<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Radeon HD 6700 detailed on slides</title>
		<description>Discuss Radeon HD 6700 detailed on slides</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:35:15 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20315/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>turingpest says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4788</link>
			<description><![CDATA[114w peak for hd6750 and 146w peak for hd6770 if the leaked chart is to be believed. so not only lower than cypress, but worryingly for nvidia a fair bit lower than the equivalent gtx460 cards. amd can do whatever they want this gen, considering nvidia are almost a static target atm; greater performance from massively smaller dies is currently a given, along with all the benefits that brings in reduced heat and power consumption, but they can also do what they want with pricing (which'll hopefully translate into some good value cards this xmas).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>turingpest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:41:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4788</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blandead says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4779</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was just trying to help clarify a bit, but it is all in the article from x-bit. According to them it's not the simple shaders that had a hard time scheduling stuff, but the complex shader ended up not being 100% utilized, which might explain the huge increase in performance of 6000 series. cause 4 "medium" shaders being utilized much more should boost up tesselation by quite a bit if that 1 complex shader was not doing much to begin with, and that sounds like the weakest link of the architecture. For power and heat the article mentions a 10-15% die size increase but speed improvement should make up for it, this was meant for 32nm so it couldn't be helped. I'm excited for real product reviews however it ends up]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blandead</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:40:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4779</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Fud_u says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4775</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I just hope it doesn't require more power and put out more heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Fud_u</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:07:59 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4775</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4773</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I remember a quote off X-Bit labs where somebody interviewed an internal source within AMD which stated Evergreen's re-fresh will have performance improvements which you would ONLY expect from a real Next Gen design. Browse X-Bit Labs and you will find it. Here is something similar I found: "What we should expect from ATI with the Southern Islands is substantially boosted performance."]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:37:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4773</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4772</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Umm, looking at the benchmarks I've seen looks like the HD 6000 series is performing just fine. NVIDIA let the ball go and they are nowhere near catching up. As a matter of fact ATI has completely taken the performance crown and will keep it for a long time. I don't even think NVIDIA's 28nm Kepler will be enough to take out 28nm Northern Islands. In the end it's anybody's game...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:29:32 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4772</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>FlOw says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4768</link>
			<description><![CDATA[um...that's what i said!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>FlOw</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:38:09 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4768</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Squall_Leonhart says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4764</link>
			<description><![CDATA[to bad you won't have functional drivers for 6 months after release.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Squall_Leonhart</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:17:32 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4764</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4763</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've seen Crysis, L4D2, Stalker & FarCry 2 benchmarks for the HD 6770 and let me be the first to tell you it easily competes and in most cases beats out the the HD 5870. It must be the NI part of the design that enables it to outperform the HD 5870. Gosh can't wait to see the HD 6870 in action lol, results should be available sometime next week.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:16:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4763</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blandead says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4761</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From what I heard the 5000 series uses 5 shaders (4 simple + 1 complex) and the 6000 series will use (4 "medium" shaders) although it is one less shader the throughput/efficiency is supposed to be faster than the old 4+1 method. Time will tell by how much though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blandead</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:56:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4761</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>FlOw says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4759</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What's all this talk of modules? Ever since the 2900xt ati has had its shaders in groups of 5; 1 was a full on shader; with all the bells 'n whistles, the other 4 were each designed for simpler stuff. the "x4" in the slides mean ati has reduced the number of those simple shaders(ati themselves have admitted they have a hard time keeping them 100% scheduled). the big number is the number of "stream processors" i.e. the 320 stream processors in the 6770 are capable of the same amount of "advanced" calcs per clock as 5870, but fewer simple ones. 6770 will be very nearly as fast as 5870, and much easier to schedule. you guys may be confusing the number of stream processors with "shaders"; each nvidia stream processor has one shader, each amd one has 5(soon to be 4).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>FlOw</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:22:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20315-radeon-hd-6700-detailed-on-slides#comment-4759</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
