ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Cards Specs Leaked

[tkpenalty]

It doesn't make sense if AMD spends more than one year of R&D on the R700 series to make it based off the R600 and one more thing which confuses me, what happened to the R700? Why is there already a "revision" RV770? The RV naming is used for non-flagship products. Example R600 is flagship, RV670 isn't flagship, but the R680 (2xRV670) is flagship. Note the naming.

In that case the 'specs leakage' in the first post didn't come from AMD either.

I'd say its mostly speculation.

EDIT: Its all bullshit:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2008
See this? This is "their sources" Its evidently not from AMD Moreover, see what fudzilla says about the source:http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6994&Itemid=1

Note, fudzilla seem to be NEVER wrong. They are always correct and them actually going that that info is bull says a lot. Which means this news article is to be taken with a grain of salt...

512bit mem bus anyone?

 

[Mussels]

nvidia has a 71% market share as posted earlier.

If there are 1,000 people, with 71% being Nv users - that means 710 of them are Nvidia, and the rest are divided between SiS, Intel, S3, and ATI.
lets say half of them crashed (dead split, 50% of that entire group) - funnily enough, more of the crashes will be caused by nvidia since there ARE MORE NVIDIA SYSTEMS TO CRASH.

WHY cant you get that? jesus...

 

[yogurt_21]

What happened to "the 4870 will be the first mass-production GPU with a clock speed higher than 1GHz"?

probably the same thing that happened to the 32 pixel pipeline x1800, it was never going to happen. Remember that the article is from tg daily, not amd directly, so no there was no official claim from amd/ati that the 4870 was supposed to have a 1GHZ core, just tg daily. So if it's the marketing bs spewer you're after, talk with tg daily.

 

[yogurt_21]

nvidia has a 71% market share as posted earlier.

If there are 1,000 people, with 71% being Nv users - that means 710 of them are Nvidia, and the rest are divided between SiS, Intel, S3, and ATI.
lets say half of them crashed (dead split, 50% of that entire group) - funnily enough, more of the crashes will be caused by nvidia since there ARE MORE NVIDIA SYSTEMS TO CRASH.

WHY cant you get that? jesus...

nvidia has nowhere near that amount when intel is factored into the equation it's more like 75% intel, 15% nvidia, 6% ati and 4% split between sis, via, s3 etc.

AND if I remember crrectly intel has less crashes than either nvidia or ati. the article basically praised intel onboard drivers. as well as intel chipset drivers (as the article never stated that they polled users with addon graphics only) meaning that nvidia chipsets and amd/ati chipsets are in there as well.

Basically ALL of you read the article wrong. and somehow you're all thinking that the article was on add on graphics only, quite funny as intel DOESN"T SELL ADD ON GRAPHICS and was included.

90% of the computer users on vista have onboard graphics, meaning that it has as much to do with chipset drivers as it does vga drivers. seriously get off that article because all it is is Microshaft blaming everyone else for it's own mistakes.

 

[Valdez]

Someone here is a little freaking retarded. WHQL doesn't mean shit. I'd rather not have M$ slap a meaningless label on it. 174.74s are whql for 9 series, so just get the "beta" (which is identical) if you have an older card and STFU.

Longer time between releasing probably saves your avg joe dipshit from problems. I can see them going to the website 3 times a month installing new drivers without actually uninstalling (cleaning) the old ones (which is definitely partly Nvidia's fault and ATI, etc) and causing mayhem.
If you're smart enough to be updating drivers (properly), then you probably don't need to go to the official sites to get them (I know I never do).

Lol man, i just wrote my expressions with 7900gt, i didn't lie, and i know how to install new drivers properly. Jesus what a troll you are

 

[tkpenalty]

It doesn't make sense if AMD spends more than one year of R&D on the R700 series to make it based off the R600 and one more thing which confuses me, what happened to the R700? Why is there already a "revision" RV770? The RV naming is used for non-flagship products. Example R600 is flagship, RV670 isn't flagship, but the R680 (2xRV670) is flagship. Note the naming.


