390X coming soon few weeks

fingers crossed for

Fiji: free
Fiji Pro: more free
Fiji XT: they give you money with it


Also, is the fury really 4GB of 3.5GB :p?
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Spec dump from WCCF.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-specs-fiji/

Fiji, and the Fury line of cards which are based on it, feature notable improvements across the board. Performance is obviously significantly improved. Fury X is faster than the R9 290X by a minimum of 54%. Which brings us to the second major improvement. Fury X achieves this performance improvement with a TDP that’s a meager 10W higher. Which makes Fury X 48% more power efficient than AMD’s previous single GPU flagship the R9 290X, which is quite remarkable.

We’ve also been told that since Fiji’s die is measurably bigger than that of Hawaii, it’s considerably easier to cool. Because the heat will be distributed across a larger surface area, which will allow it to dissipate more readily. This is good news, especially considering that AIBs will also be bringing out newer and more effective cooling solutions.
Click to expand...

On an even brighter note, we’ve been told that AMD’s reference air cooler for Fury X and Fury is actually quite beefy. And will keep the chips cool even with an overclock. The cooler features three axial fans blowing air onto a large heatsink.
Click to expand...

-snip-
Click to expand...

Minimum 54% faster? So they're assuming 100% scaling, which means 45.5% faster than 290X, then throw in another 10% for arch improvements, and then throw in higher clocks and you somehow magically get that minimum 54% figure? :confused:

In any case, these TPU charts summarize how much faster Titan X is against 290X at 4 resolutions.

4K :43% faster
1440p: 43% faster
1080p: 45% faster
900p: 45% faster

So assuming (with a HUGE grain of salt) that 54% figure is true, then Fiji XT would be 6-8% faster than Titan X at every resolution.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Spec dump from WCCF.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-specs-fiji/





8OHEGUg.png
Click to expand...

54% minimum performance improvement over 290x... That's right in line with Titan X.

I guess only remaining question is pricing and actual availability.
 
^54% faster than 290X would actually make it 6-8% faster than Titan X at every resolution. See my post above.
 
Ah there we go, from slower back to Titan Killer again!

Should be called the Fiji TK. ;)
 
I think n-1 was right to assume that that cut down Fiji is slightly slower than a 980ti and that is what that whole Fiji is slower than 980ti thing was. Now if full Fiji is a beast about 10% faster than a Titian X it will kill the 980ti we just need it to overclock too to cement the performance lead.
 
When when it suits people, they stick with Wccftech, otherwise they dismissively reject it. Sounds like bias to me :/
 
AMD has managed to improve the performance by over 50% with Fiji vs Hawaii. While only expanding the silicon area, i.e. size of the chip, by roughly 25%. Which means that AMD has achieved the holy trifecta of semiconductor engineering. Greater performance, greater power efficiency and greater area efficiency.
Click to expand...

OMGO MGOMMG OMG AMD WINS!!!
 
madgun said:
When when it suits people, they stick with Wccftech, otherwise they dismissively reject it. Sounds like bias to me :/
Click to expand...

It is, different bias quote wccft at different times. Look at both AMD & nvidia forums. As was discussed before wccft just makes sure they get both sides for maximum clicks.
 
madgun said:
When when it suits people, they stick with Wccftech, otherwise they dismissively reject it. Sounds like bias to me :/
Click to expand...

Basically yes.

In regard to WCCF, the first line says the specs are confirmed....confirmed by who? They don't seem to have a source or even claim an anonymous source.
 
n=1 said:
Minimum 54% faster? So they're assuming 100% scaling, which means 45.5% faster than 290X, then throw in another 10% for arch improvements, and then throw in higher clocks and you somehow magically get that minimum 54% figure? :confused:
Click to expand...

Here's how I calculate it (assuming these figures are anything but rampant speculation)

2816 -> 4096 = 45.5% SP increase

1000Mhz -> 1050Mhz = 5.0% clock speed increase.

1.455*1.05 = 52.7% increase over 290X IF

1.) It scales linearly; and

2.) There are no architecture improvements; and

3.) WCCF isn't completely full of shit.

The above are all huge IF's :p
 
B-b-but they're still 1.3% off then :p

I wholeheartedly agree though especially on point 3.

