Why would their XT version, the "faster better" of the cards have less ram of the 2, and only 256MB to boot? Are they trying not to succeed?

Why would they be launching the XT with 256MB and the Pro with 512MB? (DDR3 for the XT and DDR2 for the Pro makes sense, but the capacity for the respective models confuses me)

offer higher memory size on a lower speed card?

Why do they keep making cards using GDDR2 memory? It drastically lowers the performance. The only reason I can see for that card is to hope to catch ignorant consumers thinking that because it has more memory it must be better. I hate it when companies release products with the sole purpose of swindling idiot customers.

Is it me or should AMD/ATI be releasing a high end part in February. All the low end and mid rage cards have all been released, right???

While the HD 3870 and 3850 are great releases, I do not see the point of these two cards. $150-$250 is mid range prices, and the 3870/50 offer that. They need to find another option. They are losing fast.

^^ I wouldn't worry about it, these ones are meant to replace the completely useless 2400 and the HTPC-friendly (but useless for games) 2600 series, and my guess is that they'll cost in the ballpark of $60 & 90. These are the kinds of cards that find their way into most OEM "brand name" PCs to people that don't know any better or don't care. But I agree with the above posters that a high-end part is what AMD really needs now...

Who the hell is making these decisions? Ruiz? his last laugh before leaving?

seems weird, lower clock, more memory, slower memory...

maybe they are supposed to be gddr5 on the first one only 256mb to keep costs down, and then gddr3 on the second one, 512mb because the cost is cheaper, for the slower card.

I think it is a typo really as the XT always has the higher better memory. Then again the HD2900Pro was a XT with its core/memory speeds cut but essentially the same card.

skythra, We probably will not see GDDR5 untill late 2008/early 2009 since they just sent out samples for testing a few weeks ago.

But to me ever since AMD bought ATI, they seem to have had a bad strategy like AMD. I think the RV600 itself has a very great architecture and the 512bit bus is nice but they are not using its full potential whether it be the drivers or games. Especially since a 256bit bus HD3870 was able to keep up with the HD2900XT/Pro.

These are low end cards... just like how you see 8600GTs with 1gig of memory on GDDR2. Its just for people who dont play games alot but they are running vista with a big screen and they want all of the settings turned up. Im not saying these are made to compete with 8600GTs I'm just comparing.

seems to me that it may be some kind of cheap chipset for people who don't want to spend much but still want to play games on low resolution at semi-decent quality settings rather then relying on integrated graphics... the current RV670 has a higher number in it so it shouldn't be the lower model hehe

What is ATI thinking are they not looking at the recommended requirements for Crysis 512.
I agree with every comment, it seems like there commiting graphcics card suicide.
Most if not all enthusiasts want performence, it makes no sence to offer a slower core with older memory technology at 512.

Maybe its the 3400 version of the HD 3k series...so its lowend just like the previous 2400s and Nvidia's 8500s but at PCI-E 2.0 and UVD 2.. its coming out at febuary and maybe it is the same kind that will be used on AMD's DX10 integrated graphics solution in their upcoming 780G and 780V Chipsets. Bringing DX10 and HD capabilities to an integrated solution is a thing we need to appriciate them with. So stop ranting because obviously they are not for high and gaming much more as crysis. If you guys are looking for next year's ATI high end it will be the 3870 X2