Official AMD Radeon 6000 Series Discussion Thread

[erocker]

that is ATI they are trying to rename them for AMD brand name now.

True. Honestly, I would of rather seen AMD go to a completely different naming scheme rather than something that closely resembles the last one too much. Either change it completely or don't change it at all as it's easier for people to understand.

 

[a_ump]

True. Honestly, I would of rather seen AMD go to a completely different naming scheme rather than something that closely resembles the last one too much. Either change it completely or don't change it at all as it's easier for people to understand.

I suppose, personally i love AMD/ATi's naming scheme. Its the best one i've seen imo, sure as hell beats nvidia's.

 

[yogurt_21]

I suppose, personally i love AMD/ATi's naming scheme. Its the best one i've seen imo, sure as hell beats nvidia's.

yeah but you love the midrange at X7XX, highend at X8XX and dual card at X9XX, thier proposed change would put midrange at X8XX, highend at X9XX, and dual card at X99X. rather confusing for an existing customer not familiar with the name changes and dumb imo as it leaves no room for revision cards. well at least compicates them if 6970 = caymen and 6990= antilles then revised caymen would have to be 6980, 6975? and revised antilles 6995?

running out of numbers here.

 

[a_ump]

true, I truly don't understand why they did that do their naming scheme. Regardless if the 2nd digit value relates to pricing; ie HD X8XX is high end $200-$499, HD X9XX is enthusiast lvl $450^? it leaves really no room for a refresh. Unless they replace the 4th digit, always 0 so far, with a 5(HD 6875).

back to my first statement; i still feel that AMD's naming principle is the easiest to grasp.

1st digit = Family GPU belongs to, the greater the num the newer the gen.
2nd digit= Which core from the family a card has, the greater the num dictates where in AMD's line-up the core is.
3rd digit = The perf lvl of the derivative from the core used.
4th digit = Nothing that i kno of, but may be used to show a refresh(HD 6775, 6875, etc)

In comparison to their previous system, LE/GT/Pro/XT/XTX + numbers, its a decent bit simpler imo. Then there's Nvidia's naming scheme, it was solid when they had the 8 series till they came out with the g92 core(8800GT), and now they have G/GT/GTS/GTX + 3nums which isn't bad. It's the fact that their scheme doesn't work as its defined all the time like AMD's. GTS 460 outperforming the GTX 465 is the best example.

All this is a moot point i suppose, but my lil break down of the naming scheme might help a newcomer if they don't get AMD's system yet.

 

[yogurt_21]

true, I truly don't understand why they did that do their naming scheme. Regardless if the 2nd digit value relates to pricing; ie HD X8XX is high end $200-$499, HD X9XX is enthusiast lvl $450^? it leaves really no room for a refresh. Unless they replace the 4th digit, always 0 so far, with a 5(HD 6875).

back to my first statement; i still feel that AMD's naming principle is the easiest to grasp.

1st digit = Family GPU belongs to, the greater the num the newer the gen.
2nd digit= Which core from the family a card has, the greater the num dictates where in AMD's line-up the core is.
3rd digit = The perf lvl of the derivative from the core used.
4th digit = Nothing that i kno of, but may be used to show a refresh(HD 6775, 6875, etc)

In comparison to their previous system, LE/GT/Pro/XT/XTX + numbers, its a decent bit simpler imo. Then there's Nvidia's naming scheme, it was solid when they had the 8 series till they came out with the g92 core(8800GT), and now they have G/GT/GTS/GTX + 3nums which isn't bad. It's the fact that their scheme doesn't work as its defined all the time like AMD's. GTS 460 outperforming the GTX 465 is the best example.