I'd say its mostly speculation.

EDIT: Its all bullshit:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2008
See this? This is "their sources" Its evidently not from AMD Moreover, see what fudzilla says about the source:http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6994&Itemid=1

Note, fudzilla seem to be NEVER wrong. They are always correct and them actually going that that info is bull says a lot. Which means this news article is to be taken with a grain of salt...

512bit mem bus anyone?

Did people ignore this?

 

[mandelore]

ahhh, 512bit bus, we can certainly hope!!! and that means I wont be downgrading my memory bus when i finally wave this sweet sweet 2900xt goodbyeeeee

 

[Valdez]

ahhh, 512bit bus, we can certainly hope!!! and that means I wont be downgrading my memory bus when i finally wave this sweet sweet 2900xt goodbyeeeee

I don't think they will go on 512 again (at least not in near future). The manufacturing costs were much higher with it, and ATI have to make gpus with low manufacturing cost (to maximize profit).

Anyway 512bit and gddr5? that means a lot of bandwith. What for? Gddr3 is cheaper, 0.8 gddr3 with 512bit memory interface would make some sense, but very fast ram AND 512 bit make no sense at all.

But it would be really a surprise if we would get a cheap card with (1gb) gddr5 and 512bit

 

[HTC]

I don't think they will go on 512 again (at least not in near future). The manufacturing costs were much higher with it, and ATI have to make gpus with low manufacturing cost (to maximize profit).

Anyway 512bit and gddr5? that means a lot of bandwith. What for? Gddr3 is cheaper, 0.8 gddr3 with 512bit memory interface would make some sense, but very fast ram AND 512 bit make no sense at all.

But it would be really a surprise if we would get a cheap card with (1gb) gddr5 and 512bit

From what i've read, the reason they opted for GDDR5 is that it runs MUCH cooler then GDDR3 and, therefore, can be clocked higher.

 

[DarkMatter]

I don't know why people is being so conservative with their expectations about these cards. They look almost double as fast as current Ati cards, based on the specs shown here. You can believe them or not, that's another story, but looking at them and not expecting at least a 75% performance increase is really pesimistic. If the specs are true, these cards have the potential to be more than twice as fast as RV670. 32 TMUs clocked higher than on RV670 will help for sure, as well as double the GFlops on the shaders. ROPs mean nothing nowadays, specially on Ati cards where AA is done in the shaders. Such high memory bandwidth is not really needed, but it will help increase performance a bit. All in all, I would expect a card with these specs being more than twice as fast as current generation of Radeons.

nvidia has nowhere near that amount when intel is factored into the equation it's more like 75% intel, 15% nvidia, 6% ati and 4% split between sis, via, s3 etc.

AND if I remember crrectly intel has less crashes than either nvidia or ati. the article basically praised intel onboard drivers. as well as intel chipset drivers (as the article never stated that they polled users with addon graphics only) meaning that nvidia chipsets and amd/ati chipsets are in there as well.

Basically ALL of you read the article wrong. and somehow you're all thinking that the article was on add on graphics only, quite funny as intel DOESN"T SELL ADD ON GRAPHICS and was included.

90% of the computer users on vista have onboard graphics, meaning that it has as much to do with chipset drivers as it does vga drivers. seriously get off that article because all it is is Microshaft blaming everyone else for it's own mistakes.

I have quoted you since it's the last post regarding the vista crashes subject, but it's directed to everybody talking about them.

If we HAVE to talk about Vista crashes and Nvidia drivers in a thread about new HD4000 cards, at least let's do it with real numbers. Here you have actual market share figures:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/..._Back_Market_Share_from_Intel_Nvidia_JPR.html

Here's a resume: Intel's average for the year is around 40%, ~30% for Nvidia and ~19% for Ati.

