• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

R600 300Watts Beast !

A

annaconda

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
9,925
Link:


Since we have to go quiet for the G80 now, we will focus our attention on the ATi next generation R600. We got to know that R600 is a 300W beast built on 80nm process technology. To cool off that beast, you need a 4 heatpipes cooling solution. The R600 card is long from what we have seen, around G80GTX length but the cooler is longer than the PCB. It has two power connectors like the NV flagship card and it is dual slot of course. Also we knew that the last spin at TSMC is less than ideal so we can conclude it is suffering from poor yield at this point of time. It is slated to launch in Q1 2007 according to ATi's roadmap but it might delay further.
 
This is seeming less like a 9700 Pro launch, and more like the crappy x800/x1800 launches.
 
I must refuse to buy a DX10 video card until a refresh of the products if this is true. :(
 
Shocker on this info.. seems like 300W will be the staple power req for the next gen cards. freakin a.. hello pci-e 2.0..
 
300W ? lol
So the rumors increase 50W. 300W for just the card. It's insane...
 
Majestic12 said:
This is seeming less like a 9700 Pro launch, and more like the crappy x800/x1800 launches.
Click to expand...

odd you call them crappy.

they both outperformed the NV counterparts, the X800 by a fair margin.

and umm. wow. that editorial... thanks for the numbers man. dont tell us actual temps, dont give proof or pics, or what it might look likes or pics.

just tell us "long and hot".

i think ill wait for slightly more conclusive articals...

and im still hoping its on 65nm T.T. but i guess i can give that hope up.
 
Who said TSMC has to make it. Not knowing how many of the flagship parts they plan on selling it's possible they could produce 65nm chips in house. Since AMD started building 65nm plants all over the place and GPU volume isn't likely close to CPU volume it's possible AMD produces them until TSMC gets it's 65nm production up and running. With the rumored size of the die if they went to 65nm it would seem to be much more reasonable to produce. Plus they could bundle em with a CPU and see if that helps sell more high end CPUs knowing they aren't likely to overtake conroe in the near future. Even i'll admit that speculation is out there however.

But that article is so vague it's hard to give it any credit. I'd highly doubt it's running at 300W however. And yields on what I'd consider an initial spin of silicon at this point in time don't necessarily mean a whole lot. I'm sure they're still tweaking stuff left and right to fine tune things.
 
I think the figures are utter crap. My entire pc is pulling less than 370watts at full load. Thats with a X2 4800+ dual core, x1900xtx, 2 sticks of ram, the mobo itself, audigy 2 ZS, ATI Tv card, 3 300gig WD 7200rpm HD's, on chassis lcd, and dvd-rw.

There is NO way that the r600 uses 300w on its own. I reckon that figures for the entire test system.

oh and heres a link to a nice little article showing how much a system pulls running Vista Aero with a 7900GT running at 107watts idle.

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10945
 
Anarchist, these things were in R&D before the acquisition (included wafer sampling) so no way is this thing coming out of AMD. AMD's own fabs are already stretched making cpus, and transition to new process/new fab would make R600 ridiculously late to market.
 
If this is in fact true, I guess the graphics companies are starting to do what Intel did with NetBurst, crank up the clocks, crank up the power consumption until more effecient tech can be invented and hope that you can just keep ratcheting until you have the better tech ready.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
odd you call them crappy.

they both outperformed the NV counterparts, the X800 by a fair margin.

and umm. wow. that editorial... thanks for the numbers man. dont tell us actual temps, dont give proof or pics, or what it might look likes or pics.

just tell us "long and hot".

i think ill wait for slightly more conclusive articals...

and im still hoping its on 65nm T.T. but i guess i can give that hope up.
Click to expand...

Well, they were late, hard to find, and the x800 pro's 12 pipe configuration was inferior to the excellent 6800 gt at the critical $300-400 pricepoint. I'll set aside the new featureset on the NV40.
 
300w of juice ?--thats wacked . they shouldn't even tried this at 80nm--should have started it at 65nm or maybe even 45nm . :eek:
 
Majestic12 said:
Well, they were late, hard to find, and the x800 pro's 12 pipe configuration was inferior to the excellent 6800 gt at the critical $300-400 pricepoint. I'll set aside the new featureset on the NV40.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was talking about x800 pro's... x800 pro was actually very similar to 6800gt performance... x800xt killed both ultra and gt...



