Talk:R600 (ASIC)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE ARTICLE'S NAME IS GOING TO REMAIN THE R600 SERIES, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE NAMED HD 2900 PLease Remember this, and remember to post new comments on the bottom. Thanks The Walkin Dude 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup-rewrite outline[edit]

I think this thing is in chaos, mostly I fouund it hard to edit as they are in bullet points, and as most of you can see, the article is 35 kilobytes long, therefore a complete cleanup and rewrite is needed to improve the article. I think the below is a list of improvements to this article, thehyssfgsfdfssegsgsegsgsegesgesgsegsegsy are:-

  1. Rewrite according to the style in Radeon R520 OR
  2. at least rewrite the bullet points to paragraphs AND
  3. remove any outdated information about R600, such as the old architecture highlight AND
  4. remove any unreferenced claims/rumours AND
  5. replace the list in "possible naming and lineup" section to a simple table AND
  6. for each of the variant, use a simple paragraph to introduce the chipsets, including the video RAM support and the UVD/AVIVO, etc.
 -It would be better just to wait for NDA's to expire and true information on the R600 to appear. There's too much misinformation and rumors flying around right now to rewrite the article.

The final thing should look like this:

Article title: Radeon R600

TOC:

  1. Developement
    1. The start of the project
    2. The expected release date
    3. The delays with reasons -> include the respin and shrinks from 80 nm to 65 nm, and official "Alignment of visions"
    4. The final release date as of today
  2. Lineup
    1. X2300 (RV610)
    2. X2600 (RV630)
    3. X2900 (R600)
  3. Chipset table/Table of models
  4. Future releases/successors
    1. Rev. A15
    2. R680/R700
  5. References
    1. For <ref></ref>, either <references /> OR {{reflist|2}}
  6. See also (Interwiki links)
  7. External Links

Please comment for any mistakes/additional ideas below, so that I can start the rewrite soon, thanks. --202.71.240.18 11:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

backup stuff[edit]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=362&Itemid=1 R600 is as loud as X1950 XTX --202.71.240.18 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DailyTech article[edit]

So far only the DailyTech article mentions that R600 will have 320 stream processors (the high end card), but this is not confirmed by other news outlets.--Ghaib 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same article states it's now Radeon HD. Should we move the wiki to the new name or just leave it Radeon R600?--Gamer007 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep it like Radeon R600, at least until AMD's launch party later this month, where everything will be revealed (supposedly). --Ghaib 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up Radeon HD to redirect here for now; we can always swap the pages round if we need to. It might not be necessary however, as the latest rumour seems to be that while the R600 and RV630 will be called Radeon HD2900 and Radeon HD2600 respectively, the RV610 might just be called the Radeon 2300, as it can't output 1080i/p. --DaveJB 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article be stating 320 instead of 80 four-way SIMD stream processors? Is it really 320 four-way stream processors?--67.187.220.208 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The high-end R600 has 320 Stream Processors running at 650 Mhz, while Nvidia's GeForce_8800GTX has 128 Stream Processors running at 1350 Mhz.--Ghaib 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATI Radeon HD 2900XT[edit]

the r600 was renamed the ATI Radeon HD 2900XT, can someone plz change the title? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric C (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AMD is running quite a weird PR campaign, or lack of the same. They only revealed the name of the high end card, R600, or 2900XT, you can't change the article title since it covers all the R6xx series.--Ghaib 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Rename it the Radeon HD2K or HD2000 series, because there is R6xx and RV6xx in the series, so R600 is inaccurate and keeping it seems to be a pride issue at this point now that the cards are announced and launched with the Radeon HD 2000 series name, as noted in the press release contained within the wiki itself http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~117414,00.html. God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 09:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the Fudzilla.com articles[edit]

