# R600 pictured



## D_o_S (Nov 25, 2006)

Pictures of AMD/ATI's R600 chip have started surfacing. 

I will let the images do the talking:


 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 25, 2006)

GPU pr0n  Socket?! Sexy sideways, wonder if it's just visual or actually some reasoning behind it. Atleast now they can't but it upside down anymore


----------



## shoman24v (Nov 25, 2006)

Please whoop G80


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Nov 25, 2006)

Trust me a few leaked benches are in your future


----------



## tofu (Nov 25, 2006)

Nice man, the R600 core is almost as big as the IHS on the socket 775 CPU. Damn is this big.

G80's goin' down bro's. <- ATI party manifesto.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 25, 2006)

Funny.. we beat the INQ with posting this


----------



## petepete (Nov 25, 2006)

Do you think now all the new cards will be as big as the 8800 ?? cause if its like half an inch smaller it would fit in my case perfect... i have an armor jr. and a 8800 barely fits lol..


----------



## Steevo (Nov 25, 2006)

I can't wait for THIS card to come out!!!!!!!!


----------



## HaZe303 (Nov 25, 2006)

Sweeeeet... When this baby monster comes out, ill sell my G80 in a heartbeat, and buy one of these... 


ATI FTW!!


----------



## aximbigfan (Nov 25, 2006)

wounder how hot it will run...


chris


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

i thought i heard R600-based cards (x2800s i suppose) would be the same length as ATi's current top-of-the-line offerings.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

I agree with Steevo. The R600 pictures look as fake as the Bitchin'fast!3D2000.

Clues?

1./ You don't change pin density 3 times on a chip... its way too difficult to design, manufacture and then locate accurately on the PCB.

2./ The whole concept of ball grid array FBGA or uBGA is a regular array of pins. Just like on any CPU.

3./ Over 2300 pins? Isn't this a bit high for accessing 256 or 512 bit memory?

4./ WolfLSI is a naughty graphics artist http://wolflsi.deviantart.com/

Who got fooled? 

Hang your heads in shame!


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

i would love to see somebody good enough to fake that. you can see the damn camera's reflection! also, the layout is reminiscent of the... which was it... either the RSX or the R500. one of them had the chip at 45 degrees with the ram on the same package.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

lemonadesoda said:


> I agree with Steevo. The R600 pictures look as fake as the Bitchin'fast!3D2000.
> 
> Clues?
> 
> ...




on the last picture with the cpu next to the r600, the painted specs on the ati chip are dif. from the other pics shown...and some resistors are laid out dif. too...why is this??  im looking real hard to find proof that its fake or real....that dif. seems odd to me...


----------



## HaZe303 (Nov 26, 2006)

Its not fake... the pre-release version have been shipped to developers. Maybe pics are from one of them. Or some other version, who cares. But im pretty sure they are real.

And why the two pictures differ, is because all the pictures are not from same site/person/gpu. They are from 2 different places...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

If those pictures are for real... then apologies all around. However, does anyone have the following info?

1./ Pin count on an R480 is 1345
2./ Pin count on an R520 is ???

However, pin count for the shown R600 > 2300 pins!!!

But a GDDR4 memory chip is only 136 pins. So 8 memory chips = 1088 pins.  So what exactly are the other 1200 pins on the R600 doing?

So either the picture is FAKE, or the R600 is 1GB with 16 x GDDR4, running in a QUAD rather than DUAL set up, to double the memory bandwidth.


----------



## Casheti (Nov 26, 2006)

LMFAO @ Steevo


----------



## tkpenalty (Nov 26, 2006)

cool... i reckon ATI/AMD's latest apparation will succeed.... and geez thats small, i reckon they will make it in a real socket. According to the picture its LGA


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> on the last picture with the cpu next to the r600, the painted specs on the ati chip are dif. from the other pics shown...and some resistors are laid out dif. too...why is this??  im looking real hard to find proof that its fake or real....that dif. seems odd to me...



Its far from uncommon to get different resistor layouts in different revisions when its still under heavy development..

Hell, its common to find different layouts on released versions...  

and who says a graphic artist can't have insider access to GPU's?  