All this is a moot point i suppose, but my lil break down of the naming scheme might help a newcomer if they don't get AMD's system yet.

true but amd/ati did have the 4770 outperform the 4830 which can always happen when you do a clock speed vs specs in the midrange. as with both the 4830 and the gtx465 they were crippled higher end gpu's while the gtx460 and 4770 were both the top spec of the lower end gpu's though the performance swaps the nomeclature fits due to what each gpu is.

after all nvidias nomeclature is similar but is merely moves the placement a bit

G/GT/GTS/GTX = Which core from the family a card has, the greater the number based on the letter's scrabble value, the higher in Nvidia's line-up the core is.
1st digit = Family GPU belongs to, the greater the num the newer the gen.
2nd digit = The perf lvl of the derivative from the core used.
3rd digit = original (0)or revision (5) typically, with the 465 being an exception

at any rate I'm hoping mastrdrver is right and that the naming rumors we have been seeing are based on the mobile gpu's.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

New rumor has it that the 6000 series may use a different type of AA called MLAA or Practical Morphological AA. Also, that this will be hardware driven. I have no idea if this needs to be implimented from the developer or if one can use it from CCC. But if this is true and one can use it from CCC over-riding AA in game it would be several times faster then normal AA and maybe a direct competitor to nv's CSAA option. It's still speculation, I have no proof this is real or not. But if you want an idea of how it looks I've added it to one of my older posts on the different types of AA thread a while back. The article relating to MLAA is here.

You can get between 4xAA-8xAA at a fraction of the time. And it's said that it could work with any game.

 

[Super XP]

What on earth is AMD thinking? Are they truly trying to lose new customers and loyal ATI fans by implementing this ridiculous naming scheme that was only put forth to confuse people? Truly, what the hell is wrong with AMD’s marketing team?

At the very least, stick to the original naming scheme, because soon enough AMD will get chastised for releasing an inferior HD 6870 versus the faster HD 5870. Now how stupid does that sound? Get your heads on straight AMD, because I’m not upgrading if I don’t see a performance improvement of at least 60% to 120% with HD 6870 vs. HD 5870 – Dam the name change.

And if you continue onto this ridiculous path of name changes, you better not release a HD 6700 series card.

 

[erocker]

if I don’t see a performance improvement of at least 60% to 120% with HD 6870 vs. HD 5870

Have fun with your current card or other... Not going to happen, you're asking way too much. Performance increases that high would be unprecedented.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

These new drivers are said to be for 6800 series drivers.

[ATI.Mfg.NTamd64.6.1]
"Radeon HD 6800 Series" = ati2mtag_NI, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_6738
"Radeon HD 6800 Series " = ati2mtag_NI, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_6739

PC Perspective's take on it
In a nutshell 3+1 for the 6800 series. 16 SIMD (from 20) attached to 4 texture units, giving a total of 64 for the 6870 and 14 SIMD for the 6850. The 6870 will consume 146 watts (6850 consumes 114 watts) vs 5870 which consumes 188 watts. They suggests a single 6-pin connector but should still see 2 of them for the 6870. However they believe that the 6850 will only use 1 6-pin connector.

 

[trt740]

I'm confused is there any reason to upgrade from a 5850 to the new cards or what.

 

[dir_d]

I'm confused is there any reason to upgrade from a 5850 to the new cards or what.

No not till the 69xx models come out, unless you value power consumption that much and want to run 5 montiors.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I'm confused is there any reason to upgrade from a 5850 to the new cards or what.

I don't understand your question. If the 6800 are the mid ranges cards why are you trying to replace them with a 5850? Wait until after NDA to get a better idea of what's going on. BTW, I've read that AMD is suppose to make some sort of announcement on the 14th.

 

[CDdude55]

I don't understand your question. If the 6800 are the mid ranges cards why are you trying to replace them with a 5850?

Because if in fact the 6800 series is the mid-range lineup, then you would expect them to perform better then something like a 5850, replacing midrange cards with better midrange cards have been happening for years.According to that article, it seems like the actual performance exceptions for Barts is pretty low, but efficiency and power consumption has been improved from what they have been analyzing, Touting it as more of just a refresh then anything that's going to give up a massive performance difference between the 5 series.

But again, i'm waiting for the official specs and comparisons to come out in order to truly be the deciding factor.

