ATI R680 is 1000X Faster Than a Cray-1 Supercomputer

We just got a nice look at the R680, the upcoming enthusiast graphics card from ATI that is, apparently, as fast as 1000 Cray-1s. We're not allowed to say exactly how fast that is, but maybe you want to hazard a guess. The details are all hush-hush but assume that what people have already written is more or less true, and this bad boy will be hitting store shelves pretty soon. Here are two more pictures for your jealousy enjoyment:

Screenshot: 1 | 2 | 3
News source: Gizmodo

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Intel 'undermined' laptop project

Next Story

Any Video Converter Free 2.5.3

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The CRAY-1s cruising speed was 80 MFLOPS. But with some computations its speed rose to 140 MFLOPS and to compound its performance stats even more, in short bursts it was clocked at 250 MFLOPS

What the heck is the problem with everyone bashing AMD/ATI lately?

The article didn't even say that ATI said that. Far as you know, Gizmodo was giving that number so that they wouldn't reveal the speed.

Its not like Nvidia hasn't exaggerated their products, or cheated on benchmarks.

Just like the Nvidia dual pcb card, I'm sure both cards will perform exactly like SLI/Crossfire does and get the same benchmarks. But I would also bet heavily all you Nvidia fanboys will be all over ATI for the benchmarks being the same, yet have no problem when Nvidias benchmarks are also the same as a pair of SLI cards.

I'm really dang sick of the nvidia fanboy attitude.

TC17 said,
What the heck is the problem with everyone bashing AMD/ATI lately?

The article didn't even say that ATI said that. Far as you know, Gizmodo was giving that number so that they wouldn't reveal the speed.

Its not like Nvidia hasn't exaggerated their products, or cheated on benchmarks.

Just like the Nvidia dual pcb card, I'm sure both cards will perform exactly like SLI/Crossfire does and get the same benchmarks. But I would also bet heavily all you Nvidia fanboys will be all over ATI for the benchmarks being the same, yet have no problem when Nvidias benchmarks are also the same as a pair of SLI cards.

I'm really dang sick of the nvidia fanboy attitude.

..and I'm sick of people using the word fanboy at every comment that doesn't adhere to their point of view.. I mean COME ON.. just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, you resort to childish namecalling?

BTW.. I use ATI boards, and I STILL think it's a lame thing to do.

but its not just because people have a different opinion. Its the attittude. No posts even looking forward to a new product. All the posts are sarcasm bull**** spewing out because nvidia is the current leader. Anyone can see that AMD/ati is struggling at the moment, but there's no need to bash them for trying. I've only used nvidia products exclusively for years and just recently purchased the HD 3850 because nvidia couldn't meet demand on the 8800GT and prices were high. I am completely happy with my purchase (runs COD4 great). So just because they don't have the top performer its bash season.

I wish everyone would remember the FX line and realize that every company avoids numbers when they aren't in their favor.

If you read the article, it says that they (Gizmondo) are not allowed to tell you fast it actually is (in real terms, not the new "Cray" measurement)... if this new release was a legitimate progression and advantage then ATI would be jumping all over the media to say "LOOK,.. it's THIS fast."

It's obvious that it's just another round of obfuscation from ATI designed to muddy the waters and confuse as many people as possible.

I think that people need to really be carefull when making such comparisons. As one who used to be a Computer Operator on the Cray-1's predecessor - the CDC 7600Z - back in the late 70's & early 80's, at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, there is a significant difference in performance in relation to the CPU's processing capacity. The comparison in pure MFlops is probably very true, but remeber that computers like the CDC 7600 series and the Cray-1 (both designed by Seymour Cray) are pure "Vector" processing systems - which function a bit differently than your standard CPU used in PCs today, although most moder PC CPU's have some vector processing capabilities included in them via SIMD (Single Instruction / Mutliple Data) processing, of which SSE extensions are the most common.

The currently available CPUs definitely outperform "big iron" systems like the CDC 7600Z and the Cray-1 in raw processing power; however one must remember that for their time, those systems were the pinacle of processing power - these were the days of the punched-card, magnetic 9-track tapes, 10mb disk packs and huge line printers. There were very few "graphics" displays like Tektronics Storage Displays ( http://www.cca.org/vector/ ), and bitmapped CRTs were only available in the early 80's.

Since the CRAY-1 could perform 800 MFLOPS, if these numbers are true, the ATI should be able to perform 800 GFLOPS. In comparison, the 8800 Ultra preforms about 530 GFLOPS. Wow.

Robgig1088 said,
Since the CRAY-1 could perform 800 MFLOPS, if these numbers are true, the ATI should be able to perform 800 GFLOPS. In comparison, the 8800 Ultra preforms about 530 GFLOPS. Wow.

Cray-1 = ~160 MFLOPS, not 800.