I have inside access to a few certain things(not like its gonna change the world.but still...)... but being what I am shouldn't change that.. credability   Now if he made realistic 3d models of prototypes... thats another story..

Besides, you said he was crappy... so how'd he fake such a realistic picture of a chip thats never been produced...? You would need atleast something to model it after...

That, and way too many factors line up... such as rotated PCB for the 512bit memory... unless he's a chip architecht too, it wouldn't have been thought up by an artist... it actually has some engineeringh logic to it..


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

lemonadesoda said:


> 1./ You don't change pin density 3 times on a chip... its way too difficult to design, manufacture and then locate accurately on the PCB.



Too bad its BGA and its all soldered at once 

Although PCB shouldnt be a problem... its 12 layer....


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Besides, you said he was crappy...





  i said what now??? i was just taking interest in the idea that the pics maybe fake..i never said they were...thus the questions i asked...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

HAHAHAHAHA  

Just take a look at 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Fake shadows.

The chip is "straight on"

Look at the shadow of the top of the chip. It should be parallel with the chip, not sloping up (on the left) and sloping down (on the right).

There is no light source in the world that can do this, other than rendered or fake.

If you don't get it, then cut a postcard square shaped, and use a desk lamp (or two) to replicate those shadows. You'll be up all night!!!


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

@Xoom  
@Haze  
@Dippys


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

try this then.....if you think this is real....

these red lines should be the same length, but they are not....the text was added...







the text has been added...it is not in the same perspective as the chip...if the text is placed square to the chip then it should follow the same angle as the chip...it looks as if the text doesnt follow the rules of perspective...the first line of text is further back then the last line text, yet it all looks to be on a flat surface...and that pic shows the chip at an angle...


i think i explained that ok...i hope so ...


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

this shows what i am saying better...






the green line is straight but the yellow line is angled...all the other pics show the text being square to the chip...if that were true then the text would follow the yellow line instead it's straight.....could be a real chip but i think the text on it maybe fake...


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

show me somebody who could fake something half that good. just half. i bet you can't.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

*http://www.hardspell.com/pic/2006*

I like this picture the most:





This guy has got a key fob of an R480(?) in plastic. LOL. He obviously likes *playing* with chips. An ideal psychological profile of a GPU spoofer. Notice how the picture is taken on his kitchen table with the blue plastic wipe-clean cover. Typical of a taiwan kitchen.  And the real photos are only with a piece of cardboard, not the "real R600" chip. LOL.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

XooM said:


> show me somebody who could fake something half that good. just half. i bet you can't.



have you seen any movies since 1998.....anything can be done with computers...now im not saying this is all FAKE....but somethings just dont seem right...it could be the new chip for ati or it could be an old chip from ati...like lemon said a couple of posts ago "fake shadows" if you are looking at the chip straight on then why do you see the top edge of the chip as if the chip were leaning towards you from the top, but the shadows say its leaning the top away from you...


edit:: woooohoooo another star for me....


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 26, 2006)

HAHAHAHAHA

Here is this guys homepage:
http://www.athlonoc.org/forum_r4_new/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=6163

And here is his new PC http://www.athlonoc.org/forum_r4_ne...um_Title=%B2%A3%AB%7E%B5%FB%B4%FA%A4%A4%A4%DF Brand new spanking Dual Core E6600.

Notice the photos? It's the same fuzzy white background as the "R600" pictures, only this time, he isn't so careful. You can see that:

*ITS A WHITE TOWEL!!!!!* LOL  

I do give the guy 9.9/10 for a job well done. He fooled some of you. Basically, he's just a PC tweaker that likes footling with his hardware. So actually, he's one of us. LOL.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

ya...how would this guy get the first of the new r600s anyhow...and that maybe the same backdrop he shot the pics for the r600 on....would be cool if they were real tho..


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

so where does that prove this is fake?

and as for this being CG, i damn well better know what CG looks like; I've been a 3D artist for, oh, 3 or 4 years now and i can *almost* always spot a 3D model, and this most certainly does not look like one.

I frankly don't care if its real or fake, i just have to play the devil's advocate to some pathetically weak arguments.

