perspective, to those of us who know this stuff we rememeber the 128bit R9700/9800 'PROs', so name changes mean little to us as we already know things by their codenames, and to the only people who could be influenced, aren't really going to care that much anyways other than to have something easy to remember when people like ourselves tell them to go to NewEgg/BestBuy/Fry's/etc and buy them, for all it matter if AMD&nV uses different coloured boxes it'd have the same effect where we (or worse the store techs) tell the person, oh yes, just get the one in the Gold box with the Black stripe, not the Blue box with the silver stripe.

In the end the people who will be helped by this represent about 1% of the buying population and maybe 5% of the 'DIY' population, so WTF the point, just adds as much or more confusion in the transition from HD2900->HD3800 as if it were a new architecture, just like the AMD X2300 vs HD2300. To those too confused to know what to do with the XT/XTX endings, they're already considering a X1300 512MB over a GF8800GTS-320 based on memory size. As if this matters within a single mfr.

Argh, it's hopeless!

Simplest solution IMO, print a st00pid chart on the side of your packaging showing the grid pattern 'basic performance ranges among all currently selling (or even recent) cards at time of release'.


PS: the position is just a quick throw together, don't debate it I don't care what anyone thinks about the ranking it's for a visual not for record.

Heck make it good and you can start calling them Whatever the heck you want like cars, where it doesn't matter about a Pontiac 6000 being better/worse than a Nissan 300Z because people would know, like they know a Corevette is better than a Chevette. Of course without a guide that would just be as confusing as the mobile CPU list with all the various number/letter combos that are F'ed once the lowvoltage and such are added in.

For the ONLY people this new format would help, I think a gridwould be a much better solution for 'helping the customer', however it wouldn't help the sotre owner, or AIB/OEM or even AMD/intel/nV though, because all of them benefit from confusion and being able to push GF8400s & HD2400s in pre-built 'gaming rigs' or selling the 512MB model as add-in cards.

I know I'm basically preaching to the converted, but man, what a waste of time switching the format.
October 18, 2007 12:11:58 AM

Exciting to see new cards getting ready to be produced.
October 18, 2007 12:30:10 AM

Im not really contributing to the thread but why on earth did ATI go for the HD infront of the 2900?? are they trying to jump on the high definition band wagon and make it look like their cards are better (to the uninformed customer??) or what? is it just random like the x in front of the 1900??

all i can say is that i like the Nvidia set up.. soooo damn simple always the top end cards have 6800 7800 8800 etc.. and from there its fairly simple
October 18, 2007 12:40:08 AM

Ati doesn't have that luxury anymore, because they already went through those series numbers.
October 18, 2007 12:59:17 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe makes a good point. there will, more then ever, for a need for charts to show differences between video cards. There are some that think a 8400 is faster then a 7800 simply because the number is bigger. And with geforce running out of numbers themselves, they will have to change as well. Would be nice if they picked more of a unified system.
October 18, 2007 1:08:40 AM

I find this to be even more confusing than before.
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2007 1:11:28 AM

maverick7 said:
Im not really contributing to the thread but why on earth did ATI go for the HD infront of the 2900?? are they trying to jump on the high definition band wagon and make it look like their cards are better (to the uninformed customer??) or what? is it just random like the x in front of the 1900??


Yes it's about the HD aspect, but how is that different than nVidia and their 'HD-Gaming' (and XHD) strategy from way back?
http://www.nvidia.in/object/IO_28567.html

And compared to AMD/ATi's previous generations the HD series does tend to work better with HD content, but even then there are exceptions.

As for the X in front of 1900, it's never been random, it just the roll over from 10K where instead of it being the Radeon 10800 it became the Radeon X800, then the next generation was the X1800, so then the X1900 follows. And for that they hopped on the eXtreme bandwagon too. That's what these companies do, even going sofar as to call their parts ExtremeGraphics or XHD gaming.

Quote:
all i can say is that i like the Nvidia set up.. soooo damn simple always the top end cards have 6800 7800 8800 etc.. and from there its fairly simple


Unless you consider the GF6800 130nm, 110nm, 6800XT etc , GF7800GTX-256/512, GF7800GS, and then wherever this new G92 fits in.

Both companies have their overlap, it just so happens AMD/ATi has had more recently than nV (unlike the FX generation where nV and it's OEMs had more variants than ATi). And I doubt they'll ever completely avoid it regardless of what they do.
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2007 1:57:02 AM

+1 for the purple man.
October 18, 2007 12:10:13 PM

I disagree with TGGA. While this isn't the best solution (not by a long shot), and I see there is still confusion (2900 potentially better than the 3870) at least with just numbers we can easily see when a card was made. That is, the chronology will be easier to see a year or two from now.

