Mr McCFirstly, there is nothing logical about the change. Secondly, not everyone is an enthusiast: a lot of these cards will be put into pre-built systems and in the face of a deliberate attempt to deceive, placing the onus on the consumer is misguided at best. There is little justification for the number change and whilst it's not something that I'll lose any sleep over, I have no problem drawing attention to underhand marketing practices, irrespective of the company in question.

Actually if you think about it, there's a lot more logic behind the new change. Just like with the evergreen series, two new chips are introduced at the top - Cayman at the very top and Barts right behind it.These two chips will represent the entire performance and enthusiast sector. I can bet that marketing did a ton of research and simply deducted that the old XXX0x2 nomenclature was not optimal nor the one after it where they marketed the same chip in two different segments.Hemlock was nothing more than two Cypress cores on the same pcb. In the long term both of these strategies would bring confusion with pricing, shipping and supply and possibly even legal issues under extreme consequences.

That is why they have decided to have all the cards using the same cores under the same nomenclature. So at the very top of performance the 6900 series will consist of the Cayman pro - 6950, Cayman XT - 6970 and Cayman x2 - 6990. Logic dictates that Barts should be next represented by the Barts pro - 6850, Barts XT - 6870 and possibly Barts x2 - 6890

This streamlines the naming scheme and could simplify distribution and advertising.

/end wall of text

As I see it, this year nVidia filled the gaps between AMD offerings; this time around AMD is striking back matching those gaps exactly.

I don’t expect a big jump in performance; I think 6800 series isn’t meant for that anyway.
If 6850 will be the substitute for 5750, the shaders count will only be increased in 11% (800 vs. 720), taking into account more TU’s, ROP’s and memory bandwidth, the logic dictates that those specs would put 6850 between 5770 and 5830. However I believe this is not the case, AMD might have improved the performance of the shading units so a 6850 will be sit between 5830 and 5850 to compete against GTX460 in the US$200 range.

I don’t agree with the “new” branding scheme, it might be seen as a deceiving practice against less-informed customers. A lot of people out there will think a 6850 is more powerful than a 5850… well it wouldn’t be the first time this occurs.

HalfAHertzActually if you think about it, there's a lot more logic behind the new change. Just like with the evergreen series, two new chips are introduced at the top - Cayman at the very top and Barts right behind it.These two chips will represent the entire performance and enthusiast sector. I can bet that marketing did a ton of research and simply deducted that the old XXX0x2 nomenclature was not optimal nor the one after it where they marketed the same chip in two different segments.Hemlock was nothing more than two Cypress cores on the same pcb. In the long term both of these strategies would bring confusion with pricing, shipping and supply and possibly even legal issues under extreme consequences.

That is why they have decided to have all the cards using the same cores under the same nomenclature. So at the very top of performance the 6900 series will consist of the Cayman pro - 6950, Cayman XT - 6970 and Cayman x2 - 6990. Logic dictates that Barts should be next represented by the Barts pro - 6850, Barts XT - 6870 and possibly Barts x2 - 6890

This streamlines the naming scheme and could simplify distribution and advertising.

/end wall of text

I don't want to make an issue out of this, particularly as we have no performance figures, but everything points to 68xx's being the replacements of 57xx's. If that is the case, there is absolutely no logical reason why the cards shouldn't have been branded 67xx. It may be advantageous for ATI as a company to change the numbering in this manner, but it most certainly does no benefit the consumer in any form: on the contrary, it appears to deliberately provoke confusion.

There is no need to highlight this particular aspect of the new generation, given that the important elements are pricing and performance, but by the same token there is no need to gloss over this issue just because it's ATI and such marketing practices are normally associated with Nvidia.

Again, we have no performance figures and I do not feel that the rebranding issue should occupy the limelight or become excessively exaggerated, but we shouldn't seek to ignore or justify it either.

I've stated my piece and I won't become embroiled in any more debate in relation to this matter as it would be both repetitive and a clear invitation to steer the thread into waters that are better left uncharted.

I still want to know how they can be called replacements if the 5770/50 are going to be rebranded as 6770/50, to me it sounds more like they are not intended to replace anything they just sound like an odd addition untill there is some numbers to show where they stand

bear jesusI still want to know how they can becalled replacements if the 5770/50 are going to be rebranded as 6770/50, to me it sounds more like they are not intended to replace anything they just sound like an odd addition untill there is some numbers to show where they stand

Here's something better than numbers:
www.techpowerup.com/img/10-10-14/71f.jpg

HalfAHertzHere's something better than numbers:
www.techpowerup.com/img/10-10-14/71f.jpg

Not exactly what i would consider accurate :p from that it looks like barts is a tiny bit more powerful than a g460 but then that gives me the idea that it's not that much more powerful than an overclocked 5770 thus the new shader design has not really done much for performance and i really hope thats totaly wrong.

bear jesusNot exactly what i would consider accurate :p from that it looks like barts is a tiny bit more powerful than a g460 but then that gives me the idea that it's not that much more powerful than an overclocked 5770 thus the new shader design has not really done much for performance and i really hope thats totaly wrong.

NO, it's right.


Right now, GTX460 is kinda stomping all over 5870, and most importantly, it continues to do so @ high-res(5760x1080, etc).

Cypress is EOL. Alot of the gpu is idle most of the time, from having so many shaders, and the shader removal has a very small impact on performance...in fact, the loss of shaders makes the gpu FASTER, because there's less data for the dispatch engine to manage(ie, this gpu is far more efficient). Juniper, fortuantely, becuase it has so much elss shaders, still works well, and saved them from ahving to design another low-end gpu. I wouldn't be surprised to see Barts, and maybe even Cayman, re-used in the next gen after this one...that's really good usage of R&D dollars, anyway.

cadavecaNO, it's right.


