Anand says 9800XT hitting shelves?

[TKS]

Anandtech states

"Other ATI related news; the 9800SE and 9800XT lines are starting to hit store shelves at certain vendors. Unfortunately, a lot of information is still under NDA, but you can assure yourselves we will have more to come!"

Did we miss something? Is this a misprint? See it <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.html?i=1875&p=7" target="_new">here</A>. Control-F for 9800XT

<b><i>Nvidia,</i> the way it's meant to be benchmarked.</b>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

No need to control F, it's at the bottom, and none of you guys cared when I posted this the other day! BooHoo! 😱

Yeah I should've pointed it out, but it just makes sense. Retailers are going to get the product in advance of the launch date because otherwise there would just be cupons on Sept.30th.

However it definitely KILLS all the rumours that HL2 is delayed and that the R9800XT won't be out 'til Nov. and that the Sep.30th date is just for PR.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[sargeduck]

Hopefully ATI keeps this up, with the no-paper launch thing. If there is one thing I hate, it's paper launches. ATI hasn't even launched this chip yet, so this is positive.

As each day goes by, I hug my 9600Pro just a little tighter.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Yeah ATI's stated policy is to only launch things at most 30 days before products are in the hands of reviewers and consumers. Rumours will abound, but actual info will only be released when there is a physical product on the shelves within 30 days.

And just like I said when they announced it (and like you said), this is a good thing for us.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[eden]

AMD's the king of paper launches.

Let's see if Tuesday will reverse the tide.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

 

[kinney]

Whats this have to do with graphics cards?

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Radeon 9800NP, Audigy, Z560s, MX500

 

[eden]

Since when do you control topics over here?

Why didn't you stop GrapeApe when he posted K9 news in here?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Actually the flow of the posts stayed within acceptable bounds (unlike many here over the past while).

RE: 9800XT being spotted -> comment on Paper Launch statement by ATI -> comment on who is the king of paper launches.

Seems well within the bounds of related topics.

Ok, now back to your corners and come out fighting.

Sorry about thatt, just watched the replay of the De LaHoya Mosely fight. Nice Fight, shoulda been a draw, but nice fight.

Wait what does that have to do with graphics cards?!? :tongue:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[eden]

Ape, you can change topic anytime, no one is stopping you. It's simply a given norm that this is a GFX forum, and we respect it. But obviously Kinney is out to get me, when he says that. We've had tons of off-topicness here and it went smooth as heck. Hell, he's a major hypocrite for attacking me when he is guilty of discussing cars too here.




New topic: Michelle Pfeifer's lips...are they real!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

 

[Crashman]

Hehe, the 9800SE is nothing more than a 9500 NON-PRO rev. 2. It has the same hardware, and the "newer features" are done in software. It's a terrible card for the money, more expensive than the 9600 Pro and slower too. ATI is ruining their reputation with this garbage. I will try to mention this fact whenever I see the card mentioned, to help prevent wayward purchases by the uninformed.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[ufo_warviper]

I'd really wish both ATI, Nvidia, and every other chip maker would get their acts together and make the numbinering schemes more straightforward. Some of these Graphic card's suggestive names are even further away from the marker than chips labeled by AMD's PR system.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[Crashman]

If you would have said something like that 6 months ago, rabid AMD fans would have chewed you apart!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[ufo_warviper]

LOL! In 2001, I actually submitted an article to my English professor praising AMD's AXP chips on their IPC ratio and how their PR system was so conservatively handled back then that a 1600+ was actaully just as fast as a P4 1.8GHz(?) even though the AXP Palamino was only clocked at only 1400 MHz. But today, I know never to expect a PR system to effectively be handled by a company.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[Crashman]

It was even a rip off back then, because the 1600+ wasn't twice as fast as a PIII 800EB. You could compare it to the sucky Willy and say it was better, or the Northwood and say it was about right, but it was supposed to be based on previous AMD processors, which was a complete falsehood.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[ufo_warviper]

I wonder how it did compare to that PIII that you mentioned. BTW, nice pic you have in the photo gallery, when did it get added?

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[darko21]

crashman the xp rating while now completly out of wack, was designed to compare to a p4.. There for a 1600xp wood be roughly twice as fast as a p4 @ 800.. The p3 and xp were very close on a per clock performance ratio(but the xp had a slight advantage in most benchmarks).. a p3 at 1.3 giz would completly smoke a p4 at 1.3 giz which is why intel never made a p3 over 1.2 giz

 

[GeneticWeapon]

I'm pretty sure crash is aware of how the AMD naming scheme works...

