TR Forums

According this article The Radeon 7000 series will be released in steps similar to the release roadmap of the 6000 series. First there will be a die shrink of what it looks like the current 6900 models with significantly reduced power consumption and increased clocks. Then there will be a whole new architecture on 7900 models with new memory and shader processors. But take it with a grain of salt

Came here to post the same article. Nordic Hardware has been right about every major ATI/AMD release since the 4xxx series (they said 800 cores when everyone else was saying no way). If this article is correct too then things are looking pretty good for AMD

Radeon HD7870 (Lombok XT) as a die-shrunk Cayman (HD6970) with an 8% speed bump and half the power consumption?

I thought this post must be the ultimate necro when I saw the headline.

The use of xdr2 in radeon 7900 is interesting. Such a small increase in cores would be disappointing for hardcore gamers. I'm assuming those cores are bigger with all that gpgpu stuff.

bthylafh wrote:

I thought this post must be the ultimate necro when I saw the headline.

same.

It is funny how they have come full circle with their numbers now. The new 7000 is quite a bit better than the old 7000 model though, and I look forward to when they get back to the 9800 model again...just to see how much it will blow the doors off the old card.

If you were looking to upgrade from a 4850, with a budget of $250-300, would you wait?

Starfalcon wrote:

It is funny how they have come full circle with their numbers now. The new 7000 is quite a bit better than the old 7000 model though, and I look forward to when they get back to the 9800 model again...just to see how much it will blow the doors off the old card.

I just dug a Radeon 7000 out of the parts pile last night. Of course it was AGP, so I tossed it aside into the 'Shall never be touched again' pile. It went in there along with my Voodoo(x) collection of cards.

hans wrote:

If you were looking to upgrade from a 4850, with a budget of $250-300, would you wait?

That's pretty much exactly what i'm doing. Except I'm likely to get the HD 7950 regardless of the cost, tho I'd hope/guess that it's around the $300 mark

bthylafh wrote:

I thought this post must be the ultimate necro when I saw the headline.

EDIT: Actually my first thought was "oh that card is so old he can't find a spec sheet for it any more"

SuperSpy wrote:

bthylafh wrote:

I thought this post must be the ultimate necro when I saw the headline.

EDIT: Actually my first thought was "oh that card is so old he can't find a spec sheet for it any more"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R100#RV100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... .29_series

RADEON 7000 has only one pixel-pipeline, no hardware T&L, a 64-bit memory bus, and no HyperZ. It did however add HydraVision dual-monitor support and integrated a 2nd RAMDAC into the core (for Hydravision).

:P

hans wrote:

If you were looking to upgrade from a 4850, with a budget of $250-300, would you wait?

I'm also playing a similar waiting game. Picked up dual HD4850s (512mb) for crossfire just over 3 years ago when they launched. Bought a 1920x1200 monitor and everything was peachy. Then, in 2010, I picked up a 2560x1600 display. Ever since gaming has been bordering on painful (and I often end up playing at none native resolutions as a result). Came really close to upgrading to dual HD6950s when on sale, but it didn't end up working out (only got one of the cards delivered when I had ordered 2, so I returned the first).

The thing that has really kept me waiting is that I want to get away from crossfire if possible and the HD6900 series just wasn't quite there in terms of performance. If you upgrade your graphics cards every year or two, I think crossfire can offer great performance value. However, with my Visiontek HD4850s, after a certain driver release (somewhere before Cat 10.5) crossfire just stopped working in most games. Getting a 3rd party bios from a more recent HD4850 card largely fixed this, but this is not the sort of thing you should be expected to do to make your graphics cards function properly for more than two years after purchasing. It took me a long time to find the solution and I could have risked damaging the cards. Then there are all the other little image quality niggles that sometimes crop up with crossfire.

The HD7970 (or whatever) can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

If this holds true, then the Radeon HD 7850 is the card I've been waiting for.
Less than 100 W and about the same performance of the Radeon HD 6950.
I was hoping AMD would just do a process shrink.
Today's 40 nm cards are way too power hungry.

It is weird how GPU makers seem to think we can't count to 10,000 and they have to go back to 5000 or so once they hit that mark, this time with an "HD" or something in the name too. (Newsflash: my 8600 GT could do HD!!)

