Talk:Radeon/Archives/2012

Removed statement about ATI's logic being flawed
It's not necessarily flawed to base your product range on a standard core. It might well be cheap actually and so the article's statement that ATI's logic was flawed is in the least a flawed statement - it might also inspire one to wonder whether the author was truly following an NPOV approach here. Jon Masters (jcm@jonmasters.org)

radeon express
Ati has recently created a chipset with integrated directx9 graphics card. It is called radeon express 200 or some such.--MarSch 14:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Radeon categories
Not sure this page is quite working any longer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce

I've done a LOT of tidy up in the IT sections, and what I think we agreed with NVIDIA, was to turn GeForce into a summary page, because the range was to vast to fit on one page anyway.

I've tended to merge ATI and NVIDA page presentation styles, because the companies are so similar. I'm just getting the feeling that perhaps creating a Radeon x1000 series page, and turning Radeon into a referral / summary page probably makes more sense.

There are going to be more Radeon products, and we're going to have to bite the bullet on this one sometime, so I'm just giving anyone the chance to offer an opinion on it first. Timharwoodx 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Trademark
Why is "CATALYST" shown with a trademark symbol? The article doesn't show "Radeon", "ATI", or other trademarks with trademark symbols. Ken Arromdee 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Radeon classic
I've moved Radeon x800 and x1000 content to sub pages. This page could now be called 'radeon classic.' This is in line with the NVIDIA categorisations, that tend to follow core generations as a grouping methodology. The content was just getting too much for a single page. Timharwoodx 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

needs power consumption ratings
that would be nice. its very rare for a site to have power stats on gpu's. it would make this wiki more valuable:)  anyone know where to get such info?

here are some http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gpu-consumption2006.html http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons.html


 * It would be a massive endeavor to get that data. You'd have to test every GPU out there on an identical setup. You can't take a card and separate it from the system and test it. It must be in a computer. So you aren't going to see this info because nobody has every card out there. The manufacturers don't share this data. Collecting it from various sites would make a table of worthless, uncomparable data because the test bench would not be identical. --Swaaye 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarify on Naming?
It would be nice, just as they've done with the naming numbers, to clarify what each of the suffixes means (xt being better than pro, etc). I would do this myself, though I'm no expert.


 * Good idea; I don't know why it didn't occur to me when I was tidying some things up. Nottheking 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

usefulness?
Is this information particularly useful? Is there anything like the Geforce page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_7_Series ? I can't seem to find anything like that that compares the ATI cards

Alpha FreeBSD Driver Available
Just a quick note updating the FreeBSD section of this page. There is an Alpha-level (read use at your own risk) FreeBSD port of the ATI fglrx driver available. It is 2D only, no 3D acceleration, but it does support TV Out, and full 2D acceleration. Here's a link to a forum post regarding it:, and here's a link to a web page dedicated to it:

XP X64
I have added a way to get a Mobility Radeon driver working in XP X64. This took a considerable amount of effort to find, and I did check Wikipedia before for it. I would have found it extremely useful. I am using an ASUS S96J with a Core 2 Duo and ATI X1600 mobility with Win XP X64. I have the driver working perfectly as described in the changes I made. Hope that's ok with everyone... I do think it should be there; whether or not it should be changed is another issue Dashboardy 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Dashboardy
 * I replaced the URL with the official one. --Edward Sandstig 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think ATI has released drivers for x64, I dont know when they first came out but i am running them right now. 204.52.215.70 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This section needs to be removed. The x64 driver set has been available for some time, and a workaround inciting the use of unsupported third-party tools is unencyclopedic.Setsunakute 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Radeon mobile chip
Could someone add information about ATI's mobile chips? my laptop says it's got a Radeon Mobility M300, I've no idea what chip is actually in there.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfyahya (talk • contribs).


 * Are you sure it says Radeon Mobility M300 and not Mobility Radeon X300? What model laptop is it? Anyway, full list of ATI's mobile chips can be found in the article named Comparison of ATI Graphics Processing Units. --Edward Sandstig 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading?

 * Turion 64 and Intel Core 2 are both fairly recent processors, and are among the first 64-bit mobile processors.

I removed the above because it isn't that true. AMD have had 64 bit mobile processors including in the A64 and Sempron lines before they launched the Turions. From either 2003 or 2004. This was long before Windows x64 was even launched. Of course, AMD wasn't that competitive in the mobile arena before the launch of the Turion so these weren't that common. Perhaps the sentence could be reincluded if it's reworked but IMHO it isn't necessary. It seems to be OR anyway since none of it is referenced Nil Einne 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

PWM section?
Alright can someone who knows something about controls engineering rewrite the PWM section? It seems to be written by someone not familiar with electromechanical systems. Also the reasoning as to why PWM would cause clicking noises is unclear (the PWM actuation method itself cannot inherently cause noises). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chych (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Performance Tables?
It would be nice to see a table which follows the format of the "Table of GMA graphics cores and chipsets" table on the Intel_GMA page, describing DirectX support, number of pixel pipelines, etc. on each card so that, even if someone were to come across the table with no knowledge of graphics hardware, they could still see some level of comparison. My apologies for the lack of proper wikification of my comment, I don't really go in for editing wikis.

Warning about removing notion on Mac OS X not having DirectX support.
I will remove the mentioning of Mac OS X not having DirectX support friday 18th of january 2008 (one week from now) unless someone can give a good reason why it needs to be here and provide a quote where Apple directly says that they want DirectX in Mac OS X, but that Microsoft won't allow it (which is actually not a hindrance to Apple).FrederikHertzum (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New documentation drops
r5xx 3-D acceleration on Feb 22, r6xx 3-D acceleration on Feb 28 and r3xx 3-D registers on March 14. I suggest updating the Opensource drivers section so I tagged it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiri Svoboda (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Third-Party Manufactuer Information
I know such information may sound unencyclopedic, but mentioning the the clock differences between the standard and third-party versions of each card could be quite useful for customers of older models, looking for the best bang for their buck, and even if only the most well-known third-party versions were added, I would still be be glad, and so would many others, I'm sure.

IGP?
This article uses the term "IGP" in several places but nowhere defines it. Could we please define it at first usage or make it link to our appropriate article? I assume that it refers to Integrated Graphics Processor but am not sure. -- 189.122.20.64 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ 217.28.13.31 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No of shaders
Does anyone know what this column in the tables is intended to purvey? I think it's more likely to be something like shader proportion, but that doesn't entirely make sense either. 217.28.13.31 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OpenGL version support on 38xx/48xx
the actual version of OpenGL support on 3870 and 4870 does not appear to be as fixed as you put it at 3.2, only the company's own website states that it supports 3.2 (which seems to be identical to the same support as 4870) but their motives are obvious, on the other hand, everywhere else except the company's own website the actually indicated version of OpenGL support on 3870 as well as 4870 appears to be at 2.0: http://hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_3870_and_3850_55nm_RV670/ http://www1.sapphiretech.com/us/products/products_overview.php?gpid=209 http://hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_4850_and_4870_RV770_Has_Arrived/ http://hothardware.com/Articles/Diamond-Radeon-HD-4870-X2-XOC/ http://www.rbmods.com/Articles/Asus/4870_TOP/1.php http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_hd_5850_performance_preview/ http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/VGA/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2857 http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102810

and you can easily find 100's more sites if you search for "radeon 4870/3870 hardware opengl support" that will tell the same story - that 3870 support only OpenGL version 2.0, some sites indicate that 4870 supports version 2.1 while other indicate the same as 3870 at version 2.0, only the 5xxx series of cards indicate OpenGL version 3.2 in places OTHER THAN the company's own website !

the column indicating OpenGL support is misleading and most certainly written by using the wrong sources of information - how could it possibly support OpenGL 3.2 if OpenGL 3.x only exists less than a year ago, while these cards were creased 2.5/1.5 years ago ?!

this errors also shows on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R600 which is also wrong since that is too impossible for those that may argue that the version difference is not significant in practice for the cards either way - I do not see wikipedia as a marketing machine for companies rather only for accuracy of information.

I recommend the version of OpenGL support for these cards be more investigated corefully instead of just copied from the company's website (as that would be the least reliable source of information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.226.79 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Radeon HD 6000 series
Considering that the 6870 and 6850 have been released, we should probably add something about the R6000 series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.156.188 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation
is the e really silent, rade-on, like "radon gas"? — kwami (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I've updated the IPA. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Games as Examples
When naming Games as examples in the Nomenclature section the chip series should be included to not get out of date. Maybe just say that it is relative to the games on market at the release of that chip series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.242.83 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)