<--- Winner of the Sept. Oklahoma Quake3 championship.
Sponsored by Nvidia
<A HREF="http://www.okgg.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=24&pos=8" target="_new">http://www.okgg.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=24&pos=8</A>

 

[darko21]

If you say he does then ok.. But in his post he claims an xp1600 was a ripoff because it was no where near twice the performace of a p3 at 800... it should be roughly twice the performace of a p4 (if they had made one) @ 800..

 

[Crashman]

Hehe, no. AMD CLAIMED the PR system was based on the Thunderbird. Now, the Thunderbird was a bit faster than the Coppermine, clock for clock. It had about the same power except for it's better floating point.

So that was their claim. Of course, we all suspected that claim was a lie, and that they were really trying to compare to the P4. But you still expect around 14% better performance from a 1600+ than an Athlon 1400, and that's what AMD was claiming, and we know it's a lie.

So my PIII comparison was based on easy numbers: 1600 is twice as large as 800, a DDR266 bus has twice the bandwidth of a 133MHz SDR bus. And since the Thunderbird was a hair more powerfull than the Coppermine, a buyer would expect the XP1600+ to be MORE than twice as powerfull as an 800EB.

P3 Tualatin went to 1.4GHz with the 512k PIII-S.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[darko21]

Yes and no while you are right the amd people did in fact base it on an athlon core (I forget which) It was purposly based on a low permorming athlon which did not support sse1 nor did it have cache on chip.... amd did this (most likley for legal reasons) but the end result gave the pr rateing system very close to what the p4 compared to on an equal megahertze comparison..

While I never liked the xp rating system I came to accept it... as it was accurate (at the time) with early p4s.. it was actually better over all in early p4 systems.. a p4 1.7 was a little slower over all than an xp1700.. today however the barton xp3200 does not compare to a p4 at 3200... amd uses the analogy that there rating system is in fact based on an early thunderbird.. I'm impressed that you knew that.. BUT the xp rating sysem was never intended to compare on an equal footing with a p3 with sse1 and what intell called advanced transfer cache..

 

[darko21]

Re: P3 Tualatin went to 1.4GHz with the 512k PIII-S.

The (P3 Tualatin) only ever went to 1.2 giz.... the CELERON Tualatin core with fsb 100 and an updated 256 cache went to 1.4 giz.. So that Intels P4s @ 1.3 giz did not look so bad....
Don't believe me look it up..

I forgot the CELERON Tualatin uped the cache to 256 but it was still locked to a 100 fsb so as not to make the P4 @ 1.3 giz look so terrible...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 09/22/03 05:03 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

Hehe, the t-bird had on-die cache. You're probably thinking of the Athlon Classic. But no, AMD said it was based on the T-bird. That would have been nice since the T-bird was the last non-XP rated processor. You would expect an XP2800+ to be twice as fast (IPS) as a T-Bird 1400.

Say you lived in AMD world and had never owned nor considered a P4. You would certainly want the XP2800+ to be appropriately scaled to the Athlon 1400, after all that's what AMD said, right? But no, it's not.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[darko21]

Ok yeh, but is a pentium 200 exactly twice as fast as a pentium 100 there are other things to consider other than raw speed... other wise the early p4s would have been athlon Killers... and I dare you to post a link were ((( AMD))) cliams which core there xp rating is based on.. Why would that be hard to find because it was really intened for JOE SCHMOE IDIOT in the public against the P4..

 

[darko21]

Where did I say the tbird did not have onboard cache? I said I could not remember which core they based it on.. But it was obviously a very low performing chip (and I'd guess it to be the early athlon core in order to make the pr system work) Like I said I don't think you will find this info on amds site.. but give it a try.. I know there are a million web sites with opinions on how the xp- rating system works, but true facts are hard to come by..

 

[darko21]

Re: Say you lived in AMD world and had never owned nor considered a P4. You would certainly want the XP2800+ to be appropriately scaled to the Athlon 1400, after all that's what AMD said, right? But no, it's not.

No!!! an xp 2800 should not be twice as fast as an athlon at 1.4 giz an athlon xp3000 should be roughly twice as fast as an xp1500 though.. which is clocked slower than an athlon 1.4..