First Radeon 6xxx card launches in Oct., performance rivals 5850

B

blastingcap

Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
682
...so claims nordichardware.com: http://www.nordichardware.com/news/...ts-launches-in-october-as-radeon-hd-6800.html

"AMD's next generation mid-range GPU is code-named Barts. As previously revealed Barts will be the first graphics circuit to market in October, but it will be named Radeon HD 6800, while Cayman will be saved for the Radeon HD 6900 series.

According to reliable sources AMD will now revise its naming scheme...

...Barts is the successor to Juniper in the mid-range segment, but performs so well that AMD has decided to give the mid-range chip higher status. Barts will be launched in two versions, Barts XT and Barts Pro. These cards will become Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 6850 respectively. Radeon HD 6870 will be the first to come with a launch slated for late October. When Radeon HD 6850 will arrive hasn't been confirmed...

According to other sources to NordicHardware AMD will start shipping reference cards to manufacturers and partners this week, for testing and evaluation. We can confirm that several manufacturers have tested the card and performance is said to be on par with Radeon HD 5850...

As revealed in previous posts Barts will be follows by the performance circuit Caymen in November (the true successor to Cypress) and Antilles, AMD's dual-Caymen card. These cards will be launched as the Radeon HD 6900 series where Antilles will be named Radeon HD 6990. Most likely we will also find Radeon HD 6970 and Radeon HD 6950 in this series, based on Caymen XT and Caymen Pro."

Does anyone know how reliable nordichardware.com is? I'm skeptical that AMD changed their naming system. In any case, I thought people might be interested in this topic, and in the estimated performance. Maybe this is why NVIDIA has been slashing prices of GTX460's lately.
 
Yay! Welcome back the XT and Pro and "00" scheme. Boo to ATI being put 6 feet under.

On second thought...no, I prefer the 50 and 70 designations. It made it feel like you were closer to the high end with a 50 to 70 differentiation than XT and Pro.
 
I hope it goes for $199 msrp

I'm sure Nvidia will drop their GTX 460 1GB to that price or even lower if AMD launches at lower than $199
 
Spare-Flair said:
Yay! Welcome back the XT and Pro and "00" scheme. Boo to ATI being put 6 feet under.

On second thought...no, I prefer the 50 and 70 designations. It made it feel like you were closer to the high end with a 50 to 70 differentiation than XT and Pro.
Click to expand...

Actually, ATi has alreays kept the "XT" and "Pro" designations. All of them are internal codenames, however.

RV770 XT - HD4870
RV770 Pro - HD4850

Juniper Pro - HD5750
Cypress XT - HD5870.

ATi hasn't changed it's naming scheme since the HD3000 series, save for making the X2 cards part of the x9xx lineup.
 
Like the OP, I don't see the wisdom in changing the numbering scheme. To me, it just makes too much sense to put dual-GPU cards as x9xx with the single high-end cards as x8xx and mid-range at x7xx. It's already an established scheme that is easy to understand and is firmly entrenched in the consumer's eyes. I wonder if AMD will tell us why they did this(if it's true) and not give some standard marketing/P.R. response.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Yay! Welcome back the XT and Pro and "00" scheme. Boo to ATI being put 6 feet under.

On second thought...no, I prefer the 50 and 70 designations. It made it feel like you were closer to the high end with a 50 to 70 differentiation than XT and Pro.
Click to expand...

They will still be using the xx70 and xx50 designations, just as they are now. The difference is going to be that mid-range will be x870 and x850 instead of x770 and x750. The XT and Pro are still in use, but only for internal use.
 
I'm disappointed that someone thought it'd be a good idea to make a 6870 inferior to a 5870 performance wise.
 
Crispy002 said:
I'm disappointed that someone thought it'd be a good idea to make a 6870 inferior to a 5870 performance wise.
Click to expand...

I don't care if they renamed it from 6770 to 6870 so long as the price is like that of a 5770 at launch ($159.99). :) My best guess, though, is that it will be priced at $179.99 due to higher costs of board components like RAM.
 
Everyone is tossing around these pretty cheap prices. But I'm not feeling that optimistic. AMD doesn't typically sell new x8xx series cards cheaply. They usually start at around $300 to $400. I don't know why that would change now (even if it is a mid range GPU).

