390X coming soon few weeks

WCCF article for the real rumor hunters :p

An exert from the article:
The top most Grenada, which is a Hawaii based rebrand with 8 GB VRAM has already been unveiled by Powercolor and we had some sights at the card that confirm it is nothing more than a rebadged Hawaii with clock speed bumps and 8 GB GDDR5 VRAM. There are no architectural improvements but these non-reference designs will push performance a bit higher than the current Radeon R9 290 (X) based cards.
Click to expand...
 
filip said:
WCCF article for the real rumor hunters :p
Click to expand...
Based on the new heatsink and the 8+8 pin rumor yesterday these cards are going to use more power than the 290X.

edit: Might be wrong about the heatsink, looks identical to the 290X with a new shroud.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Based on the new heatsink and the 8+8 pin rumor yesterday these cards are going to use more power than the 290X.

edit: Might be wrong about the heatsink, looks identical to the 290X with a new shroud.
Click to expand...

It looks like they will be re-brands with no changes to the architecture at all that is probably why we saw that 390x a while ago, now we just have to wait for the pricing.
 
filip said:
An exert from the article:

The top most Grenada, which is a Hawaii based rebrand with 8 GB VRAM has already been unveiled by Powercolor and we had some sights at the card that confirm it is nothing more than a rebadged Hawaii with clock speed bumps and 8 GB GDDR5 VRAM. There are no architectural improvements but these non-reference designs will push performance a bit higher than the current Radeon R9 290 (X) based cards.
Click to expand...
Not saying it's false, but they're definitely making that up.
PowerColor showed a 290X at Computex. And they certainly wouldn't tell WCCFTech anything about the 390X's specs. I don't think anyone from WCCF even went to Computex.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Not saying it's false, but they're definitely making that up.
PowerColor showed a 290X at Computex. And they certainly wouldn't tell WCCFTech anything about the 390X's specs.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but the way this is shaping up it is hard to believe that the 390/390x will not just be the 290/290x with higher clocks and memory. About a week left to find out but I feel disappointment coming in regards to the price related to the product.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Korean post from HWBattle translated...
The most anticipated new product from AMD is Fury, and following what has been previously mentioned here, the Fury lineup will consist of three models. These models are Fury Nano, Fury XT, and Fury Pro.

- The Fury series will first come in reference models and both water-cooled and air-cooled products will be released. Non-reference models will come to market as early as mid-August or as late as early September. For the next month or more, only reference models will be released.
- As expected, the supply of reference models will be limited.
- We believe that the AMD Fury series is sufficiently competitive with the TITAN X and the GTX 980 Ti.
- AMD Fury will have a GPU and memory on top of a small interposer, so the concentrated heat from the interposer region looks unsatisfactory concerning the TDP, but in the reference models this problem is limited.
- The heat from the cooler is of a high level (like the TITAN X), but the noise level is of no concern.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So Fury is "sufficiently competitive with Titan X and 980 Ti" now lol

Also glad they took the gold rings out of that leaked XFX card, just made it look way too gaudy.

DPI said:
That said, it *would* be nice if AMD's upcoming offerings put some pressure on Nvidia. But their silence paints that possibility as increasingly dim.
Click to expand...

Silence might very well be the best option right now:

if AMD released just paper specs without benchmarks, that could backfire very badly as well. If the paper specs were awesome and out of this world, we'll be wondering why they didn't post actual performance numbers, so it could create an even higher suspicion they had a dud on their hands. And if they leak both paper specs and performance numbers they might as well just do a proper launch anyway. So really what people are saying is AMD should push up their paper launch by 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
 
You know I just had a thought. All these rumors about Fury's performance relative to 980 Ti and Titan X, could they actually be talking about two different Fury's?

We know there's a Fury Pro and Fury XT. Is it possible Fury Pro is slower than 980 Ti and the one that needs tweaking? While Fury Nano is the one that's "sufficiently competitive" and is basically the $849 "Titan X killer" card originally rumored about?
 
Liger88 said:
You could blame the consumer, Nvidia, or AMD for the situation.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd ever buy a thousand-dollar video card, but I don't resent those people who do. For some people, dropping $1,000 for a GPU is the financial equivalent of me going over to the convenience store and plopping down a couple bucks for a Snickers bar.

The Titan is not for me. I'm more of the x70 bracket and I don't buy often. Somehow I don't feel slighted that Titan is not a $300 video card. Then again I don't really feel entitled to experiencing the fruit of all that engineering labor for cheap.

How would you feel if your employer complained every day about how much he was paying you? "Ohhh it's not fair. He should be making thousands less..."