For people not looking at these boards, but still looking to do some research on which card was best a few months ago, you had such an alphabet soup for cards, GT, Pro, 00XT, 50XT. At least now we know which cards were created first.

What the companies really need is a system that tells people which cards are the best and first in a series (8800GTX, 2900) and which are the mid range refreshes of that card (8xxxGT, 3870) and what the rest are (2600,2400, 8600). BUt at least this could be a step in the right direction.
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2007 8:24:44 PM

prodystopian said:
I disagree with TGGA. While this isn't the best solution (not by a long shot), and I see there is still confusion (2900 potentially better than the 3870) at least with just numbers we can easily see when a card was made. That is, the chronology will be easier to see a year or two from now.


And that matters why?

The R9800Pro was made eons ago, wanna trade me one of those for an X1050 of GF7200GS made this year?

Quote:
What the companies really need is a system that tells people which cards are the best and first in a series (8800GTX, 2900) and which are the mid range refreshes of that card (8xxxGT, 3870) and what the rest are (2600,2400, 8600).


They already do that, in a method that's been more consistent than the CPU line.

Quote:
BUt at least this could be a step in the right direction.


I doubt it.
to me it's like saying the way to solve the lack of understanding of consumers about what our company does, is to change the font on the letterhead or the font on the mission statement handout. No help people actually understand it.

IMO it's purely cosmetic, but hey if you understand it better, that's +1 on their list.
October 18, 2007 8:30:38 PM

Meh, I guess they just like to change it now and again. Anyone who doesnt constantly look into the hardware world isnt going to know much about the core or its parts or much like that, theyll probably just see "oh, next gen, woooo!"
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2007 9:03:38 PM

Just as an FYI to the thread, and in response to no one.

I found our last major discussion on the topic (happens every year or so) from a while back, here's the pretty straightforward explanaition of the messed up complexity that is trying to fit various new chips in between each other after other are already established. The rules can be deciphered, but you need to care enough, just like knowing the differences in an engine where not all V8s are better than V6s (turobo, inline, supercharged, VVT, etc...).

Here's as clear as I can make it for most people, if that doesn't explain it to you, then you may be one of the people this new scheme is aimed at.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/196051-33-graphic-card-dechipering#t1202493

The first attempt at a revised guide by Kwipper;
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/196051-33-graphic-card-dechipering#1

TI & Nvidia Graphics card name dechipering.

Lets say you are looking at a selection of graphic cards in a retail store and you may notice that about only 50% of the manufacuters don't put a lot of detailed specifications about the rendering power of the graphics card on the box. Here is how to make sense of all of those weird numbers and codes that will confuse the heck out of the common consumer.

I have noticed that a lot of people would think that an ATI Radeon X1600 Pro would give better performance than an ATI Radeon X800 XL because they look at the 1600 being larger than 800.. thus it MUST give better performance.. right?

...WRONG! Lets start by breaking the names apart.

----
ATI:
----

ATI Radeon X800 XL

becomes...

ATI.. Radeon... X... 800... XL...
------------------------------------------
ATI = Manufacutrer
Radeon = Series
X = 10 = Version of Series (Rendering features based on chipset. Series 10 seemed to be using the R420 chipset which supported Shader Model 2.0b features.)
800 = Performance class of series (In series 10, the classes were 300, 550, 600, 700, 800, 850)
XL = Splitting hairs really. This area usually reflects the speed of the chipset, if it's a high end or the low end. The order is SE<plain<GT<GTO<PRO<XL<XT<XTX (So this card being a XLo it would probably give about above midrange performance.)



ATI Radeon X1600 Pro

becomes...

ATI... Radeon... X1... 600... Pro...
------------------------------------------
ATI = Manufacutrer
Radeon = Series
X1 = X+1 = 11 = Version of series (Rendering features based on chipset. Series 11 seemed to be using the R520 chipset which supported Shader Model 3.0 features.)
600 = Performance class of series. (In series 11, the classes were 300, 400, 600, 800, 900, 950)
Pro = Splitting hairs really. This area usually reflects the speed of the chipset, if it's a high end or the low end. The order is SE<plain<GT<GTO<PRO<XL<XT<XTX (So this card being a Pro it would probably give about midrange performance.

Now that is is broken down like this it should say something like....

ATI Radeon X800 XL = High Performing, Shader Model 2.0b graphics card
ATI Radeon X1600 Pro = Midrange/Low End, Shader Model 3.0 graphics card

It sounds to me that the X1600 pro has the features, but doesn't exactly have the horsepower in the engine to run all of those features very well.. and this is based on the name of the card alone, without even looking at the specifications of the card.