If you look at his other photos on said towel, many have similarly "impossible" shadows as this core shot.

It may indeed be a fake and not an R600, but whatever it is, it certainly is a real chip, not a 3D rendering.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

XooM said:


> so where does that prove this is fake?
> 
> I've been a 3D artist for, oh, 3 or 4 years now and i can *almost* always spot a 3D model, QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

well, I'm glad to see we're beyond any pointless arguments over whether or not the pictures are real and instead are trolling 

by the way, more shots here


----------



## OOTay (Nov 26, 2006)

if this is fake that guy most own at modeling or photoshop, one or the other. and the design of the gpu itself is really strange compared to any other ati design. plus its missing the normal ATI logo thats usually there. oh well. we'll find out later i guess...


----------



## W2hCYK (Nov 26, 2006)

lemonadesoda said:


> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Just take a look at
> 
> ...



this is accomplished by using 2 flashes, on both sides of the object. The photo looks real to me. I sense no falseness in it.

Having 2 high powered flashes would definitely put a difference in lighting between dark and light areas, on both sides. 

learning photography, and we discussed different types of flash types, this was one of them.


----------



## OOTay (Nov 26, 2006)

W2hCYK said:


> this is accomplished by using 2 flashes, on both sides of the object. The photo looks real to me. I sense no falseness in it.
> 
> Having 2 high powered flashes would definitely put a difference in lighting between dark and light areas, on both sides.
> 
> learning photography, and we discussed different types of flash types, this was one of them.



good eye man!


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 26, 2006)

Well they didn't teach you very well, there's NO flash in any of the pictures =) Ever heard of two! lights in a same room ;o (think a football/soccer match, people have 4 shadows there) GPU:s are pain in the butt to take pictures with a flash. Here is what happens:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8751/reflectiondg0.jpg

GPU reflect the flash like crazy and acts like a mirror if you photograph it straight on. (sorry, deleted the totally reflective unreadable ones already)

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3293/noreflectionks1.jpg

With an angle and it's fine, but have to use flash, because I don't have bright lights in room.

(those heatsinks were hard work with a hacksaw, so no dissing )

ps. text isn't in a straight line with the GPU edge even in my card, and if you say (lemonadesoda) I editet AS5 smudge to the picture and it's fake also, I thank you very much, wish I was that good


----------



## Casheti (Nov 26, 2006)

I say it's real. Ya'll got pwned.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Nov 26, 2006)

W2hCYK said:


> this is accomplished by using 2 flashes, on both sides of the object. The photo looks real to me. I sense no falseness in it.
> 
> Having 2 high powered flashes would definitely put a difference in lighting between dark and light areas, on both sides.
> 
> learning photography, and we discussed different types of flash types, this was one of them.



You don't even need to do photography to suspect that this sort of shadow could be caused by two angled light sources. Like when you watch football with floodlights, there are 4 shadows in different directions.

Edit: but I don't care if it's real or not. I care about how the real thing performs and what its price is.


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> this shows what i am saying better...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Learn to calculate before you are going to hunt fakes...


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

there is how it should be done and it shows no fakes...

P.S. pitty my camera's battery is recharging atm, i just took my vga card package to a room with dual lightning, and guess what, it has almost completely same shadows as that picture describet, only the edges are wider due to box being thicker...


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Nov 26, 2006)

Perspective is what causes the lines to appear un-parallel. Like when you look at two train lines running into the distance, it looks like they are getting closer.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Shyska said:


> Learn to calculate before you are going to hunt fakes...






do you understand that this is just a forum and did you read everything i wrote??.....you should...im not saying its fake or real just offering thoughts...

never the less watch what you say to people in this forum...dont tell people "you need to learn" that is really rude...

try to be more adult next time please....and just offer your thoughts...being rude like that wont get you anywhere at TPU and will make people look past your posts.....


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

Someone up above drove lines and "showed" that there is no perspective in the photo, i just showed there actualy IS perspective, and quite accurate one, I whould like to see a persoon who could pull out such a fake... no way it isn't real...


