Talk:Radeon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
This article contains a few inconsistencies. Some of the words and more techincal terms should provide links to relevant articles. Words should only be wikified once. Some things also need a little more explanation. Parts of the article are inaccessible to people without knowledge of graphics hardware. For example: "The Radeon and Geforce differed in 3D-pipeline configuration (2x3 vs 4x2, respectively)". There should be an explanation, or at least a relevant link to what a 3D-pipeline configuration is. 85.165.9.238 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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 ...