 

[mastrdrver]

These new drivers are said to be for 6800 series drivers.


PC Perspective's take on it
In a nutshell 3+1 for the 6800 series. 16 SIMD (from 20) attached to 4 texture units, giving a total of 64 for the 6870 and 14 SIMD for the 6850. The 6870 will consume 146 watts (6850 consumes 114 watts) vs 5870 which consumes 188 watts. They suggests a single 6-pin connector but should still see 2 of them for the 6870. However they believe that the 6850 will only use 1 6-pin connector.

There is sooooo much assumed fud in that article it makes me sick. What photo, slide, etc is he using to base the assumption that Barts = 6870?

Before someone pulls out the pdf leak let me ask you this: What that about a desktop or laptop part?

There is only word of mouth that Barts = 5870.

Also just saw this over on B3D that totally blows the everything starting at 58xx and top dual gpu being 5990. Only xx50 and xx70 parts with the later being the higher performing in the same family.

First of all, Charlie is not a source.

You may not think he is but there are a lot of rumors spread by news sites that if you follow them back all have their beginnings with one of his articles. Usually they take part of it and use parts. The PCPer article is an example. While he does say that this is the conclusion he has come to, some of the stuff out of it was in this one by Charlie as there is no leaks anywhere else that mention about the front end being redone that predate that article.

I'm not saying he is always right (as is evident in that very same article above) but he is more right then most when it comes to ATI and nVidia stuff. The nVidia stuff is just very, very heavily on opinion and if you can get past that there is always useful info. Same with the praise he gives ATI, get past that to the factual rumor part and he is pretty reliable.

EDIT: oh I wanted to make a comment about this separately:

Oh, please don't let AMD fool you with the overpriced HD5000 cards. RV770 was 260mm^2 and sold for $200 at launch (HD4850) and far less soon after (4830). Of course it can be done. Not to mention Nvidia cards, which have never never been sold at a loss, no matter what some stupid people say... you don't make profit if you are losing money in 2/3 of your revenue.

40nm is more expensive and Evergreen uses more expensive GDDR5. How is this comparable? Fwiw I did see an interesting comment on the 6800 series. Why can't Barts be 5850 and Cayman 5870? I don't know if it is true or not (doesn't make sense to me as usually same second number equals same die used) but it is an interesting thought.

 

[Baam]

If these new cards run cooler and use less power than the 5800. They may be overclocking beast.

 

[DriedFrogPills]

Its the 14th here in Australia already and i can confirm no announcement has been made yet

 

[trt740]

I don't understand your question. If the 6800 are the mid ranges cards why are you trying to replace them with a 5850? Wait until after NDA to get a better idea of what's going on. BTW, I've read that AMD is suppose to make some sort of announcement on the 14th.

You have my question backwards. I wouldn't upgrade a 6800 to a 5850. I was asking was there any reason at all performance wise to upgrade from a 5000 series card to a 6000 series card and more specifically in my case a 5850.

Because if in fact the 6800 series is the mid-range lineup, then you would expect them to perform better then something like a 5850, replacing midrange cards with better midrange cards have been happening for years.According to that article, it seems like the actual performance exceptions for Barts is pretty low, but efficiency and power consumption has been improved from what they have been analyzing, Touting it as more of just a refresh then anything that's going to give up a massive performance difference between the 5 series.

But again, i'm waiting for the official specs and comparisons to come out in order to truly be the deciding factor.

You understood my question. So basically no. Unless I'm a green freak there isn't a reason.

 

[erocker]

You have my question backwards. I wouldn't upgrade a 6800 to a 5850. I was asking was there any reason at all performance wise to upgrade from a 5000 series card to a 6000 series card and more specifically in my case a 5850.



You understood my question. So basically no. Unless I'm a green freak there isn't a reason.

