ATI Radeon HD 3800 Series Specs, Photos and Logos

[GrapeApe]

In this case, you get almost the same GPU from an architectural standpoint (smaller fabrication process, DX10.1 support which is worthless besides being on more bullet point to add to the feature list) but yet, most uninformed consumers will think this is a whole new card because of the next gen denomination (HD3800>HD2900), when in reality, will have about the same performance but a cheaper price point than the "previous gen" card.

How do you know if they're being misled? That implies intent to decieve and I'd like to see your proof of that since you get so many other things wrong. Right now they're launching an RV670 into that new lineup, which may be the lower end of the top cards like the X1K launch with its XL model or X800 series with the PRO. Considering there is supposed to be no more SE-GT-PRO-XT-XTX you don't know where it would've been in that nomenclature-suffix combo that it's the 3800 and 3900 leaves room for that refresh before moving to the R7xx generation. Also you don't even know the performance yet although there's alot of loose talk, just like the loose complaints.
So saying they're being misleading is pretty strong words considering you don't even know all the aspect of it yet, which may or may not be as numerous and different as those you take exception to being call slight tweaks. The only people who would be mislead are same type of buyer as those that buy cards based on VRAM size or numbering where the GF7300>GF6800/X1300>X800.
Bitter about your 512MB X1300HM purchase are you?

Or the same as Ati did when they introduced the 9000 and 9200 series, they only supported DX 8.1 when compared to other fully DX 9 "genuine" R9x00 cards.

Which had nothing to do with 9xxx and DX9, just so happened that they worked out that way.

Or the X600, X300, X700 cards, which used the X denomination but were just PCIe versions of the 9600/9700 series.

Once again you're confused.
While the X600 was essentially the PCIe version of the R9600, neither the X300 nor the X700 were based on the R9700. The X300 was PS2.0 limited like the rest of the RV3xx series, but had far less shader, TUs and ROPs than the R9700; and the X700 was PS2.0B based architecture with more vertex shaders than the R9700/9800. The codename would help you figure that out with the X700 being the RV410 and the other two being RV3xx cards and the R9700 being R300 series.

The card that introduced the 9X00 series was the R300 based 9700, not the RV350/360,

A complete non sequitur to my statement about the X800 not being a new process, but something you try to build your strawmen out of. Your focus on the the R9700 goes against your use of the X850 and later models for your examples.

it has been a common practice in the video card industry for many years for manufacturers to migrate to a smaller fab. process for the mainstream GPU series on any given generation, before using that smaller process for the next gen flagship video cards, just as the HD3800 is a mainstream smaller fab. process version of the HD2900, sorry but this kinda disproves your point in any case...

No actually it disproves your point that the X800 being on 130nm as mattereing for naming strategy; and simply disproves your strawman that anyone ever said the HD3800 was the top flagship card. You're the one who said the process change was important for defining the X800 as a new number/generation, so you're contradicting your own statement and basically conforming with mine, that the process change didn't matter. However, since you said that's one of the things that defined the X800 as different enough to require a new name, I simply said then the HD3800 must be doubly different based on your argument. Don't blame me for your weak statement for the X800.

I was just using an example of another feature available on the X8x0 series that wasn't available on the R3x0 series (the two architectures you decided to quote), just to prove that all those features combined don't add up to just "some extremely slight tweaks" between both generations...

Considering the RV3xx in the X600 and X300 did have it and the R4xx didn't have it until the R423 refresh/model, long after the R420 was in place, it doesn't fit your argument, and considering that the change is an electrical change for signalling and not a processing architecture change if you think it's significant, then all those minor HD3800 changes are equally 'significant'.

Another feature available for consumers on X8x0 cards first, add it to the feature list that doesn't add up to "some extremely slight tweaks". It doesn't matter if the US government used 4 9800XT cards working in parallel for a flight simulator, or Alienware shows some vaporware, if the consumer cannot have access to that technology with the product it has on it hands at any given moment.

Do you even know how crossfire works? :shadedshu
Tell me what major change was made to the VPU (specifically the R420/423) that made Xfire 'more possible' compared to the addition of the external compositing chip and hardware at the END of the X8xx's life.
And prior work with the previous VPUs does matter, especially when you're talking about a feature not related to the VPU itself, but how it is used with add-on hardware after the fact, once again not relevant to either the small tweaks not the naming of the X800. You also complain about me using the R9600&9800 in my examples and then call upon a feature that wasn't even used until the 3rd refresh of the R4xx line and only on select cards.