The R600 page cites Fudzilla quite a few times. Please not that the site (Fudzilla) never cites or reveals any sources, so it can only be taken as specualtion, at best. --Ghaib 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same as citing The Inquirer and other sources, as they do not disclose any "named" sources either, so remove all "unnamed" citations, okay? BTW, I must point out something that without all that "anon" sources report from every single website reporting the R600, including the Chinese sites and vr-zone and the'INQ and FudZilla, they all did not disclose any sources, and that the so called "secret" source is either an AMD/ATI employee or signed NDA. And thus, everything on the R600 page is pure speculation and yes, they are not trustworthy, and thus the best way is to remove everything that is speculation according to the definition you said, as WP:NOT, wiki is not a crystal ball, but that leaves the only intro line as "The Radeon R600 is ATI's unannounced DirectX 10 line of graphics cards which is due the second quarter of 2007. Speculations and rumours are floating all over the web." and then the only true named sources, such as prelimilary benchmarks from websites such as DailyTech or TG Daily and AnandTech (show as examples only, I know they do not have those cards for benchmarks) as they have "named" their sources. But it is also true that those "speculations" eventually came true, as the UVD, and the core/memory clock speeds, which the citations are mostly made to the web first from the two webs, The Inquirer or FudZilla, a website by Fuad Abazovic - formerly one of The Inquirer writer for graphics section. So yes, remove all The Inquirer and Fudzilla citations and infos and leave a clean page. --202.40.137.201 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done on removing all "unnamed" sources. This is a clean page.--202.40.137.201 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2900 XTX?[edit]

From the article in the confirmed details section...

"The only known variants for performance segment was the Radeon HD 2900 XT with GDDR3 memory and the Radeon HD 2900 XT with GDDR4 memory as the R600 featured support for both GDDR3 and GDDR4 memory interface, with the mainstream and value segment products being inadequate to be compiled."

I was going to change the GDDR4 version of the XT to the XTX because I'm fairly sure thats what it was called but I'm guessing you have left it like that due to lack of sources. The daily tech article calls it an XTX but has anyone got anymore info/sources on this?--Sat84 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] 


- More info -

The "Radeon HD 2900 XTX" tested in the daily tech isn't in fact what it claims to be. It's an early sample of the "Radeon HD 2900 XT 1024 GDDR4", a product that probably won't see the day light since it's cost/performance ration dosen't makes any sence.

The current "Radeon 2000" series of graphics processing units coupled with 1024 megabytes of GDDR4 planned is the "Radeon HD 2950 XTX", based on 65nm technology, this chip is supposed to deliver 20% more overall perfomance over the XT card and will compete directly with the 8800 Ultra.

So please, make the proper corrections. 

- Me again -

Sorry ATI, I didn't mean to blast you disinformation strategy ;). I'll leave the "XTX" brand name there and stop telling the thruth. As Nvidia needs to think that the sample of 1024 they have in hand is the actual "XTX" version. OK, OK sorry my fault...

Uh got any sources for that claim? Whether you are right or not the confirmed details still has the GDDR4 version as an XTX but in the chipset table as an XT --Sat84 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is confirmed before the 14th, link this page as the source ;) lol

Make changes after May 14, the "confirmed" (paper) launch for R600, period.

Evil took on the lock on radar feature.

HD 2600 and HD 2400 series[edit]

The mid-range and entry-level series will arrive in late June according to the AMD/ATI press release: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~117414,00.html --Gemini2525 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name on the article[edit]

shouldnt the name be changed from radeon r600 to radeon hd2000 series?

