# Several Entry-thru-mid Radeon HD 7000 GPUs Mere Rebrands



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2011)

Want a new graphics card this shopping season? Is news of Radeon HD 7000 series arriving late this year or early next year holding you back from purchasing current-generation? Don't let it, go grab that graphics card you had your eyes on. Fairly reliable sources point out that a bulk of Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards will be based on rebranded current and previous generation GPUs. This bulk mostly spans across the entry-thru-mid range of the product lineup. Familiar GPU codenames such as Cedar, Caicos, and Turks, make a comeback with Radeon HD 7300 series, HD 7400 series, HD 7500 series, and HD 7600 series. 

Moving up the ladder, the source postulates two possibilities for Radeon HD 7700 series. First, and more plausible, is that the series is based on Juniper (a hop across two previous generations!); the second is that these make use of rechristened GPUs from a slightly higher market position from the previous generation. Perhaps Barts, perhaps even highly crippled Cayman. The only real next-generation GPU is codenamed "Tahiti", but we're hearing that graphics cards based on it are said to not follow the Radeon HD 7000 series nomenclature altogether. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## cheesy999 (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Want a new graphics card this shopping season? Is news of Radeon HD 7000 series arriving late this year or early next year holding you back from purchasing current-generation? Don't let it, go grab that graphics card you had your eyes on. Fairly reliable sources point out that a bulk of Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards will be based on rebranded current and previous generation GPUs. This bulk mostly spans across the entry-thru-mid range of the product lineup. Familiar GPU codenames such as Cedar, Caicos, and Turks, make a comeback with Radeon HD 7300 series, HD 7400 series, HD 7500 series, and HD 7600 series.



isn't re-branding GPU's normal now?


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> isn't re-branding GPU's normal now?



Governments screwing us over is normal, too.


----------



## cheesy999 (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Governments screwing us over is normal, too.



That's been going on for a lot longer then graphics card rebranding


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 18, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> That's been going on for a lot longer then graphics card rebranding



Its also a lot more serious the graphics card rebranding too - it can seriously change lives....Or end them too depending what country leaders choose to invade, but thats for another topic.


----------



## General Lee (Nov 18, 2011)

Rebranding isn't something that has only happened lately, it's been around for god knows how long. The low range is filled with cards that have been renamed a dozen times over with little or no changes at all.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> That's been going on for a lot longer then graphics card rebranding



That doesn't change the fact that rebranding GPUs is both "normal" and malicious like governments screwing us over.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Nov 18, 2011)

You guys did read that they are for APU cpu only right ?Well if I was AMD I would re-brand a card 6550/7550 to pair with a APU with a 6550 already would t you ? These are the low end Who gives a flying crud cards anyways,I want 7950/ 7970/7990 Yeah I would be mad as hell if they re-branded them......


----------



## cheesy999 (Nov 18, 2011)

General Lee said:


> Rebranding isn't something that has only happened lately, it's been around for god knows how long. The low range is filled with cards that have been renamed a dozen times over with little or no changes at all.



that's my point, it's what we're expecting them to do anyway, i was just pointing out the article made it seem like a surprise


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 18, 2011)

If I cared about the low end cards at all, this might upset me. I'm only looking at high end for the 7000 series and my 6850s should hold out until then.


----------



## DaJMasta (Nov 18, 2011)

So my HD5750 needs a new sticker and then I'll have a state-of-the-art part in 2012?  It's more than 2 years old now....

I like that graphics cards are getting faster and that my card is still considered good in terms of features and efficiency.... 

Well, I suppose it's not necessarily my version, we shall see.


----------



## erocker (Nov 18, 2011)

Disappointing, BUT! Without advancement in software that uses this technology, advancement in the hardware technology isn't needed. Looks like we are stuck so a big hearty thanks to all of those who buy/game on consoles. That being said, I'm not putting any stake in this graph.


----------



## qubit (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Fairly reliable sources point out that a bulk of Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards will be based on rebranded current and previous generation GPUs.



Crap, just like nvidiagate a few years ago.