And so that 6900s would probably start in the $500 range. Just guessing of course.

It doesn't really seem like AMD really has much to worry about from Nvidia and doesn't need to be too aggressive with pricing. The GTX 460 is a fine card, but it certainly isn't a threat to the 6800s. The 6800s would probably be on par with the GTX 470, maybe still trail the 480 a bit. Which put them in the same $300 to $400 price range. But not have the negatives associated with the 470 with a large GPU and heat.

The 6850 could retail as low as $250 I think. But I'd be surprised if it was any lower than that.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Yay! Welcome back the XT and Pro and "00" scheme. Boo to ATI being put 6 feet under.

On second thought...no, I prefer the 50 and 70 designations. It made it feel like you were closer to the high end with a 50 to 70 differentiation than XT and Pro.
Click to expand...

I always thought the older ATI and nV designations were more descriptive. The number (e.g., 1900) should indicate the GPU flavor; the letters (e.g., XT, Pro. All-in-one; GT, GTX, GTS) should indicate the speed and/or extra features. The best convention would be GPU [number], speed or features [letters], memory [memory config]

e.g., 1900 xtx 512
 
Last edited:
Bleh. Im ready for High End Parts. Who wants mid range?... People who are not [H]ard ;)
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Bleh. Im ready for High End Parts. Who wants mid range?... People who are not [H]ard ;)
Click to expand...

Well this affects the high end parts too. If they are bumping up all the model numbers, I get the feeling this is just to pave the way for price bumps as well.

That 6970 (the single GPU higher clocked Cayman) might end up costing me a bit more than I was hoping for.

Hopefully I'm wrong though. :)
 
Ravynmagi said:
Well this affects the high end parts too. If they are bumping up all the model numbers, I get the feeling this is just to pave the way for price bumps as well.
Click to expand...

I hope you are wrong too but I am thinking that you are 100% right. To the consumer, a 6870 should be the next successor to the 5870, so it should cost the same....

just a thought. If AMD corners the market (again) then it can do what it wants with the prices(again).

Performance crown will swing AMDs way again, that much I think i certain.
 
Crispy002 said:
I'm disappointed that someone thought it'd be a good idea to make a 6870 inferior to a 5870 performance wise.
Click to expand...

Maybe it won't be?

Kind of a long shot, but possible. ATI has kept pretty consistent with their naming, I *hope* they wouldn't change it without a good reason. Then again, I would have hoped Nvidia wouldn't use the same GPU across 3 "generations" and with a dozen names, but hey.
 
harmattan said:
I always thought the older ATI and nV designations were more descriptive. The number (e.g., 1900) should indicate the GPU flavor; the letters (e.g., XT, Pro. All-in-one; GT, GTX, GTS) should indicate the speed and/or extra features. The best convention would be GPU [number], speed or features [letters], memory [memory config]

e.g., 1900 xtx 512
Click to expand...
That was a mess, luckily they dropped that crappy naming system.
 
harmattan said:
I always thought the older ATI and nV designations were more descriptive. The number (e.g., 1900) should indicate the GPU flavor; the letters (e.g., XT, Pro. All-in-one; GT, GTX, GTS) should indicate the speed and/or extra features. The best convention would be GPU [number], speed or features [letters], memory [memory config]

e.g., 1900 xtx 512
Click to expand...
If you count up the syllables, "1900 XTX 512" has up to thirteen. Add "ATI Radeon HD" in front and you're looking at 21 syllables just to relate 5 pieces of information: Brand (Radeon), GPU generation (1xxx), Market segment (x9xx), performance within that market segment (XTX), memory configuration (512).
To my practical side this is horribly wasteful. The memory configuration could easily be (and should be IMO) included as part of that "performance within market segment". How about "Radeon 199"? Replace the XTX/XT/LE/GS/GTX/AIW bullshit with a single digit, then drop the extraneous zero. Tada! Here's a model number that's just as descriptive and much shorter. Easier to type, easier to say.
Of course, the marketing people would not be happy because like it or not there is an aesthetic appeal to having "big numbers" (hence useless zeroes) and the letter X.
 