Now I have to say that I agree a bit with newtekie. Even though he is using bloated numbers, what he said has sense. You have to take into account that most Intel IGP users are not doing anything stressful enough to get a crash related to graphics. The chances for Office, Mozilla or Emule to cause graphics related crashes are not very high, mefinks. Anyone with more "ambitious" needs will use a discrete card, even if it's only for watching movies on the PC, or they will use Ati/Nvidia integrated graphics instead of Intel IGP.
You can't use bold numbers in this situation since the use that people give to their machines is most relevant than the graphics adapter itself. Overclocking, driver changes, hardcore gaming, benchmarking/stressing the card, all of them are risk factors that could eventually lead to crashes. None of them are going to happen in an Intel IGP.
I would apply the same about Vista. Amongst people using Vista there's a bigger chance to find Ati/Nvidia discrete cards than on XP machines. The last time I heard a Vista and graphics card related news (aside the Vista crashes one), it was about Vista increasing the number of discrete graphic cards sold.
Those two facts take Intel out of the ecuation IMO. So that leaves us with Ati vs. Nvidia crash numbers. Here Nvidia has ~66% of market share, but there were reports that Nvidia was selling way more DX10 high-end cards (before RV670, but a year selling "only" Nvidia 8 series leads to lot of users), while Ati was selling more low-end and integrated graphics. If you look at the charts, you can see that Nvidia+Ati sold 52 millions of graphics adapters in Q4 2007 and in the next link we can see they sold 31 million discrete graphics on the same timeframe:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...Rise_but_Prices_Down_Jon_Peddie_Research.html

Almost half of the cards are integrated, where Ati was selling more. Again there's a low risk factor between people using integrated graphics. We can easily conclude then that between the risk factor crowd the number of Nvidia cards is a lot bigger than what pure market share would suggest.

In the end what I mean is that Nvidia causing more crashes is purely stadistics at work and has nothing to do with driver quality. None of te companies offer better drivers than the other.

 

[magibeg]

I don't know why people is being so conservative with their expectations about these cards. They look almost double as fast as current Ati cards, based on the specs shown here. You can believe them or not, that's another story, but looking at them and not expecting at least a 75% performance increase is really pesimistic. If the specs are true, these cards have the potential to be more than twice as fast as RV670. 32 TMUs clocked higher than on RV670 will help for sure, as well as double the GFlops on the shaders. ROPs mean nothing nowadays, specially on Ati cards where AA is done in the shaders. Such high memory bandwidth is not really needed, but it will help increase performance a bit. All in all, I would expect a card with these specs being more than twice as fast as current generation of Radeons.



I have quoted you since it's the last post regarding the vista crashes subject, but it's directed to everybody talking about them.

If we HAVE to talk about Vista crashes and Nvidia drivers in a thread about new HD4000 cards, at least let's do it with real numbers. Here you have actual market share figures:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/..._Back_Market_Share_from_Intel_Nvidia_JPR.html

Here's a resume: Intel's average for the year is around 40%, ~30% for Nvidia and ~19% for Ati.

Now I have to say that I agree a bit with newtekie. Even though he is using bloated numbers, what he said has sense. You have to take into account that most Intel IGP users are not doing anything stressful enough to get a crash related to graphics. The chances for Office, Mozilla or Emule to cause graphics related crashes are not very high, mefinks. Anyone with more "ambitious" needs will use a discrete card, even if it's only for watching movies on the PC, or they will use Ati/Nvidia integrated graphics instead of Intel IGP.
You can't use bold numbers in this situation since the use that people give to their machines is most relevant than the graphics adapter itself. Overclocking, driver changes, hardcore gaming, benchmarking/stressing the card, all of them are risk factors that could eventually lead to crashes. None of them are going to happen in an Intel IGP.
I would apply the same about Vista. Amongst people using Vista there's a bigger chance to find Ati/Nvidia discrete cards than on XP machines. The last time I heard a Vista and graphics card related news (aside the Vista crashes one), it was about Vista increasing the number of discrete graphic cards sold.
Those two facts take Intel out of the ecuation IMO. So that leaves us with Ati vs. Nvidia crash numbers. Here Nvidia has ~66% of market share, but there were reports that Nvidia was selling way more DX10 high-end cards (before RV670, but a year selling "only" Nvidia 8 series leads to lot of users), while Ati was selling more low-end and integrated graphics. If you look at the charts, you can see that Nvidia+Ati sold 52 millions of graphics adapters in Q4 2007 and in the next link we can see they sold 31 million discrete graphics on the same timeframe:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...Rise_but_Prices_Down_Jon_Peddie_Research.html

Almost half of the cards are integrated, where Ati was selling more. Again there's a low risk factor between people using integrated graphics. We can easily conclude then that between the risk factor crowd the number of Nvidia cards is a lot bigger than what pure market share would suggest.

