Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R700 Should be 50% faster than R600

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 15, 2008 11:02:29 PM

Very interesting News. If this holds true the R700 would definately be faster than a Nvidia 8800GTX but what about a Nvidia 9800GX2 that promises to be 30% faster than the Nvidia 8800 Ultra?

The Big question is whether or not the R700 is single core or not. If it is then it is going to be a big blow to Nvidia. Only time will tell. Unfortunately it is going to be about a 4-6 month wait.

But then again by Q2 or Q3 I would assume Nvidia would have the GT200 ready for release.

It should be a good summer for GPUs.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
Quote:
The foundation of R700, the chip called RV770 is taped out and it looks very promising. Just as ATI based many products on RV670 it plans to use the same tactics for the RV770.

This chip will be used for mainstream, performance and high end products and we can tell you that it should end up significantly faster than RV670. From what we have learned, it should be more than fifty percent faster, although we heard even higher numbers.

The RV770 is DirectX 10.1 compatible and it is made at 55 nanometre by who else than TSMC. This baby is scheduled for late Q2 if not early Q3.

More about : r700 faster r600

January 15, 2008 11:10:06 PM

Let's hope it's true.

ATI always coming in a tad late, but brings better performing cards. Well, that is until AMD acquired ATI.
January 15, 2008 11:28:34 PM

I think those days are over. I believe AMD learned from their mistakes and learned from Nvidia lanuching the 8800GT ahead of schedule. Look at the headlines on Tom's Hardware:

AMD Moving Up Launch Of Dual-GPU Graphics Card

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/15/amd_moving_up_la...

Quote:
Sunnyvale (CA) - Industry sources are telling us that AMD will be releasing its dual-processor R680 graphics card one week early. The NDA on all the technical specs was due to lift on January 28th, but our source tells us this has been moved up to the 23rd.


Related resources
January 15, 2008 11:35:19 PM

That card looks pretty sexy.
January 15, 2008 11:37:45 PM

Sorry to say, but looking at ATI lack of performances in the high-end right now... a 50% increase of performances doesn't look this good. It's not bad, but it's far from amazing for a new generation product.

Anyway, like usual it's wait and see before judging for me.
January 16, 2008 12:33:44 AM

Remember, AMD is supposedly going to include up to four GPUs on its next gen high end card (HD4800?). If that is 50% per GPU, we could looking at a real beast.
January 16, 2008 12:37:53 AM

Well, ATI is doing pretty well right now. 2 3870's tend to best the 8800Ultra in many occasions, and cost no where near the same price. So, the 3870 X2 should be a helluva good card.
January 16, 2008 12:40:03 AM

NightlySputnik said:
Sorry to say, but looking at ATI lack of performances in the high-end right now... a 50% increase of performances doesn't look this good. It's not bad, but it's far from amazing for a new generation product.

Anyway, like usual it's wait and see before judging for me.

I think 50% is a very good increase for a next gen product of any type. What were you expecting? a 300% increase?

BTW.. weskurtz81 nice avatar.
January 16, 2008 12:54:06 AM

it should perform about 15% faster than a GTX and 5-10% faster than an ULTRA, and considering the 9800GX2 is supposed to cost well over $600, and this is rummored to cost a little more than $400, i see a high end card that gives very high end performance for cheaper than the nV offering that is ~$200 dollars more for not much more performance
January 16, 2008 1:03:31 AM

RWayne....

Why thank you!! I used to like the Bosox a little, I wasn't ever a fan, but I would root for them. Now, not so much. The team and the fan base has turned into what they have despised for soooo many years..... Yankees.

Obviously, they aren't all like that, but, many of them are.

I assume you aren't a Boston fan.... who do you like?
January 16, 2008 1:03:45 AM

... it SHOULD be faster, it SHOULD be cheaper, blah blah blah...

The only thing this company can promise is delays, delays and more delays followed by a product that falls well short of their marketing promises. I don't have any real brand loyalty, but until this company can produce a card that lives up to expectations, deliver it on time, and compete with their competitors equivalents I'll be an Nvidia-man through and through.
January 16, 2008 1:11:06 AM

Based on previous AMD/ATI "estimates", who, besides the fanboys, is going to believe this?

It might be true. I'll wait until retail products are benchmarked.
January 16, 2008 1:20:42 AM

I think ATI is competing quite well with the 3XXX series. 2 3870's cost less than 1 Ultra and beat or compete with it in just about every bench mark. Not bad IMO.
January 16, 2008 1:52:34 AM

right now i can get either the 3870 or a 88oo gt for around the same price -/+ a couple bucks , how is that competing?The 8800gt (512) wins most benchies and i for one do not want a dual card solution , i rather not worry about the added cooling , power demands and the such ,for maybe a 30% increase in game performance.

As much as i have and still do cheer for AMD/ATI , they have dropped the ball , there video cards have been 1 or 2 steps behind for a couple years now , and i doubt the pattern will change for the imediate future, Nvidia is on a roll , ATI's time will come (I hope) jus not right now.
January 16, 2008 2:08:43 AM

{reads thread title}

{first thought: no benchmarks.}

enough said.

i'm sick of speculation. bring me benchies or bring me death!
January 16, 2008 2:37:28 AM

Well, the least expensive 512MB GT was around $250 on newegg, while the least expensive 3870 was around $230. Seems fair to me.

Edit: also the 3850 performs close to the GT when overclocked, and it's less than $200. For a lower price tag, and better scaling in a multi GPU config, they are doing ok. The performance delta between the 3870 and the GT is VERY marginal.

I was just looking at Toms VGA charts, and the differences are so small it wouldn't even be noticeable. The 3870 wins some, the GT wins a few more. But, the wins on each side are marginal.... I don't know how you can consider that dropping the ball.
January 16, 2008 5:11:08 AM

Lol as for marginal , why do you think 8800gts are selling like hot cakes?Cuz vain nerds (me included) want that marginally better video card , thats why Nvidia still makes the GTX and Ultra , Overclocking is a none point , it all depends on the user , the card and also the cooling why spend less then possibly get a marginal OC when you can buy a factory OC'd 8800gt that almost encrouches GTX territory.

Maybe i was a bit harsh on the "dropping the ball" comment , but i am honestly kinda disapointed , i have been a stuanch supporter of AMD/ATI and it pains me to see both of em bumble through , making Grand predictions and yet fall short.I still hold hope for Ati , even for Amd , but for now i'll bask in my marginally superior ultra geekiness!
January 16, 2008 5:29:34 AM

Just canceled an order I placed for two 3870's, I can wait just a bit =]
January 16, 2008 7:45:55 AM

"The performance delta between the 3870 and the GT is VERY marginal." which is why the 3870 does 25% worse in most benches. fanboi. i like ati too, but they're screwed this round. and i'm not talking about OCed cards on either side. stock to stock they do 25% apart from each other. thus why i gave in and got a 8800GT.
January 16, 2008 7:56:16 AM

agrees with cpburns....next round i'm hoping to once agian purchase a Ati card , but until then , Nvidia all the way
January 16, 2008 8:29:37 AM

Either way, it boils down to blowing smoke hoping to draw a crowd for a bond fire or (and less likely) forest fire. If there is 50% at hand, I agree too = show me benches and then also in comparison with what comes up next from NV.

I couldn't care less who's faster, I want bang for buck at a good price point with fierce competition at each segment. All I want is NV and Ati to continue the 8800GT and 3870 trend into the next generations and with decent reviews and figures I'll go whichever way.

January 16, 2008 9:42:01 AM

Northernheat said:
right now i can get either the 3870 or a 88oo gt for around the same price -/+ a couple bucks , how is that competing?The 8800gt (512) wins most benchies and i for one do not want a dual card solution , i rather not worry about the added cooling , power demands and the such ,for maybe a 30% increase in game performance.

As much as i have and still do cheer for AMD/ATI , they have dropped the ball , there video cards have been 1 or 2 steps behind for a couple years now , and i doubt the pattern will change for the imediate future, Nvidia is on a roll , ATI's time will come (I hope) jus not right now.