Kaldskryke said:
If you count up the syllables, "1900 XTX 512" has up to thirteen. Add "ATI Radeon HD" in front and you're looking at 21 syllables just to relate 5 pieces of information: Brand (Radeon), GPU generation (1xxx), Market segment (x9xx), performance within that market segment (XTX), memory configuration (512).
To my practical side this is horribly wasteful. The memory configuration could easily be (and should be IMO) included as part of that "performance within market segment". How about "Radeon 199"? Replace the XTX/XT/LE/GS/GTX/AIW bullshit with a single digit, then drop the extraneous zero. Tada! Here's a model number that's just as descriptive and much shorter. Easier to type, easier to say.
Of course, the marketing people would not be happy because like it or not there is an aesthetic appeal to having "big numbers" (hence useless zeroes) and the letter X.
Click to expand...

I find the extra 0 makes it easier to say (for example 5850 = fifty eight fifty instead of five hundred eighty five, although I guess you could also do five eighty five, so maybe it doesn't matter, idk). It also introduces options to do something like a 5875 or some half step (like the GTX 465).

I *hated* those XTX, XT, Pro, etc... postfixes, they are a pain to keep track of and they have no meaning. Which is faster, the XT or the Pro? Unless you already know from reviews, you've got no idea - they have no implicit comparison. Which is faster, the 5870 or 5850? Much easier to remember, much easier to compare.
 
Ravynmagi said:
Everyone is tossing around these pretty cheap prices. But I'm not feeling that optimistic. AMD doesn't typically sell new x8xx series cards cheaply. They usually start at around $300 to $400. I don't know why that would change now (even if it is a mid range GPU).

And so that 6900s would probably start in the $500 range. Just guessing of course.

It doesn't really seem like AMD really has much to worry about from Nvidia and doesn't need to be too aggressive with pricing. The GTX 460 is a fine card, but it certainly isn't a threat to the 6800s. The 6800s would probably be on par with the GTX 470, maybe still trail the 480 a bit. Which put them in the same $300 to $400 price range. But not have the negatives associated with the 470 with a large GPU and heat.

The 6850 could retail as low as $250 I think. But I'd be surprised if it was any lower than that.
Click to expand...


The way I see it is...

that names don't matter. People will buy on performance.


Lets assume that the barts will perform about the range of a 5850. You can buy Nvidia's competitor, the 1GB GTX 460 for about $220 now I believe. It is a bit slower but most people consider it to be competition (as long as it is priced a bit less).

So, if that is true...

Would you be willing to pay $300~400 for a new AMD card that is 5~10% faster than an already available GTX 460 1GB? Seriously?


Some of you guys are getting too caught up in the names. AMD could name it the Mexican 9000 and it would still be compared to the performance of Nvidia videocards.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
Lets assume that the barts will perform about the range of a 5850. You can buy Nvidia's competitor, the 1GB GTX 460 for about $220 now I believe. It is a bit slower but most people consider it to be competition (as long as it is priced a bit less).
Click to expand...

Competitive in value, NOT competitive in performance. 5850 goes head to head with the 470, it's the 5830 that the 460 is really competing against (and beating).

Would you be willing to pay $300~400 for a new AMD card that is 5~10% faster than an already available GTX 460 1GB? Seriously?
Click to expand...

No, but that isn't what the rumor is either. If the new card performs gets roughly the same performance as the 5850, it'll already be well past 5-10% faster than the GTX 460 1GB, and it also won't be $300-400 either. The 5850 is less than $300, I would expect the 6xxx series equivalent of the 5850 performance to cost $150-200.
 
2010 AMD RADEON 100 512MB
2010 AMD RADEON 150 512MB
2010 AMD RADEON 200 512MB
2010 AMD RADEON 200 1024MB
2010 AMD RADEON 250 1024MB
2010 AMD RADEON 300 1024MB
2010 AMD RADEON 350 1024MB
2010 AMD RADEON 350 2048MB
2010 AMD RADEON 250 X2 1024MB
2010 AMD RADEON 300 X2 2048MB
2010 AMD RADEON 350 X2 4096MB

Send me a million dollars
 
kllrnohj said:
I *hated* those XTX, XT, Pro, etc... postfixes, they are a pain to keep track of and they have no meaning. Which is faster, the XT or the Pro? Unless you already know from reviews, you've got no idea - they have no implicit comparison. Which is faster, the 5870 or 5850? Much easier to remember, much easier to compare.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
kllrnohj said:
Competitive in value, NOT competitive in performance. 5850 goes head to head with the 470, it's the 5830 that the 460 is really competing against (and beating).
Click to expand...