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> do you understand that this is just a forum and did you read everything i wrote??.....you should...im not saying its fake or real just offering thoughts...
> 
> never the less watch what you say to people in this forum...dont tell people "you need to learn" that is really rude...
> 
> try to be more adult next time please....and just offer your thoughts...being rude like that wont get you anywhere at TPU and will make people look past your posts.....



Well, sorry if it sounded rude to you. But I believe that if you says something in the liens you did, you should be familiar with the topic - in this case really understand how perspective works.

Oh and i would really be ashamed of posting that, if I didn't follow with explanation how to do it. 

So cheers  and take it easy.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

This has been fun looking at this gpu....it will be nice to see the R600 when released...and i really hope more then anyone that this is the true R600...the debate over whether or not it is real has been fun as well...i like to get people opinions, and i take opinions without getting upset.........in cases like this, none of us know anything for sure about the r600...we all have seen some specs...and we all have seen those specs change...we wont no really anything about it till it is released...but that doesnt make it any less interesting....




Shyska said:


> Oh and i would really be ashamed of posting that, if I didn't follow with explanation how to do it.



we are all here to help eachother out....not to ridicule other members...i offer just an opinion of a possibility......you offer nothing but anger towards something that is really not that important.....if you disagree and have an explanation of why, thats great and really is what is needed in a place like this....however to try to make someone feel stupid isnt needed.....the only thing i am ashamed of here is how you have acted and what nonmembers who visit will see, two members not getting along....never the less what you posted seems to be accurate...nice find....but in the future try and respect other members a little more.....


----------



## Steevo (Nov 26, 2006)

2216 pin count.


What would a devoloper be doing with it on his table? 


I never said it was a fake. I just find it funny that everyone is so excited about pics of a supposed new chip that hasn't even hit the pcb yet that we know of. And the fact that someone has it supposedly to take pictures and ATI is OK with this? 

And the pin count is wrong I believe.


And again, what would anyone without a factory to put it on a PCB to use do with it and WHY would they have it?





All very strange and interesting, but nothing worth getting so excited over.


----------



## XooM (Nov 26, 2006)

because they stole/borrowed it from work for the sole purpose of photographing and teasing the internet with?


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

the r600 size is to be what 80nm???  can anyone take those pics and find a size ref. to see if that chip is larger or smaller then that...that could settle this..lol...


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

Steevo said:


> What would a devoloper be doing with it on his table?



I take it you've never seen the reels of NF4 chipsets?  

They are all made like that, and then soldered to a PCB which I'm sure you know...

but I highly doubt they are getting 100% yields... so hey, lets grab one out of the trash bin and make a keychain!  

*looks at keychain*

I've got a few..

Or perhaps he pulled it from a dead R600.

I've done it before to a chipset... it can be done!


----------



## W2hCYK (Nov 26, 2006)

OnBoard said:


> Well they didn't teach you very well, there's NO flash in any of the pictures =) Ever heard of two! lights in a same room ;o (think a football/soccer match, people have 4 shadows there) GPU:s are pain in the butt to take pictures with a flash. Here is what happens:
> 
> http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8751/reflectiondg0.jpg
> 
> GPU reflect the flash like crazy and acts like a mirror if you photograph it straight on. (sorry, deleted the totally reflective unreadable ones already)



There is no way that if the flash was angled like that, that it would blast the camera back in the face. Theres no reason why GPU's are hard to photograph, yes they are mirror like, but if you set it up properly, it will take a fine picture with 2 flashes on either side. I can't see how you're saying the photo was taken without a flash, as there is a strong difference in dark and light areas behind the chip. If it was taken in a room, the photo would have a uniform background because the light(assuming 60-120w bulb) would not be sufficient enough to cause the lighting difference, and the lightbulbs in lamps are not directional, but spread light uniformly throughout a room..


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

W2hCYK said:


> There is no way that if the flash was angled like that, that it would blast the camera back in the face. Theres no reason why GPU's are hard to photograph, yes they are mirror like, but if you set it up properly, it will take a fine picture with 2 flashes on either side. I can't see how you're saying the photo was taken without a flash, as there is a strong difference in dark and light areas behind the chip. If it was taken in a room, the photo would have a uniform background because the light(assuming 60-120w bulb) would not be sufficient enough to cause the lighting difference, and the lightbulbs in lamps are not directional, but spread light uniformly throughout a room..



