Monday, September 27th 2010

AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series ''Barts'' Specs Sheet Surfaces

Here is the slide we've been waiting for, the specs sheet of AMD's next-generation Radeon HD 6700 series GPUs, based on a new, radically redesigned core, codenamed "Barts". The XT variant denotes Radeon HD 6770, and Pro denotes HD 6750. AMD claims that the HD 6700 series will pack "Twice the Horsepower", over previous generation HD 5700 series. Compared to the "Juniper" die that went into making the Radeon HD 5700 series, Barts features twice the memory bandwidth thanks to its 256-bit wide high-speed memory interface, key components such as the SIMD arrays split into two blocks (like on Cypress), and we're now getting to learn that it uses a more efficient 4-D stream processor design. There are 1280 stream processors available to the HD 6770 (Barts XT), and 1120 stream processors to the HD 6750 (Barts Pro). Both SKUs use the full 256-bit memory bus width.

The most interesting specification here is the shader compute power. Barts XT churns out 2.3 TFLOP/s with 1280 stream processors, GPU clocked at 900 MHz, while the Radeon HD 5870 manages 2.72 TFLOP/s with 1600 stream processors, 850 MHz. So indeed the redesigned SIMD core is working its magic. Z/Stencil performance also shot up more than 100% over the Radeon HD 5700 series. Both the HD 6770 and HD 6750 will be equipped with 5 GT/s memory chips, at least on the reference-design cards, which are technically capable of running at 1250 MHz (5 GHz effective), though are clocked at 1050 MHz (4.20 GHz effective) on HD 6770, and 1000 MHz (4 GHz effective) on HD 6750. Although these design changes will inevitably result in a larger die compared to Juniper, it could still be smaller than Cypress, and hence, more energy-efficient.

Source: PCinLife
Add your own comment

245 Comments on AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series ''Barts'' Specs Sheet Surfaces

#1
cadaveca
My name is Dave
EastCoasthandle said:
I would like for him to point out and quote specifically the portion of both pics that shows a bart as a 6800 series...
:laugh:


:roll:



:nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#2
bear jesus
cadaveca said:
It is just really shocking to me for them to exceed Moore's Law by reducing the time to double computational power by half.

It's almost too fast...software has issues keeping up as it is...

As it is now, I hopped on the Eyefinity bandwagon on launch of the 5-series, so I really cannot make any purchases until I see how Eyefinity performs, and if some of the bugs that are left still existing now are gone...this damn corrupting cursor is a real pain in the ass.
I intended to jump on the eyefinity bandwagon with a 5xxx card but i have to admit i'm kind of glad i held off so long, i am hoping that a 6870 might be enough to do eyefinity without going crossfire and by waiting so long that a lot of bugs and compatibility issues may have been worked out.
Posted on Reply
#3
pantherx12
bear jesus said:
I don't know who developed them but witht he 5xxx card's i thought it was said they woudl be using a new cooling tech but then only the 5970 had a vapour chamber but if i remember correctly leaked pictures of a low end 6xxx card's passie cooler had one.

I have to admit i am excited but not just for the 6xxx cards, im excited upbout my next upgrades so that includes the 6xxx and 7xxx cards from amd, the 580 and 680 (assuming) from nvidia, intel's sandy bridge and amd's bulldozer, there is so much next gen hardware coming out over the next year or 2 that will be perfect to replace my current setup and move onto something insanly powerful even if i don't need that much power and then maybe do it again in about a year or so just for fun :D
5770s had vapour plates too.

But a tiny crappy heatsink ontop :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#4
bear jesus
pantherx12 said:
5770s had vapour plates too.

But a tiny crappy heatsink ontop :laugh:
:laugh: ok i admit a vapor chamber is usless unless it is connected to a good fin array, i liked the design of the 5970's vapour chamber and fins, maybe the same thing for a 6870 just with copper fins :D (yes i know very unlikly)
Posted on Reply
#5
MrMilli
Benetanegia said:
Barts: It's almost a Cypress, except the shaders are 4D instead of 5D. So the shader/tmu area is 80% that of Cypress, everything else being equal.
That's not really correct.
They have gone from a 4 simple + 1 complex arrangement to a 4 medium complexity arrangement. So there's no way to know atm how much die area the new 4D ALU will take compared to the old 5D ALU.
Posted on Reply
#6
jamsbong
The ATI new processors are called northern islands, right? I mean ATI always had processors with x5 output and now, they shift their focus toward extra DP computing. Thus, the x4 output. you can read this unclear info from semi accurate.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/09/06/what-amds-northern-islands/

What I'm impressed is that the chip is meant to be a mid-range card with the same number of processors as a 5870 and 256bit mem bandwidth. First thing come to my mind is that the chip could be at least as big as the 5870. But then if ATI wants to sell these stuff cheaply and still make good profit, they need to shrink the size while still using 40nm manufacturing.

