btarunrI agree with the rest, but the X1900XT and X1900XTX relation is not that of a rebrand. It's just like GeForce 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra (higher clocks, so different product).

Read closer I said X1900XTX to X1950XT. They launched it as a totally new product, even renamed the core R580+ when it was the same R580 core that didn't even go through a die shrink. So it is nothing like the relation between 8800GTX and 8800Ultra.

Give me a little more credit than to assume I don't know the relationship between X1900XT and X1900XTX... Do I seem like the kind of person that wouldn't understand that relationship?

newtekie1even renamed the core R580 when it was the same R580 core that didn't even go through a die shrink

is that as simple as it sounds? they just threw a plus sign on it and said it was something new, with no actual change to the core? just.... wow.

digibuccis that as simple as it sounds? they just threw a plus sign on it and said it was something new, with no actual change to the core? just.... wow.

Yes, they claimed to add GDDR4 support, but they really just enabled it, it was already there on R580(that is why the two have the exact same transistor count). And the only card that got GDDR4 was the X1950XTX, the X1950XT still used GDDR3.

And everyone wants to harp on nVidia for rehashing the 9600GSO to go from 96 SPs and 192-bit memory bus to 48 SPs and 256-bit memory bus. But no one ever talks about ATi rehashing the HD2900Pro before that and changing it from a downclocked HD2900XT with a 512-bit memory bus to an overclocked HD2900GT with a 256-bit memory bus.

I'm not trying to harp on ATi here, I'm just trying pointing out that before everyone started noticing renames and rehashes with nVidia, they had both been doing it. So I feel nVidia gets a bad rap with the whole renaming business while ATi gets off relatively scott free.

Some of us hate rebranding, other don't care, and even within Sapphire company there is no single opinion. The truth is Sapphire is not involved in this particular case described by Geek 3d. I work in russian office of Sapphire Tech and I am aware of such "special products" to russian SIs. Representatives from russian AMD and K-Systems (SI from news) confirmed that K-Systems does not use Sapphire at all in their PCs. K-Systems cannot make a photo of VGA cards inside their PCs but they describe card as "very generic without any labels", so must look like on photo of KainXS.

Updated article on the original starter of this "news", geeks3D forum.

www.geeks3d.com/20101110/radeon-hd-5550-rebranded-in-radeon-hd-6390-for-russian-market/

update (2010.11.12)
This news seems to be a hot topic over the web and many websites have relayed it telling that Sapphire is rebranding HD 5550 to HD 6390. I wish to clarify this point: I never wrote that Sapphire is rebranding HD 5550. I received the pictures of a Sapphire HD 5550 detected as a HD 6390 by GPU Caps Viewer 1.9.4. That’s all.

What’s more, here is the official position of the Sapphire Russian team:

It is standard practice in the industry to have special products that vary from the products on offer in retail for system integration to meet those needs. But Sapphire has not sold any product into the Russian market for the current generation products (i.e. any 5K series rebranded to 6K series). Sapphire take their quality and the care of their products and very seriously. Our own investigation shows that there are no Sapphire products in current K-Systems computers, neither rebranded nor regular. Russian AMD representative and K-System
representative confirmed this.

This is a nice example of news distortion (and domino effect…).

laneThis news seems to be a hot topic over the web and many websites have relayed it telling that Sapphire is rebranding HD 5550 to HD 6390. I wish to clarify this point: I never wrote that Sapphire is rebranding HD 5550. I received the pictures of a Sapphire HD 5550 detected as a HD 6390 by GPU Caps Viewer 1.9.4. That’s all.
This is a nice example of news distortion (and domino effect…).[/I]

surely is! that's what i thought it said but everyone was past that so i assumed i missed something ;)

It's not my words, this is the words of the orginal starter of this "news" (Geek3D) who have been taken then by Fudzilla, and then other forums, site have follow.

What is funny is since Geek3D have updated their "article" about it, with AMD Russian, Sapphire and K-system response ( who is negative, they don't have rename any gpu's of the 5K series ).. No one of thoses sites have corrected or updated their news.

wew so all of this just freaky misunderstanding ,

newtekie1Yes, they claimed to add GDDR4 support, but they really just enabled it, it was already there on R580(that is why the two have the exact same transistor count). And the only card that got GDDR4 was the X1950XTX, the X1950XT still used GDDR3.

And everyone wants to harp on nVidia for rehashing the 9600GSO to go from 96 SPs and 192-bit memory bus to 48 SPs and 256-bit memory bus. But no one ever talks about ATi rehashing the HD2900Pro before that and changing it from a downclocked HD2900XT with a 512-bit memory bus to an overclocked HD2900GT with a 256-bit memory bus.