Anyways I refuse to buy another power supply... Next video card is going to have to do with my current 450watt antec... I really wanted a r600 too but I might just skip the whole generation and buy a ps3 instead...
 
Marvelous said:
I don't think he was talking about x800 pro's... x800 pro was actually very similar to 6800gt performance... x800xt killed both ultra and gt...



Anyways I refuse to buy another power supply... Next video card is going to have to do with my current 450watt antec... I really wanted a r600 too but I might just skip the whole generation and buy a ps3 instead...
Click to expand...
Similar, but generally behind, and the 6800 gt was better with overclocking.

The x800xt was a nice card, but like I said difficult to find, and the $450-500 market is significantly smaller than the $320ish (on sale) 6800 gt market.
 
Majestic12 said:
Similar, but generally behind, and the 6800 gt was better with overclocking.

The x800xt was a nice card, but like I said difficult to find, and the $450-500 market is significantly smaller than the $320ish (on sale) 6800 gt market.
Click to expand...

Far as I can tell you... It was behind in opengl games... But anything directx with all settings maxxed the x800pro was faster...

farcry.gif



cs-4x8x-1280.gif


During that time the prices were similar... x800pro was not $450-500... It was 800xt was at that price range... 6800gt better overclockers? That thing was power supply hog and overheat issues....
 
6800GT's were power hungry sob's but they did OC well, but my X800pro OC'd 10x better then my 6800GT did (it also unlocked :D ), not to mention it took Nv a few driver releases to get the 6800GT to out perform the X800pro in anything, when that thing released it was BUGGY AS SHIT! also it only took me week to get an XT when I wanted it, and no it wasn't in the last couple of months.

Seeing how 80nm performs on both power and heat dissipation with the X1950pro, I'd say the numbers of 300watts on the R600 is bullshit
 
Marvelous said:
Far as I can tell you... It was behind in opengl games... But anything directx with all settings maxxed the x800pro was faster...
During that time the prices were similar... x800pro was not $450-500... It was 800xt was at that price range... 6800gt better overclockers? That thing was power supply hog and overheat issues....
Click to expand...

Worked great for me, as well as many forum users around here. I reached 430 core on the stock cooler.

Hardocps review:
"it seems in our gameplay evaluation the BFGTech 6800GT OC is starting to edge out the X800Pro performance-wise in real world gameplay."

There are tons of reviews with similar conclusions.

I didn't mean that the x800 pro was $450. What I meant was that even if the x800 XT was the top of the line card at $450-500 over the 6800 U (which it was), the size of the market there is much smaller than the $300-350 market (which Nvidia excelled in).
 
Anarchist, these things were in R&D before the acquisition (included wafer sampling) so no way is this thing coming out of AMD. AMD's own fabs are already stretched making cpus, and transition to new process/new fab would make R600 ridiculously late to market.
Click to expand...

That's not to say that they didn't try making a few to see how things went. If the process itself is working and already making chips(which by Q1 of 07 I'd hope) then the simple shrink wouldn't be to difficult. They wouldn't necessarily need the process to be ready for production when they started doing tests. Plus if you only worried about the high end chips I'd imagine the volume would be rather small.

Assuming sales of conroe's are going to pick up I'd imagine some of that demand will be dropping off. AMD will also be bringing new fabs online during the same timespan so it might not be unreasonable to assume they might have some extra space for a rather low volume part. Even if to get the first couple batchs onto the market and then transition back to TSMC when they get their 65nm production going when the volume really starts to pick up.

Also with unified designs redundancy and correcting errors in the silicon would be much easier I'd imagine. I know this is out there a ways but not out of the realm of possibility IMHO. Especially if the target date is still sometime in Q1 of next year.
 
Majestic12 said:
Worked great for me, as well as many forum users around here. I reached 430 core on the stock cooler.

Hardocps review:
"it seems in our gameplay evaluation the BFGTech 6800GT OC is starting to edge out the X800Pro performance-wise in real world gameplay."

There are tons of reviews with similar conclusions.

I didn't mean that the x800 pro was $450. What I meant was that even if the x800 XT was the top of the line card at $450-500 over the 6800 U (which it was), the size of the market there is much smaller than the $300-350 market (which Nvidia excelled in).
Click to expand...

I skimmed through all the benchmark there... The benchmark showed x800pro beating some and 6800gt beating some... There's no real cut winner...And that was the OC version clocked @ 370 and later power requirement became lower for those cards... Regular 6800gt were clocked 350 core... Lot of people bought into that DX9C effects of the 6800gt although not enough power to effectively do HDR with good frame rates in the first place... I think that's why lot of people bought the card because of it not because it was cheaper or cause it overclocked better...

If you knew about x800pro vivo that unlocked 100% of the time+overclock/similar price of 6800gt it killed ultras by much as 20fps in higher resolutions and it still kicking in games today... I can't say the same thing about 6800gt or the ultras....
 
[H]ard|FORUM Rules said:
(14) Do not post MATERIAL where you do not have permission to distribute it electronically or otherwise. This includes posting images directly from a website (Bandwidth Theft) Images are to be hosted personally or by a third party host.
Click to expand...
Oh, and yes, the X800 series are still "kicking" in current Shader Model 3.0 games. You bet.
 
I don't think this will hold true. They always seem to release these ludicrous power #s for both nvidia and ati cards before they come out only to prove untrue once the cards have launched. I remember the 6800Ultra was rumored to need a 480watt psu to run stable. I think it will be a power hog but 300w is far fetched. I'll guess around 215w. :)
 
phide said:
Oh, and yes, the X800 series are still "kicking" in current Shader Model 3.0 games. You bet.
Click to expand...

"Kicks" harder than 6800 series for sure... Fear, Battlefield 2, oblivion to name a few... You bet...
 
Im sure if it drew 300W then it would be a fire hazard. I know some toasters with less power.... and they are only on for minutes, if not seconds
 
Well, if this "Free AA 4x" seems to be true, I guess I'll be saving some $$ at Christmas... I wont need to turn my furnace on!
 
300W doesn't seem believable. Are we suggesting the card will require 3 power connectors? I'm thinking max of around 200-225W, with this 300W figure being bandied around just to prepare everyone for the inevitable power increases.

Taking it further, how would you remove the heat byproduct of this thing? HSF cooling would be pushed to its physical limits (unless its 3 slots lol).

Seriously I can't see a jump from 120W to 300W in 1 gen occurring.
 
Like I've said before, people always predict that the next generation of hardware will need its own nuclear reactor for power and liquid nitrogen for cooling, when in reality the new generations tend to be only slightly more power hungry than their predecessors or sometimes even less so, except for fluke cases like the Prescott.
 
phide said:
Oh, and yes, the X800 series are still "kicking" in current Shader Model 3.0 games. You bet.
Click to expand...


It's not like any game running SM 3.0 would run at a decent fps anyway, on those cards.
 
Crossfire will need its own 600W power supply :eek:

I bet most people on this forum don't have a 600W PSU for their whole system.
 
no no

its not gonna be 300W. they said the same about the G80. again. i think ATI just threw power consumption out the window, just to see how hard they could push this card. they'll start cutting down on the power.

plus whos ever heard of a die shrink causing more power consumption?
 
While I highly doubt the G80/R600 are going to be pushing out 300w, something tells me that Nvidia and ATI really don't give two thoughts about the power consumption of their cards. All they care about is delivering a product that will outperform the competition while filling it with features that will entice the consumer to open their wallets.

So do you think ATI/Nvidia is going to give a shit about power consumption? The real question is, do we, as consumers, give a shit about power consumption? While I think we're all getting to the point where we're acknowledging it as a growing problem, who cares if it's a big block V8 under the hood when gas is as cheap as it is (translation - how many gamers actually pay for their power bills?).

The real innovation in graphics technology will come when someone steps in and starts regulating power consumption for video cards. Who will that be? Who knows, but I doubt it'll happen anyways. Until then, throttling back the watts seems like a silly limitation when we're essentially comparing top fuel drag motors here. Both ATI and Nvidia are going to push their technology to the electrical limits if it means one-upping the other guy.
 
Ranari said:
While I highly doubt the G80/R600 are going to be pushing out 300w, something tells me that Nvidia and ATI really don't give two thoughts about the power consumption of their cards. All they care about is delivering a product that will outperform the competition while filling it with features that will entice the consumer to open their wallets.

So do you think ATI/Nvidia is going to give a shit about power consumption? The real question is, do we, as consumers, give a shit about power consumption? While I think we're all getting to the point where we're acknowledging it as a growing problem, who cares if it's a big block V8 under the hood when gas is as cheap as it is (translation - how many gamers actually pay for their power bills?).