Theyve been behind for a couple of years because nothing has happened regarding totally new gpus for a few years. We had g80 & r600, then refreshes, and thats it. ATI made the 3870 & 3850 what they are because they most likely had to find the quickest easiest method of refreshing their product lines and appealing to fans again. They could have - and i have zero doubt they have the skill and expertise to do it - addressed all of the r600's shortcomings (lack of texturing power, put aa resolve back into the ROPs) and produced a card that was much faster, but they didnt have the cash or time to embark on a big development program which would have also meant having to add another driver team to develop just for this line, as well as maintaining the other line's drivers. They moved to 55nm, whipped out the 512bit bus, thrown in much cheaper these days ddr4 and hey presto! a 2900xt at a fraction of the cost with 90+ watts lower power consumption! If ATI was owned by a wealthy and cash rich company they might have had a more thorough refresh, but they dont so they didnt. Point being there isnt a technological gulf between ati and nvidia, rather a development budget one. That doesnt bode well for the r700, but then if a single gpu has 50%ish more go in it, and they stick 4 on one card for the high end. Thats some serious ooomphh.
On a side note, "right now i can get either the 3870 or a 88oo gt for around the same price" here in the u.k the price difference is about 30 quid, or 20% the price roughly of the cheapest 8800gt.
January 16, 2008 9:54:31 AM

LiuKang said:
... it SHOULD be faster, it SHOULD be cheaper, blah blah blah...

The only thing this company can promise is delays, delays and more delays followed by a product that falls well short of their marketing promises. I don't have any real brand loyalty, but until this company can produce a card that lives up to expectations, deliver it on time, and compete with their competitors equivalents I'll be an Nvidia-man through and through.


Well the new ATI card was better than old ATI card so there was not a lye, but N-Vid just make amasingly better with 8800. So I can not say that they lye, and I am sure that they were guite shocked when 8800 was out. They most propably take a good deal of time when they try to make 2900 better than 8800 and just found out that it was not possible at that time! (And lose valuable time when trying to overclock 2900 to valuesa that were not possible!)
If they say that R700 is 50% better than old ATI, it's ok. If it's good enough against Nvid200... who knows, but they have learn big way that it's better to compare to their own products, when you do not know what the competitor is planning.

All in all 50% more speed is quite nice. There has been very few cards that has done better Radeon 9700 and Nvid 8800 that were allmost 100% faster than previous. They were leaps that competitors were not able to comply for long time!
January 16, 2008 10:03:13 AM

oh, and i was interested in bang for buck too. my theory is that if the 3870 does 75% of the 8800GT's performance, and the 3850 does 60%, and if an 8800GT can be had for $260, then a 3870 ought to cost 195, and a 3850 ought to cost 156. until they cost that little, i'm not interested afterall.

oh, and "2 3870's can be had for far less than a 8800ultra, and they will usually outperform it"? yippie skittles?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
x2 ($230 at time of posting)
or...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
($480 at time of posting) has the speeds of an ultra.

great. two cards beat one.
who buys a GTX or Ultra anymore except for running 1920x1200 and up? and then they buy two. everyone's buying the 8800GT or GTS.
January 16, 2008 10:40:16 AM

If i were amd and had a product that was faster than any current card on the market, i wouldn't tell anyone how much faster it was, id just say "I guarantee it is faster than any graphics card on the market today, and possibly faster than any soon to be released card" That would get alot more attention and have all eyes on your product, that is assuming your word is worth ****.
January 16, 2008 11:36:26 AM

Tsukasa said:
Just canceled an order I placed for two 3870's, I can wait just a bit =]

But maybe ATI can't. Your decision affects ATI's cash flow.

Here's my point:
Anyone here old enough to remember the Osborne computer (early '81, pre IBM PC, Z80, 64 k RAM, C/PM OS, and an industry first - bundled software)? Well, one day, Osborne announced the Osborne II "Coming soon!" People naturally enough stopped buying I's and started waiting for II's. The II's were late to market at a time when IBM, Compaq, and a horde of PC clone makers were just starting to roll. Cash flow dried up and the company died.

I don't think that AMD/ATI is in such dire straits, bt that's a risk of trying to build market buzz. Remember what Barcelona, Phenom, the 2900's, and the 3800's were supposed to do to Intel and nVidia.