I'm not trying to harp on ATi here, I'm just trying pointing out that before everyone started noticing renames and rehashes with nVidia, they had both been doing it. So I feel nVidia gets a bad rap with the whole renaming business while ATi gets off relatively scott free.

but ati did change the name from pro variant to GT, and why we are so harp to nvdia was because they don't change he name and the card was really crippled, imagine from 96sp 196bit to 48sp 128 bit and 4 ROps !!!! and even in TPU member get scammed and get the 48sp 128 bit 4 rops variant

wahdangunbut ati did change the name from pro variant to GT, and why we are so harp to nvdia was because they don't change he name and the card was really crippled, imagine from 96sp 196bit to 48sp 128 bit and 4 ROps !!!! and even in TPU member get scammed and get the 48sp 128 bit 4 rops variant

No they didn't change the name, give me a little credit and assume that I know better than to just ignore that the name is different.

When the HD2900Pro was first released it had a 512-bit memory bus, then they change it to a 256-bit memory bus after the HD2900GT had been released. Both varients were named HD2900Pro. The HD2900GT you are thinking of only had 240 SPs enabled as well, the same card with 320 SPs enabled was still named HD2900Pro.

Imagine going from a 512-bit memory bus to a 256-bit memory bus, yeah cutting the memory bandwidth in half definitely has a pretty noticeable performance hit. So while you are so adamant about how bad it was for nVidia to do it, remember ATi did it a generation before and no one even batted an eye. So perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to rag on nVidia about their poor practices while defending ATi before doing a little research to make sure ATi hasn't done the exact same thing in the past.

Your excuse that "we" are so quick to harp on nVidia because they didn't change the name doesn't make much sense now does it? Becuase ATi didn't change the name either.:shadedshu

newtekie1Read closer I said X1900XTX to X1950XT. They launched it as a totally new product, even renamed the core R580+ when it was the same R580 core that didn't even go through a die shrink. So it is nothing like the relation between 8800GTX and 8800Ultra.

Give me a little more credit than to assume I don't know the relationship between X1900XT and X1900XTX... Do I seem like the kind of person that wouldn't understand that relationship?

What are you talking about ? the X1950XTX was just a new variant of the X1900XTX, with 512mb of GDDR4 ( first gpu to use GDDR4), when the X1900 series was just using GDDR3 ... It was nothing more or less and this why they had call it X1950XTX .... you call that renaming ? , they have never advertise it like a "completely new architecture or gpu", this was just a power variant of the X1900XTX . they can have call it differently X1900GTX Pro ... they have decide to call it X1950XTX.... where this name is a problem for you... i have never seen one person in hardware sites, reviews forums, who have say it's a problem to have call it X19500XTX...

And for the R580+, it's just cause the memory controller was not the same, ofc they was need a memory controller and buffers who can support the GDDR4 ..... for recall the X1900 series should have normally come with GDDR4 support, but Samsung have not finalize the process of production, so during developpement, ATI had go back to GDDR3, during this time Samsung have finnally sort up their problem, and AMD have decide to launch anyway this version of the X1900XTX...

laneWhat are you talking about, the X1950XTX was just a new variant of the X1900XTX, with 512mb of GDDR4 ( first gpu to use GDDR4), when the X1900 series was just using GDDR3 ... ? It was nothing more and this why they had call it X1950XTX .... you call that renaming ? when the card is just a powerfull version of the X1900XTX ? they can have call it differently X1900GTX Pro ... they have decide to call it X1950XTX.... where this name is a problem for you... i have never seen one person in hardware sites, reviews forums, who say it's a problem to have call it X19500XTX...

Why can't people read?

I'm not talking about the X1950XTX with GDDR4, I'm talking about the X1950XT which still used GDDR3. They renamed the X1900XTX to X1950XT, I realize the X1950XTX was different. Though maybe it really was that confusing to people, and that is one of the reasons it fell under the radar and people likely got tricked and never even knew it. I mean even when I spell it out exactly people still can't tell what cards I'm talking about.

I said X1900XTX and X1950XT. And I've had one person think I was talking about the X1900XT and X1900XTX, and another think I was talking about the X1900XTX and X1950XTX. All those 1900 and 1950 numbers get confusing, and all those Xs and Ts start to blend together I guess.

And the GDDR4 memory controller was already present on R580, it just wasn't used. When they finally used it, they renamed the core R580+, but it was the same core.

Really sorry about thatg Newtekie .... effectively i have not well read ( he he just pass the last x ) ... my bad :respect: