• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

R9-295X ???

F

fanboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
1,057
I was reading this over at videocardz.com ..

I made this rather unprofessional looking chart, so just show what is happening in both camps in the next few months. AMD is about to release two Tonga-based card: Radeon R9 285 coming next week, and R9 285X coming after Maxwell GM204 announcement. There’s also R9 295X, which is currently on hold, meaning its release will depend on GTX 980 performance.


Could that be the tape out bigger then Hawaii??


http://videocardz.com/51426/nvidia-...ies-geforce-gtx-980-and-gtx-970-mid-september
 
295x will theoretically be Fiji.

I have a feeling its more likely it will be 395 pro or 395xt

Its been leaked a bunch of places.
 
Last edited:
It is always fun to speculate on these threads. I read over at tweaktown that this chip will be a fully unlocked Hawaii core with something around 3000 cores and 48 Compute Units. It will not be shocking to see this chip released when the 880/980 cards from Nvidia come out.

There is also some rumors out there about "Fiji" being the next generation card from AMD. But I have not heard much about that.

Here is the link from tweaktown.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/38668...on-r9-295x-the-full-hawaii-xtx-gpu/index.html
 
The Cobra said:
It is always fun to speculate on these threads. I read over at tweaktown that this chip will be a fully unlocked Hawaii core with something around 3000 cores and 48 Compute Units. It will not be shocking to see this chip released when the 880/980 cards from Nvidia come out.

There is also some rumors out there about "Fiji" being the next generation card from AMD. But I have not heard much about that.

Here is the link from tweaktown.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/38668...on-r9-295x-the-full-hawaii-xtx-gpu/index.html
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how on earth they will keep that thing cool considering the amount of throttling the existing 290x already gets under stock cooling.
 
Hawaii's 290x is a full chip, there are no extra units to "unlock."

Fiji is the flagship of the R9 3x0 series expected sometime in Q1 and likely the first GPU to use HBM.
 
The Cobra said:
It is always fun to speculate on these threads. I read over at tweaktown that this chip will be a fully unlocked Hawaii core with something around 3000 cores and 48 Compute Units. It will not be shocking to see this chip released when the 880/980 cards from Nvidia come out.

There is also some rumors out there about "Fiji" being the next generation card from AMD. But I have not heard much about that.

Here is the link from tweaktown.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/38668...on-r9-295x-the-full-hawaii-xtx-gpu/index.html
Click to expand...

that is really old information I think has been disproven.

"Hawaii XTX

New Hawaii revision, which we’ve told you about two weeks ago, will be the fastest AMD’s SKU for this year. Some of you asked why did we remove the post about XTX. Well, it was only because we wrongly assumed it will be a 3072 core GPU, which is not true. Hawaii XTX is basically the same thing as XT2 or XTL revision to Tahiti. Hawaii XTX is simply higher-clocked Hawaii XT, nothing more and nothing else. From what I’ve gathered so far, XTX will be launched with Radeon R9 295X."

http://videocardz.com/51021/amd-gcn-update-iceland-tonga-hawaii-xtx
 
Last edited:
sorry, i dont buy it.

AIBs have already OCed the hell out of Hawaii there is no way they can make it go fast enough to differentiate it from AIB XTs.

Fiji will be the next flagship.
 
I can see there being a slightly better one, but no way in hell they bring one out based on that same core that dwarfs the 290, it seems to already be very much pushing it.

There might be parts of the core that are not optimized so they can cut some out and add in some, but I just don't see them doing this, many AIB would not be so happy, course wasn't that long ago that sapphire had "leaks" stating this more or less exactly. I think it probably is just extra parts in the core for yield purposes and they might do one that gives the same +/- a small % that trims that fat to reduce power waste.
 
The energy efficiency 'magic' they are doing on the 285 can be translated to the bigger chips, in theory we could see a 300x that is 20-35% more powerful than the 290 at the same power draw/TDP.
 
KazeoHin said:
The energy efficiency 'magic' they are doing on the 285 can be translated to the bigger chips, in theory we could see a 300x that is 20-35% more powerful than the 290 at the same power draw/TDP.
Click to expand...

unless you reference what I am stating that they trim the fat sort of speak but as it stands best recommendation I have seen yet.

When the 4gb cards come it will do ok as a beyond 1080p card but where it really shines is at 1080p as it and the card(s) it is replacing simply are not a very good choice for beyond 1080p either. While its power use is ok generally you are getting a slight % extra performance here and there for slight % more power use on average against namely its intended competition Nvidias GTX760. If you factor in the 3 free games then it is actually a decent deal. DX12, Mantle, true audio and some of its extra compute support are other reasons.
 
The Mac said:
sorry, i dont buy it.

AIBs have already OCed the hell out of Hawaii there is no way they can make it go fast enough to differentiate it from AIB XTs.

Fiji will be the next flagship.
Click to expand...

that didn't stop amd from releasing the hd 7970 ghz edition cards.
 
those were a replacement for non-ghz, not a new product catagory. Many, Many, people flashed their Pre-GHZ to GHZ.

Just as this is a replacement for 280/7950
 
Last edited:
The Mac said:
those were a replacement for non-ghz, not a new product catagory. Many, Many, people flashed their Pre-GHZ to GHZ.

Just as this is a replacement for 280/7950
Click to expand...

ghz 7970s were sold along side non-ghz 7970s, as well as aib overclocked non-ghz 7970s.

for both companies, their naming strategies change so often that predicting what kind of product will be emerging with what designation becomes largely a fools errand. its no more likely that the r9 295x will be an officially factory overclocked product than it is to be an updated chip.
 
They were sold along side only until non-ghz stock was used up.

Again, just like the 285 is selling along side the 280

But yes, i agree, trying to predict product placement is mostly an exercise in futility.
 
