Slashdot Mirror
First R600 Review - The Radeon HD 2900XT
mrneutron2004 writes "Tweaktown seems to have the first review out of the gate on AMD's flagship R600 core. 'Our
focus today is solely on the HD 2900 XT 512MB GDDR-3 graphics card –
it is the first GPU with a fast 512-bit memory interface but what
does this mean for performance? ... After taking a look at the GPU and the card
from PowerColor as well as some new Ruby DX10 screenshots, we will
move onto the benchmarks and compare the red hot flaming Radeon
monster against Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTX along with the former ATI GPU king, the Radeon X1950 XTX."
"Sorry but our servers aren't up to this amount of hits"
We do need some serious competition from AMD/ATI in order to drive down NVidia's prices. And yes, I'm a gaming enthusiast so this matters to me. I'm rockin som eold 7900GT's and I want to upgrade but only if there's a significant performance improvement per dollar ratio.
There is simply too much glass..
Summary: Down due to server issues - check back later, sorry!
Well TFA is slashdotted, but I think I can guess what it said. This GPU is super fast, super expensive, and super power hungry.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
That was so fast you have to wonder if this isn't blatant self-promotion combined with a hoax. That or a con job. I'm sure they'll drum up a healthy bit of ad revenue from this little tease.
Page 1 [Introduction]
AMD's long awaited R600 DX10 GPU finally arrives
It has been a long time coming but today AMD is finally set to release its massively anticipated GPU codenamed R600 XT to the world with the official retail name of ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. It is a hugely important part for AMD right now, who recently posted massive profit loss figures. It is counting on all these new models, along with the high-end 512MB DDR-3 DX10 part with 512-bit memory interface to kick ass and help raise revenue reports against the current range from the green GeForce team, which is selling like super hot cakes.
The new R600 range of graphics processing units was set to see a release on March 30 (R600 XTX) but due to production issues and lack of decisiveness to make any firm decisions, it got delayed and delayed. It was beginning to look like AMD would letdown its loyal fan base; some even began suggesting the R600 was vaporware. That would have shaken up the industry immensely and thankfully for all, that did not happen. AMD is finally able to introduce some competition to Nvidia's GeForce lineup of cards with its new series of DX10 and Windows Vista ready products.
Eventually the folks at AMD got their act together and made some clear-cut decisions and got production issues under control and underway - probably due to indecisiveness between using GDDR-3 or GDDR-4 and associated cost vs. performance concerns. It was eventually leaked out to the world that the R600 XTX (the highest end model) would be reserved for system integrators due to its size and heat related issues - you may or may not see this GPU in OEM systems from companies like Dell and HP. That model will measure a staggering 12-inches long and probably will not be suitable for every computer case or configuration. It was deemed unacceptable for the consumer retail space and hence was scrapped from all plans.
Today AMD is launching an enthusiast part HD 2900 series with the HD 2900 XT, performance parts with the HD 2600 series including HD 2600 XT and HD 2600 PRO, along with value parts including HD 2400 XT and 2400 PRO. The HD 2600 and 2400 series have had issues of their own and you will need to wait a little longer before being able to buy these various models on shop shelves (July 1st). The HD 2900 XT will be available at most of your favorite online resellers as of today. Quantity is "not too bad" but a little on the short side with most of AMD's partners only getting between 400 - 600 units which is not that much considering the huge number of ATI fans out there. You may want to get in quick and place your order, if you are interested - some AIB companies are not sure when they will get in their next order, too.
Our focus today is solely on the HD 2900 XT 512MB GDDR-3 graphics card - it is the first GPU with a fast 512-bit memory interface but what does this mean for performance? While it is AMD's top model right now, it is actually priced aggressively at around the US$350 - US$399 mark in United States, which puts it price wise up against Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB. After taking a look at the GPU and the card from PowerColor as well as some new Ruby DX10 screenshots, we will move onto the benchmarks and compare the red hot flaming Radeon monster against Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTX along with the former ATI GPU king, the Radeon X1950 XTX.
Samsung 225BW (Black) LCD Monitor
Page 2 [HD 2900 XT GPU]
Radeon HD 2900 XT GPU
R600 is AMD's first range of top to bottom DirectX 10 graphics cards with fully certified support for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system. While DX10 GPU support might not be very important right at this moment, soon it will be a requirement to experience the best graphics potential from current games, which are awaiting DX10 patches, and upcoming games such as Crysis, Alan Wake and Unreal Tournament 3. Sadly it is basically impossible for us to provide comparative DX10 benchmark numbers between AMD and Nvidia graphics cards at the moment - AMD gave the press a DX10 benchma
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
"We will put it online tomorrow when other sites release their reviews to balance the load."
Tomorrow?! The GPU will be obsolote that time already...
We shall abolish orgasm !
VR-Zone, for example: http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4946&s=1
They do note that they find the card priced aggresively. This is the highest end graphics card they are producing for the retail space. Direct competitors do not always cost the same thing. They may be trying to undercut the price of the nvidia card which is why the review compares the similarily featured rather than the similarily priced.
This signature would be better if I was creative.
Uh, nobody's forcing you to buy the top-of-the-line models. All you have to do to get a reasonable price is (shock! horror!) buy a cheaper graphics card - in the mid-range where the price/performance ratio is best.