In the end what I mean is that Nvidia causing more crashes is purely stadistics at work and has nothing to do with driver quality. None of te companies offer better drivers than the other.

Beautifully said, now lets put it to rest

 

[newtekie1]

I suppose second hand info equates to official marketing and leaked specs equate to final words now?

Did AMD's marketing make any claims like that? Reading the original article I see, "while the 4870 will be the first mass-production GPU with a clock speed higher than 1 GHz. Prototype RV770 boards were clocked at about 1.05 GHz." Right off the bat the reference to prototypes should be a bit of a redflag for anyone looking to take that claim to heart. Especially when he referred to final clocks (albeit in reference to the 4850) not being specified in the previous sentence. It sounds like buddy @ tgdaily might have heard the prototypes were clocked at 1.05 GHz, realized the benchmark that sets and ran with that.

I could see your point if this was something that came directly from AMD, and if they did I'll go find a crow and some salt, but I was under the impression that AMD has overall been pretty damn tight lipped (this new article seems to echo that) about these new cards and reading that article I'm not seeing any reason to think that the info came direct from AMD. The only "from AMD" thing reported there seems to be that they'd be rolling out a significant number of products in May, and even among that it goes on to say "sources now confirmed that the introductions will include desktop ... graphics parts." which points towards Dirk not specifying that. "We'll be releasing a product in May... I won't say what it is but it will be first mass-production GPU with a clock speed higher than 1 GHz" doesn't sound quite right heh...

Likewise, I'm not sure I'd place stock into leaked specs (actually it's kind of funny, if I remember correctly when leaked specs of the 9000 series were posted I could have swore you argued against their validity), especially from a source that seems to contradict itself within a weeks time. Stuff like this should be an indicition of where things are headed but I wouldn't assume leaked specs to be 100% for any upcoming products from any company.

That was actually my exact point, thank you for being the only one capable of getting it. It can all be summed up into one simple sentence: Leaked specs don't mean shit.

The specs here are from the exact same source as the claim that the 4870 was going to be the first mass produced GPU to run at 1GHz(TG Daily), and they are probably just as full of BS.

 

[MrMilli]

Maybe you guys should check out what i posted here:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=764016&postcount=21

About the crashes in Vista:
The numbers MS released are only related to the amount of crashes Vista had when Vista was released. So that's only Q1 2007 maybe Q2 too.

These are the numbers:
Rank Graphics Supplier Q1'07 Market Share - Q4'06 Market Share
1 Intel 38.7% - 37.4%
2 Nvidia 28.5% - 28.5%
3 AMD 21.9% - 23.0%
4 VIA Technologies 6.4% - 6.7%
5 Silicon Integrated Systems (SiS) 4.3% - 4.5%
6 Others <1% <1%

So claiming there where 2x more nVidia cards in that period and that's why there are 2x more crashes is ridiculous. Even ATI is not too far off nVidia. ATI's market share used to be bigger in the previous quarters. Some of those people upgraded too to Vista. So as i said, the statement that there are much more nVidia cards can't stand. I have first hand experience with the initial Vista drivers for 8800GTX. U really didn't have to go into a game to experience crashes. It could even crash or blue screen because of Aero or standby. So you shouldn't divide up IGP and discrete GPU's.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

STArT A NExT TOPiC FoR THiS DRiVER THiNG. JEeZ

 

[laszlo]

this thread has nothing in common with the original post;i'll remember the hd2900 early bench posted by a unknown site which has vanished after the fiasco

why don't we all wait till a reliable spec or a bench show up

it's a waist of time reading all the posts...fans from both sides arguing for nothing

 

[GSG-9]

They do look juicy. I am not on a timeline for a video upgrade, but I like the spec's I guess.

