HD6990 is a renamed HD5970?

[ToTTenTranz]

Looking at slide #21 from AMD's presentation, we get this roadmap:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


We already knew Juniper was being renamed to HD67xx, but that arrow going from HD5970 to HD6990 probably means the same product is being rebranded.
The fact that the HD6990's rectangle is a bit higher means it'll have better performance.
Maybe the dual-cypress has better clocks this time?

I wonder why they're not using a dual Barts setup, since it would make more sense than dual Cypress (better performance/square area).

[ebolamonkey3]

I don't know, I think it just means that the replacement for the 5970 is 6990 and it's not supposed to be released until Q1 2011.

[Sasqui]

If you are referring to slide 21 in the presentation, I suspect it's a little misleading. What they are trying to convey (I think) is the replacement for the top end 5970 will be the 6990 in Q1 2011. I doubt it'll be a recycled design with some tweaks.

Take a look at slide 19, the dual future card (presumably the 6990) will be "Antilles".

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Looking at slide #21 from AMD's presentation, we get this roadmap:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7...110iub994f.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


We already knew Juniper was being renamed to HD67xx, but that arrow going from HD5970 to HD6990 probably means the same product is being rebranded.
The fact that the HD6990's rectangle is a bit higher means it'll have better performance.
Maybe the dual-cypress has better clocks this time?

I wonder why they're not using a dual Barts setup, since it would make more sense than dual Cypress (better performance/square area).

If we used your logic that the height of the square directly reflects the performance than the 6870 was a resounding success as it does not perform between the 5850 and 5870 in most cases, so that would mean that the new 6970 should perform half again as fast as the 5870, or as well as a 5970.


Than the fact is that the square for the new 6990 is almost twice as high as the 6970, meaning almost twice its performance. So perhaps they are going to use the new full model chips on the 6990 and decimate Nvidia in performance, power, and temps.


**Also keep in mind that ATI has said the new chips are pin compatible with the old, so same board and new chips=greater performance at same TDP and power envelope**

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by Steevo

If we used your logic that the height of the square directly reflects the performance than the 6870 was a resounding success as it does not perform between the 5850 and 5870 in most cases, so that would mean that the new 6970 should perform half again as fast as the 5870, or as well as a 5970.

Wut? The HD6870 does perform between HD5850 and HD5870.
I didn't understand the rest of your 5-mile sentence.

[erocker]

No, it's definitely not a rebrand.

[PVTCaboose1337]

The highest end cards (IE the x9xx series cards) are NEVER renamed older cards. In this case, that holds true. The 69xx series will be a true 6xxx card, not a 5xxx rebrand.

[entropy13]

If it were a rebrand, how come 5970 is not the same level as the 6990 then, considering that the location of each rectangle are "estimates of performance"?

You can't say "so that it won't obscure the rectangles below" since it's quite obvious that some of the rectangles are placed "on top" of the ones above it.

[Sasqui]

The other to remember, we aren't talking about NVidia

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by Sasqui

The other to remember, we aren't talking about NVidia

AMD did worse than nVidia ever did when they launched a HD6870 performing worse than a HD5870, so that isn't really an excuse.

I know the HD6990 square is higher than the HD5970, but that ~5-10% performance difference could easily be attained with higher clocks.
Remember, the gpus in the HD5970 are only clocked at 725MHz. If clocked at 850MHz, a hemlock card could easily fill that gap.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

AMD did worse than nVidia ever did when they launched a HD6870 performing worse than a HD5870, so that isn't really an excuse.

I know the HD6990 square is higher than the HD5970, but that ~5-10% performance difference could easily be attained with higher clocks.
Remember, the gpus in the HD5970 are only clocked at 725MHz. If clocked at 850MHz, a hemlock card could easily fill that gap.

So, you don't understand the "naming realignment".

Here, I'll make it simple for you.

5970--->6990
5870--->6970
5850--->6950
5830--->6870 & 6850
5770--->6770 (possible rebrand)
etc...

AMD is done making Cypress/Hemlock.

[entropy13]

ToTTenTranz you've been a few weeks too late for that "AMD did worse than nVidia ever did when they launched a HD6870 performing worse than a HD5870, so that isn't really an excuse." bit, other threads have extensively exhausted (and some was even closed) that discussion because of people not really understanding it even when the explanations were already outlined to them.

[mdsx1950]

No definitely not. Because the the 6970 will be having almost equal performance to a 5970 and the 6990 will be dual underclocked 6970s or so. But it's definitely not a re-brand.

[TheMailMan78]

lol at this thread.
I'm sorry but this is just so much damn fail.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by erocker

So, you don't understand the "naming realignment".

