• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY
POST A COMMENT

64 Comments

Back to Article

  • Th3Loonatic - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Like for reals. Why? Why do they even bother? Are they trying to con unsuspecting people who go, "OOOHHH!!! NEW GPU on my laptop!" ? Reply
  • Jamor - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    That exactly. The bastirds. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Looks like we can finally stop bashing nVidia for the renaming and start bashing both instead..

    MrS
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    AMD already rebranded in the 57xx series and made them the 67xx series. So you should have been bashing them for about a year now. :-) Reply
  • GokieKS - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    They still haven't done it quite as egregiously as nVidia did with the multiple rebrandings of the 8800GT, but yeah, this following the 5770->6770 is almost as bad. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Don't forget that the 8800M GTX actually did go through a die shrink when it became the GTX 260M. That's actually a sensible approach when moving to a new process, and while it didn't do much for performance it was a lot more than a straight rebadging. So really, 8800M GTX became 9800M GT, and that's basically the same as what NVIDIA has done with the GT 630M vs. GT 540M -- a drop in model number positioning in the new series. AMD is basically doing the same thing here with the 7600M vs. 6700M and 7500M vs. 6600M. (The 7400M vs. 6400M on the other hand looks to be no better.) Reply
  • chizow - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Nonsense, ATI rebadged both R200 and R300 countless times and even around the 8800GT's prime they rebadged the R600 (2900) into the RV670 (HD 3870).

    People put far too much emphasis on the unimportant peripheral details of a product (for whatever reasons) instead of the actual FPS and price and ultimately the value and relative performance of the product.
    Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    ... rebadged the R600 (2900) into the RV670 (HD 3870)

    HUH?

    I want what you are smoking!
    Reply
  • CarrellK - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    You are incorrect Chizow. The RV670 was not the same piece of silicon as the R600. There were many differences, but the obvious ones were a different process (80HS versus 65) and a different memory interface (R600 was 512b...) Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    And the cited 8800GT rebadge wasn't the same piece of silicon either, as 8800GT/G92 was 65nm and the 9800GT/G2b was a die-shrink to 55nm. Same with R600 to RV670 since it amounted to a die shrink.

    See my point? There's no point in nit-picking over this kind of practice because EVERYONE does it to some degree to fill out their product lines.

    Even the paradigm of the industry, Intel, does this regularly. There's a strong chance they're still selling Wolfdale-based CPUs somewhere as Pentiums and making money on them.
    Reply
  • erple2 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    No, the 8800GT to 9800GT to GTS250 were the exact same chip, just with some die shrinkage. The 3870 was a substantial departure from what the 2900 series was - the die shrink alone wasn't enough to justify the substantial reduction in die size. Cutting back the 512bit memory bus cut it down a HUGE amount, too. There were also several minor tweaks to the architecture to boot. There was more redundant parts of the GPU in the core, too. Read up a bit more on it at http://www.anandtech.com/show/2679 ... Reply
  • chizow - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Yes the R600 to RV670 shrink cut down the internal ringbus and external bandwidth in half which accounted for ~30M fewer transistors but *FUNCTIONALLY* the part was identical and just a rebadge/shrink of R600.

    Also, how can all the G92 variants be the "exact same chip" when you've already acknowledged a die shrink, not to mention the 8800/9800GT only had 112SP enabled where the 9800GTX/GTS 250 had the full 128SP enabled? You must have a different definition of "exact" i suppose. There's more differences between the products that I won't even bother getting into.

    Again, its ironic that certain people are so willing to overlook the differences in ATI's rebadges so conveniently forgets the differences with Nvidia's rebadges while condemning them, which is again, why people shouldn't bother nitpicking over such trivial matters.

    All that should matter to someone when buying is price, performance, and features and in all the cases of the various rabadges all 3 were just where they should've been relative to newer parts.
    Reply
  • Sunagwa - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Yea pretty much it right there.

    It's a sad day for gamers everywhere. On the bright side the real parts are right around the corner. =D
    Reply
  • aguilpa1 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Wow, so pathetic it is beyond words... Reply
  • mariush - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    They're forced by the laptop manufacturers - "if you guys don't come up with some new models, we'll go with the new models from nVidia".

