Ati X950xt

bobmanfoo · Feb 22, 2005

Overclocker550 said:
Then in this case id like to see what its showing for others, anyone? If it shows as 32 bits too when someone else takes the screenshot then its real. If he was gonna fake it, he probably took a screenshot of a real one and just changed the gpu, why would he change the cpu

Avg said:
It could be because it's running in 32bit mode, a athlon 64 doesn't necessarily run at 64bit, it can also run at 32bit that's what's so great about it's 64bitness.

running in Windows XP:

Avg · Feb 22, 2005

bobmanfoo said:
running in Windows XP:

Interesting!!

jokers_greg · Feb 22, 2005

umm guys, thats simply a whole lot of time spent infront of photoshop lol

t_biggs · Feb 22, 2005

So it just mis-reported the Sempron 4000+ as an Athlon 64.

Aphex_Tom_9 · Feb 22, 2005

jokers_greg said:
umm guys, thats simply a whole lot of time spent infront of photoshop lol

eh, probably not too long...
if you have the font and some skill it can be done pretty simply

bobmanfoo · Feb 22, 2005

what are the chances of someone getting a hold of a venice/sandiego chip and an r520?

Overclocker550 · Feb 23, 2005

If he was gonna photoshop, why would he make such a dumb mistake? I still think its got a pretty good chance to be real. That x950xt looks to be one amazing card

Quailane · Feb 23, 2005

That is 100% fake. If it was real, why couldn't he link to the info on futuremark's online result browser? That is so fake it is not even funny. This guy is using technologies in the processor and graphics card that are a long way off. The 90nm SOI chip could be real, as AMD is preparing to release in the near term, but what are the chances this guy has one of those so long before it is out and also a video card that doesn't exist yet?

The guy who posted the pic also said, "Like this load of crap?"

waddupmm · Feb 23, 2005

When I 1st saw the specs I was exited.. Than my excitement soon died down when I thought about how much this card is going to cost and Im really not looking to spend 1k on a vid card

bobmanfoo · Feb 23, 2005

who said its going to be 1k?

waddupmm · Feb 23, 2005

Just a wild guess, itll def be in the 800 dollars range though and thats almost the price of two 6800gt's

bobmanfoo · Feb 23, 2005

you'll never know till they come out, im guessing they will be in the 5-600$ range, and the x850 and x800 series prices will drop

waddupmm · Feb 23, 2005

Well I could be wrong dont get me wrong Im no mrs. cleo (lol) but the highest price x850xtpe is 754 according to newegg and with the new specs I was just making a guess on what they would be 500-600 would be excellant though

bobmanfoo · Feb 23, 2005

hmm i got my x850xtpe for $525

waddupmm · Feb 23, 2005

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-121-532&depa=1 =/

stang8118 · Feb 23, 2005

If the driver was early febuary then how would the driver recognize it as a x950xt? Wouldn't it be some beta driver that only ATI has? Because i know older drivers wouldn't work at all with my old 6600gt (even early 6x.xx drivers)....

This is definatly a fake ^_^

bobmanfoo · Feb 23, 2005

waddupmm said:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-121-532&depa=1 =/

well of course that one is expensive, its an Asus and its retail

felinusz · Feb 24, 2005

Did any of you, whom have commented on this picture, actually read the entire thread that was linked up?

Please tell me that you didn't all look only at that single post/picture and believe it? :-/

A single post like that, with no context (such as, the rest of the poster's comments), is meaningless!

Here are the rest of the posters comments on the picture, which make it clear that he feels the picture is highly questionable:

Judas, DriverHeaven.net forums

Like this load of crap?

{PICTURE}

Judas, DriverHeaven.net forums

Like i said.... someone can open up 3dmark03 or 05 and fiddle with the SI.xml..... change the names and values....

btw... i thought the FX line had more cache?

isn't that a 64 bit 4200+?

Judas, DriverHeaven.net forums

@ 200.7mhz FSB.... that's pressicely 14x multiplier......

I thought it was a 4200+ 64 1mb cache cpu...... maybe it is a FX57.....

I doubt if someone was testing a x950xt would overclock thier cpu as it would just ask for problems. In any case... i wouldn't beleive the above....

GazC, DriverHeaven.net forums

FX chips have their multipliers fully unlocked. An FX-55 is easily capable of doing 2.8Ghz at stock volts. Out of interest, if I down clock to 2.8Ghz and check the CPU in Sandra it gives a PR rating of 4200, more or less. I think that the CPU speed is a red herring that is easily obtainable with any FX-55s and nearly all FX-53s

Judas, DriverHeaven.net forums

hmm... i thought that in 3dmark03 or 05.... the system info would state FX in the cpu info area......

I have bolded the relevant parts, which clearly indicate that the poster believes this picture to be fake.

And here is a link to the thread on the DriverHeaven.net forums, where you can all read the entire conversation, taking that picture in context with the rest of the discussion:

http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?t=68471&page=2&pp=15

deception`` · Feb 24, 2005

Thanks for the information felinusz. Once again, it seems as if individuals are jumping the gun, making wild assumptions based on nothing more than a easily manipulatible screenshot.

deception``

T1Cybernetic · Feb 24, 2005

It makes for a decent discussion! and fake or not it brings inspiration for the future!

Ati X950xt

Disabled

Attachments

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Disabled

Member

Member

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Member

Disabled

Senior Overclocking Magus

Member

Member

Similar threads