I don't think so because the radeon articles are all named by their codenames but we could begin formatting it like Radeon R520 when we have some more info on the midrange etc.ATM we have the features just referring to the 2900XT and not the architecture in general--Sat84 08:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to rename it to the Radeon HD2K or HD2000 series. R600 article should not contain RV6xx series information if we're going to get picky. Official press release for the series was HD2000 series, the article should reflect that name. God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but all previous ATI card line articles are named by the codename of the release GPU eg Radeon R520, Radeon R420. Not sure why but probably because of the fact that previous architecture chips were marketed under new architecture brands eg X600 cards. So if u wanted to change it to HD radeon whatever it is then we would have to include the mobility radeons which are DX9 and maybe change the older articles.--Sat84 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. But nothing except the HD2900 is an R600. And the HD2400 and 2600 are RV6xx chips, so no matter what the nomenclature is imperfect. At least the HD2Xxx nomenclature refers to the entire current line including the Mobility Radeon HD2Xxx series of which ONLY the HD2300 is DX9, the rest are DX10+ like their desktop brethren, they did do the wise X2300 and X2500 for the other parts, leaving the HD2300 for the model with the UVD similarities, and technically those are MXx codenamed parts. It may be imperfect, but the R600 for all the content here is even more oblique in nature IMHO. PS, isn't Radeon R520 redundant; they're never referred to as Radeon RXxx, Radeon is only used in conjunction with the code name when mentioning the line the RXxx part will become in the marketplace. God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom filter AA and image quality[edit]

Reviews and image comparisons (i.e. the one on [H]ardOCP) all point out the effect CFAA has on image quality. The act of using samples from adjacent pixels has a detrimental effect on clarity, resulting in a loss of finer details. This also impacts textures, resulting in an overall blurred scene. I think this needs mentioning, and there are many sites to reference from. -Skorpus McGee 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet some reviews like the TheTechReport prefers CFAA in some situations. Content should describe the methods, not include people's perceptions of the results. [H] is far from a dispassionate source anymore after Kyle's rumour mongering prior to the R600's launch. If you were to include [H]'s comment on CFAA, then you'd have to include their comments on CSAA poorer quality as well "ATI’s 8X MSAA mode is superior to NVIDIA’s 8X CSAA mode, but once you set the level to 8xQ which is NVIDIA’s 8X MSAA mode the image quality is similar." http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MSw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==. Technical descriptions of the methods are best without commenting on perception. God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD 2300[edit]

Can someone more qualified than me have a look at the HD 2300 specs page and (if necessary) update the information in this article? Cheers! - Gobeirne 20:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD 2300 series is for mobile, it's simply UVD "in silica" Mobility Radeon X1000 series. More to that, HD 2300 does not have unified shaders, thus no SM4.0, no DirectX 10.0 support, so it's not based on R600/RV610/RV630, thus information should be updated in Radeon R520 page, not here. Plus, I think guys over there have done that already, no need to worry. --202.71.240.18 09:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

backup[edit]

RV670_xt = Gladiator, 55nm, 825/1200 MHz core/memory, 135W TDP, 1 PCI-E 6-pin connector, 512/1024 MB GDDR3/GDDR4, UVD, DX 10.1/SM 4.1, PCI-E 2.0, HDMI/DP via dongle, DVI [1]

RV670_pro = Revival, 55nm, 750/900 MHz core/memory, 105W TDP, 1 PCI-E 6-pin connector, 256/512 GDDR3, UVD, DX 10.1/SM 4.1, PCI-E 2.0, HDMI/DP via dongle, DVI [2] --202.40.157.145 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3]--202.71.240.18 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV670 full feature list: http://www.expreview.com/img/news/070928/rv670_1.jpg --202.40.157.165 04:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dual RV670 option (single PCB, same as Radeon HD 2600 X2, codenamed R670) available, probably named Radeon HD 2950 X2/HD 2950 X2X (ref: Fudzilla). Same specs as above. Initial performance numbers from Fudzilla records a 960 GigaFLOPS figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.157.165 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC) just above 200 Watts TDP. [4][reply]

RV670 initial benchmark figures: 3DMark06 - 11,400 3DMarks, compared with G92 - 10,800. Both reference designs and high-end Core 2 processors were used in benchmarking. (ref: Inq) VR-Zone: R680 is dual RV670 on the board (supporting source: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3506&Itemid=1). With source told that R680 to have 1.5X performance in CrossFire than R600, and both solutions were aimed at achieveing 20,000 3DMarks (3DMark06). --202.40.157.145 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RV670XT initial performance benchmark, 528 GFLOPS [5], and upto 2.6x perormance for triple-card CrossFire, more than 3 times performance in Quad-card Crossfire [6], logos have been leaked also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.157.145 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/119,news-119.html final naming: Radeon HD 3000 series, 6.66 Million Transistors,