Right now, GTX460 is kinda stomping all over 5870, and most importnantly, it continues to do so @ high-res(5760x1080, etc).

Cypress is EOL. alot fo the gpu is idle most of the time, from having so many shaders, and the shader removal has a very small impact on performance...in fact, the loss of shaders makes the gpu FASTER, because there's less data for the dispatch engine to manage(ie, this gpu is far more efficient).

I must admit i was under the impression that the 460 was stomping all over the 5770 and 5830, i thought it was more like 460 sli was stomping all over the 5870. I kinda stopped paying too much attetion to current gpu's as i want to compaire cypress to the 4xx cards then see what i want.

I just wish barts was out already and the real spec of caymen was leaked so we had a better idea of how well it could do.

Maybe I am phrasing it wrong(but I did so intentionally).

GTX460 doesn't outright beat 5870, but it does make it look pretty bad, given the difference in potential. You are very right in you synopsis there.

Of course, this is made more evident by multi-gpu configs, but one big thing you need to factor in is cost.

The reason GTX460 excels is it's wonderfully efficient gpu, and cheap pricing. Barts addresses this problem.

Cayman is headed at GTX480/470, as is expected. They should exceed the competition, but not by a large margin...just enough so that cost is close, but performance makes 480 is useless buy(I consider GTX480 better than HD5870, not ignoring cost). this gpu should have a year of life in it, so needs to be truly competitive with GTX480...or else it's a failure.

cadavecaMaybe I am phrasing it wrong(but I did so intentionally).

GTX460 doesn't outright beat 5870, but it does make it look pretty bad, given the difference in potential. You are very right in you synopsis there.

Of course, this is made more evident by multi-gpu configs, but one big thing you need to factor in is cost.

The reason GTX460 excels is it's wonderfully efficient gpu, and cheap pricing. Barts addresses this problem.

Cayman is headed at GTX480/470, as is expected. They should exceed the competition, but not by a large margin...just enough so that cost is close, but performance makes 480 is useless buy(I consider GTX480 better than HD5870, not ignoring cost). this gpu should have a year of life in it, so needs to be truly competitive with GTX480...or else it's a failure.

You are right though, i just took at look at a couple reviews and in many games a factory overclocked 460 beats the 5870, also the 480 may get a bit toasty and loves loads of power but it beats the 5870 in power.

My hope is that caymen beats the 480 while costing less and using less power... although i may be dreaming :laugh: i just hope i'm not.

so will the 6850 fall in sub $200 category?
_____________________________

Antec1200 filter project

BraveSoulso will the 6850 fall in sub $200 category?

I think 6850 @ $239 or so, 6870 @ $299 or so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that pricing would be awesome. I am also using 4-series intro pricing to reflect prices here, based on pcb design, etc. Cayman and Antilles will fill in those higher price points we see now...$379 for 6950, $439 for 6970 1GB, $499 6970 2GB and $579 for Antilles(6870x2).


I just made those numbers up, keep in mind.

skugpezzI am in love <3:toast:

only with the shape of the cooler, not much more

cadavecaI think 6850 @ $239 or so, 6870 @ $299 or so.

I just made those numbers up, keep in mind.

I hope you are very, very wrong. That is a failure price point for cards that are supposed to "replace" a 5770 @ $175 (average) and a 5750 @ $137 (average)

thats what im thinking, got to be similar in price to 5700 series, here what's getting me excited, 2gb vram :0)
_____________________________

Antec1200 filter project

I wouldn't pay more than £150 for a 6870.

erockerI hope you are very, very wrong. That is a failure price point for cards that are supposed to "replace" a 5770 @ $175 (average) and a 5750 @ $137 (average)

I know. I hope I am wrong too. But my pricing makes sense at least a little, doesn't it? Like, let's ignore previous gen pricing.

And I think I am safe to say we can ignore the previous gen, because 5770 is going to stay in market. It is not possible to reduce it's current pricing much more, and hence it's positioning in the current lineup. Of course, if they have improved yields, it might be possible to reduce the cost down to $125 and $100, but it isn't going to go much lower than that. at that point, we might see 6850 slip into sub-$200 ranges.

IF they were introduced as 6770, instead of 6870, I'd hope for better, but the naming tells me something far different than most are expecting.

But heck, I'm using my own flawed logic here...:laugh:...I don't exactly have a great track record when it come to this sort of stuff as of late. :D

cadavecaI know. I hope I am wrong too. But my pricing makes sense at least a little, doesn't it? Like, let's ignore previous gen pricing.

And I think I am safe to say we can ignore the previous gen, because 5770 is going to stay in market. It is not possible to reduce it's current pricing much more, and hence it's positioning in the current lineup. Of course, if they have improved yields, it might be possible to reduce the cost down to $125 and $100, but it isn't going to go much lower than that. at that point, we might see 6850 slip into sub-$200 ranges.

IF they were introduced as 6770, instead of 6870, I'd hope for better, but the naming tells me something far different than most are expecting.

But heck, I'm using my own flawed logic here...:laugh:...I don't exactly have a great track record when it come to this sort of stuff as of late. :D

:laugh: i do see your logic here but this is all getting so complicated, it looks like the 6870 is intended to beat our the 1gb 460 but i kinda think to beat it in sales it should cost about the same but perform better, not sure on the current 1gb 460 prices or what the prices were at launch, i would hope for the 6850 to be about the same as the 786mb 460 and the 6870 to be around the 1gb 460's launch prices... although i'm working on much more flawed logic as i dont have a clue what those prices were :laugh: darn 5am posting.