Saturday, November 25th 2006

R600 pictured

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

I will let the images do the talking:
Source: Hardspell
Add your own comment

92 Comments on R600 pictured

#76
dunnleed08
....

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
Posted on Reply
#77
Dippyskoodlez
dunnleed08it 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? :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#78
OnBoard
W2hCYKThere 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 :)
Posted on Reply
#79
Shyska
OnBoardTrue 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.
Posted on Reply
#80
Jimmy 2004
ShyskaExplained 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.
Posted on Reply
#81
Shyska
Jimmy 2004But 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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#82
Jimmy 2004
ShyskaSo 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. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#84
OnBoard
Shyska: nice, those first set of pictures were so small I wasn't sure what I was seeing, but that's big anough =)
Posted on Reply
#85
Casheti
G-Unit SUCKS. Peace out.
Posted on Reply
#86
i_am_mustang_man
cant wait for more dx10 cards! yay competition!!!!!

sideways is cool looking imo
Posted on Reply
#87
lemonadesoda
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
Posted on Reply
#88
Casheti
9.1?? Am I missing something here?
Posted on Reply
#89
Dippyskoodlez
Casheti9.1?? Am I missing something here?
Yeah, grasp of the sentence he just typed :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#90
Casheti
WHA CHOO TALKIN 'BOUT FOO'!! JOO DISSIN CASHETAY!! Seriously, what the hell is DX9.1??
Posted on Reply
#91
lemonadesoda
SDK for programmers, maty. Games aren't made by your 9.0a/b/c runtimes, but by DX9.1.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 26th, 2024 00:34 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts