Pre-release ATI R600 Benched, Beats 8800GTX

Johnathan Rush 1 Jan, 2007 at 1:20pm ET Article published in Tech

Level 505 staff got their hands on a pre-release ATI R600 card, and tested it against the nVidia 8800GTX, 7950GX2, and ATI X1950XTX in Crossfire.

Quick results summary:
1701 A.D.: R600 is 42% faster than 8800GTX
Oblivion: R600 is 34% faster than 8800GTX
Half-Life 2, Lost Coast: R600 is 10% faster than 8800GTX

Be sure to read the article to get results for F.E.A.R., Battlefield 2, Doom 3, and 3DMark06.

On average, the R600 was 20% faster in games. The R600-based card is expected to drop on January 22nd at around $630, which is just a little more the cost of the 8800GTX. So if you’re about to buy a new high-end card, you might consider waiting a couple of weeks.

The interesting thing is that the whole test was conducted with pre-release drivers for the R600, vs. optimized drivers for the other cards. Potentially, the R600’s performance could increase with release edition drivers.

Keep an eye on that article, as the authors are promising an updated version detailing R600 Crossfire vs. 8800GTX SLI around January 8th.

The HDR rending quality of the R600 is excellent and adds substantially to the graphics; future owners of ATI’s upcoming flagship will love the graphics this card is capable of rendering. ATI definitely did lots of improvements here, which surprisingly does not compromise the frame rate. Two thumbs up!

[b]Via:[/b] The Inquirer

Source: Level 505

Comments

1 Jan 2007 ~ 2:02pm danball1976 Whats even more important is just how much power these consume.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 2:23pm Thrax It's annoying, yes, but anyone investing in one of these video cards is keenly aware of the requirements.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 3:48pm Garg

Thrax wrote:

It's annoying, yes, but anyone investing in one of these video cards is keenly aware of the requirements.

The unfortunate thing is that these power-hungry cards will be the bargain entry-level cards after a couple more generations. Soon, maybe in a year or two, we may all have GPUs taking 200W of power.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 3:50pm danball1976 I thought that they already consumed 200W of power.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 3:58pm Thrax No, closer to 125-150.

//

Garg: I think we're going to see video cards go the way of efficiency, rather than brute strength pretty soon here. Something has to give, and the GPU market closely parallels the CPU market in style.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 4:22pm danball1976

Thrax wrote:

No, closer to 125-150.

//

Garg: I think we're going to see video cards go the way of efficiency, rather than brute strength pretty soon here. Something has to give, and the GPU market closely parallels the CPU market in style.

Ok, on that note, how much power does a 7X00 series GPU consume?
1 Jan 2007 ~ 8:22pm shwaip

Thrax wrote:

No, closer to 125-150.

//

Garg: I think we're going to see video cards go the way of efficiency, rather than brute strength pretty soon here. Something has to give, and the GPU market closely parallels the CPU market in style.

The inq claims 230W.
1 Jan 2007 ~ 9:09pm Garg

Thrax wrote:

Garg: I think we're going to see video cards go the way of efficiency, rather than brute strength pretty soon here. Something has to give, and the GPU market closely parallels the CPU market in style.

I hope you're right. I hope it mirrors it something like the P4 -> Core architecture shift.
2 Jan 2007 ~ 3:48am PirateNinja Ya I think these cards will be much like the big blocks of the late 60s. Soon though more HP with less gas, soon.
2 Jan 2007 ~ 11:12am RADA

Gravite2090 wrote:

Ya I think these cards will be much like the big blocks of the late 60s. Soon though more HP with less gas, soon.

That is probably the best analogy I've ever read to describe the current Vid card trend.....

Well put!
2 Jan 2007 ~ 6:56pm Sledgehammer70 R600 test site smells fishy
2 Jan 2007 ~ 7:04pm Garg I kind of thought it looked fishy, but doubted anyone would go to that kind of trouble. Now the site is down, so I'm guessing it was a hoax. I suppose I should never underestimate the free time some people have.

The Inq asks what kind of parties would be interested in perpetrating a hoax like this. Personally, I suspect fanboys. Too much bad press risked by ATI or their manufacturers.
3 Jan 2007 ~ 11:01am Oriane I don't think I've seen too many initial benchmarks start off with a highly overclocked quad-core either. Keeps me from thinking too much that it might have been someone trying not to get caught leaking information against an NDA.