Looks to me like it competes with the 5850. I see a lot of people claim that it is close to its performance but costs less. Going by just one sites review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_460_Cyclone_OC_1_GB/31.html


The 5850 appears to be about 11.5% faster than a stock 1GB GTX 460 (my 5~10% estimate was too low) and does not compete "head to head" with a 470. You could say it competes with it, but it always loses. Just like you could say a GTX 460 1GB competes with a 5850 but also loses. Or your example, competes against a 5830, but always wins.


kllrnohj said:
No, but that isn't what the rumor is either.
Click to expand...


says right there in the first post, 5850 level performance. If you are talking about the $300~400 comment, Look at post #10 because that is what I was responding to.


kllrnohj said:
If the new card performs gets roughly the same performance as the 5850, it'll already be well past 5-10% faster than the GTX 460 1GB, and it also won't be $300-400 either. The 5850 is less than $300, I would expect the 6xxx series equivalent of the 5850 performance to cost $150-200.
Click to expand...


I didn't check a bunch of sites but using techpowerup, its about 11.5%. Do you know of other sites that suggest a different level of performance (since you say that it is well past)?

$150 sounds great but I doubt that it would be released that low. If this card will compete with a GTX 460 1GB, I would (if I made the decision at AMD) price this card close to it. Maybe slightly more or slightly less. I think the 1GB version recently dropped msrp to $220 (says Anand) so maybe something close to that.

My guess (if we are keeping score) would be $199. Has a nice sound to it and will force Nvidia to respond by cutting prices on its most competitive product of this generation. No reason to drop all the way down to $150 from day one when there would be hundreds of thousands (over a few months) of people will to pay more money than that...
 
they are all staggered in price and performance, all the way up to 5970 at the top, and it was all done on purpose.
 
tybert7 said:
You got a problem with the frisco subway system ?!??!
Click to expand...


yeah it smells and it sucks ass.. (lived in the bay area for 25 years)..




as far as the naming goes.. dont forget about the stupid LE naming nvidia used for a while that made absolutely no sense.. why call it a 6200 LE.. if its slower then the regular 6200 call it a 6100 duh.. i hated the old naming.. took me 10 times longer to find out if the XT was better or worse then the XTX.. or if it was better or worse then the pro.. pain in the ass..
 
LittleMeEgo said:
So the 6900 will be the replacement for the 5870? This is going to confuse people.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the point. The 5850/5870 has had such good press that uninformed buyers will expect the 6850/6870 to be a faster/cheaper version. Anyone willing to spend big bucks on the high end will research first.
 
AMD better be careful or the will start generating hate for the renaming, they are getting as bad as Nvidia (well nowhere near yet actually, but the signs are disturbing.)
 
Valset said:
AMD better be careful or the will start generating hate for the renaming, they are getting as bad as Nvidia (well nowhere near yet actually, but the signs are disturbing.)
Click to expand...

I am still skeptical that they will go through with the renaming. So let's not jump the gun.

Even if they do rename it, it's a new architecture and chip, not a rebadged 5770. That's more than can be said for the 8800GT/9800/250 renaming mess.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't be thrilled if they shook up the naming system like that.
 
http://www.hwupgrade.it/news/skvide...-la-prima-volta-tra-le-nostre-mani_33764.html

Google translate version: http://translate.google.com/transla...-la-prima-volta-tra-le-nostre-mani_33764.html

Basically they got their hands on an engineering sample of Cayman (not Barts). A few quotes from the translated version, with my editorializing in parentheses:

"Just looking at the back of the card we have noted the points of contact for 8 modules GDDR5 memory, which is then confirmed using a 256bit memory bus size for this card like the 5800 Series solutions. The upper part contains a power connector 6-pin PCI Express flanked by an 8-pin, technical choice identical to that of dual GPU cards ATI Radeon HD 5970, note that the ATI Radeon HD 5800 series are equipped with two connectors PCI Express 6-pin."