The trickle down performance effect has been much less than what it has been in the past. Maybe it's just out of the realm of completely laughable, but you're not going to sell many people on it being a worthy upgrade when we look at upgrades in terms of at least 2 generations. As a budget "gaming" card it's doing just enough to not be laughed off like the 980, which speaks volumes about how good Nvidia's strategy is.
Click to expand...

They also didn't have the benefit of a node shrink like previous generations. What are you going to do about that? We're starting to hit on some technological limitations. NVIDIA also said that two-thirds of their x60 consumers are on 660, 560, or 460... and they only upgrade every 2-4 years. So for many of them it could have been a worthy upgrade. Nvidia was smart to release something fresh for this segment rather than just rebadging a 760.


Besides... a 960 is faster than a 780 Ti.....



(...in Witcher 3.)
 
filip said:
It looks like they will be re-brands with no changes to the architecture at all that is probably why we saw that 390x a while ago, now we just have to wait for the pricing.
Click to expand...
Nobody here has any clue whether or not the 390X is going to be a 'rebadge' or not. Just because it appears physically similar to the 290X doesn't mean AMD didn't make improvements to the GPU itself.

Everybody is so quick to jump to conclusions...
 
Creig said:
Nobody here has any clue whether or not the 390X is going to be a 'rebadge' or not. Just because it appears physically similar to the 290X doesn't mean AMD didn't make improvements to the GPU itself.

Everybody is so quick to jump to conclusions...
Click to expand...
The driver leak last week pretty much confirms they are rebrands.
How much can you do to a GPU and keep the same device ID?

Maybe it was just incomplete info, like a placeholder.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
The driver leak last week pretty much confirms they are rebrands.
How much can you do to a GPU and keep the same device ID?

Maybe it was just incomplete info, like a placeholder.
Click to expand...

Given that pretty much every card release is accompanied by either a same day driver release, or sometimes a future patch (one before the public can download it), the placeholder ID could be a real possibility. Then they just have to replace the code with the correct ID at launch. Furthermore this driver (that I bet hits next week or just before cards are available) will probably be the next non-beta driver which is a bit overdue.
 
n=1 said:
You know I just had a thought. All these rumors about Fury's performance relative to 980 Ti and Titan X, could they actually be talking about two different Fury's?

We know there's a Fury Pro and Fury XT. Is it possible Fury Pro is slower than 980 Ti and the one that needs tweaking? While Fury Nano is the one that's "sufficiently competitive" and is basically the $849 "Titan X killer" card originally rumored about?
Click to expand...

I'm rationalizing here, but this is the scenario in which I can reconcile all the rumors.

The original rumors about the full chip (Fiji XT) edging out Titan X may well still be true (even if just at 4K), but 980 Ti threw AMD for a loop because they'll now have to do something with the cut down chip Fiji Pro.

In all likelihood AMD expected a 980 Ti to be 7-10% slower than Titan X like 780 was vs the original Titan. But now since 980 Ti is only 3% slower to Titan X, they'll have to adjust the price or performance on Fiji Pro, or more likely both. Hence why we have rumors AMD is scrambling to tweak clocks and drivers, but those are likely referring to the cut down chip.
 
n=1 said:
In all likelihood AMD expected a 980 Ti to be 7-10% slower than Titan X like 780 was vs the original Titan. But now since 980 Ti is only 3% slower to Titan X, they'll have to adjust the price or performance on Fiji Pro, or more likely both. Hence why we have rumors AMD is scrambling to tweak clocks and drivers, but those are likely referring to the cut down chip.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a good call, hopefully AMD can do the same thing with Fury that Nvidia did with the 980 Ti. Boost clocks to make up for those lost shaders.
If they're still working on the GPU then I doubt it will be for sale any time this month. Can drivers alter vbios?
 
Michaelius said:
You shouldn't judge people by your own standards.

That makes you mistake cause with effect. I'm not anti-AMD. I'm anti anyone who produces shitty products.

If Intel was making 16 core Netburst Pentium VIII today versus AMD making 4 cores high IPC cpus I'd be advising Amd cpus to everyone.

If AMD had better GPU like they had with 9700 pro or 4850 I'd be advising it to people.



Nvidia is a reason we have 144Hz displays, strobing and VRR today



Sorry I buy for measured results not fancy tech below hood.
Click to expand...

Wrong asus is the reason we got 144hz monitors.
 
n=1 said:
I'm rationalizing here, but this is the scenario in which I can reconcile all the rumors.

The original rumors about the full chip (Fiji XT) edging out Titan X may well still be true (even if just at 4K), but 980 Ti threw AMD for a loop because they'll now have to do something with the cut down chip Fiji Pro.

In all likelihood AMD expected a 980 Ti to be 7-10% slower than Titan X like 780 was vs the original Titan. But now since 980 Ti is only 3% slower to Titan X, they'll have to adjust the price or performance on Fiji Pro, or more likely both. Hence why we have rumors AMD is scrambling to tweak clocks and drivers, but those are likely referring to the cut down chip.
Click to expand...

That makes the most sense out of over 4000 posts.

You win a cookie
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Yeah that's a good call, hopefully AMD can do the same thing with Fury that Nvidia did with the 980 Ti. Boost clocks to make up for those lost shaders.
If they're still working on the GPU then I doubt it will be for sale any time this month. Can drivers alter vbios?
Click to expand...

No drivers can't alter vbios.

If details on Fiji Pro is suspiciously scarce at E3 then we have our answer. Or maybe 2 weeks is enough. Or rumors are just rumors lol
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Yeah the pictures are pasted over an old 290X spec page.
Hawaii rebrand confirmed!
Click to expand...

If it has Hawaii core, but the new 285 feature set, then it's not a rebadge. The 285 is very efficient because of it's newer architecture. Of course it could just be a rebadge. :)
 
its looking less and less like a respin.

most unfortunate.

i would gladly upgrade my Hawaii pro vapor-x if the 390 is gcn 1.2.

better tess performance, PLP eyefinity, 4K VSR - yes please.
 
The Mac said:
its looking less and less like a respin.

most unfortunate.

i would gladly upgrade my Hawaii pro vapor-x if the 390 is gcn 1.2.

better tess performance, PLP eyefinity, 4K VSR - yes please.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't have the 290x vapor-x- that thing is a beauty. That 10-phase power on the back is killer. I would put that card up as a show piece.
 
The Mac said:
its looking less and less like a respin.

most unfortunate.

i would gladly upgrade my Hawaii pro vapor-x if the 390 is gcn 1.2.

better tess performance, PLP eyefinity, 4K VSR - yes please.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll be disappointed if it's literally just a rebadged Hawaii. They've had close 18 months to come up with a better architecture, and they already have newer variants of GCN in production with Tonga. It would have been a great play.
 
Rizen said:
Yeah, I'll be disappointed if it's literally just a rebadged Hawaii. They've had close 18 months to come up with a better architecture, and they already have newer variants of GCN in production with Tonga. It would have been a great play.
Click to expand...
Maybe the 390, 390X, and Fury cards are all based on Fiji.
Given Hawaii's massive failure (especially against Maxwell) I could see AMD abandoning it entirely. HBM would make that more complicated (or impossible)... to adapt the lower-end chips to GDDR5.

It would make sense though, then the 380X and 380 would be Tonga. The entire line-up would be GCN 1.2 or 1.3, aside from Pitcairn.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Maybe the 390, 390X, and Fury cards are all based on Fiji.
Given Hawaii's massive failure (especially against Maxwell) I could see AMD abandoning it entirely. HBM would make that more complicated (or impossible)... to adapt the lower-end chips to GDDR5.

It would make sense though, then the 380X and 380 would be Tonga. The entire line-up would be GCN 1.2 or 1.3, aside from Pitcairn.
Click to expand...
How was Hawaii a failure? It came out in fall of 2013 and it's still a pretty competitive chip here nearly 2 years later. If you mean failure to sell, maybe. The biggest problem was the reference coolers being crap, which tainted the customer perception at launch. A respun Hawaii with GCN 1.2 would actually be a pretty good mid-range chip right now.
 
Rizen said:
How was Hawaii a failure? It came out in fall of 2013 and it's still a pretty competitive chip here nearly 2 years later. If you mean failure to sell, maybe. The biggest problem was the reference coolers being crap, which tainted the customer perception at launch. A respun Hawaii with GCN 1.2 would actually be a pretty good mid-range chip right now.
Click to expand...
It was competitive against Kepler, mostly in price.
Today the 290X is $30ish cheaper than the 970, it's not competitive at all. It's a no-buy for pretty much everyone. The sudden drop in AMD's marketshare starting in Q4 is proof of that.

Nobody wants Hawaii.

A respun Hawaii with GCN 1.2 would actually be a pretty good mid-range chip right now.
Click to expand...
Respun Hawaii XT, trades blows with the GTX 980 (thanks to higher OC), 8 GB GDDR5 will still fail even if AMD prices at $300. People will buy the 970 anyway.
$250, 5-10% faster than the 980 and we're talking. Even if it's 4 GB.

The 970 is a modern day 8800 GTX. You can't stop it.
 
