6870 and 6850 launch 18th oct

Freddie1980 · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:33

mmj_uk said:
EDIT: ah no, so 6990 will be the replacement for 5970 presumably.

Now that doesn't make any sense to me, if the 68xx is the new mid range and the 69xx is the new high/performance end that means they have run out of numbers to differentiate the enthusiasts part because if true the dual card will be lumped in with the high end cards.

RavenXXX2 · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:34

6970x2........

Jono8 · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:42

This doesnt make any sense

Freddie1980 · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:46

RavenXXX2 said:
6970x2........

Trying to work out a pattern for a numbering system used by any processor company is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. :confused:

mmj_uk · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:50

RavenXXX2 said:
6970x2........

It says 6990 in the link:

High-end Radeon HD 5900 (Hemlock) Radeon HD 6990 (Antilles)

cainer · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:52

mmj_uk said:
It says 6990 in the link:

High-end Radeon HD 5900 (Hemlock) Radeon HD 6990 (Antilles)

i added the image to show this in my first post as it seems some people didnt see it

RavenXXX2 · 29 Sep 2010 at 10:58

Yeah missed the 6990 info..

domthecondom · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:18

slap a high number on top up price...

accod · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:23

Freddie1980 said:
i.e if I buy a 6870 I would naturally expect it to be faster then a 5870 not slower.

I don't think it makes any difference to most people. They'd expect a 6*** to be faster than a 5870.

Mr Krugga · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:32

arc@css said:
I estimate the performance will lie somewhere between a 5770 and a 5830 or a little above a 5830 at best, a (6770) that is.

No. 6750 will be faster than 5830 and 6770 should take on 5850 pretty well (having higher clocks). Knowing AMD they will also be priced lower than both.

GJ02 · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:54

i have a feeling the 69xx cards are going to be very good, and expensive
if true, they have renamed them for that reason

Stanners · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:57

If the table is correct i think it is very sly by ATI, or a good market stratergy. To keep it simple, why not just follow the number convention they have been using. For certain if the green team did this(again) they would be crucified!!

Mr Krugga · 29 Sep 2010 at 11:58

Stanners said:
If the table is correct i think it is very sly by ATI, or a good market stratergy. To keep it simple, why not just follow the number convention they have been using. For certain if the green team did this(again) they would be crucified!!

I think it was because of the integrated graphics chips with Bulldozer CPUs that are said to be at 5750/5770 performance levels.

krooton · 29 Sep 2010 at 12:25

Mr Krugga said:
I think it was because of the integrated graphics chips with Bulldozer CPUs that are said to be at 5750/5770 performance levels.

That'd be pretty awesome! I wonder if the mobile variants would be capable of similar... finally something to kill 4500MHD

Mr Krugga · 29 Sep 2010 at 12:29

krooton said:
That'd be pretty awesome! I wonder if the mobile variants would be capable of similar... finally something to kill 4500MHD

I might be talking bull**** though. My memory shrinks rather rapidly, it could be that 5750/5770 was to be the lowest AMD range of dedicated graphics card.

Baboonanza · 29 Sep 2010 at 12:31

RavenXXX2 said:
If the specs reported in the link are correct it will not be faster than a 5870.

mmj_uk said:
If the source is correct then the replacement for the 5770 will be called 6870.

That's a big if though. In fact making such a far-fetched claim casts serious doubt on the credibility of the information IMO.

There is absolutely no reason for AMD to do this. If they want to make the x770 moniker obsolete (and I'm not sure why they would really, there is nothing too wrong with the naming scheme) they could replace it with a card called something else, like the 6830. Releasing a card called the 6870 that was slower than the 5870 would be the height of marketing stupidity and completely pointless given their current dominant position.

I am 100% sure that the 6870 will be faster than the 5870.

Edit: There are also other dubious things about that article. For instance the table in the Swedish(?) language article is different and incorrect about the size of the current 5770's memory bus. I think they may have updated the table in the English language article after publishing.

Plus the reported figures just don't look right. The 6870, with an increase of only 160 shaders and a move to 256bit memory bus (but with lower memory frequency?) over the 5770 but uses 40w+ more power? Really?

It's all complete rubbish.

straxusii · 29 Sep 2010 at 12:49

psychas said:
this is bs they going for nvidia famous tactics rename the (aka 8800gts). 6870 slower then 5870 ... if its true i see the hate train shifting from nvidia to amd/ati.

Rubbish, Nvidia renamed the SAME card, that's a huge difference to what is going on here.

If ATI took the 5850 and called it 6830 then you would have a point, but it is totally new architecture.

psychas · 29 Sep 2010 at 13:45

yea you have point but its still going to confuse people if 6870 is slower then 5870 . ^

flopper · 29 Sep 2010 at 14:23

the 6770 etc..will be based upon another card or a redone 5770.
covering the lower end.
people buy 6800 and 6900 series first as that at least add some fps.

Jezcentral · 29 Sep 2010 at 14:32

psychas said:
yea you have point but its still going to confuse people if 6870 is slower then 5870 . ^

Yes, but as it's not going to happen, there's no point going on about it.