Hardware AMD details Radeon HD 6000M series

AMD has outed the specs of its Radeon HD 6000M series of mobile GPUs ahead of CES.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/01/04/amd-radeon-hd-6000m/1

 

i would be happy with ~ 9800 performance with Low power draw but there is little comparison ever done between desktop and Laptop Components

I.e how does the MSI GX740 compare to my gaming machine

 

So, anything below 6500m is pretty worthless as gaming chips....

From what i can see the 6500m is about equal to my 4850 (bandwidth terms), although it is DX11...

 

I think my Mobility 5650 is a nice GPU, curious to see how this cuts out against it.

 

is this right? do you have any benches

 

How could i have benchmarks on a product that isnt even on sale yet????......

When it comes to GPU performance, Bandwidth is everything..my desktop 4850 has 64GB of Memory Bandwidth, this new 6500m has 57GB...

You work it out......

 

Hmm, thing is, if they're using the new kind of shaders (clusters of 4) would it be more SPUs or less? Because a rough comparison to Nvidia's SPU count would be dramatically different if it was in 4s.

 

Performance gained from doubling bandwidth is ~16%. That's hardly spectacular compared to a reasonable bump in core architecture, granted matching capabilities of both is key.

Just out of curiosity, are we to assume 6400 is Caicos, 6600/6700 are (perhaps neutered) Turks? Sure looks like it, and they're both 5D (as expected.)

With Llano coming, half of this stack will be close-enough to redundant in AMD laptops (unless people want to crossfire with these parts, making a respectable gaming laptop) later in the year. I guess we know their true purpose though, eh?

6900 is Barts. Wow, that's a big ol' clock dump to make it (6850) mobile capable.

I'm personally gonna wait for the 192-bit half-of-whatever-Cayman's-successor-is before upgrading my laptop. Pair it with a Trinity and we could have some pretty bad-ass mobile setups......................................in 2012.

 

I'd be interested to see the difference in gaming power between the 6300M and the built in Sandybridge GPU's.
It may give us an idea about Fusion performance in the future.

 

It would be fewer SPUs for a given performance target, but these are supposedly the older VLIW5 shaders (which is fine, assuming they're really 6000-series chips).

 

I see, I just wanted a simple metric.

Of course the performance can't really be gauged seeing as the Barts core was quite impressive in terms of performance anyhow.

 

The 4850 has 800 stream processors versus the 400 much newer and improved stream processors on the 6500M, all things said and done I'd give the slight advantage to the 4850 performance wise. That's still great for a mid range mobile GPU which has DX11 support, morphological AA etc.

 

Hmm improvements in the mid range (6500m looks good but only if it uses GDDR5) whilst the high end looks like a incremental jump rather than a revolution. The 256bit memory interface on the 69xx mobility looks to be the only real jump over the previous gen.

It is slightly disappointing when you consider that the HD58xx mobility series were barely faster than the HD48xx mobility series they replaced.

I was really hoping to see at least 1120 shaders (HD6870) in the top end mobility GPU as the mobility lineup is starting to get left behind by the desktop line-up.

What really annoys me though is that with the HD48xx mobility line-up ATI/AMD proved they were able to take the full GPU and shoehorn it into a mobility package. Since then though despite seeing desktop GPUS get more efficient (Cypress vs RV770) the mobility lineup got a mere incremental DX update rather than a true performance improvement (800SP Juniper Part was made into the HD5870m and HD5850m).

 

Well xaser the HD58xx needed to use the lower end chip so it wouldn't melt the casing..or so I think.

that or they couldn't be bothered to make a more powerful GPU. However with that said, the Cypress core had really diminishing returns compared to the Barts and Cayman cores anyways so the smaller SP count is irrelevant given the better arch.