Probably some market researcher once in a time "determined" that the best numbers for customer confusion lie in the 3000-10000 range.

I totally thought this was a necro too. Didn't realize AMD had already had their HD6000 series out for so long already.

I think there's something about 5 digits that is so much more overwhelming than 4 digits. 5 is kind of the limit for "having a few" numbers. I'm sure they started using 4 digit numbers when 3 digits wasn't badass enough. I think I could handle 5 digits but it's definitely gonna be a little awkward. I think 5 digits can be even better at confusing especially since they probably wouldnt put the separating comma so its gonna look like just a bunch of numbers.

Notice how nvidia sticks with 3 digits. AMD/ATI likes to pop on the zero to get 4 digits. I don't mind it this way though because you don't have to specify the maker you can just look at how many digits its got.

morphine wrote:

Probably some market researcher once in a time "determined" that the best numbers for customer confusion lie in the 3000-10000 range.

Explains why the HD 2000 series did so poorly.

Well, that and it kind of sucked compared to its contemporary Nvidia competition. ISTR that the 3xxx series relatively sucked as well.

Not so the 1xxx series.

For those of us with older systems (i.e. with AGP not PCIe), the Radeon HD3000 series is probably the best we can hope for, especially since competitive cards from nVidia at the time had somewhat worse visual clarity and sharpness (even though nVidia GeForce cards performed faster) than the Radeons at the time. I am sure that nVidia has fixed those issues in subsequent cards. I personally never had to deal with the old Radeon 7000 series cards because I had a trusty Radeon 9600XT card that performed a lot better instead.

As for the upcoming Radeon HD7000 series, it is about time they finally ditched 40nm for 28nm. When it is time to build my next desktop, I can forget the HD6870/HD6950 cards for one of those HD7850/7870 cards if the price is right..... or settle for that HD7670.

riviera74 wrote:

For those of us with older systems (i.e. with AGP not PCIe), the Radeon HD3000 series is probably the best we can hope for...

If you've got an AGP system, the best that you can hope for is to replace the whole thing.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

riviera74 wrote:

For those of us with older systems (i.e. with AGP not PCIe), the Radeon HD3000 series is probably the best we can hope for...

If you've got an AGP system, the best that you can hope for is to replace the whole thing.

I would replace the whole thing if I had the funds to do just that. Right now I do not.

The last leeks about Radeon 7xxx series are pretty amazing, seems like AMD want to do a wash on their GPU's on the top dogs of the line up.

and for what I saw, seems like the 69xx will get a serious refresh, TDP cut to half or something like and clocks upped 50MHz and more OC headroom. And of course the re-branding!

riviera74 wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

riviera74 wrote:

For those of us with older systems (i.e. with AGP not PCIe), the Radeon HD3000 series is probably the best we can hope for...

If you've got an AGP system, the best that you can hope for is to replace the whole thing.

I would replace the whole thing if I had the funds to do just that. Right now I do not.

Agreed but i see your signature,only 1gig of ram,I would at least upgrade it to 2gb or higher,will probably let you multitask alot better and help all around system performance,imm pretty sure with 1gb you do alot of waiting on your hard drive switching applications and such.Then just run the resolution as low as you have to to get playable frame rates until you save up for a new system.

Useless posts have been deleted and those that violated forum rules have been notified. Please let's keep it civil.

--SS

vargis14 wrote:

Agreed but i see your signature,only 1gig of ram,I would at least upgrade it to 2gb or higher,will probably let you multitask alot better and help all around system performance,imm pretty sure with 1gb you do alot of waiting on your hard drive switching applications and such.Then just run the resolution as low as you have to to get playable frame rates until you save up for a new system.

I wouldn't dump any more money into a system that old. His sig says DDR2, but googling that board shows that it's a 754 NF3 (which makes more sense given the A64 2800). He'll need DDR which will be useless if/when he does upgrade.

riviera74 wrote:

For those of us with older systems (i.e. with AGP not PCIe), the Radeon HD3000 series is probably the best we can hope for

You can go up to HD4670 in the AGP world. My athlon64 desktop now functions as an HDTV with the 4670 upgrade for $100.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814161337

Radeon HD 7000 is delayed until 2012.