Jewelry is a pain to photograph even without flash LOL



ATIonion said:


> the r600 size is to be what 80nm???  can anyone take those pics and find a size ref. to see if that chip is larger or smaller then that...that could settle this..lol...



Process size does not have a direct correlation with die size in the respect that you could compare multiple different die's.

I.e. X1900 Vs R600 (IF they were the same process)

The transistor count, and metal layer counts are different. There are actually probably R600's with different die sizes from trial and error of metal layers... and such.  

the best you could do really, is anti-photoshop tests, and getting the original jpg with camera info in its tags..


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Process size does not have a direct correlation with die size in the respect that you could compare multiple different die's.



thats timing... i had just researched that online and was gonna responde to what i said with the same thing you said....lol.....

one thing is clear here......we are all very interested in this chip..lol...too bad we have to wait till new year to find out what it really looks like and what it can really do....


----------



## Steevo (Nov 26, 2006)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Jewelry is a pain to photograph even without flash LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Open most any jpg in notepad and look at any readable information in the top few lines and you will have some idea.

At least that is true for alot of the pics I have ever looked at. Including my own.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

Steevo said:


> Open most any jpg in notepad and look at any readable information in the top few lines and you will have some idea.
> 
> At least that is true for alot of the pics I have ever looked at. Including my own.



Firefox for example will pull the data of the jpg too...

most digital cameras embed camera model, date/time, shutter speed, etc. Photoshop removes these.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 26, 2006)

So does my canon software and nero and alot of others.


These pictures started with the JFIF header but the information has been erased by someone or some program as the data spaces still seems to be there but the data is gone.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Steevo said:


> These pictures started with the JFIF header but the information has been erased by someone or some program as the data spaces still seems to be there but the data is gone.



Does that mean anything??


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

lemonadesoda said:


> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Just take a look at
> 
> ...



I have done some research (practical) on this - just out of curiosity, you can see the results in attachements. This is done by lineral-ligthning (as opesed to point-lightning).


----------



## Steevo (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> Does that mean anything??



It could mean that it is a actual picture of it, or that it is a photoshopped pic of another core someone had.


So in all reality, it and these pics mean nothing.


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> Does that mean anything??



Yes, that whoever submited it, took care to remove traces leading to him


----------



## pt (Nov 26, 2006)

you guys can't just wait a couple weeks more to see who's right?  
stop arguing


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

with multiple sources of light many shadows can appear..if this was done at a studio then i would think more then one light was used, causing multiple shadows.....next Basketball game you see, look at the players shadows...

that is the picture that i first noticed tho...even before lemonade said it...i thought something look off about it...

if that chip is leaning top away from us, then why is it that we see the top edge as if it leans towards us...if it leans towards us then why are the shadows like that?  this is a real question not trying to make a point here...just curious...


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> with multiple sources of light many shadows can appear..if this was done at a studio then i would think more then one light was used, causing multiple shadows.....next Basketball game you see, look at the players shadows...
> 
> that is the picture that i first noticed tho...even before lemonade said it...i thought something look off about it...
> 
> if that chip is leaning top away from us, then why is it that we see the top edge as if it leans towards us...if it leans towards us then why are the shadows like that?  this is a real question not trying to make a point here...just curious...




Not really, lemonadesoda got a point in his post - upper edge of object and upper edge of his shadow will always be parallel, no matter how you rotate the light source. He is right about it. And he wasn't mentioning multiple shadows 

But he isn't right saying that no light in the world can make those edges non-parallel, because linear light source can do it (i.e. traditional flourascent lamp of about 30sm lenght).

I took pictures and showed that, just that I have only one portable flourascent lamp, so can't make multiple shadows 

P.S. added example, of what he probably ment


----------



## Canuto (Nov 26, 2006)

pt said:


> you guys can't just wait a couple weeks more to see who's right?
> stop arguing



Guys, come on this is childish


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

Why not act chilldish for a while?   It's sunday evening after all, and if you are not with your GF or wife&kids you may act like one for a while


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Nov 26, 2006)

Shyska said:


> Not really, lemonadesoda got a point in his post - upper edge of object and upper edge of his shadow will always be parallel, no matter how you rotate the light source. He is right about it. And he wasn't mentioning multiple shadows
> 
> But he isn't right saying that no light in the world can make those edges non-parallel, because linear light source can do it (i.e. traditional flourascent lamp of about 30sm lenght).
> 
> ...