We don't know the performance of the 6 series yet. I don't see how anyone can answer the question correctly at this time.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

You have my question backwards. I wouldn't upgrade a 6800 to a 5850. I was asking was there any reason at all performance wise to upgrade from a 5000 series card to a 6000 series card and more specifically in my case a 5850.

I'm confused is there any reason to upgrade from a 5850 to the new cards or what.

I don't necessary have it backwards as you put it. But implied that I didn't understand why you are asking such a question. So far it will be either
A. a mid range card
B. something else
If it is a mid range card. It wouldn't make sense to replace a 5850 with it. But in the end we need to wait until it's officially announced to know:
-performance
-price
-power consumption
-arch
-etc
To know why it would be either a mid range card or other. So, once we have that information we all would have a better idea on what's going on and if it's something of interest or not. If it's not of interest perhaps they have higher in cards.

 

[mastrdrver]

So here is some food for thought. I've been reading most of the last month I've missed on B3D. Neliz (who is pretty good and accurate with ATI rumors) kept asking why everyone wants Barts to be 67xx. He seemed to keep insisting that it wasn't. I didn't get it until he asked why everyone keeps comparing Barts to 5870 (and 4870/3870) when it will be cheaper.

Then I remembered something (I don't remember where) that I had read. With Llano coming in the next year, there really is no reason to make lower end discrete parts. Especially if you'll be able to get a 400sp gpu with your cpu. Further that will eat a little bit in to even the low end of that sweet $200 bracket (where 5750 is and recently 5770).

So the question I have is what if the 67xx parts became the sweet spot for ATI now with performance of 58xx parts? In other words everything just moved up the performance bracket without too much of a hike in price? Normally it is the x8xx family that holds that.

Its the 14th here in Australia already and i can confirm no announcement has been made yet

 

[EastCoasthandle]

If they are planning to lock out the low end discrete cards to Llano now then that's one bold step for them. I don't think they would offer no cards in that segment though. They don't start mass production of Llano until next year. So the question is if Llano can perform to the standard of what would have been a 6770/6750? With all this speculation it's just better to wait for an official announcement.

 

[cheezburger]

I don't necessary have it backwards as you put it. But implied that I didn't understand why you are asking such a question. So far it will be either
A. a mid range card
B. something else
If it is a mid range card. It wouldn't make sense to replace a 5850 with it. But in the end we need to wait until it's officially announced to know:
-performance
-price
-power consumption
-arch
-etc
To know why it would be either a mid range card or other. So, once we have that information we all would have a better idea on what's going on and if it's something of interest or not. If it's not of interest perhaps they have higher in cards.

barts is not mid range. it's upper mid range that similar to old 4870's market position while the real main stream will still be refine juniper with much higher core clock and higher speed GDDR5 with tessellation unlock while still keep 5D shader. barts xt/pro are being place in position between mid range and high end with new architecture. cayman xt/pro are in position of high end line and is 3/2 larger than barts and much higher bus/rop/ALU. antillies is for enthusiast and made of 2x barts. jus like good old day 4870 was in position range of $250~299 except there are larger high end chip on barts's top while 4870 did not have any high end single chip on top of it and the high end position was taken by 4850x2 and enthusiast are 4870x2. now cayman is on position of 4850x2 and antillies is on same position like 4870x2



juniper...juniper (but i like jupiter..it sound much better)

Then I remembered something (I don't remember where) that I had read. With Llano coming in the next year, there really is no reason to make lower end discrete parts. Especially if you'll be able to get a 400sp gpu with your cpu. Further that will eat a little bit in to even the low end of that sweet $200 bracket (where 5750 is and recently 5770).

don't get too much hope on APU....14 years ago people were assuming that discrete card will be replace by igp when sis indroduce the world first igp chipset....it didn't happen. so apu won't be much different than what igp is today and it's position will be below even the lowest discrete card available.

 

[jaredpace]

 

[Benetanegia]

Or these are the most conservative marketing (read horrible marketing) slides ever released or I smell dissapointment.

 

[KainXS]

i don know

seems juniper did really get rebranded though.