But let me also just say this right now. IF Fiji XT does indeed end up 6-8% faster than Titan X at every resolution, expect to hear about 4GB, power consumption, heat, noise (air cooled version), and drivers, especially drivers, incessantly.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Basically yes.

In regard to WCCF, the first line says the specs are confirmed....confirmed by who? They don't seem to have a source or even claim an anonymous source.
Click to expand...

a source can be protected so they dont loose their jobs.
anyhow I taken it with caution but fun to hear performance is coming to town from amd.
 
n=1 said:
B-b-but they're still 1.3% off then :p

I wholeheartedly agree though especially on point 3.

But let me also just say this right now. IF Fiji XT does indeed end up 6-8% faster than Titan X at every resolution, expect to hear about 4GB, power consumption, heat, noise (air cooled version), and drivers, especially drivers, incessantly.
Click to expand...

Even if the the Fury XT is $299 and beats the Titan X by 50%, you will hear about all of those things :p and those people will still pay more for a GTX 970.
 
Anyone buying a R9 390X based on the rebranded R9 290X? (heh)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Even if the the Fury XT is $299 and beats the Titan X by 50%, you will hear about all of those things :p and those people will still pay more for a GTX 970.
Click to expand...

Well in that scenario, those who'd still take the 970 over Fiji XT are beyond all help and should be sterilized. :D

I mean hell, we're talking at least 2x over 970 in every game at every resolution, regardless of GameWorks or tessellation or whatever.
 
n=1 said:
Well in that scenario, those who'd still take the 970 over Fiji XT are beyond all help and should be sterilized. :D

I mean hell, we're talking at least 2x over 970 in every game at every resolution, regardless of GameWorks or tessellation or whatever.
Click to expand...

Getting a little carried away with the hypotheticals
 
Armenius said:
The same page shows a picture of the DCUIII cooler from ASUS and calls it the reference air cooler for Fiji XT. Even in the thumbnail you can make out the STRIX emblem and ASUS badge.

Bonus point: When you click on the picture the caption says "ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti DirectCU III STRIX."
Click to expand...

lol...
 
DPI said:
Getting a little carried away with the hypotheticals
Click to expand...

lol he described an impossible scenario and I simply piled on, it's all one big joke

Armenius said:
The same page shows a picture of the DCUIII cooler from ASUS and calls it the reference air cooler for Fiji XT. Even in the thumbnail you can make out the STRIX emblem and ASUS badge.

Bonus point: When you click on the picture the caption says "ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti DirectCU III STRIX."
Click to expand...

That's not quite what they said.

On an even brighter note, we’ve been told that AMD’s reference air cooler for Fury X and Fury is actually quite beefy. And will keep the chips cool even with an overclock. The cooler features three axial fans blowing air onto a large heatsink. A concept that’s been popularized by AIBs such as Gigabyte who have employed it for many years. And is quite similar to what Asus has shown at Computex with their brand new triple fan Strix cooler. Which the company has hinted towards being compatible with AMD’s Fiji GPU.
Click to expand...

Could they have worded it better and less ambigiuously? Sure, but then they wouldn't be WCCF lol
 
Flopper said:
a source can be protected so they dont loose their jobs.
anyhow I taken it with caution but fun to hear performance is coming to town from amd.
Click to expand...

I understand that, I just find it odd to say it's confirmed and not even say something along the lines of "Our unnamed source has supplied us with this information" it's just strange to me.
 
Armenius said:
The same page shows a picture of the DCUIII cooler from ASUS and calls it the reference air cooler for Fiji XT. Even in the thumbnail you can make out the STRIX emblem and ASUS badge.

Bonus point: When you click on the picture the caption says "ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti DirectCU III STRIX."
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't bother to read the page because if you do and not just looking at pictures, you find some interesting things like:

On an even brighter note, we’ve been told that AMD’s reference air cooler for Fury X and Fury is actually quite beefy. And will keep the chips cool even with an overclock. The cooler features three axial fans blowing air onto a large heatsink. A concept that’s been popularized by AIBs such as Gigabyte who have employed it for many years. And is quite similar to what Asus has shown at Computex with their brand new triple fan Strix cooler. Which the company has hinted towards being compatible with AMD’s Fiji GPU.
 
