Meet the ATI Radeon HD 2900. Poor kids AM CRY. Hemits flex again.

Teh KING cometh... 

"R600" OEM image courtesy of PCinlife
320-stream processors, named ATI Radeon HD 2900

AMD has named the rest of its upcoming ATI Radeon DirectX 10 product lineup. The new DirectX 10 product family received the ATI Radeon HD 2000-series moniker. For the new product generation, AMD has tagged HD to the product name to designate the entire lineup's Avivo HD technology. AMD has also removed the X-prefix on its product models.

At the top of the DirectX 10 chain, is the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900-series features 320 stream processors, over twice as many as NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTX. AMD couples the 320 stream processors with a 512-bit memory interface with eight channels. CrossFire support is now natively supported by the AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900-series; the external CrossFire dongle is a thing of the past.

The R600-based ATI Radeon HD 2900-series products also support 128-bit HDR rendering. AMD has also upped the ante on anti-aliasing support. The ATI Radeon HD 2900-series supports up to 24x anti-aliasing. NVIDIA's GeForce 8800-series only supports up to 16x anti-aliasing. AMD's ATI Radeon HD 2900-series also possesses physics processing.

New to the ATI Radeon HD 2900-series are integrated HDMI output capabilities with 5.1 surround sound. However, early images of AMD's OEM R600 reveal dual dual-link DVI outputs, rendering the audio functions useless.

AMD's RV630-based products will carry the ATI Radeon HD 2600 moniker with Pro and XT models. The value-targeted RV610-based products will carry the ATI Radeon HD 2400 name with Pro and XT models as well.

The entire AMD ATI Radeon HD 2000-family features the latest Avivo HD technology. AMD's upgraded Avivo with a new Universal Video Decoder, also known as UVD, and the new Advanced Video Processor, or AVP. UVD previously made its debut in the OEM-exclusive RV550 GPU core. UVD provides hardware acceleration of H.264 and VC-1 high definition video formats used by Blu-ray and HD DVD. The AVP allows the GPU to apply hardware acceleration and video processing functions while keeping power consumption low.

Expect AMD to launch the ATI Radeon HD 2000-family in the upcoming weeks, if AMD doesn't push back the launch dates further.

In case you were wondering, YES, it dishes out so much ownage on everything currently available (including the GeForce 8800) it's not even funny.

Everything else is *beyond* obselete.  Consoles get made fun of and laughed at by these cards. :D

We had a thread about this. It lasted way too long. Why bring it up again? We had the other one beat.Killfox

I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?Dreams-Visions

I hope so. After all that HDCP compliance MS is pushing with Windows Vista and future copy protected content.  

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

I hope so. After all that HDCP compliance MS is pushing with Windows Vista and future copy protected content.  

I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

Dont worry, cows will try and have you belive that PS3 harware trumps this.Marka1700

Really, I'm one of the biggest PS3 supporters around, and I haven't made any of those comments. Your sweeping generalizations have failed you. 

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?Dreams-Visions

I hope so. After all that HDCP compliance MS is pushing with Windows Vista and future copy protected content.  

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?chansaet

While DVI is fine and all, I don't like using converters, at all. And they currently have video cards on the market that use HDMI. Where have you been? 

Looks like a little mother board with some chips and doo dads thrown here and there. I want one!:cry:

Looks like a little mother board with some chips and doo dads thrown here and there.

Fruity_Fantasy

Captain obvious.  

[QUOTE="chansaet"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

While DVI is fine and all, I don't like using converters, at all. And they currently have video cards on the market that use HDMI. Where have you been? 

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]Dont worry, cows will try and have you belive that PS3 harware trumps this.TekkenMaster606

Really, I'm one of the biggest PS3 supporters around, and I haven't made any of those comments. Your sweeping generalizations have failed you. 

There are a few cows in this board in the last 4 months that have tried to argue the topic with me

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]Dont worry, cows will try and have you belive that PS3 harware trumps this.Marka1700

There are a few cows in this board in the last 4 months that have tried to argue that fact with me.

Really, I'm one of the biggest PS3 supporters around, and I haven't made any of those comments. Your sweeping generalizations have failed you.

Well maybe you should say 'Dont worry, a FEW cows will try and have you...' 

Consoels dont get laughed at by anything .   Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well.  Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

Consoles dont get laughed at by anything .   Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well.  Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

What the pc is doing now affects the consoles in what their power will harness, so instead of shunning a stepforward in graphic technology, how about you greet it a little better instead of rubbing your snot all over it.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

[QUOTE="chansaet"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?chansaet

While DVI is fine and all, I don't like using converters, at all. And they currently have video cards on the market that use HDMI. Where have you been?

