AMD's Radeon 7000M and Nvidia's GeForce 600M Mobile GPUs
"A Rose by Any Other Name is Still a Rose"... and still with thorns.
AMD and Nvidia are both on the same page for this holiday season with the release of their new graphics cards. 1) They started with the mobile version and 2) there is nothing really new about their new versions. AMD "rebranded" its Radeon HD 6000M series to Radeon HD 7000M series. Nvidia's GeForce 600M launch is a rebrand of GeForce 500M parts.
AMD's "new" release includes three models; HD 7600M, 7500M and 7400M. The HD 7400M looks to be based on the same Seymore XT used with the HD 6470M. The HD 7600 follows suit and looks to be based on same Whistler Pro used with the HD 6750M. The HD 7500 fits in between the HD 7600M and HD 7400M. It combines the 480 core GPU of the HD 7600M with the 64-bit memory interface of the HD 7400M. All the current 7000M models have the ability to support DDR3 or GDDR5 memory
| AMD Mobility Radeon 7400M, 7500M, and 7600M Lineup | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radeon HD 7600M | Radeon HD 6750M | Radeon HD 7500M | Radeon HD 6630M | Radeon HD 7400M | Radeon HD 6470M | |
| Core Name | Whistler Pro (?) | Whistler Pro | Whistler LT (?) | Whistler LT | Seymore XT (?) | Seymore XT |
| Stream Processors | 480 | 480 | 480 | 480 | 160 | 160 |
| Texture Units | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 8 | 8 |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Core Clock | — | 600MHz | — | 485MHz | — | 700MHz |
| Memory Clock | GDDR5/DDR3 | 900MHz (3.6GHz) GDDR5 | GDDR5/DDR3 | 800MHz (1.6GHz) DDR3 | GDDR5/DDR3 | 800MHz (1.6GHz) DDR3 |
| Memory Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit | 64-bit | 128-bit | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | — | 57.6GB/s | — | 25.6GB/s | — | 12.8GB/s |
Nvidia's new products include the GeForce GT 635M, GT 630M and 610M. The GeForce GT 630M (GT 540M) and GeForce 610M (520MX) are direct rebrands of GeForce 500M GPUs. The only difference seen in the new product is the GT 635M has a slightly more memory bandwidth than the previous GT 555M.
| Nvidia GeForce GT 635M, GT 630M, and 610M Specifications | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce GT 635M | GeForce GT 555M | GeForce GT 630M | GeForce GT 540M | GeForce 610M | GeForce 520MX | |
| Core Name | GF106/GF108 | GF106/GF108 | GF108 | GF108 | GF119 | GF119 |
| Stream Processors | 144/96 | 144/96 | 96 | 96 | 48 | 48 |
| Texture Units | 24/16 | 24/16 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 8 |
| ROPs | 24/4 | 24/4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Core Clock | 675/753MHz | 675/753MHz | 672MHz | 672MHz | 900MHz | 900MHz |
| Memory Clock | 1.8/3.6GHz DDR3/GDDR5 | 1.8/3.14GHz DDR3/GDDR5 | Up to 900MHz (1.8GHz) DDR3 | 900MHz (1.8GHz) DDR3 | 900MHz (1.8GHz) DDR3 | 900MHz (1.8GHz) DDR3 |
| Memory Bus Width | 192/128-bit | 192/128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 43.2/57.6GB/s | 43.2/50.2GB/s | 28.8GB/s | 28.8GB/s | 14.4GB/s | 14.4GB/s |
For most, the news of these releases are a bit of a disappointment, as we were hoping for new architecture and 28 nm based desktop GPUs. I, myself, was looking forward to going out and getting a new GTX 600 or HD 7000 for my gaming computer this holiday season. It looks like we will be waiting a little longer for these desktop models to hit the market.
... instead, we get downgrades. Like Bulldozer.
Also, none of these will refrain either company from developing new products, so stop bitching about rebadging - it's not new, it's bound to happen every now and then, and doesn't harm anyone.
... instead, we get downgrades. Like Bulldozer.
wonder when the real 28 nm gpus will debut. is southern islands platform amd's first designed gpu since they merged ati? iirc the 6000 series was ati's but first amd released.
amd's phenom ii x4 840 could be an example of cpu rebadging. iirc intel rebadged a xeon cpu (i forgot the model number) to pentium extreme edition to compete with then-athlon cpus.
edit: i could be wrong about the rebadging....that was a long time ago, during the time of myths and legends....
Care to tell us whom are these directed at, then?
If they charge extra money for the re-branded cards vs. their original versions, then it hurts everybody that isn't tech savvy enough to know about this marketing cheat. For those of us that are tech savvy, it's still just plain annoying that we have to remember which is what.
Please do look into this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-test-benchmark,3090.html and stfu.
So... how is that relevant to what I said?
Exactly, and I have a problem with tricking customers into believing they're getting "better" GPU.
This pretty much sums up the article. Weren't we supposed to learn of the desktop GPUs to come four days ago?
Yes. AMD fail to deliver over and over again.
AMD have been getting some mileage out of those cards
I suppose you can do better? Besides, didn't nVidia do the exact same thing? Why blame AMD? AMD has been the underdog in every market, and yet has pushed both Intel and nVidia to do much better, and for a better price each time. Yes, their Bulldozer CPU was very underwhelming. Their APU's for laptops are exceptional, though. Maybe the next iteration of Bulldozer will be much more powerful. Maybe Windows 8 will make it perform much better. I can't say I'm hopeful for either scenario, but I haven't given up on AMD yet. If nothing else, they pushed Intel into creating much more powerful CPU's, they pushed nVidia into creating much more powerful GPU's, and to drop their prices dramatically overnight, and that alone should garner some respect.
What i remember learning is that they launch Q2 onwards...
does amd at least have confirmed new architecture across the board with the desktop? all i really know is the 2 high end cards are probably the only ones to get new memory.
intel stumbled with their first consumer multi thread solution too... i had one...
i think rebranding is keeping everything more or less exactly the same, one gen to the next. intel moving xenon to pentium i beleive is a different term, but i cant remember what it is...
he thinks that the intel high end gpus are there because amd fell, when in fact they would be there regardless.
but the fact is, for the die size, they aren't over charging much at all, especially when you figure in everything else.
hell i am willing to bet that most of the high end chips intel put out, at least sense the p2 era, were high cost due to low yeild rates, its not like now where amd can cover losses on bad chips by disabling cores, you had once core on one chip, if its not perfect, everything is broke. also smaller silicon sizes and larger sizes of the chips.
im probably getting a bit off topic though.