So what, I made a mistake because the GF6800GS has an NV42 core, at least I didn't quote two cores that were never available for sale

Other than those X300 and X700 based on some mythic R9700 you mean?
BTW, the NV47 were released you just know them as the GF7800 which was my point that like I said, if you don't know that maybe you shouldn't be commenting on my reference to the GF7 series like I said. You probably never knew the GF7900Ultra existed as well, doesn't matter that you bought it or saw it as the GTX-512.
And thanks for the InQ and a random 4th level site doing a blurb about an InQ article, they make me smile like your NV42 muff. Can I use the InQ to debunk you InQ link?

Your link dated Dec 2004 saying the NV47 doesn't exist and the NV48 is cancelled;
Nvidia's NV47 never existed

And your other link in Dec 2004 refer to another fuad article (here's the original)
Nvidia has canned NV48

Then in Feb Fuad changes his tune again, saying the NV48 is back again as a 512MB GF6800;
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/02/28/nv48-is-nv45-with-512mb-ram
SO what do your links prove when they are contradicted by the author 2 months later?

And how about a year later when Fuad said, Oh no someone lied to us the NV47 DID exist?
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/03/08/geforce-7800-gtx-512-is-just-a-nv47-after-all
"Now it turns out that even Microsoft's upcoming Vista calls the Geforce 7800 GTX 512 by the name NV47."

Even nVidia's own drivers exposed the two models back in 2005, so to say they don't exist is funny, compared to your links which might as well have not existed for their own contradiction/retraction by the author.

The truth of the matter is AMD can name these cards whatever they want, they could name it Radeon HD4000+ for all I care,

Obviously not since you seem so bent out of shape by the new numbering scheme, sofar as to accuse AMD of trying to mislead people. Whereas I think it's just a dumb move in a series of dumb marketing moves (like launching days AFTER Crysis, not before).

but it will always be controversial when you raise the expectations of the consumer, and they pay for something that won't exactly live to what they expected, see what happened to the GeForce 4MX and Radeon 9200 users. :shadedshu

Consumers expectations aren't as important as actually lying to the customer (which all 3 companies have done). This numbering isn't like your examples, that would be the GF6200/7100 and X1050 or X2300, this would be closer to the X800Pro and X1800XL availability first except instead of being crippled better cards they look to be supercharged previously mid-range targeted cards. Considering both AMD's and nV's changes in strategies, how do you even know what will be mid-high end anymore if potentially that high end will be two RV670s on a single board?
Whether ATi launches this as another model number or suffix it won't be anymore of a problem than the HD2400/GF8400 presents to the morons who wish to replace their GF7800GTX/X1800XT because the number was newer. That's their stupidity.
Would you be less uptight about the HD3800XL if you knew there were an HD3800XTX or HD3900XT to launch at a later date like the X1800XT?

 

[Tatty_Two]

Jesus, I will be better off reading "War and Peace" than trying to get a grip with this thread.

 

[cdawall]

great post GrapeApe i have to agree with you i had a friend who replaced his 6800ULTRA with a 7300GS and sat and argued thta it was better thean the 6800

this new numbering strat wont change anything except maybe make it easier ie the biggest number=the best the smallest=the worst pretty simple vs having the know XL-XT-GT-GTO-XTX-banana-cow? all the different types just confused people anyway its a good move in AMDs favor they will sell more top end cards to dumb people bc they will think bigger is better vs WTF is the diff between GT and XTX except $100?

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

so whats the latest?

 

[22[Antihero]22]

Who gives a shit about the naming, if you don't like figuring out the best performing parts for yourself, then your not actually a computer enthusiast. Just wait until the 15th, when we will know for sure. As for my speculation, i think it will beat the 8800GT, and maybe the new GTS, and still be under nvidia for the crown, but we knew amd wasn't competing for the top, ever since the 2900 was released. If you want to see amd on top, you'll probably have to wait for the HD 4000, or 5x10^21, or whatever they call the R700.

 

[erocker]

From the speeds of the memory on the card I doubt it will beat a GT. If that memory can OC past 1000 (2000) it might.