I am not proposing that anyone blindly support AMD/ATI to keep them alive. I will not ask someone to do something I wouldn't do. But the implications of your comment triggered a flashback.
January 16, 2008 12:02:13 PM

Isn't that called the Osborne effect or something. I wasn't born until 1983 but I've learned that lesson somewhere along the line. Isn't it a guideline that all chip manufacturers live by?
January 16, 2008 12:17:51 PM

cpburns said:
"The performance delta between the 3870 and the GT is VERY marginal." which is why the 3870 does 25% worse in most benches. fanboi. i like ati too, but they're screwed this round. and i'm not talking about OCed cards on either side. stock to stock they do 25% apart from each other. thus why i gave in and got a 8800GT.


Listen slick. I am no damn fanboy. If you cannot respond like a **** adult, keep your dumb comments to yourself. Why don't you go over to where I said I was looking at the benchmarks, and then tell me about your 25%. I think I made it clear that I was looking on Toms VGA charts when I was looking at performance. So, unless you the 3870 does 25% worse than the GT in 50% of the benchies on the VGA charts, keep your stupid fanboy comments to yourself.

thanks,
wes

Edit: just looked at Anandtech's comparison on the two as well. In only 3 benchmarks at 1600X1200 was the 3870 25% behind the GT, out of 10 games.

BTW. If you want to have a civil discussion, stop with the attacks and name calling. Like I said, I looked at Toms VGA charts, I did not have the time to scour the net for reviews of the two cards. IF you have a problem with that, be an adult about it, don't start calling people fanboy's. I read the post when I first woke up, so it ticked me off a bit, but I am better now.
January 16, 2008 12:35:33 PM

Man, I have owned my 2900XT for only about 3 months, and now I wanna upgrade. Oh and I am a ATI fanboy. I guess I don't see why people get so offended by being called a fanboy. S

So they are saying that it will be about 3-4 months for the new ATI card? I guess that 7 months is a long time to own a VGA these days. :) 
January 16, 2008 1:14:06 PM

I agree with everyone that says wait and see. You can speculate until the cows come home (that’s about 7pm) and then still you won’t have any facts.

I route for ATi, not AMD, I own a Nvidia 8800 GTX (I also run games at 1920, 1200).

Both companies are promising great things and we only have speculations and no physical proof of anything. Hate to say it, but, Nvidia's word is a little more trustable right now compared to AMD's (look at promises from HD2900, and Phenom).

Please use reason and just wait before saying how fast something will be.

I pray to (enter deity of you choice) that AMD/Ti can come back and really put a hurt on Intel and Nvidia. I want to switch but not until they are back on top.



Oh... So is the R700 still cell processor like?
January 16, 2008 2:13:13 PM

50% faster than R600?
In the end, thats still not exactly fast...
January 16, 2008 2:29:21 PM

NightlySputnik said:
Sorry to say, but looking at ATI lack of performances in the high-end right now... a 50% increase of performances doesn't look this good. It's not bad, but it's far from amazing for a new generation product.

Anyway, like usual it's wait and see before judging for me.

For me, if the performance is 50% more at the SAME core clock speed, then I'll be impressed. This is about as big an increase for a next gen chip as I've ever seen.
Usually there is a clock increase as well to make performance closer to 100% higher. Multi-core this and things keep getting better :D 
January 16, 2008 2:54:07 PM

I think folks are missing the point.The article says that the R700 will be 50% faster than the R670,not the Nv. GTX/Ultra.SO there basis is of there own card.For folks to still say it will be late is not making sense since AMD has moved the date up a week from 1/29/08 to 1/23/08.Just my pennies.Sorry for edit jobn
January 16, 2008 4:41:55 PM

I wonder if they're gonna name R700 as a HD 4600 Ti and HD 4800 Ti edition
January 16, 2008 5:10:29 PM

weskurtz81 said:
Well, ATI is doing pretty well right now. 2 3870's tend to best the 8800Ultra in many occasions, and cost no where near the same price. So, the 3870 X2 should be a helluva good card.


Is this referring to a 3dMark06 score or real world say, maxed Crysis full bore settings? I'm really starting to believe Crysis is more of a benchmark than a game lol
January 16, 2008 5:11:44 PM

Maybe the natural selection table of technology is going to swing and AMD/ATI will make a comeback this year, never know.
January 16, 2008 5:38:52 PM

Ycon said:
50% faster than R600?
In the end, thats still not exactly fast...


no but 4 of these +50% gpus on one card is potentially quite nippy yes indeedy.

A 1 core card might be the new budget racer from ati.
January 16, 2008 5:41:53 PM

homerdog said:
Remember, AMD is supposedly going to include up to four GPUs on its next gen high end card (HD4800?). If that is 50% per GPU, we could looking at a real beast.

I would add to this by saying that AMD is rumored to be working on a new interconnect that greatly increases multi-GPU on single PCB efficiency.
January 16, 2008 7:34:10 PM

The real issue is NOT in just raw performance but in something we so often overlook - Total Cost of Ownership. That total cost includes power requirement also which has to do with effeicency and heat. We also have to look at what does it cost to produce? Will I violate any laws in the production of this product. What about patent infringement? Some of you guys think that manufacturing a high technological product is as easy as "Just Do It"-it's NOT. I think to many of you watch too much TV and think the worlds problems get solved in 30 minutes just like your favorite sitcoms, or like in 20 minutes of head-to-head gameplay. R&D is the most expensive part of a tech company's budget. When did we start to think that the superior product always has the fastest FPS's? Probably the same people that think that good quality music comes from MP3 files with 64bit encoding. The focus of ATI has never been just speed because there market is broader than that and they must be tru to that market across the board in all of their products. For those of you who do not know they are heavily involved in TV/Video production and viewing products.

A lot of buyouts of this nature take some time to recover because of administration changes, focus and direction etc. It appears that ATI is no different, they are on their way to getting back on top of their game.

I would venture to say that because of the monetary situation AMD/ATI find them selves in right now they are now focusing R&D $ where it can do the most good for the company on a broad scope and that is in the graphics end. It is difficult to fight effectively on 2 fronts-when the graphics end is more stable and competitive then resources can be directed towards the CPU end. In 2010 I believe that AMD/ATI wil regain their lost luster and yes for many reasons they will be around then.

Thanks for the time - and NO I am in no way connected with AMD/ATI.
January 16, 2008 9:32:35 PM

ro3dog said:
I think folks are missing the point.The article says that the R700 will be 50% faster than the R670,not the Nv. GTX/Ultra.SO there basis is of there own card.For folks to still say it will be late is not making sense since AMD has moved the date up a week from 1/29/08 to 1/23/08.Just my pennies.Sorry for edit jobn

I thought I ment this. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough..
January 21, 2008 10:30:23 PM

I was just thinking... by the time this is all over with (gpu wars) A computer is going to be little more than a little box with a power supply and a monitor and mouse/keyboard attatched it it that you stuff a graphics card in... or the people that develop for linux will figure out how to run an entire os on just your massive video card... because it's going to have it's own permenant storeage and lan soon... they already have sound...

i mean really. the damned things are getting to be just as big as the flippin motherboard... has memory, gpu, and at high end, costs more than any given whole computer has to cost... they might as well tack another 150 bucks onto em, and just include a lan, a few ports and release it like a whole pc, or 'console' that surfs the internet. I think this is more likely than consoles replacing computer gaming... it sure is starting to look like that's what's going to happen.
January 21, 2008 11:50:35 PM

People have short memories. Waiting through delay after delay after delay for the GTX killer that turned into a GTS competitor... But this time it's for real!

Q4 paper launch, 15% faster. Nuff said.
January 22, 2008 1:04:40 AM

fudzilla = worst site ever. so unreliable.
January 22, 2008 1:08:26 AM

50% faster...far too slow for a new generation card, hard too compet
with NVIDIA's 9800 series...