  • Class
    • Premium: xx70
    • Mainstream: xx50
    • Value: xx30

RV670 series, final naming

  • Radeon HD 3870 = RV670 XT (PCIe 2.0)
  • Radeon HD 3850 = RV670 Pro (PCIe 2.0/AGP)

--202.71.240.18 05:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote from Tom's should read 666 millions transistors, not 6.66 million which is less than an integrated part. God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD 2900GT[edit]

The HD 2900GT will be available soon: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/8263/index.html and http://www.club3d.nl/index.php/products/graphics/item/292 I'm guessing AMD/ATI is cleaning out the R600 inventory in anticipation of the RV670 launch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.84.168 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HD 2900GT is out now over at newegg. Someone should mention it in the article. Here's the link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161206 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.84.44 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV670 merger[edit]

I once suggested the merger with the R600 article but I think it might need it's own article again now that the names are the HD 3000s and along with the high end parts there might come whole replacements for the other R6*0 GPUs TMV943 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a split if others agree -- Imperator3733 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose for now it's best to wait and see what GPUs follow, if an HD 3600 comes out for example, the article might need to be split by then TMV943 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for now the HD3xxx doesn't really belong in anything other that a specualtion section. the comment on the ROPs don't belong, they are contrary to the confirmed information, and until they actually launch such speculation needs to be put in the 'speculation' section with a big Caveat.God Schmod, I want my Monkey-Man !! 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well now there's talk of the mainstream and affordable line, RV670 will need its own article again soon TMV943 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3870 beaten by 8800GT[edit]

here and here.
shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremepilot (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's your point here? Fanboy. --202.40.157.145 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually, im not a fanboy. im just disappointed that daamit constantly fail to provide superior performance. if they keep providing less and less competition to nvidia... well... bad things are going to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.201.108 (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMD/ATI has announced that they will target more mainstream audiences rather than the highend. Sure Nvidia and Intel chips provide a higher performance ceiling than AMD/ATI, the price is accordingly lower for AMD/ATI. Wonder if this kind of info should be added? 67.60.130.89 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like marketing strategy PR to me. They can't release either CPUs to compete with Intel at the top, or GPUs to compete with NV's best. So, they announce that this is their plan all along. Yeah, I kinda doubt that. I wouldn't set it in stone in the article. --Swaaye (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATI Radeon 2400 PRO does not match specs that of 2400/2350[edit]

Hi i have a Ati Radeon 2400 PRO and i noticed that the specification for 2400 does not match that of the PRO's. Additionally,the chipset table is also not accurate as the numbers overlap each other and some info is inaccurate.

Can someone write more details on the 2400 PRO? Ceecookie (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

classification[edit]

I find it a little bit strange, to count every card with a price over 150$ as enthusiast/high-end. I thuink, the only card that falls in this category ist the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 ultra and generally only cards for over 400$ fall in this category. High End is normally defined as the best of the best, not something like upper-middle-class. I think, trhis would be better:

Budget/Value: <100$ Lower Mainstream: 100$-150$ Upper Mainstream: 150$-250$ Upper Class: 250$-400$ Enthusiast/High-end: >400$

This might be a little bit disappointing for the ATI-fans, becauso none of their cards fall under the high-end category, but it is more realistic. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use the following:
  • Enthusiast/High-end: > $350/400
  • Performance: $200/250 - $350/400
  • Mainstream: $100/120 - $200/$250
  • Budget/Value: < $100/120
There's a bit of an overlap between the different segments, mostly due to the product generation, but that's approximately what I use. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R600 isn't same as HD2900XT[edit]

HD2900xt is a most powerful card on R600 core.... the HD2600 and HD2400 has only disabled or damaged some Vertex and Pixel shader Processors..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.44.4 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the HD3870 perfmance please[edit]

I have seen on a few tech sites that the 3870 should on paper outperform by a small margin the 8800GT/S 512/640 cards, but due to nVidia having better relations with game studios games are better adapted for nVidia cards.