Who the hell cares how fast R680 is vs. ANY supercomputer? Is AMD/ATI now benchmarking against them? Or are they so scared about how it will compare with Nvidia that they have to distract people by going off on a tangent like this? Pretty lame AMD, pretty lame. :disappointed:

Exactly. Forget the benchmarks in games versus actual competing Nvidia cards, ATIAMD's next move will be to announce that the R680 is a million times faster than a chinese man using an abacus.

maybe its 1000x more expensive, anyways graphics cards need a real revamp, this thing eat more energy with every new version, and its getting bigger than a normal case would not fit.

My hope its that Intel enter into a good performance video card area to give some competition needed in this bi partidist market.

i woudl hope not

"The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was Cray Research's first official customer in July 1977, paying US$8.86 million ($7.9 million plus $1 million for the disks). "

Let me reqoute this

"As of 2007, the fastest PC processors perform over 40 GFLOPS, over 130 times faster than Cray-1"

You're comparing apples and oranges (and bananas) there, bud. The Cray 1 was not CPU in the sense that we know it now, and the R680 is a GPU, not a CPU.

I like fruit salad and much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

Croquant said,
You're comparing apples and oranges (and bananas) there, bud. The Cray 1 was not CPU in the sense that we know it now, and the R680 is a GPU, not a CPU.

I like fruit salad and much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

Maybe so, but it wasn't Viper who started the comparison to the Cray-1.

The marketing behind this is just as ridiculous, in my opinion. I guess if you can't beat them or join them, use magic tricks and illusions to give people the idea that you are.

This means nothing to me as same standards and measurements as the Cray-1 was measured under, don't have the same relevence.. CAN IT RUN CRYSIS????

I want an Nvidea release saying how many Cray's their 9 series runs at..

Will that become the new standard in measurement for computers? "Oh, it's got x amount of Crays under the hood?"

Lame. (Not ther article, just the jargon.)

They may not be allowed to say, but I am: the Cray-1 was 80MHz. So this cheap ATI card is 80,000 MHz?

Quote - Wikipedia
As of 2007, the fastest PC processors perform over 40 GFLOPS, over 130 times faster than Cray-1

The Cray 1's theoretical maximum performance envelope was 160 MIPS, but floating point performance generally maxed out at about 136 MIPS. If we assume we're talking about floating-point performance, and we assume that "1000 time faster than" refers to this figure, we must also assume that that would make the R680 capable of 136,000 MIPS. However, I don't believe this because that's a ridiculous number for a silicon-on-wafer processor to be able to archive. Hell, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 only gives around 57,000 MIPS (stock clocked).

Beleive it or not, if AMD is referring to the shader power of the card, which is the only obvious comparison to the Cray-1, consider the following figures:

Cray-1: ~160 MFLOPS
GeForce 8800 Ultra: 576 GFLOPS, 576000 MFLOPS (Wikipedia)
R680: ~160000 MFLOPS

The GeForce 8800 Ultra has 3600x the floating point performance of the Cray-1.

So actually, it appears that the ATI card has 3.6x less shader power than the GeForce 8800, and about the same power as the GeForce 8600. This estimate had better be too low then!

Thrawn said,
Beleive it or not, if AMD is referring to the shader power of the card, which is the only obvious comparison to the Cray-1, consider the following figures:

Cray-1: ~160 MFLOPS
GeForce 8800 Ultra: 576 GFLOPS, 576000 MFLOPS (Wikipedia)
R680: ~160000 MFLOPS

The GeForce 8800 Ultra has 3600x the floating point performance of the Cray-1.

So actually, it appears that the ATI card has 3.6x less shader power than the GeForce 8800, and about the same power as the GeForce 8600. This estimate had better be too low then!

Sounds about par for the course lately

Pretty pathetic and lame marketing bull from AMD imho

Taking their tack on this, apply it to other items...........My 2004 Toyota Celica SSII has 200 x the BHP than the pedal car I had as a kid. (what they are both made of metal and are car shaped and have steering wheels, footpedals and brakes!), why dont AMD do what we all do when looking at ATI gfx cards......compare it to Nvidias product....oh I forgot they would be embarrassed with that.........instead lets belch out marketing crud which means nothing.....

comparisons SHOULD be apples for apples and not apples to pears............

Mando said,
Pretty pathetic and lame marketing bull from AMD imho

Taking their tack on this, apply it to other items...........My 2004 Toyota Celica SSII has 200 x the BHP than the pedal car I had as a kid. (what they are both made of metal and are car shaped and have steering wheels, footpedals and brakes!), why dont AMD do what we all do when looking at ATI gfx cards......compare it to Nvidias product....oh I forgot they would be embarrassed with that.........instead lets belch out marketing crud which means nothing.....

comparisons SHOULD be apples for apples and not apples to pears............

QFT