R520 benchs

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-09-19 12:35am

Where's that from?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-19 02:51am

Ace Pace wrote:
ATI claims it still hasn’t sent a single R520XT board to any of its partners. The Radeon X1800XT is getting ready and the first batch of the card is produced but not even the big OEMs have these cards.

Sorry, but that is horseshit if they are planning on launching first week in October. Hell, if they were launching in November the partners would still have samples by now. This response from ATI pretty much confirms that the benches are legitamate rather than discredits them.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-09-19 03:36am

The Kernel wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:
ATI claims it still hasn’t sent a single R520XT board to any of its partners. The Radeon X1800XT is getting ready and the first batch of the card is produced but not even the big OEMs have these cards.
Sorry, but that is horseshit if they are planning on launching first week in October. Hell, if they were launching in November the partners would still have samples by now. This response from ATI pretty much confirms that the benches are legitamate rather than discredits them.

And you know this...why?
It may be only ATI, but I don't see why one should ignore that statement.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-09-19 03:38am

The Kernel wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:
ATI claims it still hasn’t sent a single R520XT board to any of its partners. The Radeon X1800XT is getting ready and the first batch of the card is produced but not even the big OEMs have these cards.
Sorry, but that is horseshit if they are planning on launching first week in October. Hell, if they were launching in November the partners would still have samples by now. This response from ATI pretty much confirms that the benches are legitamate rather than discredits them.

It could just be that they're not actually going to release them in mid-October. It's not like this industry hasn't done "phantom launches" before.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-19 03:41am

Dahak wrote: And you know this...why?
It may be only ATI, but I don't see why one should ignore that statement.

Because I've worked in this business before and I know how far in advance board partners get chips.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-19 03:42am

Master of Ossus wrote: It could just be that they're not actually going to release them in mid-October. It's not like this industry hasn't done "phantom launches" before.

Possible but unlikely. All the information points to an availibility of hardware on the day of the launch. ATI has to do this as nVidia did the same thing when they released the G70 and ATI can't afford a paper launch at this point.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-09-19 03:43pm

Looks like The Kernel is right: Maybe Hardware Analysis has more grudge than fact after all.

Which is, of course, encouraging that ATI won't have a flop product... discouraging that HA would falsify benchmarks just to slam a company.

Oh well. Still waitin' for release...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-19 05:36pm

SPOOFE wrote:Looks like The Kernel is right: Maybe Hardware Analysis has more grudge than fact after all.

Which is, of course, encouraging that ATI won't have a flop product... discouraging that HA would falsify benchmarks just to slam a company.

Oh well. Still waitin' for release...

This is unusual, why would ATI lie about the availibilty of chips to partners (which even the second tier websites already getting review samples) if the benchmarks were bogus? Something is going on that we don't know.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-09-19 06:01pm

Phony benchmarks strikes me as a very stupid and ineffectual way to exact revenge on a manufacturer. Once the real product comes out and the benches are shown to be bogus, the manufacturer is not hurt at all, while the website loses all credibility.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-09-19 06:04pm

Heh, this all just tells me how much of a mess things are. I don't know if it means ATI is in trouble in the long-term, but it sure is giving their rep a tarnish in the short-term.

Wait wait wait... if they miss their October date, they're really in trouble.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-09-19 06:10pm

SPOOFE wrote: Wait wait wait... if they miss their October date, they're really in trouble.

They can BS for a month prehaps two but longer than that(December 1st) and then we are looking at a serious credibility hit. The last thing we want is a graphics monopoly(Discarding Intel),

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-09-19 07:55pm

Mr Bean wrote:
SPOOFE wrote: Wait wait wait... if they miss their October date, they're really in trouble.
They can BS for a month prehaps two but longer than that(December 1st) and then we are looking at a serious credibility hit. The last thing we want is a graphics monopoly(Discarding Intel),

If ATI can't get the card on shelves by December then they'll be in real trouble since lots of people buy new games and the latest in computers before Christmas.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-19 08:58pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
SPOOFE wrote: Wait wait wait... if they miss their October date, they're really in trouble.
They can BS for a month prehaps two but longer than that(December 1st) and then we are looking at a serious credibility hit. The last thing we want is a graphics monopoly(Discarding Intel),
If ATI can't get the card on shelves by December then they'll be in real trouble since lots of people buy new games and the latest in computers before Christmas.

This is pretty much a moot point, the major tech websites just went under NDA which means that they either have, or are about to get working hardware.

One possibility is that the yields on the 1800XT variant are crap right now which means it might have a phantom launch, whereas the rest of the lineup will see volume.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-09-20 12:07am

Beyond3d.com mentioned NDA going down latest at October 10th, so we should be looking at reviews around that date.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-09-21 07:43am

Here

The X1800XL looks single slot, no RAM on the rear side(dosn't look as if there IS room on the back side).

X800XT looks duel slot.

Both can run a pair of Apple Cinemas from one card.

Thats 512MB, that it is.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-09-21 06:15pm

Just to add more fuel to this fire, The Inquirer has a link to some benchmarks with nVidia's new leaked Det 81 drivers. They provide some huge performance gains (15-20% in most games) which is going to be yet another hit against ATI. At this point ATI's going to have a hard time reaching nVidia's level of performance on a 16 pipe design now that the 7xxx series has a mature driver set.

Even catching up to the original 7xxx performance would have been difficult, but with a 15-20% performance advantage? Not likley.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-09-21 06:51pm

Cool and all... too bad they had to go with a dual slot solution, but it is sort of a poetic justice/irony thing (considering all the flack the 5800 series got for its dustbuster)... but if the performance is there (emphasis on "if"), then who cares, right? Except for maybe SFF owners...

Wa-a-a-a-aitin' for be-e-e-enches....

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-09-22 01:12am

True, very much as the Inq said, nVidia replayed the GF3 situation.

Did I mention the X1800XT looks noisy as hell?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-09-22 01:13am

Hey, duel slot got markedly better since the 58, but this is still looking ugly.

Anyone notice that 512MB is max? No room on the back side for more.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-09-22 02:42am

Two threads merged

~Faram

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

R520 benchs

R520 pictured.