Just read the post thoroughly and you (and lemonsoda) are right. From using my iPod in its dock and a torch the top of the shadow always appears to be parallel...


----------



## shoman24v (Nov 26, 2006)

More


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Canuto said:


> Guys, come on this is childish



i agree that a couple of ealier posts were a bit childish...(mine too)

but i dont think that simple discussion about this is childish...i dont think anyone wants this to be fake and that we are just exploring the idea that it maybe...to be honest, most those pictures look real to me, and i have seen other pics that arent posted here, and those look real too....in one you can see a camera lens.....im just being open minded about it, and exploring the idea that they could be fake, that doesnt mean i have made up my mind about it....and at no time have i said anyone was wrong about their opinions....this has been fun hearing others ideas...

im not sure if anyone else has, but i have learned a few things from this discussion..so i dont think that any of this has been pointless...


----------



## Shyska (Nov 26, 2006)

fully agree to this


----------



## Alcpone (Nov 26, 2006)

If its going to be a beafy gpu I would expect it to be a beafy size!

Time will tell, personally I cant wait!


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

i have looked around at other forums and most forums have titled this "Possible Pictures of R600".....that doesnt mean anything...but i did see that some people think that the amount of pins on it could be because of a 512bit bus, or multi gpu....any thoughts from those who know more then me on this??


----------



## Alcpone (Nov 26, 2006)

From what I know, it is going to be a single gpu! If it was going to be multi and that size, my god will it rock!


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> i have looked around at other forums and most forums have titled this "Possible Pictures of R600".....that doesnt mean anything...but i did see that some people think that the amount of pins on it could be because of a 512bit bus, or multi gpu....any thoughts from those who know more then me on this??



IIRC, it was confirmed 512bit.

Thats a lot of pins. And probably the main reason for using a 12 layer PCB. they would have a hard time with crosstalk, and just pure ROOM on a 6-8 layer.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> IIRC, it was confirmed 512bit.
> 
> Thats a lot of pins. And probably the main reason for using a 12 layer PCB. they would have a hard time with crosstalk, and just pure ROOM on a 6-8 layer.



WHAT A BEAST!!!!
thank god i am getting these tickets to sell this week....by the time this card is released i may still have enough money to buy it...as long as it doesnt cross the $700 line...


----------



## shoman24v (Nov 26, 2006)

ATIonion said:


> i have looked around at other forums and most forums have titled this "Possible Pictures of R600".....that doesnt mean anything...but i did see that some people think that the amount of pins on it could be because of a 512bit bus, or multi gpu....any thoughts from those who know more then me on this??



look at pg 7.


----------



## ATIonion (Nov 26, 2006)

shoman24v said:


> look at pg 7.



?? are you talken about the video card to end all video cards..lmao...


----------



## dunnleed08 (Nov 26, 2006)

*....*

it seems to me that the only reason that someone would have this in their possesion to photograph.....it is an old prototype.....a failure.

most likely over 3 months old..some failed chip design that turned out to cost too much to produce...impractical in some way shap or form....so dude took it out of a bin somewhere...as u all said before...or they leaked it just to start controversy like what is taking place right here......

anywho...i don't care...i wont be able to afford it anyways


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 26, 2006)

dunnleed08 said:


> it seems to me that the only reason that someone would have this in their possesion to photograph.....it is an old prototype.....a failure.
> 
> most likely over 3 months old..some failed chip design that turned out to cost too much to produce...impractical in some way shap or form....so dude took it out of a bin somewhere...as u all said before...or they leaked it just to start controversy like what is taking place right here......
> 
> anywho...i don't care...i wont be able to afford it anyways



Or its for show, kind of like when AMD or intel show off a whole $900 CPU wafer?


