AMD Releases Final "R600" Specs

AMD is touting the R600 will feature 700 million transistors (compared to the Radeon X1900 series' 384 million) and a full 512-bit memory interface with support for GDDR3 and GDDR4. On March 30, 2007, AMD will initially debut the R600 as the ATI Radeon X2900 XTX in two separate configurations: one for OEMs (12" layout) and another for retail (9.5" layout). ATI guidance claims the X2900 XTX retail card will come as a two-slot design with a vapor chamber cooler while the OEM version features a quiet fan cooler. 1GB of GDDR4 memory (supplied by Samsung) is the reference configuration for Radeon X2900 XTX.

Approximately one month later, the company will launch the GDDR3 version, dubbed the Radeon X2900 XT. This card features 512MB of GDDR3, lower clock frequencies than the X2900 XTX and is one of the first Radeons to feature heatpipes on the reference design. AMD anticipates the target driver for X2900 XT to be Catalyst 8.36, WHQL expected around March. Radeon X2900 will feature native CrossFire support via an internal bridge interface (no longer a need for the external cable). There is no Master card needed althought any Radeon X2900 can act as the Master card. All three versions of Radeon X2900 are expected to include native HDMI and one 6-pin and one 8-pin (2x4) VGA power connector (both connectors are also backwards compatible with 6-pin power supply cables).

Link: Forum Discussion (Thanks Dark Ride)
News source: DailyTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

NeowinCAST News Edition for February 16th, 2007

Next Story

Wikipedia breaks into U.S. top 10 sites

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why cant developers be more liek Nitnendo. Nitnendo can squeeze out a lot of performance and graphics on their platforms.

IF more developers developed like nintendo we wouldnt need these huge cards because the games would be programmed more efficiently and we would need less power to make the same graphics.

im hating nvidia and ati, they are not trying to make a gpu with saving energy and smaller size, the thing its getting ridiculous in size and power consumption.

Blame the basement-ridden 3d-shooter shut-ins that demand more and more polys rendered at greater and greater resolutions, or else life is no longer worth living.

Too many kiddies who are perpetually unsatisifed unless they can swap out their cards for something even more powerful the following month.

Demand drives development. All the better (and faster) to frag you with, my dear . . .

Yeah, but the case with most things is that the more powerful the product is the more energy it consumes. There's a reason they come out with a wide range of cards, so then just pick a more power friendly one and stop complaining.

And on a side note, I thought both ATI and Nvidia commented that after this generation that the power consumption would be going down.

eilegz said,
im hating nvidia and ati, they are not trying to make a gpu with saving energy and smaller size, the thing its getting ridiculous in size and power consumption.

yea its nearly like you are a noob if you *don't* have a gfx card so big it takes up at least 2 slots in your machine. the kiddies will lol at your inferior sized cooling apparatus.

i had a hard enough time squeezing my 6800GS into my machine having to bend the power and data cables for my hard drives round the edge of the gfx board because its so long. they are getting too big and too power hungry

King Mustard said,
I'll wait for some benchmarks showing both the GeForce 8800 and the Radeon "R600" head-to-head.

I believe you mean how the X2900XTX will compare to the GF8900 GTX? The GF8800 GTX will be 6 months old when the X2900XTX ships.So ATI/AMD will have to beat the GF8900 in terms of performance, price and heat dissipation if they want to be competitive. Somehow I doubt that...

vacs said,

I believe you mean how the X2900XTX will compare to the GF8900 GTX? The GF8800 GTX will be 6 months old when the X2900XTX ships.So ATI/AMD will have to beat the GF8900 in terms of performance, price and heat dissipation if they want to be competitive. Somehow I doubt that...

Are there any specs / release informatoin on the GF 8900 GTX? I haven't heard of it. If it doesn't have a 512-bit memory bus, I doubt it's going to keep up.

Brandon Live said,

Umm, there is absolutely nothing on that page that references the 8900 GTX (or any other 8900 card). Care to try again?

Are you blind? It's all on there.

Care to LOOK again?

Why should you be worried? How are they dependent on each other? If AMD really fails horribly at CPU making, they may just turn into a graphics only company (more likely, IBM gobbles them up).

Hmm this news post is somewhat inaccurate.

Catalyst 8.36? come on this has got to be an early April Fools Joke.

Any March release of Catalyst would be marked as 7.3

Where in the world did they make up that 8.36 number?

Morpheus Phreak said,
Hmm this news post is somewhat inaccurate.

Catalyst 8.36? come on this has got to be an early April Fools Joke.

Any March release of Catalyst would be marked as 7.3

Where in the world did they make up that 8.36 number?

Its not a made up number. Catalyst 7.1 has the driver packaging version of 8.33 and it is what ATI used internally to refer to drivers (packaging being opengl driver, d3d driver, 2d driver, and control center). Therefore, 8.36 would be Catalyst 7.4.

Star_Hunter said,

Its not a made up number. Catalyst 7.1 has the driver packaging version of 8.33 and it is what ATI used internally to refer to drivers (packaging being opengl driver, d3d driver, 2d driver, and control center). Therefore, 8.36 would be Catalyst 7.4.

Yes I know about driver version #'s. I tested ATI drivers for years and know Terry Makedon.

They didn't say display driver version 8.36, they said Catalyst 8.36.

Hence why I said that a March release would have to be marked as Catalyst 7.3

Do you see what I mean? Catalyst #'s and Driver Ver #'s are not the same thing.

Usually when a site gets this kind of simple thing wrong you have to wonder about what else they have wrong.

That is what my point was.

Um hello where have you been all these years AMD like most chip manufactures profits are on te edge AMD isn't going anywhere or out of business . I've been hearing this crap for over ten years already strange I never heard anyone say that about intel after numerous flops , or could it be because of all their sweetheart deals that they made to use their crap procs.