Here, I'll make it simple for you.

5970--->6990
5870--->6970
5850--->6950
5830--->6870 & 6850
5770--->6770 (possible rebrand)
etc...

AMD is done making Cypress/Hemlock.

I "understand" the new naming alignment just fine. My opinion about it is still the same.
I also know the excuse they made up for it, as crappy as it sounds -> to give space for the graphics parts in the new apus.

The numbers in the naming scheme have always been there for the less-geeky costumer to differentiate the card's general performance. It's been like that for 10 years since the Radeon 8500.
If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.


My point was simple and pretty much indisputable.
nVidia did lots of naming crap in the 8000->9000 era. They launched cards with higher performance and lower "naming points" (8800GT vs. 8800GTS 320/640) and cards with higher "naming points" and equal performance (8800GT = 9800GT).

But they never launched a card with higher "naming points" and lower performance.
That new low has been set by AMD.
The "we aren't talking about NVidia" argument can't be applied anymore.

[Loosenut]

Originally Posted by erocker

So, you don't understand the "naming realignment".

Here, I'll make it simple for you.

5970--->6990
5870--->6970
5850--->6950
5830--->6870 & 6850
5770--->6770 (possible rebrand)
etc...

AMD is done making Cypress/Hemlock.

Now I'm confused. I thought the 68xx series replaced the juniper XT and PRO cores (5750 and 5770)

[erocker]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

I "understand" the new naming alignment just fine. My opinion about it is still the same.
I also know the excuse they made up for it, as crappy as it sounds -> to give space for the graphics parts in the new apus.

The numbers in the naming scheme have always been there for the less-geeky costumer to differentiate the card's general performance. It's always been like that for 10 years since the Radeon 8500.
If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.


My point was simple and pretty much indisputable.
nVidia did lots of naming crap in the 8000->9000 era. They launched cards with higher performance and lower "naming points" (8800GT vs. 8800GTS 320/640) and cards with higher "naming points" and equal performance (8800GT = 9800GT).

But they never launched a card with higher "naming points" and lower performance.
That new low has been set by AMD.
The "we aren't talking about NVidia" argument can't be applied anymore.

Okay, I understand your opinion. It is what it is unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Loosenut

Now I'm confused. I thought the 68xx series replaced the juniper XT and PRO cores (5750 and 5770)

Meh, it's just my interpretation on it.

[btarunr]

No, because if they rebrand, they won't give it a new codename (Antilles).

Antilles indeed is a dual Cayman.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

We already knew Juniper was being renamed to HD67xx, but that arrow going from HD5970 to HD6990 probably means the same product is being rebranded.

Take another look at the chart. We see an arrow going from 5970 to 6990. However, we see a 5770 with an arrow pointing to nothing. In hindsight we really can't make any assumptions according to that chart because it's not really telling us anything as far as new cards names/performance, etc. (1. Performance Placements are Estimates).

If you want to take the 5770 arrow literately you would have to assume that the 5770 would be brought forward from Q3 2010 to Q1 2011. The arrow doesn't point to any particular naming scheme. But again, IMO, we really should just wait and see.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

I "understand" the new naming alignment just fine. My opinion about it is still the same.
I also know the excuse they made up for it, as crappy as it sounds -> to give space for the graphics parts in the new apus.

The numbers in the naming scheme have always been there for the less-geeky costumer to differentiate the card's general performance. It's been like that for 10 years since the Radeon 8500.
If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.


My point was simple and pretty much indisputable.
nVidia did lots of naming crap in the 8000->9000 era. They launched cards with higher performance and lower "naming points" (8800GT vs. 8800GTS 320/640) and cards with higher "naming points" and equal performance (8800GT = 9800GT).

But they never launched a card with higher "naming points" and lower performance.
That new low has been set by AMD.
The "we aren't talking about NVidia" argument can't be applied anymore.

Copy-pasta of a post I made with no inkling of those slides:

The parts should have been called the 6700 series IF they didn't change the whole system. Except they did. More accurately, they're "going back to where they came from". the x800 series being the high end in any generation is a recent development.

In 2005 they firmly established a comprehensive naming scheme with the X1000 series. X1300 + suffix--->X1400 + suffix--->X1600 + suffix --->X1800 + suffix--->X1900 + suffix.

The next generation was the first "HD" generation, and the x300 and x800 series were skipped. HD 2400 + suffix--->HD 2600 + suffix--->HD 2900 + suffix.

The "x800 series as high end" scheme started with the HD 3000 series. HD 3400 (3450, 3470)--->HD 3600 (3650, 3690) --->HD 3800 (3850, 3870, 3870X2).