    What would you want them to do?
    Reply
  • evilspoons - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I think this is why Apple doesn't list model numbers for this sort of thing for their laptops (both CPU and GPU, with the exception of the Intel HD 3000 for some reason - probably because it's so much better than the old Intel GPUs).

    For better or for worse, all they list is the RAM available (which I think is silly, since it's not as big a factor as the average person thinks it is) and the relative performance to their other models.
    Reply
  • evilspoons - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I stand corrected, they DO list the model number on the specs page... well, at least they don't bother with the ridiculous Intel CPU model number. It would be nice if they'd list turbo boost speeds though. Reply
  • lanestew - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Saw the headline. Got excited. Then felt sad and disappointed. Reply
  • ganjha - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Same here... Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Wow. Yeah, same. I was about to get stuck in to lovely Southern Islands details, but what I got was a pile of re-heated mush.

    Poor show TSMC, poor show AMD.
    Reply
  • geddarkstorm - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    Poor show Nvidia. Really, I'm not sure if we can blame AMD or Nvidia this round. TSMC just can't seem to get its act together and is holding everyone back, ever since the 4x nm node. Reply
  • mgl888 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    I totally agree. :( Reply
  • doesitreallymatter - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Agreed. I've been looking a lot lately at grabbing a new laptop for portable gaming so this is quite a let down. Reply
  • TheScottyB - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    I know it's not exactly Anadtech's fault (unless they wanted to put bias in the headline)... but still makes me sad. :'-( Reply
  • JimmiG - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    I had a Radeon 7500 ten years ago... :p Reply
  • Jamor - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    :D

    Hey, I have 7300GT on my current work mac.
    Judging by the numbers, I'm pretty much current.
    Reply
  • geddarkstorm - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I don't even want to know what will happen when this hits e-bay. Reply
  • zero2espect - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    for five seconds - or exacly 1 paragraph i was excited there.... Reply
  • r3loaded - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Why on earth do AMD/Nvidia pull these product naming shenanigans? Even though its branding is confusing, at least Intel doesn't rebadge old stuff with new names and product numbers. Reply
  • KZ0 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    It doesn't make much sense. Those who are up to speed on the product numbers mostly know what they actually mean (in this case, the same as 6000), and the average user has no relation to the product numbers at all. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    It's another case of "If it looks the same, how will people know I've upgraded?"
    This time it's the laptop OEMs, not some consumer standing in the queue.

    MrS
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    You've hit the nail on the head.

    Laptop OEMs are already launching their 2012 products, and even though they don't have any new hardware to work with (versus whatever they launched 6 months ago), they need "newer" products. It's very similar to how car manufacturers operate.

    So AMD and NVIDIA are obliging them, hence the rehash for the 7000M and 600M series. It doesn't really excuse this mess, but the customer gets what the customer wants.
    Reply
  • mariush - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    Laptop/netbook manufacturers want new models when the new versions of their laptops are made... sort of like the clothes with the spring-summer releases and autumn-winter collections.

    They just want bullet points on pages, differentiating their new laptops from the old stock - they don't care if they're faster, better and they certainly don't care what company they order from so both companies are pressured into releasing something, anything, just to keep their contracts and move stuff.
    Reply
  • Pantsu - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Laptop makers want new models, Nvidia and AMD can't provide them, hence they rename old chips. TSMC just isn't ready with 28 nm.

    Hopefully these rebadgings at least drop the prices a bit, but then again we'll never know that, only whether they'll show up in cheaper laptops.

    Looks like there's bound to be supply issues with new 28 nm desktop GPUs when they actually release them. What a surprise.
    Reply
  • gevorg - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    ... they had to fail in mobile GPU line too Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    The mobile lineup using last generation chips is nothing new. I'm pretty sure the GTX500M series is based on 400 series parts, if I'm not mistaken. Still waiting for the *real* new cards. Reply
  • xxtypersxx - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Actually, 500 series parts are substantially improved over the 400 series parts as they benefit from chip refinement and the addition of Nvidia's 3rd transistor type to lower power draw and heat. Performance doesn't change a ton, but they are certainly more different than anything we see the two companies announcing today. Reply
  • TerdFerguson - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    AMD and NV have been ripping consumers off with these same designs for quite some time, now. Instead of regularly bringing out new, higher performing, products that replace older models at the same price while greatly improving performance, they give us new incarnations of old tech. I understand the concept of binning, but they've been selling hobbled versions of their $600 flagship boards across the entire product line for so long now that it is just absolutely repugnant. I honestly hope and pray that Intel's upcoming integrated graphics parts are good enough (and they don't need to be much better) to light a fire under the stagnant, price-fixing, hegemons of the graphics industry. Reply
  • bji - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Ripping people off because they don't produce products on a time schedule and with a price that you approve of? That's ridiculous.

    If the graphics industry is stagnant, it's because the market is shrinking. Most people are happy with their consoles or with console-level performance on their desktop. Fewer people are willing to pay more money to increase the resolution that they can run their game at when the difference in enjoyment of the game is negligeable.

    Also the suggestion that Intel's integrated graphics are even *close* to being able to compete with any flagship product from AMD or NVidia is also ridiculous.

    AMD already produces an integrated graphics solution that is far, far better than anything Intel can produce, and is likely to produce in the forseeable future; it's what's in the A-series of AMD CPU.
    Reply
  • AlB80 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Look at the die size and you understood VLIW5 (32-bit) is the most effective architecture. And also it's modern. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    That may be true, but rebadging parts is doing nothing to move the industry forward for either camp. Sad showing indeed. They didn't even move these parts to 28nm to try and reduce their power consumption. It would have been far better to cut the prices on current line-ups to bring more performance to the consumer at lower price levels, but no. The performance improvements in graphics industry on the mobile side seem to be getting worse and worse every new generation, while the transparency behind specs for those cards is also lacking. Reply
  • Wreckage - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    All the rumors said the 7000 series was going to be this epic update? Bulldozer part II. Reply
  • serpretetsky - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    rumors about the 7000 series weren't talking about any rebadged parts. Amd hasn't released the 7000 series everyone is talking about yet. We're still going to see whether or not it's Bulldozer part II. Reply
  • kolobos - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    You probably thought these Radeon 7000M GPU are new products by AMD. And these NVIDIA 600M are new? NOPE! No they’re not! They’re old! They have been bastardized by their developers in California, U.S.

    Look how RAM is cheap and overproduced, we won't have notebooks with less than 4 GB. Nope! It’s just Chuck Testa.
    Oh no, non-TN panels are finally can be produced for reasonable price. It's probably hard to find monitors, TV and notebooks with crappy TN these days. Nope! Chuck Testa.
    Hold on a second, new SSD are probably better and more durable than old ones? Nope! It’s just Chuck Testa with another realistic mount.
    Call Chuck Testa for the most life like dead innovations around. Period.

    Did they just create OLED TV after 10 years of waiting? Nope!
    Reply
  • LV3 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    The GPU industry needs to find a way to pull out of TSMC - you can almost always link a problem nVidia or AMD is having to 'fab issues at TSMC' or 'TSMC is late on the next process'

    But shame on AMD for rebadging, OEMs will charge a premium for no additional performance. nVidia did the same thing, but AMD was supposed to be the one who doesn't do that. Not anymore.
    Reply
  • Roland00Address - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Globalfoundries? One of the other fabs?

    Globalfoundries is currently several months behind TSMC in production, and it is to my understanding that the other fabs are even further behind TSMC. Only Intel is developing there factories faster than TSMC is.
    Reply
  • Belard - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    AMD seems to be on a fast track to stupidville.
    It's pointless and stupid to repackage the last years crap.
    Anyone who knows the difference can see this is stupid. So when the real 7000 series comes out... Now you have an older tech with a new name... The confusion isnt worth it AMD. Nvidia has been doing this from years. Why follow them? Same stupid crap like Firefox 8 or 9 whatever the frack browser it is that I no longer want to touch. Between ff 4.0 and 8.0 (4.4 really) Opera has had 4 releases that did more... 11.11 .50 .51 .52 and recently 11.60 which has not made the news like stupid ff "8".

    Add this garbage to amd's new K Llano chips... Like as if anyone who knows what a K chip is, would be fooled by this naming trick from AMD. Llano isn't in the same game as i5 CPUs... Neither is the slightly faster and embarrassing FX chips.
    Reply
  • Concillian - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    We're launching a GPU that will be running at... hmm, we aren't going to tell you.
    It will have memory bandwidth of... guess!

