Recently we received confirmation that the first retail samples of ATI's R420 (AGP Radeon X800) will debut April 26 as Radeon X800 Pro. ATI's naming scheme for R420 has been closely guarded, but the open term we hear from vendors is "Radeon X800."

What seems highly unusual is the scheduled introduction of Radeon X800 XT on May 31st; only a month after Radeon X800 Pro's unveiling. Recall that Radeon 9800 and 9800 XT were launched six months apart. We can speculate ATI has either changed their marketing strategy, or the difference in performance between R420 and NV40 hastens ATI's release schedule. Further inspection of the ATI roadmaps reveals that "Non-Pro" Radeon X800s are absent. Perhaps "XT" has replaced the "Pro" Radeon series, and "Pro" thus replaced the "Non-Pro" Radeon series. Even though the initial launches of Radeon X800 will use 256MB of GDDR3, before the end of the year we also anticipate a 512MB revision. Furthermore, we will almost certainly see Radeon X800 SE with 128MB of DDR1; which will also debut with much a lower clockspeed.

R423, the PCI-Express (PCX) version of R420, is scheduled to launch June 14th. Specifications on R423 are identical to R420, and the cards will also carry the Radeon X800 product name.

RV380 and RV370 will also receive new product names, as Radeon X600 and Radeon X300, respectively. For more details about R420, RV380 and RV370, please take a look at our previous ATI roadmaps here. Stay tuned for more ATI and NVIDA news from the trenches.

Update April 9, 2004: We just received confirmation that X800 Pro will run on 12 pipelines, Radeon X800 XT will run on 16 pipelines and Radeon X800 SE will run on 8. It is important to note that all three of these chips are based on the same R420/R423 core. ATI could have an overclocker'ss/softmodder s dream with the X800 Pro and SE derivaties! This also comes as somewhat of a surprise since original leaked ATI documents claimed R420 would utilize 8 "Extreme" pipelines.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Icewind - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    Now comes the big question, How WELL do they perform?
  • Calin - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    The bridge will introduce additional delays in the communication between the video card and everything else. And the bandwidth will be limited at what the AGP 8x interface in capable. Neither one is (I suppose) significant at that moment.

  • Brickster - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    Reply to my post #10...

    Looks like I got a little confused with all those numbers, as the difference is the company that makes them, but let me rephrase that question:

    Will the "bridged" PCI-Express card from NVIDIA be any different in concept than ATI PCI-Express released in June? Just trying to understand the significance of the "bridge".

  • Brickster - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    "NVIDIA's bridged PCI-Express cards will launch April 13th along with the AGP versions."

    Call me ignorant, but what is the difference between the June PCI-Express version and a the "bridged" April 13th version?
  • Verdant - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    i think i will have to wait until the XXX edition cards come out :shiftyeyes:
  • sandorski - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    X=10, 10 is +1 from the current 9, 10 is next Generation, X simplifies the name and looks cooler
  • ZobarStyl - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    oops signin post...yeah, that '512 mb revision' gave me a good laugh, considering the fact that 128 mb cards still haven't been put to the limit plus by the time we get 512mb cards wont we have PCIX and are moving bandwidth to the cards twice as fast? That plus GDDR3 seems like they are really pushing every aspect of memory these days even though id rather we get more frequent processor revisions =)
  • grim122 - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    any1 know if these are actual release dates or just paper releases
  • Praeludium - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    Yeah, I agree with you, Spearhawk. If somebody says Xtreme to me one more time, I'm going to snap and bludgeon a marketer with a well-named product for once.

    The thing that jumped out at me immediately was "before the end of the year we also anticipate a 512MB revision." I may be incorrect, but aren't games just now *beginning* to fill up 128 MB of video memory? Why the need for 512 right now? I certainly see the need down the road, but it seems a pointless waste of money for bragging rights, if such a card does come to be.

    Thanks for the update, Kristopher.
  • Spearhawk - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - link

    Anyone else starting to think that using X in the names is geting rediculus?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now