ATI's RV530 aka Radeon X1600

Targetting the upper midrange is the Radeon X1600 (RV530), built on the same 90nm process as the Radeon X1800 (R520). All of these RV530 series and lower are single slot products, according to the roadmaps.

ATI RV530 Roadmap
Card Pipes Std Core Clock Std Memory Power Consumption
X1600 XT 12 600MHz 700MHz 60W
X1600 Pro 12 500MHz 400MHz 40W

Radeon X1600 will actually be very similar to X1800LE, but with a smaller internal bus (256-bits) and a smaller memory bus (128-bits). The X1600 cards also have H.264 support like the R520 series.

Like X600, there will be many vendor dependent options for the cards. The configuration roadmap allows for DDR1, DDR2 or GDDR3 in both the XT and Pro cards, with memory sizes ranging anywhere from 128MB to 512MB. In fact, we even have claims from one manufacturer that they will produce 64-bit versions of the card en masse; so potential buyers will need to be wary of buying Radeon X1600 Pro cards with the smaller bus (like with the Radeon 9800SE). Another noteable is the support for HDCP and HDMI on many cards. Also, like with the GeForce 7800 series, vendors are allowed (perhaps even encouraged?) to bin chips for higher clock speeds. We've received reports from AIBs that some RV530 Pro cards will ship with 525MHz clock speeds even though the roadmap indicates 500MHz is the standard configuration.

Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of RV530 is the low power consumption. Reference 64-bit boards of RV530 using GDDR3 at 500MHz core clock speeds have a power consumption of just 25W. 128-bit boards were estimated at 40W and X1600XT boards with all the goodies were estimated by AIBs to be 55W.

Index RV515 and other Tidbits
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • Cybercat - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    This is false. There are actually quite a few improvements and optimizations to the efficiency of the engine in the R420 over the original R300 architecture. The basic principle and design is still there, but you have to take into account other smaller features that make no small difference altogether. Reply
  • Jep4444 - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    either way the level of improvements made from R300 to R420 since they are based upon the same architecture is likely to be smaller than that from R420 to R520, also factor in the move to SM3.0(and consequently the move from FP24 to FP16/32) and we'll definitely see changes in performance on a pipeline level Reply
  • arturnow - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    no, you're tring to tell me, that 32 pipeline card will always be better then 16 pipeline and it's not true :] In that way making R520 16-pipeline would be suicide :] Reply
  • KHysiek - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    Before game devs bumb up game requirements to these absurdal prices. Reply
  • wien - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    Any game-dev that did that, would be a complete idiot. The graphics high-end account for a small fraction of the market. Why whould they make a game only for that small fraction, when they can lower the requirements, and sell millions upon millions? Reply
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    That sums it up, used to be 6 months after a top of line card was released, you can get it for $200. Now if you look at it you will see you have OVER a year to get that same price vs performance.


    Seems like ATI and Nvidia are going backwards imo...who cares about performance when its adding %30+ onto a cost of a PC to build. The whole idea about hardware is that even if performance doubles, price should not.
    A case in point, i run a 9700 Pro, used to be the best card, when it first came out it was $350, i got mine for $120 about 6months after launch. When your best card now is topping out around $500-600, and 6 MONTHS after release your seeing less than $20 than that something is wrong

    Just my 2 cents
    Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, September 15, 2005 - link

    Totally agree. Prices are ridiculous. Reply
  • AnnoyedGrunt - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    I have a hard time believing you got a 9700pro for $120 six months after launch, unless you bought it used.

    I got a 9700pro in Jan 2004 for $180-190 (purchased thru newegg), and that was more than a year after launch if I recall correctly.

    Aside from that minor quibble, I do agree with your overall point. It does seem as though the vendors are much more slow in lowering the price of previous gen "high-end" cards to bring them to the mid range. Instead, they release faster cards that are also much more expensive.

    I will admit that I got my first 2nd and third 3d card (Voodoo 1, GF 1 SDR, GF3 Ti200) for about $200 each. The first two cards were definitely high end at the time, while the GF3 was second in line to the Ti500. It does seen somewhat odd that graphics cards are about the only computer compenent that has seemed to get higher and higher in price, instead of lower and lower like most other parts. On the other hand, I think the performance of the GPU has increased at a greater rate than that of the CPU over the last few years, so maybe the higher cost is somewhat justified (but it definitely is annoying).

    I'm currently using an X800XL which I bought for $300 when they first arrived, and I don't plan on upgrading for at least another year, so I'll be interested in the next, next gen from NV and ATI.

    -D'oh!
    Reply
  • 100proof - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    I'm of the same opinion.. It used to be the CPU was the most expensive part of an build from a buyers standpoint, but over the past three years that has changed entirely.. Video cards manufacturers have consistently increased prices to the point that it's not affordable for most people to purchase a current generation card.. If ATi and Nvidia think that they continue this present trend of pushing MSRPs to new levels, they'll eventually find they've priced themselves out of most consumer's budgets.. Reply
  • Sh0ckwave - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - link

    The fastest CPUs are still more expensive then the fastest graphics cards though (4800 X2 $880, FX57 $1000). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now