Performance Index for each generation of NVIDIA's card:
GeForce 6800 Ultra (NV45) - 100
GeForce 7800 GTX (G70) - 155.8 (55.8% faster than NV45)
GeForce 7900 GTX (G71) - 209.9
(Only a half generation, still 34.7% faster than G70, +109.9% vs NV45)
GeForce 8800 Ultra (G80) - 300.1
(probably then minimal improvement in recent generations, still
43% faster than G71, +92.6% vs G70...)
Radeon HD 2900XT (R600) - 227.9
Radeon HD 3870 (RV670) - 239.5

50% faster than R600 - 227.9 x 150% = 341.9,
which is only 14% faster than 8800 Ultra.
If AMD would like to count R700 as a new generation, the new R700 will
have to be at least 84.4% faster than R600 (or 75.2% faster than
RV670, assume the next generation NV's card will only be 40% faster
than GF 8800 Ultra)...Otherwise R700 will have to be a failure product
like HD 2900 XT again...
January 22, 2008 1:09:43 AM

Except the R700 is supposedly being designed as a dual core and dual GPU solution from the ground up.

HD3870X2 = First Teraflop Video card.
January 22, 2008 1:29:28 AM

cnumartyr said:
Except the R700 is supposedly being designed as a dual core and dual GPU solution from the ground up.

Exactly, so 50% per GPU is pretty significant if you're packing 4 on the high end card.
January 22, 2008 1:42:58 PM

mahoumatic said:
50% faster...far too slow for a new generation card, hard too compet
with NVIDIA's 9800 series...

Performance Index for each generation of NVIDIA's card:
GeForce 6800 Ultra (NV45) - 100
GeForce 7800 GTX (G70) - 155.8 (55.8% faster than NV45)
GeForce 7900 GTX (G71) - 209.9
(Only a half generation, still 34.7% faster than G70, +109.9% vs NV45)
GeForce 8800 Ultra (G80) - 300.1
(probably then minimal improvement in recent generations, still
43% faster than G71, +92.6% vs G70...)
Radeon HD 2900XT (R600) - 227.9
Radeon HD 3870 (RV670) - 239.5

50% faster than R600 - 227.9 x 150% = 341.9,
which is only 14% faster than 8800 Ultra.
If AMD would like to count R700 as a new generation, the new R700 will
have to be at least 84.4% faster than R600 (or 75.2% faster than
RV670, assume the next generation NV's card will only be 40% faster
than GF 8800 Ultra)...Otherwise R700 will have to be a failure product
like HD 2900 XT again...


You are way under-egging the 8800 ultra, more like 450 than 300. I just went from 7900gt o'c higher than a gtx, to a 2900pro, and thats between 25% and 55% faster depending on what game I play (I kept a note of min and average frames on my games before I upgraded), let alone if i went to an ultra! About 50% improvement is pretty much trend between generations historically speaking I would say? 8800 series & dx10 introduced a new and very powerful architecture (unified shaders and other dx10 gubbins), which was a huge step forward but I doubt we will see the g100 being faster than the ultra by the same margin that the ultra was faster than the 7900gtx. In short a new and powerful step forward but not an absolute radical departure from dedicated pixel pipelines and vertex shaders as pre dx9.

Benchmark differences between 7800gtx 512 and 7900gtx were not actually that large on the whole, it was simply alot cheaper (7800gtx 512mb launched at 580 quid in the u.k. ! ) used a bit less power and was slightly faster.

"...Otherwise R700 will have to be a failure product
like HD 2900 XT again..." Not at the right price it wont be. *3870* *3850*
January 22, 2008 1:44:42 PM

metrazol said:
People have short memories. Waiting through delay after delay after delay for the GTX killer that turned into a GTS competitor... But this time it's for real!

Q4 paper launch, 15% faster. Nuff said.


lol no not this time i think

nice avatar, clan jade falcon isnt it? mw2 is burned into my brain lol
January 23, 2008 8:44:11 AM

"According to a news story by the Chinese newspaper Commercial Times, ATI's RV770 GPU is due to be commercially released in late Q2 2008. Two of such chips are projected to power AMD’s new high-performance ATI R700 graphics card."

http://www.techpowerup.com/

The high end card will be 2 gpus, like the 3870x2, but a 3870x2 thats 50% faster than the one about to come out. So very roughly and perhaps way off the mark, r700 high end means about say 70% faster than an 8800 ultra.
!