 

[flashstar]

Look, ATI isn't just going to release another inferior card. They know how fast the competition is and so I'm sure that the R770 will clean up the G92. The question though is whether or not the R770 will beat the G100. That's what really matters because ATI isn't going to come out with a completely new card for another year. They will have a revision in 6 months, but that's it. For ATI's sake I'm hoping that the R770 is 80-90% faster than the R670. That will give them a good 50% lead on the G92 and will hopefully pose a serious threat to the G100.

 

[btarunr]

Look, ATI isn't just going to release another inferior card. They know how fast the competition is and so I'm sure that the R770 will clean up the G92.

And you think NVidia will let the RV770 compete with G92? Unlikely. The next-generation NVidia GPU cometh.

 

[newtekie1]

Look, ATI isn't just going to release another inferior card. They know how fast the competition is and so I'm sure that the R770 will clean up the G92. The question though is whether or not the R770 will beat the G100. That's what really matters because ATI isn't going to come out with a completely new card for another year. They will have a revision in 6 months, but that's it. For ATI's sake I'm hoping that the R770 is 80-90% faster than the R670. That will give them a good 50% lead on the G92 and will hopefully pose a serious threat to the G100.

+1 R770 will have to compete with G100, and I'm hoping it does a damn good job of it.

 

[MrMilli]

Just was at a tradeshow of my dealer where Sapphire was present. The representative of Sapphire told me that RV770 based products will be showcased at Computex and released shortly after.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Look, ATI isn't just going to release another inferior card. They know how fast the competition is and so I'm sure that the R770 will clean up the G92.

The logic is falacious. That's like saying AMD know how fast the Intels are and so will not release a CPU that isnt faster than the Intels. Clearly rubbish. AMD wll release whatever they CAN... but if they dont have the architecture or technology there is NOTHING they can do about it.

I think the 4xxx series will be great. Certainly a lot better than the 3xxx series, esp. with DOUBLE the texture units. That is a bottleneck solved. So heres to the benchmarks

HD.3870.3Dmark06=12,590 vs. HD.4870.3Dmark06benchmark.leak.html=21,223

 

[GSG-9]

Look, ATI isn't just going to release another inferior card.

They have been doing it since right after the 9800...I love ati but come on, lets be realistic. You cant just say there not going to, theres at least a feasible chance they will.

 

[Thermopylae_480]

Please remember to remain on topic.

Thanks

 

[Mussels]

nvidia has nowhere near that amount when intel is factored into the equation it's more like 75% intel, 15% nvidia, 6% ati and 4% split between sis, via, s3 etc.

AND if I remember crrectly intel has less crashes than either nvidia or ati. the article basically praised intel onboard drivers. as well as intel chipset drivers (as the article never stated that they polled users with addon graphics only) meaning that nvidia chipsets and amd/ati chipsets are in there as well.

Basically ALL of you read the article wrong. and somehow you're all thinking that the article was on add on graphics only, quite funny as intel DOESN"T SELL ADD ON GRAPHICS and was included.

90% of the computer users on vista have onboard graphics, meaning that it has as much to do with chipset drivers as it does vga drivers. seriously get off that article because all it is is Microshaft blaming everyone else for it's own mistakes.

Nvidia has a 71% share in discrete graphics. That is a fact, although not one that has been linked to in this thread. NV would have more errors by sheer numbers alone. I got a bit annoyed earlier, but its not a fact that can really be argued - yeah intel have more than Nvidia, but Nvidia have more than AMD - i dont see people choosing intel video because it crashes less.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Intel graphics is not a choice. Thats like saying McDonald's bags are the most popular fast food bags. Its not because somebody says lets go get some McDonalds.... they have the best bags.

Intel graphics is just handed out, pretty much free, as part of the transaction when buying an Intel based PC.