Now if I were to take a look at the specifications of these cards, they would prove that I am indeed correct.


You should be able to use this same method on the Nvidia cards.

-------
Nvidia:
-------
Nvidia GeForce 7950 GTX

becomes...

Nvidia... GeForce... 7... 950... GTX...

Nvidia = Manufacutrer
GeForce = Series
7 = Version of series (Version 7 supports Shader Model 3.0)
950 = Performance class of series (In series 7, the classes were 300, 600, 800, 900, 950)
GTX = Splits hairs of the series indicating if it is an Underclocked or Overclocked from regular timings. (I think that the proper order from underclocked to overclocked names change with each series chipset introduced. I would imagine the order for this series is GS, GT, GTX, GX2 in order from underclocked to overclocked.)


There are some minor exceptions to the rulle but it still works pretty well, even when comparing the X2300 to HD2300, but not HD2300 to HD2400, in which case it should be the HD1300 really IMO.
October 18, 2007 9:36:04 PM

its getting interesting...Foxconn has the 8800GT on its site but it says its the G96 Core....



I knew something was fishy and always had the sneaking suspicion that both parties are going to come out with a new high-end rather then just midranged...
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2007 10:00:18 PM

Why would you say it's a new high end? Single slot cooler and those specs don't spell high end to me. I'm thinking it will be a very good card, but not a high end GTX/Ultra replacement.
October 18, 2007 10:09:07 PM

Doubt itll replace the high end, only rumour that contains a high end version are that this aims to replace 8800gts and the newer 65nm 8800gts plns to replace 8800gtx, but just a rumour.
October 18, 2007 11:01:09 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Here's as clear as I can make it for most people, if that doesn't explain it to you, then you may be one of the people this new scheme is aimed at.

:D 
October 19, 2007 12:52:23 AM

pauldh said:
Why would you say it's a new high end? Single slot cooler and those specs don't spell high end to me. I'm thinking it will be a very good card, but not a high end GTX/Ultra replacement.


He's stating that the card is in fact not the g92. It's the g96....Basically the point is all those damn rumors have been false. The only true fact was nvidia partners speaking with the words of an 8800 GT in the air. Which turned out to be true. But there is still a chance a new high end might surface..

Regarding the 3800 naming scheme. I'm really curious how this is gonna turn out. Consider how most the rumors and articles out on the net are 100% false garbage. Maybe they made some changes to the architecture to improve performance? It just wouldn't make sense to release a card with a 256 bit interface while the r600 had a 512 bit interface. Meanwhile increasing the performance over the r600?...The 2900 Pro has already filled that pricing segment for the mid range. If this 256 bit info is indeed true..The only logical solution that comes to me is that they solved most the issues with the r600 architecture. Why else release a new card with a lower bit interface?..Meanwhile changing the name to the 3800 series. Something is just not right. I think ATI and Nvidia are planning to ninja something....But ninja what? We won't know till the days draw closer to release.

Nvidia did state they were to release a new card to coincide with Crysis. I believe they just moved up the 8800 GT to separate it from that category. Probably just the refresh of the 8800 GTS on a smaller process and improving upon some of the specs...But we can't believe all the rumors...But overall Nvidia and ATI are both up to something....When I say something I mean they are hiding something else...time will tell.
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2007 1:47:10 AM

Gotcha, I see what you are saying and like to at least dream of the possibility.

I took the G96 to be a typo by foxconn.
October 21, 2007 11:21:42 PM

THIS NEW NAMING CONCEPT CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US! I AM LURR!
October 21, 2007 11:22:58 PM

they could have just left it as it was but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
October 22, 2007 12:21:54 AM

the new naming scheme is poor imho.
if they've sorted out the problems with AA,tweaked the core abit more, cooled it down/power consumption and beef up the TMU and ROPS then i think they should have a great card on the hands.

look more pictures of said 3800 if anyone wants to look.
http://www.chiphell.com/viewthread.php?tid=9667&extra=p...
theres was another site that had 20 something pics of it but the links are not working anymore.
/grumbles that no one ever reads shargraths posts that have the exact same information from a few days ago.
8800GT INFO
SAME specs as the 8800GTX APART from the shaders and the memory bus width.
112 shaders (128 for gtx)
32 TMUS
24 ROPS
bus width 256bit. (384bit for gtx)
edit: heres a linky that basically compares the specs (texture fill rate etc.)between 8800gt and the 8800gts http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=544&card2...
October 22, 2007 12:37:45 AM

The GPU review one is wrong, Ive posted a comment here IDK how long til/if they change it though. Its 16/16 not 32/24.
!