(more power hungry than 5870)

"We can then estimate, for this card, the GPU is clocked higher than that made available by ATI Radeon HD 5870, with similar dynamics including the GDDR5 memory, which should significantly exceed the 4800 MHz clock effective solutions Radeon HD 5870 on the understanding the magnitude of the bus."

(higher spec'd GDDR5 RAM, possible increase in core clockspeed)

"The rear panel connections sees the presence of two DVI ports, a standard HDMI and two mini-display port, a configuration like this leaves you can imagine, this type of card, configure the technology Eyefinity up to a maximum of 4 screens used simultaneously."

(Eyefinity4 is likely, up from three screens.)

"...we can also confirm whether there has been a radical change in the structure of stream processors than the solutions chosen for the family R800...."

(Rumors of the 4+1 shader architecture's demise are likely. Most people seem to think it'll be a 2+2 or 3+1 style redesign.)

"We chose not to publish pictures of this card, to protect our source but we can confirm that the card is ready and that the debut would be a matter of no time."

(Production has already started on the replacement to the HD5870, and it should be released soon.)
 
Ravynmagi said:
Everyone is tossing around these pretty cheap prices. But I'm not feeling that optimistic. AMD doesn't typically sell new x8xx series cards cheaply. They usually start at around $300 to $400. I don't know why that would change now (even if it is a mid range GPU).

And so that 6900s would probably start in the $500 range. Just guessing of course.

It doesn't really seem like AMD really has much to worry about from Nvidia and doesn't need to be too aggressive with pricing. The GTX 460 is a fine card, but it certainly isn't a threat to the 6800s. The 6800s would probably be on par with the GTX 470, maybe still trail the 480 a bit. Which put them in the same $300 to $400 price range. But not have the negatives associated with the 470 with a large GPU and heat.

The 6850 could retail as low as $250 I think. But I'd be surprised if it was any lower than that.
Click to expand...

compared to Nvidia's offerings with similar performance they are cheaper. It's kind of annoying to see people saying ATi does this when in reality you can all thank Nvidia for not having any competition for 7+ months thus artificially keeping prices high......
 
needmorecarnitine said:
Looks to me like it competes with the 5850. I see a lot of people claim that it is close to its performance but costs less. Going by just one sites review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_460_Cyclone_OC_1_GB/31.html


The 5850 appears to be about 11.5% faster than a stock 1GB GTX 460 (my 5~10% estimate was too low)
Click to expand...

1) Really not a fan of canned benchmarks
2) The drivers used for ATI in that review are a bit old, 10.6
3) It's only close at low resolutions, and the 5850 puts a ton of distance on the 460 as the resolution increases. At 1920x1200 it's already 15%+ faster than the stock 460.

and does not compete "head to head" with a 470. You could say it competes with it, but it always loses. Just like you could say a GTX 460 1GB competes with a 5850 but also loses. Or your example, competes against a 5830, but always wins.
Click to expand...

Again, not a fan of canned benchmarks. Check [H]'s review and you'll find the 5850 at worst matching the 470 in performance (really [H] called the 5850 faster iirc)

So no, the 5850 doesn't always lose to the 470. It is very much going head to head with the 470 (and [H] found it to win that battle)

$150 sounds great but I doubt that it would be released that low. If this card will compete with a GTX 460 1GB, I would (if I made the decision at AMD) price this card close to it. Maybe slightly more or slightly less. I think the 1GB version recently dropped msrp to $220 (says Anand) so maybe something close to that.

My guess (if we are keeping score) would be $199. Has a nice sound to it and will force Nvidia to respond by cutting prices on its most competitive product of this generation. No reason to drop all the way down to $150 from day one when there would be hundreds of thousands (over a few months) of people will to pay more money than that...
Click to expand...

I did give a range of $150 to $200, I didn't say $150. There is always the possibility of its MSRP being $200 and rebates driving it down towards $150 (like the 4850).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top