RS482 versus RS480

The first question that many of you may have is why we are testing the ATI RS482, instead of the RS480, against the NVIDIA 6100? The RS480 and the RS482 are the same chipset, with the RS482 having undergone a die shrink. We believed that the Grouper was still equipped with the RS480 chipset, when in fact, the Reference Board had the .11 process RS482 when we checked under the heatsink.

Whether RS482 or RS480, the performance should be essentially the same according to ATI. The RS480 is built on a .13 micron process, and the RS482 is a die-shrink to .11 micron. The chipsets are otherwise identical, except that ATI did make the move to a flip chip design in RS482. Whether it is a RS480 core or RS482 core, ATI calls the chipset Radeon Xpress 200. You will never hear ATI refer to the RS482 or RS480 in official documents, but we find the internal names to be useful for explaining what has and hasn't changed in the chipsets.

The die-shrink theoretically reduces costs, which was a primary motivation for the move to .11. The RS482 is the currently-shipping ATI integrated Graphics solution for AMD, and has replaced the RS480 in AMD integrated graphics from ATI.

The RS482 is the current ATI mainstream integrated graphics chipset, which is officially called Radeon Xpress 200. This would make the new NVIDIA 6100 the comparable chipset to RS482. NVIDIA also announced the higher-clocked GeForce 6150 chipset, which will be released in coming weeks. As you have seen in our past roadmaps, ATI will also be releasing a higher-performing integrated graphics solution in the future called RS485. It appears that this may be a higher-clocked version of RS482, which would make it a logical competitor to the upcoming NVIDIA 6150.

The AMD Integrated Graphics market is the exact opposite of what we have recently seen in discrete graphics. Where NVIDIA had a several-month lead over ATI with the 7800 GTX, ATI introduced RS480 almost a year ago. In that market, it has taken NVIDIA almost a year to respond with the GeForce 6100 Integrated Graphics.

Index Test Setup
Comments Locked

36 Comments

View All Comments

  • yacoub - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link

    Werd. Well for future reference it would show more integrity to explain that in the article instead of trying to pass a falsified 480 picture off as a 482. While the 482 may very much look just like your photoshopped picture, you aren't being true to your readers and that wouldn't pass muster at a real news outlet. You might even be fired for it if they have high enough standards. Just something to keep in mind if you are seeking a career in journalism. Your article is very good otherwise.
  • yacoub - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    Hahah, they actually fixed it now with a better pic. Thanks for correcting that, it was pretty shoddy. :)
  • deathwalker - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm just out of touch with the real world..or then perhaps "AT" is!! Somehow I just don't see benching a Integrated Graphics solution with a AMD64 4000+ processor as providing a set of bench marks that most users of Integrated Graphics solutions will be able to relate to. I don't think I'm far off the mark in my assessment that very few if any users of such a graphics solution will be using what amounts to the about the highest performing CPU solution on the market. We see this time and again with "AT"...not matching up appropriate hardware solutions vs. real world enviroment useage. I think it renders these test results nearly useless for someone that is "really" interested in this type of graphics solution. Harsh opinion I know...but...at least it's mine.
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    The 4000+ is hardly top end any more, it is mid-range. Current selling price is $368 at New Egg. The 3000+ is $146, the 3200+ is $190 and the 3500+ $219. The 4200+, 4400+, 4600+. 4800+ and FX57 occupy the $473 to $1000+ price space.

    That's not really the point though. The 4000+ has been our standard for AMD benchmarking for a while. The capabilities of the test 4000+ chips are well known, so test results are easier to compare to previous test results and put in perspective.
  • deathwalker - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    Wesley...thanks for taking time to respond to my post. I may not be in 100% agreement but your position on this test setup is better understood after a little reflection.
  • glennpratt - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link

    I think thier is a ton of interest in these boards from the HTPC crowd, not just budget...

    Also, you should note that in ANY modern game this thing will be totally GPU bound.
  • R3MF - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    i'd love MSI to release an s280 with an 25W 2GHz Turion and a 6150/430 chipset.
  • Brian23 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    I'm glad ATI has a good hold on the integrated video market. As much as I like Nvidia cards, I'd hate it if Nvidia became a monopoly.

    I myself am supporting ATI. I just bought a X800GTO2 because the price was too good to pass up. I'm sure that this video card will be short lived though. ATI wants to make money, not sell excelent cards for cheap. Honestly, if there was a similar deal with a 7800 card, I would have bought Nvidia, but hey, I got a fast card for cheap.
  • bob661 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    Bang for the buck bro...that's what it's all about.
  • johnsonx - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link

    Could AT perhaps get their hands on and test a GeForce 6100 and Xpress 200 for Socket 754, perhaps using both a low-end Sempron and a mid-range A64 (say a 2600 and a 3200)? It would be interesting to see what effect single-channel DDR will have on the graphics performance, and if it will hurt one chipset more than the other. Such a comparo might also require re-testing the S939 boards with a 3200 as well, just to get an apples-to-apples comparo.

    Myself, I found it quite odd that almost all available Xpress 200 boards were and are Socket-939 (for the first 9 months or so, there were NO socket 754 Xpress 200 boards actually available to buy, at least not in the USA, and even now there's 1 or maybe 2). Integrated graphics are low-end solutions by definition, while socket-939 chips are mid-range at a minimum (hell, to me socket 939 is the exotic high-end, but that's me...).

    I was pleased that Biostar shipped socket-754 and 939 T6100 boards almost simultaneously, and I have two on the shelf already waiting to be installed with Sempron64 2600+ cpus.

    I do realize that at some point next year, performance A64's will go to socket M2, and then Sempron64s will eventually transition to 939, but that's got to be at least a year away... socket 939 integrated gfx solutions don't make much sense until then.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now