So I reckon... Their new Northern island is even smaller than the previous generation of processors. Now thats is something mighty impressive. Semi accurate says something like 80% of the previous gen processor size. Possibly a 334*90% = 301mm^2 ??? still much bigger than the 170mm of juniper though.

AMD's general direction has been to make smaller chip that maintains same performance which result in better energy efficiency and reduced production cost. Bulldozer is a good example where they make 2 CPU into 1.15x size of 1 CPU with minimal compromise in speed.

Overall, I'm really excited about this... and I may be thinking of retiring my loyal 4890 if the 6xxx cards are worthy.
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
MrMilli said:
That's not really correct.
They have gone from a 4 simple + 1 complex arrangement to a 4 medium complexity arrangement. So there's no way to know atm how much die area the new 4D ALU will take compared to the old 5D ALU.
You missed the part where I said I was going to make an arbitrary calculation. Everything was intended, including when I based it on the RV770, because he based his on GF100, etc.

Bottom line is that it's not as easy as saying double the SPs == double die size, or double that part of the chip, whatever. Like I said, GF104 has much more than 66% of the working units in GF100 put together in 66% of transistors, my point being that SPs themselves, don't take a lot of space and hence a comparatively small 768 SP Nvidia chip is feasible. Figure it out how many they can add through parallelism* until they are close or even mid-way to Ati's number of SPs.

*Ati has parallelism in the SPs 5D, 4D. Nvidia is adding parallelism with superscalar SIMDs, but it works the same way, it adds more throughoutput without adding a lot of transistors, at the expense of some inhefficiency. That's been Ati's architecture for 5 yeasrs already and they are continuing with it, except they are going with 4D now because it's been found over and over again that their average ALU utilization was around 3.6-4.5 all the time.
Posted on Reply
#8
wahdangun
Benetanegia said:
snip
please don't discus nv speculation in here, if you wan to make any useless speculation with no real data please create new thread

too much nv fanboy in here that want to derail the thread.


please stay on topic

back to the topic i hope bartpro wont be expensive, and i hope this will push developer to push eye candy a lot further,
Posted on Reply
#9
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
wahdangun said:
please don't discus nv speculation in here, if you wan to make any useless speculation with no real data please create new thread

too much nv fanboy in here that want to derail the thread.


please stay on topic

back to the topic i hope bartpro wont be expensive, and i hope this will push developer to push eye candy a lot further,
Doubt it, TPU= 88% AMD/ATI ''fans''. A percentage i pulled out my ass, yet close to reality from what i have seen.(if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans lol)

And i agree, i hope it's cheap.:)
Posted on Reply
#10
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
oh Benetanegia how I love reading your posts about chip architecture and the likes, and no thats not sarcasm, i genuinely mean it :)

really good discussion going on here IMO.
Posted on Reply
#11
bear jesus
CDdude55 said:
if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans
:laugh: I think you could be right.

To be honest i'm just hoping that the 6870 does not cost too much, not enough power in those 6770's :D (yes i know i don't have a clue how well they perform :p)
Posted on Reply
#12
wahdangun
CDdude55 said:
Doubt it, TPU= 88% AMD/ATI ''fans''. A percentage i pulled out my ass, yet close to reality from what i have seen.(if anything it's AMD fans trolling AMD fans lol)

And i agree, i hope it's cheap.:)
yeah but i'm tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun
Posted on Reply
#13
bear jesus
wahdangun said:
yeah but i', tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun
I have to agree as i have had a 4870 since release and not a single driver problem for myself yet i still know there are some problems with some cards and setups just liek with nvidia and this is a thread about the barts spec spec not about nvidias upcoming cards spec or either companys driver issues.

One thing that is annoying me more though is the lack of spec on cayman so far as that is the chip that interests me the most, what makes it worse is for several generations the top end chip has been basicly double the mid range chip and all these barts specs make me wonder if it will be the same this time or something thats cut down to keep power usage in check, i geuss only time will tell.
Posted on Reply
#14
wahdangun
bear jesus said:
I have to agree as i have had a 4870 since release and not a single driver problem for myself yet i still know there are some problems with some cards and setups just liek with nvidia and this is a thread about the barts spec spec not about nvidias upcoming cards spec or either companys driver issues.

One thing that is annoying me more though is the lack of spec on cayman so far as that is the chip that interests me the most, what makes it worse is for several generations the top end chip has been basicly double the mid range chip and all these barts specs make me wonder if it will be the same this time or something thats cut down to keep power usage in check, i geuss only time will tell.
yeah, but you are partially true, HD 4770/ HD 4750 didn't have half the spec, its 80% of HD 4870/50

so maybe the cayman just have 20 % increase in SP, we can't predict it because its too many possibilities and combination, i hope after the bart we can have some info leaked after all cayman was planing to be released on november its just a month a way from bart
Posted on Reply
#15
bear jesus
wahdangun said:
yeah, but you are partially true, HD 4770/ HD 4750 didn't have half the spec, its 80% of HD 4870/50

so maybe the cayman just have 20 % increase in SP, we can't predict it because its too many possibilities and combination, i hope after the bart we can have some info leaked after all cayman was planing to be released on november its just a month a way from bart
Very true and as well the 4670 was less than half of the 4870 so i dont think any chips were exactly half the 4870, i geuss i kind of meant around half without knowing what i was saying :laugh:

But i think no matter what ati is doing for caymen it will be a nice bump in speed/power and if i'm lucky allow acceptable framerates using eyefinity on a single 6870 (i hope), now to just hope someone hurrys up and starts leaking some specs.
Posted on Reply
#16
wahdangun
bear jesus said:
Very true and as well the 4670 was less than half of the 4870 so i dont think any chips were exactly half the 4870, i geuss i kind of meant around half without knowing what i was saying :laugh:

But i think no matter what ati is doing for caymen it will be a nice bump in speed/power and if i'm lucky allow acceptable framerates using eyefinity on a single 6870 (i hope), now to just hope someone hurrys up and starts leaking some specs.
yes maybe the next advancement maybe not in eye candy but how many pixel you can get, because to be honest there are too many console port, its really waste of money.

shit why PC games can be ended like this, full of consollities with crap graphic and poorly written games and on top of that a draconian DRM :cry:
Posted on Reply
#17
arroyo
Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.
Posted on Reply
#18
bear jesus
wahdangun said:
yes maybe the next advancement maybe not in eye candy but how many pixel you can get, because to be honest there are too many console port, its really waste of money.

shit why PC games can be ended like this, full of consollities with crap graphic and poorly written games and on top of that a draconian DRM :cry:
Well i mainly play source engine games online with friends so although there is not much eye candy (enough for me) it's very easy going on gpu's so i would hope a 6870 would happly run any source engine game (current and future) maxed at 5670x1200 and also because of that i don't normally play many console ports like everyone else seams to be :laugh:


arroyo said:
Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.
I don't know, the idea of buying a gpu that's around the ati/amd r500/600 does not sound great to me when i'm thinking about the amd r900 (northern islands) even if it has some edram. i'm happy to just ignore most console ports and play games that are fun to me :p
Posted on Reply
#19
pantherx12
arroyo said:
Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
That would be cool to have PCIE-E slot filled with Japer and Xenos chips on PCB. There would be no reason to port console games. We would be playing them on PC.
Because no one wants to downgrade :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#20
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
wahdangun said:
yeah but i'm tiered seeing about that Ati driver was crap, or heard non related nvdia speculation thats don't have any proof in this thread. its just take away the fun
But isn't that what everyone is doing in this thread?, every other post is speculation or what they would like to see, when someone pointed out the shitty drivers ATI/AMD uses and it's a fact form what people are saying, then that's just the truth, big deal. Are you that much of ''fan'' that as soon as anyone mentions a competitors name in a an AMD thread you assume it's a fanboy trying to derail from your ''fun''?:confused:
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
arroyo said:
Why nobody has released XBOX 360 Graphics card yet?
Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.
Posted on Reply
#22
mdsx1950
btarunr said:
Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.
Thats classic. :laugh:


But very true at the same time.
Posted on Reply
#23
bear jesus
btarunr said:
Oh they did. It was called ATI Radeon X1800 XT, and was released in 2005.
:laugh:Exactly, i think most people wouth rather use current hardware to run even bad ports (bad as in say gtaiv that needs way more power to run) with brute force and have the power to max out true pc games.
Posted on Reply
#24
yogurt_21
983264 said:
Is this true or not???????
no it is not true and is the most idiotic rumor I've seen in all releases of new products. I've never seen a manufacturer release a new series in the name scheme of the former highend that performed less than it.

that'd be like chevy announcing the new corvette ZR1 and instead it's the 425hp v8 camero. fast sure, but not faster than the 638 hp corvette the market was expecting.

barts is the 6700 series and anyone who says differently is in charlie's pocket.

EastCoasthandle said:
I would like for him to point out and quote specifically the portion of both pics that shows a bart as a 6800 series...
exactly all that says is that there is a document entitled "HD 6800 Series Lauch Guidelines" in which more details on the nda are listed. it has no bearing on product names, specs, or anything else. It just points you to another document.
Posted on Reply
#25
bear jesus
yogurt_21 said:
no it is not true and is the most idiotic rumor I've seen in all releases of new products. I've never seen a manufacturer release a new series in the name scheme of the former highend that performed less than it.

barts is the 6700 series and anyone who says differently is in charlie's pocket.
That has to be the worst rumor i have heard in a long time, so many people were quoting the "new" names without quoting a source so i carryed on hoping that amd would not be that stupid.

I for one am looking forward to the amd 6870 cayman chip :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment