HD 2950 Pro Specs

Sinny · 27 Aug 2007 at 01:27

Just noticed this on VR-Zone.

Our good friend CJ brings us more information on the upcoming RV670 GPU from AMD where it will officially replace the Radeon X1950 Pro. Do check out our discrete graphics roadmap. RV670 is projected to run as fast as the current R600 but with lower GPU temps and TDP. AMD calls RV670 a Gaming Applications Processor which bridges 3D HD gap. RV670 is 55nm based, has 320 stream processors and a 256-bit memory interface.

There will be 2 versions of RV670; Gladiator and Revival. Gladiator is clocked at 825MHz core and 1.2GHz memory while Revival is clocked at 750MHz core and 900MHz memory. Gladiator has 512MB of GDDR4 memory and Revival comes with either 256MB or 512MB of GDDR3 memory. These cards will be single slot and is fully DX10.1/SM4.1 compliant. It supports PCI Express 2.0, UVD as well as the next generation Crossfire technology.

RV670 is scheduled for sampling in September, MP in December and expect it to launch in end 2007 or early 2008. RV670 will be officially known as Radeon HD 2950 Pro when launch and will probably priced between $199 to $249.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/HD_2950Pro_(RV670)_Cards_&_Specs_Revealed/5181.html

Hope no-one else posted this i used search ^_6

Cyber-Mav · 27 Aug 2007 at 01:58

55nm will be excellent. BUT they dropping from a 512bit interface to 256 bit? hmmmmm

SS-89 · 27 Aug 2007 at 02:01

RV670 is not the XT (R680) its the pro which would account for the 256bit mem bus.

Cyber-Mav · 27 Aug 2007 at 02:03

hmm, only time will tell how performance is with half the memory bandwidth.

titaniumx3 · 27 Aug 2007 at 02:14

Guessing it won't make much difference. I doubt very much current games are even using half the bandwidth the HD2900 offers.

sid · 27 Aug 2007 at 02:59

titaniumx3 said:
Guessing it won't make much difference. I doubt very much current games are even using half the bandwidth the HD2900 offers.

I think you are confusing bandwidth with the amount of memory,

less memory bandwidth will cripple fill rates, AA/AF its only a question of of how much/

sid

jaykay · 27 Aug 2007 at 10:07

Finally a decent midrange card.

Margaret · 27 Aug 2007 at 10:18

jaykay said:
Finally a decent midrange card.

Finally?

Kanifee · 27 Aug 2007 at 10:30

doesnt the hd2900 suffer with aa compared to competitors allready?

Darg · 27 Aug 2007 at 18:23

Something tells me these cards will overclock like little beasts. Cut down cards generally tend to.

It will be interesting to see if the DDR3 or DDR4 versions overclock better.

It's a pity to see the memory bandwidth drop to 256bit but atleast it's not 128bit which has been the trend up til now with mid range cards. I can see these as taking a 7900GS type of place.. Just under the top of the line cards but very overclockable.

jaykay · 27 Aug 2007 at 18:24

Jihad said:
Finally?

Well the 8600GTS sucks and so does the 2600XT. But i think the thread title is wrong as it should be 2950 pro.

ergonomics · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:09

jaykay said:
Well the 8600GTS sucks and so does the 2600XT. But i think the thread title is wrong as it should be 2950 pro.

the 8600gt and the hd2600's are good cards for midrange gaming. priced well as well

gareth170 · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:14

jaykay said:
Well the 8600GTS sucks and so does the 2600XT.

lol really??? :rolleyes:

. do u own a 8600GTS or 2600XT or even tryed them for yourself??

if no then u can't really say this.

i have 2600XT which play games very well at max settings..

jaykay · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:20

Well compared to last gen mid range cards they do. The 7900gt and 1950 pro both beat the 8600gts and 2600xt. As well imho midrange price range means £160-80.

ergonomics · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:22

jaykay said:
Well compared to last gen mid range cards they do. The 7900gt and 1950 pro both beat the 8600gts and 2600xt. As well imho midrange price range means £160-80.

those arent mid range at all are they, when they came out they were some of the best you couldve got. the mid range cards when those were out probably were cards like 7600 gs or x1650s

gareth170 · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:24

jaykay said:
Well compared to last gen mid range cards they do. The 7900gt and 1950 pro both beat the 8600gts and 2600xt. As well imho midrange price range means £160-80.

that didn't answer my question that i asked u..

jaykay · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27

gareth170 said:
that didn't answer my question that i asked u..

No i do not own a 2600XT or a 8600GTS

As well they are midrange cards now, what the point of trying to beat the opposition with older midrange cards when the exhighend cards are at the same price point.

gareth170 · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:39

jaykay said:
No i do not own a 2600XT or a 8600GTS

As well they are midrange cards now, what the point of trying to beat the opposition with older midrange cards when the exhighend cards are at the same price point.

the 7900gt and 1950 didn't have dx10 so how can it beat in that??

as for dx9, what u see in benchmarks isn't real life performance

SS-89 · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:40

Well the x1950pro was definitely not a high range card, it was midrange and when it was initially released less than a year ago it was priced around £150 if my memory serves me correctly.

sid · 27 Aug 2007 at 19:45

SS-89 said:
Well the x1950pro was definitely not a high range card, it was midrange and when it was initially released less than a year ago it was priced around £150 if my memory serves me correctly.

Thats really not how ATI do it,

Its X1950 series as High/enthusiast
X1650 for mid-range
X1300 for low

This time around is the same
X2900 series for high
X2600 for mid
X2400 for low

I know it doesn't work out nicely price wise but if you look at it like that all the newer parts are faster than previous gen.

In practise OCUK can flog x1950s for cheap which make the x2600 look worse than it is. Then theres also the second hand market as well.

sid