Talk:Radeon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radeon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Removed statement about ATI's logic being flawed

It's not necessarily flawed to base your product range on a standard core. It might well be cheap actually and so the article's statement that ATI's logic was flawed is in the least a flawed statement - it might also inspire one to wonder whether the author was truly following an NPOV approach here. Jon Masters (jcm@jonmasters.org)

Inconsistencies

This article contains a few inconsistencies. Some of the words and more techincal terms should provide links to relevant articles. Words should only be wikified once. Some things also need a little more explanation. Parts of the article are inaccessible to people without knowledge of graphics hardware. For example: "The Radeon and Geforce differed in 3D-pipeline configuration (2x3 vs 4x2, respectively)". There should be an explanation, or at least a relevant link to what a 3D-pipeline configuration is. 85.165.9.238 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

radeon express

Ati has recently created a chipset with integrated directx9 graphics card. It is called radeon express 200 or some such.--MarSch 14:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radeon categories

Not sure this page is quite working any longer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce

I've done a LOT of tidy up in the IT sections, and what I think we agreed with NVIDIA, was to turn GeForce into a summary page, because the range was to vast to fit on one page anyway.

I've tended to merge ATI and NVIDA page presentation styles, because the companies are so similar. I'm just getting the feeling that perhaps creating a Radeon x1000 series page, and turning Radeon into a referral / summary page probably makes more sense.

There are going to be more Radeon products, and we're going to have to bite the bullet on this one sometime, so I'm just giving anyone the chance to offer an opinion on it first. Timharwoodx 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark

Why is "CATALYST" shown with a trademark symbol? The article doesn't show "Radeon", "ATI", or other trademarks with trademark symbols. Ken Arromdee 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radeon classic

I've moved Radeon x800 and x1000 content to sub pages. This page could now be called 'radeon classic.' This is in line with the NVIDIA categorisations, that tend to follow core generations as a grouping methodology. The content was just getting too much for a single page. Timharwoodx 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

needs power consumption ratings

that would be nice. its very rare for a site to have power stats on gpu's. it would make this wiki more valuable:) anyone know where to get such info?

here are some http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gpu-consumption2006.html http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons.html

It would be a massive endeavor to get that data. You'd have to test every GPU out there on an identical setup. You can't take a card and separate it from the system and test it. It must be in a computer. So you aren't going to see this info because nobody has every card out there. The manufacturers don't share this data. Collecting it from various sites would make a table of worthless, uncomparable data because the test bench would not be identical. --Swaaye 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify on Naming?

It would be nice, just as they've done with the naming numbers, to clarify what each of the suffixes means (xt being better than pro, etc). I would do this myself, though I'm no expert.

Good idea; I don't know why it didn't occur to me when I was tidying some things up. Nottheking 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

usefulness?

Is this information particularly useful? Is there anything like the Geforce page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_7_Series ? I can't seem to find anything like that that compares the ATI cards

Alpha FreeBSD Driver Available

Just a quick note updating the FreeBSD section of this page. There is an Alpha-level (read use at your own risk) FreeBSD port of the ATI fglrx driver available. It is 2D only, no 3D acceleration, but it does support TV Out, and full 2D acceleration. Here's a link to a forum post regarding it: [1], and here's a link to a web page dedicated to it: [2]

XP X64

I have added a way to get a Mobility Radeon driver working in XP X64. This took a considerable amount of effort to find, and I did check Wikipedia before for it. I would have found it extremely useful. I am using an ASUS S96J with a Core 2 Duo and ATI X1600 mobility with Win XP X64. I have the driver working perfectly as described in the changes I made. Hope that's ok with everyone... I do think it should be there; whether or not it should be changed is another issue Dashboardy 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Dashboardy[reply]

I replaced the URL with the official one. --Edward Sandstig 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think ATI has released drivers for x64, I dont know when they first came out but i am running them right now. 204.52.215.70 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be removed. The x64 driver set has been available for some time, and a workaround inciting the use of unsupported third-party tools is unencyclopedic.Setsunakute 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radeon mobile chip

Could someone add information about ATI's mobile chips? my laptop says it's got a Radeon Mobility M300, I've no idea what chip is actually in there..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfyahya (talk • contribs) 07:15, February 02, 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure it says Radeon Mobility M300 and not Mobility Radeon X300? What model laptop is it? Anyway, full list of ATI's mobile chips can be found in the article named Comparison of ATI Graphics Processing Units. --Edward Sandstig 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading?

Turion 64 and Intel Core 2 are both fairly recent processors, and are among the first 64-bit mobile processors.

I removed the above because it isn't that true. AMD have had 64 bit mobile processors including in the A64 and Sempron lines before they launched the Turions. From either 2003 or 2004. This was long before Windows x64 was even launched. Of course, AMD wasn't that competitive in the mobile arena before the launch of the Turion so these weren't that common. Perhaps the sentence could be reincluded if it's reworked but IMHO it isn't necessary. It seems to be OR anyway since none of it is referenced Nil Einne 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PWM section?

Alright can someone who knows something about controls engineering rewrite the PWM section? It seems to be written by someone not familiar with electromechanical systems. Also the reasoning as to why PWM would cause clicking noises is unclear (the PWM actuation method itself cannot inherently cause noises). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chych (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]