Last edited:
It's quite sad really as Hawaii performance wise has been pretty damn good. As you said， the stock cooler was really its downfall.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
It was competitive against Kepler, mostly in price.
Today the 290X is $30ish cheaper than the 970, it's not competitive at all. It's a no-buy for pretty much everyone. The sudden drop in AMD's marketshare starting in Q4 is proof of that.

Nobody wants Hawaii.


Respun Hawaii XT, trades blows with the GTX 980 (thanks to higher OC), 8 GB GDDR5 will still fail even if AMD prices at $300. People will buy the 970 anyway.
$250, 5-10% faster than the 980 and we're talking. Even if it's 4 GB.

The 970 is a modern day 8800 GTX. You can't stop it.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call Hawaii a failure, but I'm sure your mind won't be changed.

I doubt people (well everyone) would buy a 970 over a $300 980 competitor. That's $200 in savings compared to current 980 prices, sounds like a good deal to me.

And are you sure you don't mean the 8800GT?
 
Although I'm looking for a new Fiji card, priced right a reworked 8gb 390x is quite appealing in crossfire.
 
The 970 is a stuttering mess when pushing 4K resolutions. 8800 GTX was a beast back in the day at every resolution presented to it. 970 GTX can't even hold the 8800 GTX's jock strap. Please never call the 970 a modern day 8800 GTX again. It's blasphemy.
 
If that's how it works out there isn't even a point in bothering, practically everything is just dropping a 2 for a 3.

Oh well, let's see how the Radeon Rage Fury MAXX works out. I predict that DX12 performance will be radically better on either Maxwell or GCN 1.2, not sure which but I'm sure there will be an upset.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
It was competitive against Kepler, mostly in price.
Today the 290X is $30ish cheaper than the 970, it's not competitive at all. It's a no-buy for pretty much everyone. The sudden drop in AMD's marketshare starting in Q4 is proof of that.

Nobody wants Hawaii.


Respun Hawaii XT, trades blows with the GTX 980 (thanks to higher OC), 8 GB GDDR5 will still fail even if AMD prices at $300. People will buy the 970 anyway.
$250, 5-10% faster than the 980 and we're talking. Even if it's 4 GB.

The 970 is a modern day 8800 GTX. You can't stop it.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean 8800 GT? The one that had 90% of 8800 GTX's price for half the price? Also to be fair, Hawaii was meant to compete with Kepler and it did fine, but the leaf blower left a bad first impression, and the mining craze ended up hurting in the long run.

Btw I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to make a 3rd cut down Fiji (Fiji LE?) to compete with 980, instead of using a rebranded Hawaii. There's a nice 25% gap between 980 and 980 Ti, so perfect opportunity for AMD to position an SKU in between the two. If this Fiji LE can manage +10% over 980, then at $500 it would still be very compelling especially with HBM.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
The 970 is a stuttering mess when pushing 4K resolutions. 8800 GTX was a beast back in the day at every resolution presented to it. 970 GTX can't even hold the 8800 GTX's jock strap. Please never call the 970 a modern day 8800 GTX again. It's blasphemy.
Click to expand...

You don't need 4K to make it stutter, simply 2560*1440 it will starting to suffer badly.

I don't know why people praise GTX 970 at all. It's a card that's only good for 1080p.
 
I would guess the 390X is indeed a respin (ie newer GloFo process) so you can expect improvement in voltage, heat, and/or a slight speed bump. Those expecting extra functionality, like GCN 1.2, are probably going to be disappointed, though.
 
n=1 said:
I assume you mean 8800 GT? The one that had 90% of 8800 GTX's price for half the price? Also to be fair, Hawaii was meant to compete with Kepler and it did fine, but the leaf blower left a bad first impression, and the mining craze ended up hurting in the long run.
Click to expand...

Hawaii did not have issues competing against Kepler. If you looked at general sentiment back then people wanted Hawaii cards at their MSRPs but not the inflated mining prices (although this still translated to revenue for AMD).

Where AMD started losing massively was because Nvidia introduced Maxwell.

Something people need to realize is that product appeal incorporates many factors one of which is "newness" (especially for technology products). You see this in almost any industry, old product is discounted at clearence in light of new product because it loses its appeal. Raw performance is not the only factor. Hawaii is not even AMDs own latest technology anymore.

This is why AMD, and Hawaii somewhat specifically, is viewed as the "cheap" product instead of the "value" product. When AMD was releasing new products and making progress against their own line and coming in cheaper than Nvidia (eg. 4xxx-6xxx) they were viewed as "value." If it is just old product discounted in face of the competitors newer product its viewed as "cheap."

When people want a good deal they want nearly the same as the latest greatest but at a lower price. They do not view old stuff discounted and priced to clear as the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top