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 26, 2006)

W2hCYK said:


> There is no way that if the flash was angled like that, that it would blast the camera back in the face. Theres no reason why GPU's are hard to photograph, yes they are mirror like, but if you set it up properly, it will take a fine picture with 2 flashes on either side. I can't see how you're saying the photo was taken without a flash, as there is a strong difference in dark and light areas behind the chip. If it was taken in a room, the photo would have a uniform background because the light(assuming 60-120w bulb) would not be sufficient enough to cause the lighting difference, and the lightbulbs in lamps are not directional, but spread light uniformly throughout a room..



Never had so much trouble for just one post  Had to take some picture, let them speak for themselves:

<a href="http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77534_IMG_2308_122_318lo.jpg" target=_blank><img src="http://img17.imagevenue.com/loc318/th_77534_IMG_2308_122_318lo.jpg" border="0"></a><a href="http://img109.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77560_IMG_2309_122_352lo.jpg" target=_blank><img src="http://img109.imagevenue.com/loc352/th_77560_IMG_2309_122_352lo.jpg" border="0"></a><a href="http://img142.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77569_IMG_2312_122_581lo.jpg" target=_blank><img src="http://img142.imagevenue.com/loc581/th_77569_IMG_2312_122_581lo.jpg" border="0"></a><a href="http://img161.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77577_IMG_2313_122_364lo.jpg" target=_blank><img src="http://img161.imagevenue.com/loc364/th_77577_IMG_2313_122_364lo.jpg" border="0"></a><BR>

Try and quess which ones are with flash and which without xD Well first two are taken with single roof lightbulp flash/no flas. Then went crazy and had to get the other shadow there. Playing around with flaslight to get workable angle and try not to breathe so it wouldn't drop. Again first picture with flash (room light and flash light on too) and the next without. (so much for the pictures doing the talking)

Doesn't take much to notice that flash makes more direct and intense lighting and byebye goes the shadows. Taken with zoom+macro to avoid flash reflection. The ones without flash are darker obviously, as my room is not well lit (11W energy saving lamp), but still plenty of contrast on the shadow and would just intensify with better lighting.

True about the other shadows being in a funny angle in the pin picture, don't know what's that about


----------



## Shyska (Nov 27, 2006)

OnBoard said:


> True about the other shadows being in a funny angle in the pin picture, don't know what's that about



Explained it there
 with examples.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Nov 27, 2006)

Shyska said:


> Explained it there
> with examples.



But that is for a box. I'm sceptical if the same shadow could be displayed for a thinner object such as a GPU.


----------



## Shyska (Nov 27, 2006)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> But that is for a box. I'm sceptical if the same shadow could be displayed for a thinner object such as a GPU.



So don't be


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Nov 27, 2006)

Shyska said:


> So don't be



Interesting... well to stop the chance of any arguements on these forums I recommend everyone just accepts that ATI are going to give us what they give us and pictures aren't going to change that.


----------



## dunnleed08 (Nov 27, 2006)

*ha*

well said...


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 27, 2006)

Shyska: nice, those first set of pictures were so small I wasn't sure what I was seeing, but that's big anough =)


----------



## Casheti (Nov 27, 2006)

G-Unit SUCKS. Peace out.


----------



## i_am_mustang_man (Nov 27, 2006)

cant wait for more dx10 cards!  yay competition!!!!!

sideways is cool looking imo


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 28, 2006)

I cant wait for some REALLY DECENT GAMES that put DX9.1 to full use. Games that are fun, intense, graphically stunning, and, most of all, with a high replay factor.

Anyone know of such games? Not sure that DX10 makes GAMEPLAY any better


----------



## Casheti (Nov 28, 2006)

9.1?? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 28, 2006)

Casheti said:


> 9.1?? Am I missing something here?



Yeah, grasp of the sentence he just typed


----------



## Casheti (Nov 28, 2006)

WHA CHOO TALKIN 'BOUT FOO'!! JOO DISSIN CASHETAY!! Seriously, what the hell is DX9.1??


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 28, 2006)

SDK for programmers, maty. Games aren't made by your 9.0a/b/c runtimes, but by DX9.1.


----------



## Casheti (Nov 28, 2006)

I see


----------