----------



## Suhidu (Nov 18, 2011)

With the APU's "Dual Graphics" being as much a selling point as its been thus far for AMD, it would be confusing for many to break compatibility so soon with the HD 7000 series.
Not that I know what all goes into maintaining CrossfireX ability despite major architectural changes, and not that the HD 6000 series would disappear overnight.

Along with that, the increasing power of APUs is making low-mid grade discrete GPUs a less worthwhile thing to invest much development on.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> That doesn't change the fact that rebranding GPUs is both "normal" and malicious like governments screwing us over.



Normal, yes.  Malicious, not so much.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Normal, yes.  Malicious, not so much.



If someone upgrades between HD 5770 and HD 7770, he will be screwed over. Sure, he's paying for not being informed, but that still betrays bad intent by GPU vendors, when either NVIDIA or AMD resort to it.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 18, 2011)

It looks as if the higher end parts may be getting some kind of refresh, as these are all "Entry level" gpus they're detailing...


----------



## Suhidu (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> If someone upgrades between HD 5770 and HD 7770, he will be screwed over. Sure, he's paying for not being informed, but that still betrays bad intent by GPU vendors, when either NVIDIA or AMD resort to it.



The 7700 series and up is still pure speculation. No one said these are high-end cards that aren't (or are minimally) changing, just the lower-end ones that are great for APU "Dual Graphics" (Which the 6700 series is incapable of.). In a worst-case abuse of anything, yeah, the result is that people get screwed. I think it greatly changes what this news even means if you mention the *700 series and up.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 18, 2011)

qubit said:


> Crap, just like nvidiagate a few years ago.



Nvidiagate?

It was 'Bump'gate.  An issue with the solder components causing things to melt and stop working.  Hypothesised reason why Apple turned to ATI.  Cost NV a lot of money that did as they had to set aside some huge amount for RMA's etc.

The Nvidia rebranding was pretty systemic but a lot stemmed from the huge success if the 8800GTX chip (G80 on a 90nm process?) which the pretty much regurgitated until Fermi.

Feel free to correct me, my mind is a bit fuzzy on that.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 18, 2011)

sounds good your the only one that made sense


----------



## cheesy999 (Nov 18, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> The Nvidia rebranding was pretty systemic but a lot stemmed from the huge success if the 8800GTX chip (G80 on a 90nm process?) which the pretty much regurgitated until Fermi.



G92 was the massively rebranded one, covering the 8800GS, 8800GT,8800GTS 512MB, 9600GSO, 9800GT, 9800GTX, 9800GTX+, 9800GX2 and GTS 250

G80 was the 8800GTX with the 768MB of ram


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> If someone upgrades between HD 5770 and HD 7770, he will be screwed over. Sure, he's paying for not being informed, but that still betrays bad intent by GPU vendors, when either NVIDIA or AMD resort to it.



Will he be screwed over?  He is getting what he is getting the performance he is paying for, end of story.  If he buys based on name alone, and doesn't get what he thinks he is getting, the graphics card company isn't screwing him over, he gets exactly what he pays for.  Besides that, the HD5770 was $160+ when it was new.  If he bought a $160 graphics card a year ago, and decides today to buy a sub-$90 graphics card and expect an upgrade, you're an idiot.

There is no bad intent by the graphics card manufacturers, they aren't doing anything malicious.  People are still getting the performance per $ that should be getting(if they weren't they would be buying a different product).  So, people need to stop blaming their un-informed buying on the people selling the products.



cheesy999 said:


> G92 was the massively rebranded one, covering the 8800GS, 8800GT, 9600GSO, 9800GT, 9800GTX, 9800GTX+, 9800GX2 and GTS 250
> 
> G80 was the 8800GTX with the 768MB of ram



A lot of those weren't rebrands.  The only rebrands were the 8800GS to 9600GSO(done because no one was buying the 8800GS) and 8800GT to 9800GT(done because the 8800GT was released with the expectation that ATi would keep their x2900 naming scheme, but when ATi jumped to a next generation naming scheme, nVidia had to also to keep their products looking fresh in marketting, and nVidia actually proposed using a tri-SLI capable PCB with this card at first but the AIBs shot it down).  Some can argue the GTS250 was a rebrand of the 9800GTX+ too, but IMO the massive changes to the reference PCB made it more than a rebrand, despite using the same core configuration.  The rest were just variants of the core, just like every core is used in different variants of cards in different configurations.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Nov 18, 2011)

I don't mind.  