The HD 4000 series saw the proliferation of more cards. HD 4300 (4350)--->HD 4500 (4550)--->HD 4600 (4650, 4670)--->HD 4700 (4770)--->HD 4800 (4830, 4850, 4870, 4890, 4870X2).

The HD 5000 series followed the scheme but "spreading out" the cards even more among the "groupings" to avoid clumping (i.e. the 4800 series with 5 cards). Thus the 5700 now has more than one card (and this would only be the 2nd time there is an x700 series) while the dual-gpu solution was moved to another group (HD 5900) as the 5970.

Now this final point is what boggles me. There weren't really any "violent reactions" towards the 5970's naming. Some even says it's for the better as the "X2" gets dropped. Yet when the 6000 comes wherein the x900 series would be used more (i.e. like in the X1900 and HD 2900 series which obviously predates HD 3800 and HD 4800 series as the "high-end") it's met with downright animosity.

It's quite apparent that using the x900 series in the HD 5000 generation had more than one reason; the HD 6000 generation is already in development even in the preceding months of it's predecessor's launch. The widening of the cards through all the series numbers to avoid the clumping in the x800 series that happened with the 4800's is enough of a sign that this shouldn't have come as a surprise, or done in a whim just a few weeks before launch date.

The existence of the HD 5970 should have been a "flag" already that the top of the line would be the x900 series (again). Of course this would mean that everything else would get a "step down". But if this 6000 series' comprehensive naming scheme would also mean the elimination of a "full" series used with just one card (4500 "series", 4700 "series", 5900 "series", 5500 "series", 5600 "series") and avoiding "clusters" of numerous cards into one grouping (4800 series with 5 cards, 5800 series with 3), it would be for the better.

I would venture a guess that the 6000 generation would still be similar to the 3000/4000 series in naming, with a "wider coverage" through various series. Thus: HD 6400 (Caicos?)--->HD 6600 (Turks?)--->HD 6700 (6750, 6770) --->HD 6800 (6850, 6870)--->HD 6900 (6950, 6970, 6990).

If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.

How would you call the difference between the HD 2000 series and HD 3000 series then? In the latter the high-end were x800's, in the former the high-end were x900's...so even with an increase in generation the high-ends decreased in series number.

Talking about Nvidia, they didn't really change the whole naming scheme, they just came up with a new set of numbers and made the suffixes into prefixes (xxxx GTX became GTX xxx). The use of which still persists in their naming, whereas it has been dropped by AMD/ATi 2 years ago.

And in Nvidia's case it's more of a "no choice but to change it"...unless they wanted to have a 10800 GT? AMD would reach this point within two generations anyway (after the HD 7000 series) because of their older cards with 8xxx and 9xxx in their names.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by btarunr

No, because if they rebrand, they won't give it a new codename (Antilles).

Antilles indeed is a dual Cayman.

Looking at "performance heights", you can see that HD5970 has approx. the same performance as two Cypress Pro (HD5850), which is true by today's standards.
You also see that Antilles has the same "performance height" as two Barts XT.

If it's not a Hemlock rename, Antilles is a dual Barts XT, I'd be sure about that. Dual Cayman would have more performance than that.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Looking at "performance heights", you can see that HD5970 has approx. the same performance as two Cypress Pro (HD5850), which is true by today's standards.
You also see that Antilles has the same "performance height" as two Barts XT.

If it's not a Hemlock rename, Antilles is a dual Barts XT, I'd be sure about that. Dual Cayman would have more performance than that.

Maybe that "graph" is just too bad to scale, and hence too vague to deduce performance level from. Maybe they just ran out of vertical space, and stuck Antilles to the highest point they could put it at.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Maybe that "graph" is just too bad to scale, and hence too vague to deduce performance level from. Maybe they just ran out of vertical space, and stuck Antilles to the highest point they could put it at.

All the performance comparisons in the Q3 2010 and Q4 2010 areas are spot on with recent reviews.
That's the main reason I assumed the Q1 2011 would also have a realistic scale.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

All the performance comparisons in the Q3 2010 and Q4 2010 areas are spot on with recent reviews.
That's the main reason I assumed the Q1 2011 would also have a realistic scale.

Like I said they may have run out of vertical space to position Antilles. One just can't deduce performance that way.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Like I said they may have run out of vertical space to position Antilles. One just can't deduce performance that way.

So, to you, it makes sense that they worry about having near-perfect performance comparisons in the first two areas and chaotical comparisons in the third area.

Okay, it's your opinion.