And if you haven't bought a new graphics card for several years, I don't think you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Current graphics cards aren't "just 100 MHz faster" or "just 100 megs more RAM" than the graphics cards of a few years ago. They're an order of magnitude faster and have capabilities that your ancient card can't even dream of.
Of course, if you don't care about graphics, then that's fine. You don't have to care about graphics. It's a free country where you can choose to use an old graphics card if that's what you want. But those of us who buy new cards from time to time can get damn good value for money and damn good performance out of our accelerated desktops and the latest games. Without having to pay ridiculous sums of money for cards like this, either.
And it's not only 3D performance that sucks. The 2D performance of their drivers is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE slower than the open-source driver, and nVidia's driver at XRENDER performance ( ie rendering the webpage you're looking at
Like I said
Because the only people who use performance GPUs are those who want to simply get as much kick as possible, be it graphics designers, gamers or medical imaging. In these situations the machines won't be sat in a rack, and power is irrelevant as long as the PSU can supply it. The heat can quite easily be dissipated from high performance desktop towers either via liquid cooling or just enormous heat sinks and fans.
CPUs, on the other hand, are driven a large part by servers, which do sit in racks and need to run on as low power as possible, because power = heat = bad.
One important thing to recognise is that power requirements per unit speed are actually dropping, it's just that speed increases faster than this increase in efficiency. CPUs have a slower rate of speed increase in terms of what is required of them, so power efficiency (Which is also a higher priority) has a chance to catch up.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Can anybody verify that this guy knows the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit? As far as I know CPUs don't usually live past 90 C or so, let alone 127 C.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Sure, ATI had no response to NVidia in the gaming computer graphics market, but that isn't the only market that these companies operate in. ATI's lead over NVidia with the Radeon 9700 didn't kill NVidia, and this current situation with the 8800 having such a huge lead won't kill ATI.
From what I know, ATI was much busier then NVidia was with the "next gen" consoles. The GPU inside the XBox 360 is quite sophisticated, and the Wii doesn't just have a faster variant of the GameCube GPU. ATI spent real research time on these products, and this is when ATI came up with their solution for unified shader units on the GPU. So here we are in May of 2007, and ATI has shipped way more unified shader products then NVidia, simply because their product was inside a console that has sold millions. The 8800 series likely hasn't hit a million. Where as NVidia went with a GPU design mirrored off their 7x00 series of products for the Playstation 3, while trying to work out their own unified shader cards.
I think ATI made the better move here. They have been recouping the research money on unified shader GPUs from a much bigger market segment, though it does make it appear they are lagging behind in the PC gaming sector.
The good news for gamers is neither company is likely to go away anytime soon, because they both are in many different markets. This is a lesson 3dfx didn't learn, and many other now dead or almost dead graphics providers.
Beryl doesn't need a high end video card at all, you can use a GeForce 6200A and play with any eye candy you want.
Same for H.264 decoding.
He does know the difference between Celcius and Fahrenheit, and it's indeed "normal" for videocards to run at temperatures like this. The temperature a processor can handle greatly varies, while CPU's usually stop working around 80-90C die temperature, videocards can take at least 20 degrees above that.
However, if he's nearly burning his fingers on the thing, than I wouldn't want it in my PC.
No it is not needed. It is just another attempt to milk to consumer for every penny they have. Just like the memory market, the graphics card market is price fixing at its finest. Why are we still paying so much for a card that does only 100mhz more? or has 100 more megs of ram? Glad I have'nt bought one in a few years. I could give you a lengthy reply, but most of us already know that what you are saying is just stupid. But since you clearly don't understand how the computer industry works, allow me to explain.
1) X develops hardware x. 2) Y develops hardware y, where y > x. 3) X develops x2, where x2 > y. 4) And so on..
The good thing is that competition usually gets you better pricing and better products. And when people purchase these products, developers adapt to it and find new ways to improve software that takes advantage of the new hardware.
With your thinking, we could go back to the days when Wolfenstein was the latest in graphics and computing, but we don't want that. We need improvements, just like in every other industry.
Also, if you haven't upgraded your computer in years, then you probably don't care much about games. Well, millions of people do. Is Ferrari bankrupt because you're not buying their cars? No, because other people buy them.
Full Tilt
I'm rockin some old 7900GT's
Don't feel too badly. When you upgrade, you can pop off the heatsinks like opening a vintage wine and smell the air that was actually trapped there in 2006. Let your nose travel back in time to those heady days of yesteryear!
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Old? You think that's old?! You make me sick!
I recently upgraded from a GeForce 3 Ti to a 6200, you insensitive clod!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think ATI made the better move here. They have been recouping the research money on unified shader GPUs from a much bigger market segment, though it does make it appear they are lagging behind in the PC gaming sector.
You're missing one fact: the PC GPU market is MUCH LARGER market than the console GPU market.
Here are some recent sales numbers: 76 million units in Q3 2006. With ATI holding roughly 1/4 of the market (~18 million), that's more units than ATI sold in the last 6 months on the 360 and Wii combined, let-alone in the last quarter. The sad thing is, the Wii and 360 sales will likely go down from here, but the PC graphics market (overall) keeps improving with every quarter.
Furthermore, the share of discrete GPUs (where the real money is) was a massive 26 million, and those were split solely between Nvidia and ATI. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that ATI makes more money on an x1950 Pro or x2900 XT chipset sale than on their license fee for an Xbox 360 GPU.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.