The real innovation in graphics technology will come when someone steps in and starts regulating power consumption for video cards. Who will that be? Who knows, but I doubt it'll happen anyways. Until then, throttling back the watts seems like a silly limitation when we're essentially comparing top fuel drag motors here. Both ATI and Nvidia are going to push their technology to the electrical limits if it means one-upping the other guy.
Click to expand...

With the G70 chip, G71 especially, NVIDIA showed us that they cared about power consumption.
ATI on the other hand, is increasing their card's power consumption, since R520. They reduced it a little bit with the X1950 XTX, but neverthelesss, power consumption @ load is insane as it is. I mean, a single X1900 XTX draws ~40W less than a 7900 GTX SLI setup...!!
I really hope these 300W rumors for just the card, are not true.
 
Ranari said:
So do you think ATI/Nvidia is going to give a shit about power consumption? The real question is, do we, as consumers, give a shit about power consumption? While I think we're all getting to the point where we're acknowledging it as a growing problem, who cares if it's a big block V8 under the hood when gas is as cheap as it is (translation - how many gamers actually pay for their power bills?).
Click to expand...

good question, i think when one device in my computer is drawing enough power to start problems, even general problems (doesn't have to be heat related either) i think they need to rethink their design.

With the G70 chip, G71 especially, NVIDIA showed us that they cared about power consumption.
ATI on the other hand, is increasing their card's power consumption, since R520. They reduced it a little bit with the X1950 XTX, but neverthelesss, power consumption @ load is insane as it is. I mean, a single X1900 XTX draws ~40W less than a 7900 GTX SLI setup...!!
I really hope these 300W rumors for just the card, are not true.
Click to expand...

Nv has always been the extreme power hungry, hot GPU maker, this release was their only one where they were notably different, being that the G70 was intended to be a laptop GPU and came out kicking mega ass they somewhat got lucky with their design that worked well and drew alot less power then expected, doubt they'll be keeping this up but it isn't like they were looking for it to begin with.
 
Trimlock said:
good question, i think when one device in my computer is drawing enough power to start problems, even general problems (doesn't have to be heat related either) i think they need to rethink their design.



Nv has always been the extreme power hungry, hot GPU maker, this release was their only one where they were notably different, being that the G70 was intended to be a laptop GPU and came out kicking mega ass they somewhat got lucky with their design that worked well and drew alot less power then expected, doubt they'll be keeping this up but it isn't like they were looking for it to begin with.
Click to expand...
QFT MAN. THe 5800, and 5900 series cards ALL ran very hot. The 6800's were outrageous too. ATi's only hot cards were R520 & R580, and they're not that bad.
 
Trimlock said:
Nv has always been the extreme power hungry, hot GPU maker, this release was their only one where they were notably different, being that the G70 was intended to be a laptop GPU and came out kicking mega ass they somewhat got lucky with their design that worked well and drew alot less power then expected, doubt they'll be keeping this up but it isn't like they were looking for it to begin with.
Click to expand...

Got lucky ? Yeah, that's the expression for good engineering :)
And I do think they were looking for it. Remember that I mentioned G71. It wasn't a simple die shrink. They actually reduced transistor count, which would obvisouly produce less heat and consume less power. So, yeah, they were looking for it.
 
NickS said:
QFT MAN. THe 5800, and 5900 series cards ALL ran very hot. The 6800's were outrageous too. ATi's only hot cards were R520 & R580, and they're not that bad.
Click to expand...

Not that bad ? One card that consumes almost as much as two 7900 GTXs in SLI ?...Sorry, that's very bad.
But my point was, NVIDIA actually fixed their fault. If these rumors are true, ATI will keep theirs of making cards that run too hot and consume too much power. But again, I hope the 300W for the R600, is not true.
 
Silus said:
Got lucky ? Yeah, that's the expression for good engineering :)
And I do think they were looking for it. Remember that I mentioned G71. It wasn't a simple die shrink. They actually reduced transistor count, which would obvisouly produce less heat and consume less power. So, yeah, they were looking for it.
Click to expand...

Performance and profits first, performance/watt second. The reduced transistor counts (~10%) has a direct link to dice per wafer, and thus yield. Higher yields means higher margins. Majority of power savings came from the 110-90nm process shift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top