If that was true though wouldnt AMD/ATI be able to improve the performance with driver and co-developed game patches?

oh and try to keep it as simple as possible please as I am not too smart and all these technical terms make my brains dribble out of my nose (j/k) :D 92.3.155.106 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AMD can improve performance by updating their drivers. I don't have any real numbers, but I have heard (I think it was at AnandTech) that in the past there have been significant improvements just by updating the drivers. I don't know how easy it would be to do the patches, since games would then need to have different versions for AMD GPUs and Nvidia GPUs. Patches can improve performance overall, but it would affect all GPUs, not just AMD or Nvidia GPUs. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, nVIDIA's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" scheme means for the games under that label, nVIDIA cards will significantly outperform ATI cards (in terms of framerate) on hardware that should have about equal specifications. While it seems to be true that ATI drivers can be optimised to achieve better performance, that doesn't seem to be the whole story, especially as game studios are now taking out ATI specific features (such as directX 10.1) and putting in nVIDIA specific features (such as physics engines for the upcoming nVIDIA GTX cards).--KX36 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's clearly shown in Game that work with ATI better Like GRID ..
According to Anandatech Article that ATI SP's ON RV770 for example are 800 but if in fact ATI make each Streaming Processor continued at 5 execution unit X, Y, Z, W, and T last one has specification named Special function Unit - SFUs .. RV670 ha 64 Shade clusters or steaming multiprocessor SM so its ..and RV770 has 160 SM

that's make ATI GPU More Complex Make 3D Application work with it Like 160 SPs for RV770 and 64 SP's for RV670 So ATI have to improve their Driver to work for each new games that's not fully compatible with their hardware.

nVIDIA has less Streaming processor and Higher frequency but has extremely weak point it's the Special function Unit - SFUs ..because NV has 60 SFUs on GT200 and 30 SFUs on G92 ..at what i read about SFUs it's impotent on GPGPU application . Salem F (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

model numbering scheme error?[edit]

The article currently claims the model number for mainstream is 400-790 and for Budget/Value is 350-590. how can these numbers overlap? from the rest of the article and the high end of the budget numbers, I would have thought mainstream should actually be 600-790 and would like to change it unless there are objections.--KX36 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Add please mentioning about supporting AMD FireStream technology. Infovarius (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done, a brief mentioning of RV670 being the GPU used in FireStream 9170 graphics cards. --218.102.105.32 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox template codenames style[edit]

The development codenames (RV610, RV630, RV670, R680) are also valid as ATI used it to denote the products or chips. x2, on the other hand is invalid.

Making a different entry for HD 3690 just because it was based on another GPU loses the meaning for not using the term "Series", which the phrase "HD 3600" represents the whole series for that particular market segment (i.e. Mainstream Segment) as wrote in the section Radeon R600#New model numbering scheme, this is also used by ATI to address the target market of a particular product. In older articles such as Radeon R520, the term "X1900" also serves this purpose.

I personally don't see the need to add the development codenames (or names of the GPU in your own words) into those fields. --218.102.105.32 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radeon HD 2000 Series[edit]

In case this merger is not wanted, the article should reflect that it is about a certain microarchitecture. Example articles are: Tesla (microarchitecture) (the direct competitor), Fermi (microarchitecture), Kepler (microarchitecture), Maxwell (microarchitecture), Volta (microarchitecture), Jaguar (microarchitecture), Haswell (microarchitecture), Graphics Core Next.

I suggest: R600 is a Very long instruction word (VLIW)-type microarchitecture for GPUs by ATI for their ... products. Its the first microarchitecture to implement unified shaders, replacing the old fixed pipeline design, bla bla. Graphics Core Next is the successor of the R600, Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD)-type bla. ScotXW (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R600_(ASIC)&oldid=1201384935"