Talk:Radeon 200 series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested Move[edit]

hey guys, I could use some suggestions as to what we should rename this article, since amd will be changing their naming scheme to R5 200 Series, R7 200 Series, R9 200 Series, so on and so forth...

here are a few suggestions, Radeon R-200 Series, Radeon R5/R7/R9 200 Series, Volcanic Islands Series.. Matthew Smith (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series update[edit]

I might also add that the VI GPU generation will not be targeting an $999 ultra-enthusiast segment but will focus more on the enthusiast segment. AMD has confirmed the new die will be at 28nm instead as 20nm, as rumors have noted. "At 28nm for an enthusiast GPU, we can achieve higher clock speeds and higher absolute performance." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/09/16/exclusive-interview-amds-matt-skynner-talks-new-radeon-cards-next-gen-consoles-7990-criticism/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.86.207 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

release and title, etc[edit]

after much indecisiveness, I think e have the best title now. it was just released today, so sources will probably take a few days to catch up. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I titled it AMD radeon simply to differentiate it from the ATi Radeon R200 better than the previous title did. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chipset table: R9 270X specs seem wrong[edit]

Seems like someone used the old Pitcairn data for the new Curacao XT chip in the chipset table. According to the table, the DP power of the 270X is only 168 GFLOPS. But realistic data (from the litecoin mining hardware comparison table, I picked average looking values as example) suggests more like 660 GFLOPS. My reasoning: 270X does 470kHashes/s, 280X "only" 720kHashes. As hashing depends on DP performance, the 270X should have something in the magnitude of 470/720 * 1024 GFLOPS = 660GFLOPS, which is way more than the 168 GFLOPS Wikipedia lists for the Curacao XT. --88.134.104.30 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I remember reading somewhere that the Curacao XT got a fully enabled DP unit, similiar to the one in Tahiti chips. This would result in 2560/4 = 640 GFLOPS, which is close to my numerical guess. But I can't seem to find a dependable reference [neither for 160 nor 640 GFLOPS). --88.134.104.30 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R9 295X2 - Specs a fact or speculative?[edit]

Since the R9 295X2 is still under NDA, shouldn't the specs listed still be considered as rumors and not as a fact? There is no reference linked. 82.212.5.184 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: I'd say grain of salt it the information is contradicting it's self. For instance there reporting a TDP of 500W but with dual 8 pin connectors that is not possible. A 8 pin allows for 150W X2 = 300W + 75W(PCI express slot power) = Max 375W With dual 8 pin.

3x8 pin would allow for 525W which is the only setup that would allow for a 500W card.

Also all the info seems to have originated from 1 source & been reprinted by multiple sites siting that same source. There information only matches each other because they all coppied the one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.76.132 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AMD Radeon Rx 200 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCL 1.2 or 2.x conformance[edit]

https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products#opencl

AMD is not Up to Date like Intel and Nvidia with their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.229.220 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terascale only OpenCL 1.2, GCN 1st only 1.2 with some Extensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:1111:9393:62E0:7C6B (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan 1.0 for all GCN based with Actual Driver Crimson 16.3 and higher[edit]

Some GCN-Cards here only OpenGL 4.3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:A4D9:2425:3402:C2F7 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vulkan 1.1 only for GCN 1.2 (2nd gen.) or higher[edit]

Vulkan 1.1 only for GCN 1.2 (2nd gen.) or higher See Khronos Vulkan product Table. No Vulkan 1.1 for 1st GCN gen.

See https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products/vulkan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.228.17 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GCN 1.1 or 1st gen in Khronos are not conformant to Vulkan 1.1. They are only compatible to the Driver with Vulkan 1.0 as a Subset. it is the Same for OpenCL. Only OpenCL 2.x Cards can Do Vulkan 1.1 and that is GCN 1.2 and higher.

See also OpenCL in Khronos See [1]

Nvidia is here better. Kepler and higher can Do Vulkan 1.1. All products of the Last years can Do it and not only half. In OpenCL they are less good with OpenCL 1.2+.

References

  1. ^ https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products/opencl

Vulkan 1.2 available for GCN 1.2 Equal 2nd Gen and higher in Windows and Linux Mesa 20.0[edit]

See sheet 457+ in https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products/vulkan

See https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-20-1-2

See new Features in https://mesa3d.org/relnotes/20.0.0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:3485:2101:7045:2013:7210:742C (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the names of the Radeon RX 200 and RX 300 series are misspelled[edit]

The articles about the Radeon RX 200 and Radeon RX 300 series are misspelled. They are currently like this:

Radeon Rx 200 series and Radeon Rx 300 series

But they should be like this:

Radeon RX 200 series and Radeon RX 300 series

Can we rename those articles and replace all "Rx" with "RX"?

OdorlessBasil98 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)OdorlessBasil98[reply]

You are confusing the current marketing terms (Radeon RX ...), with the (then used) wikipedia naming scheme. The small x here actually refers to AMD Radeon R5/R7/R9 200 / 300 series, hence Radeon Rx 200 series. (see intro of article). I agree its no optimal. But by no means it should be renamed to RX. Wikiinger (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell did they insist on using it, Also, did anyone read that "returned to normal" statement regarding price and availability? I mean, I wish it were true 2601:681:300:43A0:CCD:7265:F22C:2397 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radeon_200_series&oldid=1204985787"