It makes a lot of sense from a manufacturing perspective.  They are still good cards.


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 18, 2011)

Hasn't Nvidia been doing this for years?

Also better get out your tinfoil hats ppl lmao


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 18, 2011)

This debate has been going on forever.  Yes its shady - but only because it is so misleading.  And the only reason it is misleading is that the precedent has been set that those numbers are meaningful for performance.  The notion that some guy in marketing is going "f&*Y it, put an 8 in the front, that'll REALLY make it sell" is what pisses people off.

No one is expecting the GFX comany to make an entirely new product line every time a new card is introduced.  But we do expect some sort of honesty from vendors about what we are buying.

I understand the need to keep your product naming scheme constant:

"yes this will also be our Gen 7 offering for midrange, yes it is a Gen 6 part, no we are not making another part - gen 6 with higher clocks will do the job"

In this case board partners are more responsible than the company.  Although AMD could easily require them to put a little graph there that shows performance of the chip in respect to current and past gen offerings.  

They should just make the names all arbitrary, then no one will complain that "Angry Beaver" has the same chip as "Aggravated Ferret".


----------



## TurdFergasun (Nov 18, 2011)

you know when was the time to care?  when nvidia gave amd the license to do this years ago by breaking the re-branding ground.  there is a stable truce it seems in gpu mfg, seems either side is only willing to take baby steps ahead of each other, in terms of corporate scheming or hardware advancement. step. follow follow, step.  it's just like dancing!


----------



## ironwolf (Nov 18, 2011)

"BeaverCreek?"  Are they even trying with the codenames these days?  The jokes practically write themselves.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 18, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Hasn't Nvidia been doing this for years?
> 
> Also better get out your tinfoil hats ppl lmao



Yeah, about that...



TurdFergasun said:


> you know when was the time to care?  when nvidia gave amd the license to do this years ago by breaking the re-branding ground.  there is a stable truce it seems in gpu mfg, seems either side is only willing to take baby steps ahead of each other, in terms of corporate scheming or hardware advancement. step. follow follow, step.  it's just like dancing!



When exactly do you think nVidia started this?


----------



## Fx (Nov 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> that doesn't change the fact that rebranding gpus is both "normal" and malicious like governments screwing us over.



+1


----------



## TurdFergasun (Nov 18, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> When exactly do you think nVidia started this?




when exactly did they make the decision to rename the 8800gt to the 9800gt, and isn't one of the gts240 a reworked 9800gt?   i'd say thats when, as soon as they took the first step in the direction that made it less shitty for ati to do the same, and bad business if they didn't do the same cost cutting measures as their direct rivals.  at least it would appear to be bad business to some of the share holders, who are what really matter, which is why it's happening now on amd's side.


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 18, 2011)

My 5770 is still doing good, they are fairly low power consumers. It makes sense to continue that line up. Look what the 6770's still sell for. I have no problem with some carry over, especially when g-cards are getting so far ahead of software. I just want to see power consumption drop!


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 18, 2011)

TurdFergasun said:


> when exactly did they make the decision to rename the 8800gt to the 9800gt, and isn't one of the gts240 a reworked 9800gt?   i'd say thats when, as soon as they took the first step in the direction that made it less shitty for ati to do the same, and bad business if they didn't do the same cost cutting measures as their direct rivals.  at least it would appear to be bad business to some of the share holders, who are what really matter, which is why it's happening now on amd's side.



So ATi renaming the X550 to the X1050 didn't happen then?  I guess renaming the X1300XT to x1650Pro didn't either, and they definitely didn't rename the x1600 Pro to x1650...

And remind you, this was back in the day when adding a 50 to the numbers was signifigent enough to distiquish between generations.  Back when doing a die shrink, or similar to aid performance, meant you want from an x1900 to an x1950 name, instead of today where that is enough to leap an entire generation in naming.  In the naming system today, then x1950 would have been called the X2900.  Or with the examples I used, the x1650 would have been called the x2650 if the naming style of today was used.

Oh, and then there was the x1900GT.  Which they reworked after release to reduce performance, kind of like the 9600GSO that everyone likes to harp on.  Oh, and they did the same thing with the HD 2900 Pro, secretly dropping it from a 512-bit memory bus to a 256-bit memory bus after the initial batch had shipped, severaly cripping it, likely because it performed too closely to the x2900XT, and in reality could be flashed to an x2900XT, but crippling the memory bus killed 2 birds with one stone there.

*So are you still sure it was nVidia that started it all?*

And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm not pointing fingers at ATi here either.  I honestly don't know who was the first one to rename a GPU to fill a gap in the next generation, my knowledge doesn't go back that far(and I'm too lazy to do the research).  For all I know it could have been VooDoo.  My point is that they both have been doing it, the G92 rebadges were not the first by a long shot, they were just the first(or maybe just most recent) where people actually caught on and publicised it.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 18, 2011)

What sucks is if they had die shrunk the 5670 it'd have epic performance for a 65w part. Maybe they were afraid of a $100 part having enough performance to max any game? I imagine it's actually a serious concern for them that their high end cards are becoming less and less relevant due to console stagnation.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 18, 2011)

Frankly, with a new CEO, anything is possible, including a completly new naming scheme.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What sucks is if they had die shrunk the 5670 it'd have epic performance for a 65w part. Maybe they were afraid of a $100 part having enough performance to max any game? I imagine it's actually a serious concern for them that their high end cards are becoming less and less relevant due to console stagnation.



I'm sure part of the problem too is the immaturity of 28nm.  TSMC isn't expected to be running full blast 28nm until at least then endish of Q1 2012.  But both sides(more so AMD IMO) are trying to push "new" products out the door at record pace.  The more "new" products you keep showing on paper, the better you look...


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 18, 2011)

*Its smart business!*

This is really more about btarunrs’ banter as why we’re all off in left field disputing this.  So, they’ll shrink or even rename some low end chips, its smart business!  It’s not like Nvidia is beating down the door to get at the market either, the lowest of low end is basically gone so why spend any engineering there!

AMD can keep the 6450 as the minimalist card, they don’t need to shrink it, just newer feature set and tinker with it to always keep it fan less. Consider it as the 8400GS lives today.  That card would still probably better the GT520 replacement, while holding low entry price for those who can’t live with Nvidia IGP or GMA Craphics.

AMD will make APU’s prevail and abandon onboard graphic, while all they need is two models that Hybrid. First a 6550 like card; they don’t shrink or change much architecturally. The other a 6570 might shrink and get the rest of architecture changes originally slated for Northern Island that they passed on. Either of those still can be used as discrete and pricing is very competitive.

The 6670 successor will get elevated to 6770 level performance; while still maintaining without external power (6-Pin). This card will get most all of the mainstream improvements of the Southern Islands and sustain the VLIW4 architecture (with upgrades) and 128-Bit DDR5. The 7670 will be the stout player in the “entry gamer level” who wants to “plug-n-play” with their OEM box. I mean what has Nvidia offer in this segment, but just the GT440… Fermi never scaled good in the low end and Kepler is probably holding that same course.

I see AMD not offering the 7750/7770, that's always been an oddity and not coming back (at least at first).  When the 5XXX came along the 58XX went way up the ladder, and they need to back fill a cost effective model to 4850’s the 57XX was born. I think they’ll retire the X7XX designation, or if competition and binned 78XX chips are profuse, they could bring it back latter as 7770 but 7830 sounds more proper.


----------



## qubit (Nov 18, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> Nvidiagate?
> 
> It was 'Bump'gate.  An issue with the solder components causing things to melt and stop working.  Hypothesised reason why Apple turned to ATI.  Cost NV a lot of money that did as they had to set aside some huge amount for RMA's etc.
> 
> ...



Yes, it was indeed as you describe, fuzzy memory or not.  I just like the sound of 'nvidiagate', because renaming has the whiff of scandal about it, doesn't it?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm sure part of the problem too is the immaturity of 28nm.  TSMC isn't expected to be running full blast 28nm until at least then endish of Q1 2012.  But both sides(more so AMD IMO) are trying to push "new" products out the door at record pace.  The more "new" products you keep showing on paper, the better you look...



...which I thought was the basis for them wanting to test it out on low end chips first, as has been the reported plan fro both manufactures. This would suggest they're saving 28nm for the 78xx and 79xx series chips and won't do a full range update till 8xxx. That just seems bizarre. Unless we're going to see 7679s half way in.


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 19, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What sucks is if they had die shrunk the 5670 it'd have epic performance for a 65w part. Maybe they were afraid of a $100 part having enough performance to max any game? I imagine it's actually a serious concern for them that their high end cards are becoming less and less relevant due to console stagnation.



I personally think that is the big problem. Look at my system, and with the resolution of my monitor it can play anything I have tried to play. I know people running higher resolutions have more strain, but still....... If performance of g-cards took 2 more flying leaps forward a low end card would be all ANYBODY needed, and that is not good business.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 19, 2011)

ironwolf said:


> "BeaverCreek?"  Are they even trying with the codenames these days?  The jokes practically write themselves.



Actually, that's a real place... much much older than modern slang...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 19, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What sucks is if they had die shrunk the 5670 it'd have epic performance for a 65w part. Maybe they were afraid of a $100 part having enough performance to max any game? I imagine it's actually a serious concern for them that their high end cards are becoming less and less relevant due to console stagnation.



Wow....5670......my first big. Serious dive into grafic cards......then I noticed mine was smaller than everyone elses and went xfired 6870s


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 19, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> ...which I thought was the basis for them wanting to test it out on low end chips first, as has been the reported plan fro both manufactures. This would suggest they're saving 28nm for the 78xx and 79xx series chips and won't do a full range update till 8xxx. That just seems bizarre. Unless we're going to see 7679s half way in.



Why bizarre?  Considering the console-ification of gaming, and the resultant lowering of graphical standards practically rendering most GPU updates as not necessary for most gaming, they seem to be doing just as much as they need to do.  Why spend more money on a completely new line, top-to-bottom, if it's not necessary?
It's the fault of the game designers not pushing the technological limits, always making sure their designs are console friendly.  The consoles have created an artificial ecomonic and technological plateau.  No need for Big Green and Big Red to throw too much money into their development if they can rebrand.
Also, no major DirectX updates that might call for a major change top-to-bottom.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 19, 2011)

humm... didn't we already know this? If I recall correctly the 7300-7800 cards were supposed to be 28nm VLIW4 GPUs from the start (a die shrink of current models) and the 7900s were going to be GCN. I think that the news piece about the HD7900 series using XDR2 RAM had this info.


----------



## HossHuge (Nov 19, 2011)

If you are really against this practice and any other practices you feel are suspect (for example selling low end cards with lots of memory), why do you complain about it here?  

Tell Amd or any company that does this yourself.  Maybe they don't know it's bad.  

I'll even help you out.

_Dear Company,

I feel that your selling of rebranded chips is very misleading to the average computer user.  Please stop this practice immediately or I shall be forced to create a group that sits outside you offices until we get want we want.  Occupy AMD!!

Thank you,
your name here._

http://www.amd.com/us/aboutamd/contact-us/Pages/contact-us.aspx


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 19, 2011)

I don't really see any improvement in performance in 90% of the games I play between my 4830 and my 6950 and I don't expect that to change until the next gen of consoles....So I don't really care if they rebrand...just means my 6950 will be relevant longer


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 19, 2011)

Well as long as the performance increase is relative not a single f*** will be given, I know this is stupid but say the 6850 became became lower mid range its still better than that old low to mid range card from the 6000 series isnt it? There is still a performance increase.

IF they straight rebrand a card with the same performance and target market then no i cant agree with that.