    I know people are more interested in discussing that it's a re-badge, but really what is the point of having a launch with no specs at all.

    If they didn't already have the parts on the shelves since they're the same as last gen, then this would be a textbook paper launch, but since they do, what do you call this, I mean other than dumb.
    Reply
  • ICBM - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Apparently they fired the wrong people in the marketing department. This is the kind of crap they need to get away from. Reply
  • alent1234 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    sounds like it's a paper launch with no products for months to come except hot air

    i heard Intel wants to start renting out Fab capacity to others and with TSMC's problems i can see ATI and Nvidia going to Intel
    Reply
  • Roland00Address - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    The 6630m to 6770m has 480 shaders (vliw5) a die size of 118mm^2 (40nm) and it is effectively a 6670 that has been downclocked
    The 6990m has 1120 shaders (vliw5) a die size of 255mm^2 (40nm) and it is effectively a 6870 that has been downclocked

    You can easily find cheap sub 800 dollar notebooks with one of the 6630m to 6770m graphic card in there.

    So assuming a die shrink of 40nm to 28nm (with perfect scaling, which I know is impossible) the
    6990m replacement will have a die size 125mm^2 or very similar to the current 6630m to 6770m.
    And while a perfect scaling is impossible, some of the 7000 series gpus will be vliw4 instead of vliw5. I am assuming the 6990m replacement will be vliw4, thus I believe it is likely to get 6990m performance in the 800 dollar range in the next 6 months or so.
    Reply
  • SydneyBlue120d - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Is there any differences or is it always the same feature set? I red rumors of new UVD version with decrypt on board and maybe Nvidia may put the latest PV version on the old/new cards ? Tnx Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Same GPUs. Same features. Reply
  • theangryintern - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    So where are the 7000 and 600 series desktop cards? Reply
  • tzhu07 - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    That's what I want to know too!

    I recently ordered a Sandy Bridge build from newegg sans video card. I plan on using the integrated HD3000 graphics in the meantime and later drop in a 7000/Kepler GPU. I mostly use my computer for productivity and light general use, so the lack of a real video card isn't too agonizing...Bleh.

    Still, I'd like some official news of the HD7970 and GTX680 top end cards.
    Reply
  • antef - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Hey I am right there with you. I don't really have time to build during the school semester so I am debating between either building over Christmas without a video card or delaying the whole build until after the spring semester. I can't decide! If the new cards are right around the corner I would build now, but people have been saying that since May! If they are delayed until March or later I might as well just wait. Reply
  • dj christian - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    Coming in Mars Reply
  • sotoa - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Craptastic. Rebadge again.

    What gets me is... Where's the competition? How does one company know what the other is doing and they match each other STEP FOR FREAKIN STEP???
    Reply
  • CarrellK - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Seeing as how I no longer represent AMD, I think I can comment on this.

    As the person responsible for AMD's graphics roadmap for many years, I know for a fact that neither company knows what the other does. You might read one of Anand's articles where I was interviewed. I believe I discussed this in passing in one of those articles. That isn't to say that I didn't make my best estimates for what I thought nV would do (and was right most of the time), I did. That rarely drove my decisions.

    Doing what I thought we could do that would best address the market drove the decisions. We both use nearly identical technologies to build our products, and if we both do the best we can with those technologies, guess what the outcome is?

    No collusion or evil intent.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - link

    Carrell - thanks for dropping by :)

    FYI, CarrellK == http://www.anandtech.com/show/2937
    Reply
  • sotoa - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Oh that Carrell! That was the BEST article I've read here on Anandtech.

    Thanks for the input.
    Reply
  • eman17j - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    And of course we all should believe you because corporate PR guys have never told a lie..blah blah blah.. Reply
  • Stas - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    You thought these were new GPUs?
    Nope, it's Chuck Testa!
    Reply
  • bennyg - Thursday, December 08, 2011 - link

    I like articles like this. Make me feel all nice and warm and fuzzy, after reading the headline and wondering if my purchase of a few months ago would be officially out of date.

    Well done Jarred on the omission of "New" from the headline.

    The irony - about 6 years ago ATI would have still had some of their "X600" parts on sale, and Nvidia had just introduced their "7000" series...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now