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Dreams-Visions

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. TrailorParkBoy

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything .   Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well.  Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. NuclearDruid

What the pc is doing now affects the consoles in what their power will harness, so instead of shunning a stepforward in graphic technology, how about you greet it a little better instead of rubbing your snot all over it.

Im not rubbing snot on it as a GPU it owns anything out there it is the nautural progession of technlogy just like 6 monthes later Nvida will have a card that destroys this one.  Thats how things work im simply stating how does this laugh at the consoles?  We will still be getting great looking games regardless of what pc card comes out.

[QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

Wait....where's the fan? the heatsink?mjarantilla

[QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Dreams-Visions

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

I'm not sure what all those fancy numbers and abbreviations mean, but it sure sounds impressive. Of course the next Nvidia card will embarass this one in 6 months.

I'm not sure what all those fancy numbers and abbreviations mean, but it sure sounds impressive. Of course the next Nvidia card will embarass this one in 6 months.

pundog

I'm sure ATI is prepared for that. 

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. NuclearDruid

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

the pc outpeforms it raw power wise in the GPU and Ram department there is no duel core CPU that is even remotley in the same league as the Cell right now when it comes to gaming applications.

[QUOTE="pundog"]

I'm not sure what all those fancy numbers and abbreviations mean, but it sure sounds impressive. Of course the next Nvidia card will embarass this one in 6 months.

joeblak

I'm sure ATI is prepared for that. 

And then Nivida will comeback again its an endless trend.

[QUOTE="NuclearDruid"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

the pc outpeforms it raw power wise in the GPU and Ram department there is no duel core CPU that is even remotley in the same league as the PS3 right now when it comes to gaming applications.

Welp, when we see the PS3 able to run games at 2056x1536, you let me know.  When we see something that looks like Crysis on a console, be sure to tell me.  PM me. 

In 2010. :|

Consoles are barely making it to 720p.  Only a handfull this entire generation are scheduled to be 1080p (half the resolution Crysis will run at on a DX10 card at full 60fps+) this ENTIRE console generation.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Wait....where's the fan? the heatsink?Dreams-Visions

How much?

like 600 bucks?

yea I'ma have to pass  

[QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="NuclearDruid"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Dreams-Visions

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

the pc outpeforms it raw power wise in the GPU and Ram department there is no duel core CPU that is even remotley in the same league as the PS3 right now when it comes to gaming applications.

Welp, when we see the PS3 able to run games at 2056x1536, you let me know.  When we see something that looks like Crysis on a console, be sure to tell me.  PM me. 

In 2010. :|

Consoles are barely making it to 720p.  Only a handfull this entire generation are scheduled to be 1080p (half the resolution Crysis will run at on a DX10 card at full 60fps+) this ENTIRE console generation.

First off Console games are desgined to be played on TV's so why in the hell would they make a game support a res of 2056x1536 when no TV even supports it? Consoles are barely making it to 720p?  Um every game this gen has ran in 720p Ninja Gaiden Sigma(  A great looking game by any standards) runs in 1080p and 60fps, another game Lair which is on a  much larger scale and has more objects on screen at a time then Crysis runs at 1080p .  So please tell me your point? I simply said the processor in the PS3 is more powerful then anything currenlty available in pc's if programed for correctly and it is and we all know higher resolutions has very little to do with processing power thats more GPU and Ram intensive which ive clearly stated the PC already has an advantage in.

First off Console games are desgined to be played on TV's so why in the hell would they make a game supprot a res of 2056x1536 when no TV even supports it? Consoles are barely making it to 720p?  Um every game this gen has ran in 720p Ninja Gaiden Sigma(  A great looking game by any standards) runs in 1080p and 60fps, another game Lair which is on a scale and has more objects on screen at a time then Crysis runs at 1080p .  So please tell me your point? I simply said the processor in the PS3 is more powerful then anythign currenlty available in pc's if programed for correctly and it is and we all know higher resolutions has very little to do with processing power thats more GPU and Ram intensive which ive clearly stated the PC already has an advantage in. Vadrick

(((sigh)))

this will be my last reply to you in this thread in this vein of conversation:

1.) the reason why I pointed out the resolution was to demonstrate the sheer power of the hardware; not a point about practicality.  go back to my ferrari vs. civic analogy.  it is almost overwhelming by comparison.  consoles can't compare.  Your admission that the PS3 isn't designed to support such a high resolution quietly admits that the PS3 doesn't have the power to do it.  and you would be right: it can't.  Not for any meaningful game.  Not the PS3.  Not any console.  PC = much more power and technical ability.