Still- I think ATI may start tipping their hand here
3 Jan 2007 ~ 11:36am primesuspect That domain, level505.com, was just created last week. I mean, okay obviously this site is not an established tech site that is getting pre-release hardware straight from AMD.

It's either a weird attempt at viral marketing by AMD themselves, or somebody who created a fake-o site just for google revenue (there are TONS of google ads on that site), or an established tech site who created the domain just for the sake of not blowing their relationship with AMD due to breaking NDA.

I'm leaning towards the shady seo/quick google buck option, myself.
3 Jan 2007 ~ 11:53am Garg

primesuspect wrote:

That domain, level505.com, was just created last week. I mean, okay obviously this site is not an established tech site that is getting pre-release hardware straight from AMD.

They make it sound like "they know a guy who has this card..." rather than getting it straight from the Canadian pixelmakers.

Level 505 wrote:

This article is authentic. Our R600 sample is an RTM sample used in the MS CERT process for driver validation (especially for Vista). We are not publishing pictures of the card itself right now, as the card contains major ID tags that we can not remove yet for source protection. We will add pictures of the card itself once we can remove these tags.

Personally I don't buy their excuse anymore. The "major ID tags" could be blacked-out in Photoshop.
3 Jan 2007 ~ 11:57am Thrax Perhaps the major ID tags were oriented differently for each tester, therefore blacking the tags out would still incriminate them.
3 Jan 2007 ~ 1:51pm Jengo

Thrax wrote:

Perhaps the major ID tags were oriented differently for each tester, therefore blacking the tags out would still incriminate them.

now.. why would they do something like that?

lets just face it... its a hoax...
3 Jan 2007 ~ 2:57pm Thrax I'm playing devil's advocate.

The MPAA does it all the time.
3 Jan 2007 ~ 4:05pm Jengo yay for double posts!!
4 Jan 2007 ~ 2:50am TheLostSwede The test is fake, i can assure. It's incredibly easy to make a small fortune this was.

On a side note, off course it SHOULD beat the 8800 series since that have been out for nearly a quarter. Anything else would be suicide by AMD.
4 Jan 2007 ~ 10:33am Sledgehammer70 Agree with TheLostSwede... I am sure the R600 will beat out the G80... If not AMD will be introuble. The R600 has been pushed back to March giving AMD a bit more time to boost the performance in these chips, I recently heard that they respun the chip as well due to a few critical issues. Not to sure if that statement is true or not.
5 Jan 2007 ~ 3:28am RWB You know I keep seeing this whole MUST BE FASTER THAN campaign. But seriously, why can a brand new chip be marketed for mid to high level graphics but focusing on price, heat, and energy efficiency? I know we have mid grade chips and all, and usually come out after the next biggest thing, but they are still expencive, and still produce too much heat and use too much energy.

I'd like to go back to when a 350W PSU was enough for a fairly high end system... I like SLI too but only if the price is right and only for use as a cheap upgrade. Like buying a $200 card now and 6-12 months from now the same card for like $100.

This kind of thing seemed to work just fine a couple years ago. Aren't the chips supposed to use less energy as they go down on the core size?
5 Jan 2007 ~ 11:25am Garg

RWB wrote:

This kind of thing seemed to work just fine a couple years ago. Aren't the chips supposed to use less energy as they go down on the core size?

One factor influencing the rate that new super power-guzzling chips are coming out could be the importance of a "halo chip." It's sort of like in the automotive industry, when someone goes to look at the Corvette in the showroom, but ends up buying an Impala. Since there are so many automobile manufacturers, I'd say that the value of having a halo vehicle is pretty small (Toyota hasn't had one for years and they're the #2 automaker in the US).

But in the 3d graphics industry, we've got two main players, and A LOT of fanboys. Chevy/Ford fanboyism has nothing on nVidia/ATI fanboyism. I think the value of having the best card on the market, even if very few people will buy it, is pretty high. And of course, development costs are spread over the whole range when they cripple the chip and send it downmarket, so even without the fanboyism the strategy might work.