Saying that the ATi 9500pro of the early 2000s was slightly faster than the 9600pro that replaced it. The 9600pro was a cut down 9800pro which was a beast in its day. The 9500pro could unlock to a 9700pro and yes i do remember this from the day because i read a lot of computer magazines back then lol!


----------



## NC37 (Nov 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm not pointing fingers at ATi here either.  I honestly don't know who was the first one to rename a GPU to fill a gap in the next generation, my knowledge doesn't go back that far(and I'm too lazy to do the research).  For all I know it could have been VooDoo.  My point is that they both have been doing it, the G92 rebadges were not the first by a long shot, they were just the first(or maybe just most recent) where people actually caught on and publicised it.



3Dfx didn't really rebrand. Course they weren't around long enough to do that. But they did rebrand within the gen. If I remember right the Banshee was a crippled V2/V3. Cheaper board but didn't sell well.

ATI on the other hand has been doing rebranding with Radeon since the beginning. First Radeon was later rebranded the 7200. The Radeon 7000 itself was also a 7200 without a T&L unit. 8500 series was a new design but they rebranded it for 9000, 9100, and 9200. Later chips were roughly 8500s that had been tweaked/weakened. ATI back then often practiced this. They would release the better GPUs first and then later release a cheaper to produce board based on that. Cut the costs but also the performance.


----------



## Rowsol (Nov 19, 2011)

Rebranding is dumb but I think anyone who buys a video card is going to look at some benchmarks first.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 19, 2011)

NC37 said:


> 3Dfx didn't really rebrand. Course they weren't around long enough to do that. But they did rebrand within the gen. If I remember right the Banshee was a crippled V2/V3. Cheaper board but didn't sell well.
> 
> ATI on the other hand has been doing rebranding with Radeon since the beginning. First Radeon was later rebranded the 7200. The Radeon 7000 itself was also a 7200 without a T&L unit. 8500 series was a new design but they rebranded it for 9000, 9100, and 9200. Later chips were roughly 8500s that had been tweaked/weakened. ATI back then often practiced this. They would release the better GPUs first and then later release a cheaper to produce board based on that. Cut the costs but also the performance.



Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the ATi rebrands back in the R100 days...

The Radeon SDR became the Radeon 7200, and the Radeon VE became the Radeon 7000.


----------



## beautyless (Nov 19, 2011)

28 nm is missing.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So ATi renaming the X550 to the X1050 didn't happen then?  I guess renaming the X1300XT to x1650Pro didn't either, and they definitely didn't rename the x1600 Pro to x1650...



True dat
Off the top of my head I can think of a few from both camps. The earliest I can recollect was the ATi Rage VR magically turning into the Rage XC
Nvidia:
8800GS  > 9600GSO > modified > GT 130
8800GT  > 9800GT (die shrink)
8800GTS512 > 9800GTX ( slightly higher clock rates)
9500GT   > GT120
9800GTX > 9800GTX+  (process shrink, slightly higher clock rate)
9800GTX+ > GTS 150 > (revised)  GTS 250
G210   > G310
9600GSO512  > GT330 (OEM)

ATi /AMD:
X300   >  X1050
X550   >  X1050
X600   >  X1050
X800 XL  > X800 GTO16
X1300    > X1550
X1300XT  > X1600 Pro
X1600XT  >  X1650 Pro  (GDDR3 .v. DDR2)
X1900XTX > X1950XT
Radeon 8500 > Radeon 9100
HD 4670M  > HD 560V
HD 4650M  > HD 5165 (slightly higher clock rate)
HD 4570M  > HD 5145 (slightly higher clock rate)
HD 4500M  > HD 540V
HD 4300M  > HD 530V
HD 5550   >  HD 6390
HD 5750   > HD 6750
HD 5770   > HD 6770


----------



## micropage7 (Nov 19, 2011)

is that interesting and ironic?
some newer cards is the old one, just rebrand it add new hsf and done.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 19, 2011)

Bottom line.....
1.research don't depend on marketing
2.get what makes you happy- don't settle for less cause everytime something new comes out ur regrettin


----------



## ucanmandaa (Nov 19, 2011)

you can add Geforce 2 > Geforce 4 mx to that list.


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 19, 2011)

Also the 2900 > 3870


----------



## Activeduke (Nov 19, 2011)

So my old x1650 Pro was just an x1300 xt.. Knew there was something wrong with the card performance wise. 512mb mega slow ddr2 ram.. God i hated that card


----------



## Shihab (Nov 20, 2011)

*Sighs*






_Disclaimer: I'm referring to AMD, Retailers that will market the products as 32nm, and some unfortunate poor bastards who will buy the cards thinking the'll get something entirely new. Not anyone in this thread >_>_


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 21, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the ATi rebrands back in the R100 days...
> 
> The Radeon SDR became the Radeon 7200, and the Radeon VE became the Radeon 7000.



7000/7200 is still produced today for PCI


----------



## Xaser04 (Nov 21, 2011)

Meh, bring on the HD7970 ASAP please. 

3560x1920 is quite straining on a single HD6970. 

I wonder if a HD5670 can max out BF3 at this resolution......


----------



## Wiselnvestor (Nov 22, 2011)

I would like to point out HD 6670 6650 is a VLIW5 architecture and are different from the information we have on  HD 7670 which is a more advanced VLIW4 architecture.

Furthermore, the core count on HD 7670 are 768 stream processor cores and is on TSMC 28nm HPL node, the HD 6670 however, have 480 stream processor cores and is on TSMC 40 nm node. 


Right off the bat that graph from chiphell have misleading/missing info on a number of  upcoming HD 7000 series of gpu.


I would like Mr Btarunr of TechPowerUp to review these indisputable discrepancies. This so call graph from a certain user on Chiphell is nothing but to spread fud.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 22, 2011)

Can you please point me to the source of that table?


----------



## Wiselnvestor (Nov 22, 2011)

Radeon HD 7900 series gets new architecture and XDR2 Rambus memory? From Nordichardware

www.nordichardware.com/news/71-grap...-new-architecture-and-xdr2-rambus-memory.html

I believe at TPU have also reported this story sometime in Sept.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 22, 2011)

I think AMD should stick with GDDR5 for now because of whats goin on with the Rambus Corp.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 22, 2011)

Wiselnvestor said:


> Radeon HD 7900 series gets new architecture and XDR2 Rambus memory? From Nordichardware
> 
> www.nordichardware.com/news/71-grap...-new-architecture-and-xdr2-rambus-memory.html
> 
> I believe at TPU have also reported this story sometime in Sept.



Ah that. As it turns out those aren't accurate. Lombok and Thames are mGPU codenames.


----------



## Wiselnvestor (Nov 22, 2011)

From what info is available, AMD use a desktop version chip and lower it's clocks and vcore and use it a a mobile version.

Ex: desktop : Radeon HD 6670 with 480 Stream Processing Units @ 800 MHz
Mobile : AMD Radeon HD 6770M  480@675 / 725MHz to Radeon HD 6630M 480@485MHz

Same with HD 5000 series 
Desktop:   Radeon HD 5570 400@650Mhz 
Mobile :  Mobility Radeon HD 5770 400@650MHz  to  Mobility Radeon HD 5650 400@450-650MHz

Same architecture, same node for mobile and desktop version.

It is within reason to assume that if the mobile HD 7000 series use TSMC 28nm HPL node then the desktop big brother also use the same architecture and node. In this case TSMC 28nm HPL, and not a re-brand from the 40nm node.



Edit: Now that I've check that chipHell link. That poster said:
"1，  凡是 H7XXX命名的显卡全部都是马甲"

translation: 1, all the graphics card that are named H7XXX are re-brands.

That statement should reveal the poster's true intentions right there.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 22, 2011)

Tell You the Truth Im not too worried about them. We Will see them when they come out. The sites posting this crap are just trying to get numbers, just like how TV networks are always posting negative bullshit about wuts goin on around the world.


----------



## mamailo (Mar 1, 2012)

The first documented case of "rebranding" was the change name "Vanta" to "TNT2 M64" because it did not change the pcb; the silicon or anything meaningful.It was just marketing.

Banshee do not count because it was different than a Voodoo 2 or Voodoo rush


----------

