ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 First Look

by Josh Venning on 12/5/2005 9:00 PM EST
POST A COMMENT

30 Comments

Back to Article

  • slimborama - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    Why don't you guys do what Tom's Hardware does and only mention the parts when they hit the shelves? By giving them free press, you're only perpetuating the problem of imaginary hardware. Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Friday, December 09, 2005 - link

    they already burned ATI in the first paragraph, so the reader already knows this.

    so with that said, might as well look at the potential technology
    Reply
  • Bull Dog - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    " apparitions floating around that, more than likely, won't show up for weeks or even months after we were told they would. And what happened with the X1800XL All-In-Wonder? The situation is absolutely not acceptable."

    what was so wrong with the x1800 AIW?

    Newegg started selling it later the same day all the articles came out. Maybe it was the day after but still, that was quick.
    Reply
  • Jedi2155 - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    BOYCOTT ATI!!!!! Oh wait...we can't boycott something we cant' buy..... Reply
  • Eug - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    I don't expect to see the X1600 in a 5 lb 13" PowerBook, but would not be surprised to see an X1300.

    I don't care so much about game performance, but would be very interested in H.264 decode (and transcode) acceleration. How fast would it be anyway? Comparable to a Mobility X700? X600?
    Reply
  • h7o - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    "we're somewhat skeptical about actually seeing any for sale in Asia today or in the US in mid-January"

    This truly sucks, I was hoping there be a large supply by the time yonah is released.

    Do you know if this chip will be in laptops weighing 5-6 lb or just for those >6 lb?
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    Links to pages 2 and three lead to the "Article Search" function. Reply
  • Visual - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    this article disappeared! what happened? Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    This is the first article I've seen with a "9PM" NDA instead of 9AM. Oh well. It'll be back up in a few hours.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Jedi2155 - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    Does that mean its possible that it might be on sale by now? Reply
  • Doormat - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    I fully expect this chip to show up in Intels powerbooks that'll be annouced next month. Reply
  • acejj26 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    There's no way they fit the GPU die and all four of those memory modules on a package that is 46 mm^2. If it's a square, then that's less than 7 mm in each direction. That surely is a typo or mistake Reply
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    Wow, very sorry ... that was a typo.

    I added that line to Josh's article. I appologize for not catching the mistake earlier.

    42mm x 42mm is still very small.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    Maybe you could correctly quote the article and not insert a space that isn't there? It isn't Forty Six square mm, its Forty Six mm squared. Like 4 sides, each side 46mm long. This is like middle school stuff here.

    P.S. - I know this answer isn't nice, but above poster shouldn't call out the author before getting his/her facts strait.
    Reply
  • Visual - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    you're a doofus if you think a space means that much. both ways to write it mean the same to me, and surely it should be corrected. Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    Call me what you want, but I was capable of reading it correctly, apparently that is too difficult for others. I understand the reason people are consufed, but Square MM and MM Squared are two different commonly used concepts. Reply
  • tayhimself - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    No theyre not. They are the same thing. Its a typo, in a horribly written article. No comparisons of battery life etc. Oh, and that is one hideous laptop. Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    my god it is hideous Reply
  • Scrogneugneu - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    46 Square mm refers to 46mm².


    46 mm squared refers to the length of one side of the chip, 46 mm, which still has to be squared, giving 21.16cm².
    Reply
  • huges84 - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    I disagree.

    I say that:
    46mm^2 = 46 mm^2 = 2mm*23mm
    and
    (46mm)^2 = 46mm*46mm = 2116mm^2

    Anytime you square a unit you are only squaring the unit, not the quantity. Whether or not there is a space does not matter.

    Yes one could figure out what the article meant, but that does not make his point invalid.

    Also, people have sided against you, because you are the only one defending the way it was written and people have dropped your score from 2 to 1.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - link

    Well actually I wasn't the only person backing the way it was written, but I can see most people feel I'm wrong, so I will apologize. While the concepts of for example 2 square mm and 2mm squared no doubt exist, I admit the article should have been written in such a way to make the size of the GPU much more clear. Just because I understood the author's intent, doesn't meen that intent was properly communicated. Sorry for stirring up so much trouble. Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    lol, I bet they meant it in square cm and failed to account for altering cm to mm correctly, and indeed 2.14cm * 2.14cm is 4.6cm^2 ... Reply
  • mbhame - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    Who wrote this article?
    Is Anandtech abandoning crediting its authors???
    Reply
  • mbhame - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    NM, I'm a moron. Reply
  • Hi - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    we knew that Reply
  • ksherman - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    quote:

    The X1600 is a mid-range graphics solution that is meant to perform at about the same level of the X800 GTO and the 6600 GT.


    What happened to progress, to improving performance? To me, a next-gen mid range card should not perform at the same level of the previous gen mid range cards... I remember the days (not that long ago, only like a year or two ago) when the next-gen mid range cards were very comprable to the previous-gen high end parts... why sis ATI limit the X1600 to perform like a 6600GT?! Is it because their x800 line is better than their X1800 line?
    Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    I agree with you that Nex Gen mid range cards should ideally perform at or about the level of previous gen higher end cards. Otherwise whats the point, unless they have some new badass featuer (perhaps H.264 counts once it is supported). Reply
  • allnighter - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    I'd like to get my hands on one too but it seems we don't even have an eta on these do we? And Asus recently jumped the gun on nV 7300Go. I don't think you can get any of those either. HKEPC recently had an article with benchmarks, and I couldn't tell whethere it was a retail unit or not. Although that one may be a little closer to be available than this x1600 mobile part. I hope it's not after CeBit when any of us can actually buy one of these. I'd love to be able to upgrade to a model sporting one of these and one of those sweet dual core yonah's. It's a mobile wet dream he, he. Reply
  • Wesleyrpg - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    hmm, nice laptop, i don't think we'll see the chip anytime soon though.

    whats up with the commment about the all in wonder x1800xl?
    Reply
  • Shortass - Monday, December 05, 2005 - link

    Looks pretty decent for a mobile gfx card, too bad it'll probably actually hit the market in late '09 :roll: Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now