The question for me remains:

Is 4GB HBM enough for 4k gaming (especially in the future)?
 
n=1 said:
Could they have worded it better and less ambigiuously? Sure, but then they wouldn't be WCCF lol
Click to expand...
Being WCCFTech, I just skimmed the article. Still: providing a picture of a product as an example of something we have not seen yet as what it could possibly look like? Poor editorial form for any sort of what is supposed to be a somewhat informative article.
 
Wag said:
The question for me remains:

Is 4GB HBM enough for 4k gaming (especially in the future)?
Click to expand...

witcher 3 has a 2gb ram usage at 4k.
while 4gb is a lot of ram even at higher resolutions you want to have a 8gb Fury as while you can cover let say 98% of all games within a 4gb footprint there always be some games that might push more ram. there will be a 8gb card of Fury for sure.

For me at a 5040x1050 I run the game at the fps I want as 60fps dosnt cut it for me.
ram is a non issue at 4gb for years to come.
 
Flopper said:
witcher 3 has a 2gb ram usage at 4k.
while 4gb is a lot of ram even at higher resolutions you want to have a 8gb Fury as while you can cover let say 98% of all games within a 4gb footprint there always be some games that might push more ram. there will be a 8gb card of Fury for sure.

For me at a 5040x1050 I run the game at the fps I want as 60fps dosnt cut it for me.
ram is a non issue at 4gb for years to come.
Click to expand...

You must be new here.
 
Flopper said:
witcher 3 has a 2gb ram usage at 4k.
while 4gb is a lot of ram even at higher resolutions you want to have a 8gb Fury as while you can cover let say 98% of all games within a 4gb footprint there always be some games that might push more ram. there will be a 8gb card of Fury for sure.

For me at a 5040x1050 I run the game at the fps I want as 60fps dosnt cut it for me.
ram is a non issue at 4gb for years to come.
Click to expand...


yeah, same here.

until 4K is doable in 98% of games at max settings and 60fps on a SINGLE CARD, im not interested

4GB is plenty.
 
shadow85 said:
Yep they confirm everything we already know.
Click to expand...


Pretty much the only things we don't know is how will HBM effect things and whether or not AMD made improvements to the architecture like Nvidia did with Maxwell to give it a significant boost. All signs point to no and with the specs we've seen we pretty much know it's going t be neck and neck with a Titan X/980 Ti.

Those are the only two real significant variables that we don't know.
 
Flopper said:
witcher 3 has a 2gb ram usage at 4k.
while 4gb is a lot of ram even at higher resolutions you want to have a 8gb Fury as while you can cover let say 98% of all games within a 4gb footprint there always be some games that might push more ram. there will be a 8gb card of Fury for sure.

For me at a 5040x1050 I run the game at the fps I want as 60fps dosnt cut it for me.
ram is a non issue at 4gb for years to come.
Click to expand...

Witcher 3 only used 2GB becasue it has shitty textures and assets that were made for console. Please..
 
TDSlam720 said:
Witcher 3 only used 2GB becasue it has shitty textures and assets that were made for console. Please..
Click to expand...

guess what, console is the design metric for any game nowadays.
and developers are lazy normally.
titanx cant sustain 60fps at 1080p with witcher 3 so if it has crappy shitty textures made for consoles why cant Nvidia make a card that do 60fps then on that crappy designed console game then?

waiting for the real future card to be released called Fury
 
Armenius said:
The same page shows a picture of the DCUIII cooler from ASUS and calls it the reference air cooler for Fiji XT. Even in the thumbnail you can make out the STRIX emblem and ASUS badge.

Bonus point: When you click on the picture the caption says "ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti DirectCU III STRIX."
Click to expand...
That's not true, read the text directly above the image.
They're using the DC3 as a comparison.

The cooler features three axial fans blowing air onto a large heatsink. A concept that’s been popularized by AIBs such as Gigabyte who have employed it for many years. And is quite similar to what Asus has shown at Computex with their brand new triple fan Strix cooler. Which the company has hinted towards being compatible with AMD’s Fiji GPU.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top