2.) every game hasn't run in 720p.  At least a couple games have *scaled* to 720p because of issues.  Project Gotham Racing 3 is one of them.  There were others, but I can't remember which they are.

3.) Would you compare Lair to Crysis now?  :lol: I'll leave that idea for someone else to destroy.

4.) My point, again, is that even if maximized, the PS3 will never touch this card or an 8800 for that matter.  I don't care how the hardware is utilized.  God himself could come down and write a game for the PS3 and guess what?  it's hardware limitations will stop it well short of the potential a PC with a dual-core processor and a quality DX10 card can do.

consoles are outdated computer hardware parts.  nothing more.  love them for what they are.  but don't put them into a category that they are not in.  don't race Civics next to Porche's, Veyron's and Enzos.  Know your limitations.

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]First off Console games are desgined to be played on TV's so why in the hell would they make a game supprot a res of 2056x1536 when no TV even supports it? Consoles are barely making it to 720p?  Um every game this gen has ran in 720p Ninja Gaiden Sigma(  A great looking game by any standards) runs in 1080p and 60fps, another game Lair which is on a scale and has more objects on screen at a time then Crysis runs at 1080p .  So please tell me your point? I simply said the processor in the PS3 is more powerful then anythign currenlty available in pc's if programed for correctly and it is and we all know higher resolutions has very little to do with processing power thats more GPU and Ram intensive which ive clearly stated the PC already has an advantage in. Dreams-Visions

(((sigh)))

this will be my last reply to you in this thread in this vein of conversation:

1.) the reason why I pointed out the resolution was to demonstrate the sheer power of the hardware; not a point about practicality.  go back to my ferrari vs. civic analogy.  it is almost overwhelming by comparison.  consoles can't compare.  Your admission that the PS3 isn't designed to support such a high resolution quietly admits that the PS3 doesn't have the power to do it.  and you would be right: it can't.  Not for any meaningful game.  Not the PS3.  Not any console.  PC = much more power and technical ability.

2.) every game hasn't run in 720p.  At least a couple games have *scaled* to 720p because of issues.  Project Gotham Racing 3 is one of them.  There were others, but I can't remember which they are.

3.) Would you compare Lair to Crysis now?  :lol: I'll leave that idea for someone else to destroy.

4.) My point, again, is that even if maximized, the PS3 will never touch this card or an 8800 for that matter.  I don't care how the hardware is utilized.  God himself could come down and write a game for the PS3 and guess what?  it's hardware limitations will stop it well short of the potential a PC with a dual-core processor and a quality DX10 card can do.

consoles are outdated computer hardware parts.  nothing more.  love them for what they are.  but don't put them into a category that they are not in.  don't race Civics next to Porche's, Veyron's and Enzos.  Know your limitations.

1. You really have absotuley no clue what your talking about and ill end this right now with some prime examples.  So the PS3 isnt capable of producing anything above 1080p because of power limitations right?  Um no it was a design choice for the pure fact that no TV supports over 1080p and it would be an absolute waste of time.  Hence the reason why the PS3 doesnt run old PS2 games at res above 1080P . Are you actually implying that the PS3 cant run PS2 games above 1080p? The reason its not is theres no point putting it in hadware where no tv even supports it.

2. Um you can count the games on 1 hand that didnt run in 720p and they were all most likely launch titles Forza2 is running in at least 720p maybe even 1080p and it looks superior to PGR so are you honestly gonna say the one title you named that was upscaled gives you the ussumption to say console games can barely be ran in 720p?

3. Lair beats Crysis in several areas scale and more things on screen at a time anything else well wait and see till both games are released but this is a given in at least 2 areas it wins. I wasnt saying it was technically more impressive there games in 2 totally differnt genres but will see when they both come out.

4,So even maximised a PS3 will never touch a 8800?  Hmmm Funny you ever ran MGS2 on a Gforce4 ?  A card that stat wise blows the PS2 out of the water yet when compared to the PS2 verison it runs like absolute garbage?  Why?  Because it was a game built ground up for a console that had very little to do with traditonal pc architecture and as a result the pc didnt handle it very well even on hardware that was technically superrior. See my point now?

I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

So much for the argument "pc gaming is not expensive" yeah right.-Reggaeton-