Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 230

Thread: R360




  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    61

    Default

    mmm... why would they use .15 micron tech on R360? They already used .13 on 9600 series, and are using it with the newer RV360. Some difficulties in implementing .13 tech on high end cards?
    hope not... am still ATI fanboy...

    go ATI
    [size=9If there's a pensieve fear, a wasted year, a man must learn to cope.
    If his obsession's real, suppression that he feels must turn to hope - DT

    rig:
    P4C800-Deluxe 2.8 C (+Vantec Aeroflow)
    Sapphire 9700 Pro
    4x256MB Kingston KVR400C25
    Audigy 2
    2x80GB Maxtor DM9 RAID 0
    Enermax 433W
    ALL AIR, no Vmod

    3DMark2001 = 20954
    3DMark2003 = 6038
    Sandra Mem = 6028/6018[/size]

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    You guys have no idea what you are talking about...

    Allow me to shed some light:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...819022350.html

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    61

    Default

    but it's true. ATI is using .15 micron tech on its 9800 predecessor

    quote:
    ......the powerful 0.15 micron R360 VPU running at astonishing 450MHz
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...822085942.html

    and they DID use .13 micron tech on 9600

    quote from THG:
    Feature-wise, the RV350 is very similar to the R300. The main difference is the new chip's 0.13 production process, which allows for higher clock frequencies while at the same time lowering production cost.
    http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...n_9600-02.html


    so... i was just wondering why they're not using .13 micron tech on R360. Saving it for R420 later this year? Maybe...

    or maybe ur pointing at another issue, Soulburner? :)
    [size=9If there's a pensieve fear, a wasted year, a man must learn to cope.
    If his obsession's real, suppression that he feels must turn to hope - DT

    rig:
    P4C800-Deluxe 2.8 C (+Vantec Aeroflow)
    Sapphire 9700 Pro
    4x256MB Kingston KVR400C25
    Audigy 2
    2x80GB Maxtor DM9 RAID 0
    Enermax 433W
    ALL AIR, no Vmod

    3DMark2001 = 20954
    3DMark2003 = 6038
    Sandra Mem = 6028/6018[/size]

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    I was pointing out the fact that you guys seem to believe this card will be doing 7000 3dmarks when that is pure bs. If one were to name it like a typical ATI card it would be a R9650.

    If you read that article, it explains the fastest version will score 4000 3dmarks.

    You are confusing the 360 with the 420...

    R420 = 9900

    NOT R360

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    ....when that is pure bs. If .....

    If you read that article, it explains the fastest version will score 4000 3dmarks.
    ehm, soulburner, those two articles came from the same source (xbit-lab)

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...822085942.html

    R360 and RV360 are two different things

    :cheers:
    [size=9If there's a pensieve fear, a wasted year, a man must learn to cope.
    If his obsession's real, suppression that he feels must turn to hope - DT

    rig:
    P4C800-Deluxe 2.8 C (+Vantec Aeroflow)
    Sapphire 9700 Pro
    4x256MB Kingston KVR400C25
    Audigy 2
    2x80GB Maxtor DM9 RAID 0
    Enermax 433W
    ALL AIR, no Vmod

    3DMark2001 = 20954
    3DMark2003 = 6038
    Sandra Mem = 6028/6018[/size]

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Then why the 3000 point difference.....?

    BTW everyone in this thread was referring to this magical 7000 point card as the R360.

    :?:

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Soulburner: This thread is for the R360, not the RV360.

    "We're working on bringing something completely new to the table on our next 3D board. Remember that one steak you had in your life that was the best ever? Remember that time you drove your car to its top speed? Remember that time we landed on the moon? Yeah... well ... that's nothing. I'm all giddy just thinking about it." Navin Sekhon, Hercules

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weta
    Soulburner: This thread is for the R360, not the RV360.

    "We're working on bringing something completely new to the table on our next 3D board. Remember that one steak you had in your life that was the best ever? Remember that time you drove your car to its top speed? Remember that time we landed on the moon? Yeah... well ... that's nothing. I'm all giddy just thinking about it." Navin Sekhon, Hercules
    WTF? That's what I said! R360...

    ?????????
    :shrug:

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Soulburner: OK, This is what you've posted.

    You guys have no idea what the HELL you are talking about
    ATI RV360 specifications unveiled...

    Weta: 1. You've linked to an article on the RV360, not R360
    I was pointing out the fact that you guys seem to believe this card will be doing 7000 3dmarks when that is pure bs.
    If one were to name it like a typical ATI card it would be a R9650. You are confusing the 360 with the 420..., R420 = 9900, NOT R360

    Weta: 2. The R360's expected performance is 7000 (3DMark03), this is not BS.
    Weta: 3: The R360 may, or may not be called the Radeon 9900, but the R4XX aka R420 Loki won't be.
    Then why the 3000 point difference.....?
    BTW everyone in this thread was referring to this magical 7000 point card as the R360.

    Weta: 4. The penny drops, RV360 = 4000 (3DMark03) and R360 = 7000 (3DMark03).
    It's quite obvious that you've mistaken the RV360 for the R360, which is an easy mistake to make.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Alright.....thanks for clearing that up.....

    Had me confused....

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •