AMD Fury series coming soon.

Nirad9er said:
So the 390x is basically a 980 for $120 cheaper. Lol I smell a 980 price drop as well.
Click to expand...

And the Fury Pro looks to be, if those benches are to be believed, 15% faster than a 980 for just $50 more.
 
TDSlam720 said:
390 series is for mainstream gamers. These are enthusiasts cards. Plenty of enthusiasts game at 4k.
Click to expand...

not at all

I'm an enthusiast, and i game at 1080p.

I STILL cant get a solid 60fps on every game at max settings with my 290.

Im hoping the Fury will do that.

And games aren't getting less power hungry.

Add all the other GCN 1.2 goodies, and it a no brainer even at 1080p
 
The Mac said:
not at all

im an enthusient, and i game at 1080p.

I STILL cant get a solid 60fps on everygame at max settings with my 290.

Im hoping the Fury will do that.

Add all the other GCn 1.2 goodies, and it a no braider even at 1080p
Click to expand...

Wouldn't really call yourself an enthusiast if you're using a 290 in 2015 to game at 1080 P.
 
Imagine crossfire fury nano performance - beyond 2x R9 290x for half the power consumption.

Could be a miner's dream if anyone is still into that.
 
Yeah, apparently to some here "enthusiast" means being in the top 1% of disposable income, and has nothing to do with hardware tweaking.:rolleyes:
 
griff30 said:
Nvidia fanbois feeling butthurt?
Click to expand...

Why would Nvidia fans be butthurt? Only spot where AMD clearly wins if those benchmarks are somewhat accurate is the Fury vs the 980. Fury X vs 980 ti is still up for debate, and you get the extra 2 GB ram with the ti. Guessing 970 will still be king of the 300 dollar range as well.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Why would Nvidia fans be butthurt? Only spot where AMD clearly wins if those benchmarks are somewhat accurate is the Fury vs the 980. Fury X vs 980 ti is still up for debate, and you get the extra 2 GB ram with the ti. Guessing 970 will still be king of the 300 dollar range as well.
Click to expand...

Huh? Your bench shows the Fury outpacing the 980 ti in most tests.
 
Only if u game at 1080p would u be butthurt. Anything above 1440 is debatable. At 4k and above for variety of games 980ti wins. Would only be worse if vram for the game is low like witcher 3. Thats if the benches are true. But we know vram is an issue at high resolution so 4 gb of even hbm is still limited
 
I, for one, cannot understand why some of you seem to not get what the difference between GDDR5 and HBM is. AMD is using 4GB of HBM, not GDDR5. HBM is something like 9x faster than the fastest GDDR5. We now know the memory bus is 4096 bits, not 384 or 512 bit. This all means memory bandwidth out the a**.

I get that we don't yet have real benches, but it's not about 6GB vs 8GB vs 4GB vram anymore...
 
heflys20 said:
Huh? Your bench shows the Fury outpacing the 980 ti in most tests.
Click to expand...

UHD Fury X gets a few hundred irrelevant points higher than a 980ti, which is most likely a reference ti. The custom 980Tis are already showing huge improvement over reference,and who knows what water cooled ones will bring. Getting a few hundred points with a water cooled product vs reference air make me yawn. That's with sacrificing 2GB VRAM , which if you read HardOCPs latest review of the 980ti, they clearly state 4GB isn't enough for 4k.
 
caw2007 said:
I, for one, cannot understand why some of you seem to not get what the difference between GDDR5 and HBM is. AMD is using 4GB of HBM, not GDDR5. HBM is something like 9x faster than the fastest GDDR5. We now know the memory bus is 4096 bits, not 384 or 512 bit. This all means memory bandwidth out the a**.

I get that we don't yet have real benches, but it's not about 6GB vs 8GB vs 4GB vram anymore...
Click to expand...

If a game uses more than 4 gb it will take it from syatem memory and have unplayable stutter because it will be like 3.5 gb + 0.5 gb but worse since system memory is even slower. Unless drivers provide some sort of memory management (doubtful) so that it doesn't matter or sli stack memory
 
caw2007 said:
I, for one, cannot understand why some of you seem to not get what the difference between GDDR5 and HBM is. AMD is using 4GB of HBM, not GDDR5. HBM is something like 9x faster than the fastest GDDR5. We now know the memory bus is 4096 bits, not 384 or 512 bit. This all means memory bandwidth out the a**.

I get that we don't yet have real benches, but it's not about 6GB vs 8GB vs 4GB vram anymore...
Click to expand...

That's not how it works broski. HBM might have 4096 bits but it's only clocked at 1Ghz rather than around 6Ghz. So it's really only around 1.4x's faster. Not 9x's.
 
Oh what's this? :D
lI1PJWD.jpg
 
Last edited:
TDSlam720 said:
UHD Fury X gets a few hundred irrelevant points higher than a 980ti, which is most likely a reference ti. The custom 980Tis are already showing huge improvement over reference,and who knows what water cooled ones will bring. Getting a few hundred points with a water cooled product vs reference air make me yawn. That's with sacrificing 2GB VRAM , which if you read HardOCPs latest review of the 980ti, they clearly state 4GB isn't enough for 4k.
Click to expand...

HardOCP states 4GB of GDDR5 isn't enough for 4k they cannot make a claim that 4GB of HBM isn't enough because they haven't tested it

also

Tweaktown disagrees
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/89/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k/index.html
 
caw2007 said:
I, for one, cannot understand why some of you seem to not get what the difference between GDDR5 and HBM is. AMD is using 4GB of HBM, not GDDR5. HBM is something like 9x faster than the fastest GDDR5. We now know the memory bus is 4096 bits, not 384 or 512 bit. This all means memory bandwidth out the a**.

I get that we don't yet have real benches, but it's not about 6GB vs 8GB vs 4GB vram anymore...
Click to expand...

Bingo! HBM is a HUGE leap over DDR5!

We could have 32GB of DDR3 instead of 4 GB of DDR5. Not sure anyone would willingly choose that Huge 32 GB DDR3 over 4GB of DDR5.

Similar situation is happening for HBM over DDR5.
 
TDSlam720 said:
390 series is for mainstream gamers. These are enthusiasts cards. Plenty of enthusiasts game at 4k.
Click to expand...


4k is silly to me until Displayport 1.3 and next gen GPU's come out. As a gamer, I don't want to look at any resolution at a garbage refresh rate.
 
pgaster said:
If the 3D Mark results are correct, then it shows that 4GB is fine for these cards up to 4k, but not beyond. That is fine for this generation of cards considering that 4K isn't even the mainstream yet.
Click to expand...

All it shows is that 4gb is fine for firestrike at 4k. It does not and can not show that 4gb is fine for any game out now, or to come in the future at 4k. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't. It doesn't concern me too much as like most people I am well below 4k.

Don't extrapolate from canned benchmarks. Gets you into all sorts of trouble.
 
@Lorien
Where did you get that pic?
Also, I will trade an internal organ of your choice for the content of that photo mailed to my house
 
I can already tell I need to ignore this thread.

Just a reminder, HBM is approximately 1.4x's faster than GDDR5. This speed increase means nothing if you have to page over the PCIe bus which we will see if it matters in crossfire benches.

I'll come back when we have actual data...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top