7970 were sold as they were to allow AIB to make their factory overclocked models and such THEN AMD released Ghz as basically "specially selected chips"(updated bios for the boost and such) Sometimes a partner say Asus, Powercolor or whatever gets first dibs to be the "official" vendor of a given feature set usually is clock speed, sometimes a complete card say for example like a 7990, 295 etc.

Either way Ghz branding was quite mehh they could have done the same via cat center really or made them Ghz from the start and the boost version would be Ghz speeds+ for the boost.. Non Ghz hit the same clocks easily while using a minor amount less power and not having that "boost" effect which apparently has its own drawbacks, faster memory I suppose was one benefit though that was/could have been a different launch then Ghz branding as it was done. Is what it is xd.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232.html
 
my post wasn't intended to inspire a history lesson of the hd 7970 product and its derivatives, but to prod mac as to why the r9 295x has to be a revised chip based on overclocked aib r9 290x products currently available.

the internal "xtx" designation has been applied in the past to products that were sold with no differences when compared to the "xt" counterpart besides clock speed. aib's often sold overclocked hd 7970s that ran no faster than 1000mhz on the core. when amd replaced the vanilla hd 7970 with their ghz hd 7970, the aib's sold overclocked ghz cards than ran no faster than 1050mhz on the core.

similarly to how the ghz 7970 replaced the standard 7970s presence in the market, this supposed r9 295x product will at some point probably be the only r9 2x designated part available. amd can't call the updated card the "ghz" r9 290x because it already was suppose to run at 1000mhz.

users were able to flash vanilla hd 7970s and turn them into ghz hd 7970s. whose to say i won't be able to flash my standard r9 290x into the r9 295x?
 
I think there was a grammatical error somewhere. My assertion is that its new silicon, not an OCed Hawaii.

AFAIK, there has always been a difference in Shader Units, or ROPs between Pro, XT, and XTX. If you have an example other wise, id appreciate pointing it out.

Not just clock speed.

"users were able to flash vanilla hd 7970s and turn them into ghz hd 7970s. whose to say i won't be able to flash my standard r9 290x into the r9 295x?"

GHZ editions were not classified as Tahiti XTX.

You wont be able to Because the 295X/390x (Fiji) will be based on GCN 2.0 (Tonga) not GCN 1.1 (Hawaii)

GCN 2.0 (Tonga) is brand new silicon with new architectural features not available in Hawaii - Color Comression for example.
 
Last edited:
hey mac thanks for responding. yes it was my understanding, too that your comment was suggesting that r9 295x was going to be a new chip.

to my memory the only products preceeding the hd line come to mind regarding the 'xtx' designation and clock speed. i'm also pretty sure that it was also the only time the 'xtx' designation had been used on any product.

yes, the ghz hd 7970 was internally designated 'xt2.'

i didn't know the r9 295x was a cgn 2.0 product. that makes sense that it would be a new chip.
 
there is no 295x yet, Just 290x

There is a 285x coming this month which will be Tonga XT.

Im theorizing the 295x (or 390x perhaps) it will be GCN 2.0, not a Hawaii XTX or derivative.
 
are you playing a game of semantics with me or are you being serious? i know that there is no r9 295x on the market, but i thought what we were discussing here in the thread titled "R9-295X ???" is what might be in the guts of the supposed product.

edit:

ah, i see. so you're theorizing that the rumored r9 r95x update to the existing r9 290x will be a gcn 2.0 product. is there any news to suggest your theory might be true? isn't it equally possible that the rumored r9 295x will be nothing more than a product set to run at least 1000mhz core and boost to a clock higher? if the later is true, then it may mean that amd devised a much better reference cooler, with which i would gladly buy to replace my tim upgraded reference 290xs.
 
Last edited:
you said: "i didn't know the r9 295x was a cgn 2.0 product"

We dont know, im theorizing.

I believe it will be Fiji, or at least a scaled up Tonga (Both of witch are GCN 2.0), not a OCed Hawaii XT, or an XTX/2 as someone else above claims.

There just isnt enough headroom in Hawaii XT to differentiate it, unless XT was gimped and there really is an XTX, but those are rumors anyway.

The GHZ edition was classified as XT2 because there werent any new ROPs, CUs. or Shaders to call it XTX.

yes, you last paragraph is what im saying.
 
Last edited:
the x1900xt and x1900xtx, then x1950xt and x1950xtx were products separated only by clock speed. the only other time 'xtx' reappears in amd/ati's discrete product nomenclature is with the r7 260/260x of which the latter is internally designated bonaire xtx and is differentiated by 896 stream cores vs 768 stream cores. i feel there isn't enough precedence to assume that 'xtx' automatically means a difference in core count. we can dip into mobile products if you like, but once again the 'xtx' variant is only differentiated by clock speed.
 
If a new single-GPU top-end card really is called the R9 295X, then this is even more of a departure from common sense in AMD's marketing. I'm kind of expecting it to end up being called something else, but that said, knowing AMD, it's still a possibility :D

Trouble is, given the rest of the product range, I'm not sure what else they'd call it!
 
If not being released in conjunction with the next series, they really should call it something different, ala nVidia Titan
 
Radeon 2900 there was a XT/XTX I thought as well.

I think they should simply not do X/XT version type naming, internally sure, externally where we see it, no.

Simple numbering would be simpler to understand, they should focus on ensuring end users have experience as such. instead of adding new features only a few months that a prior card cannot run, AMD cpu side very rarely if ever does that and even the gpu historically did not it was Nvidia and Intel that had that bad habit where some had this feature and yet the "better" more expensive product did not.

They should try their arse off for things like true audio or whatever to be available for use implicitly above a certain bracket of card, same with something like mantle, this whole hey if you bought a 7950 as example mantle may not run well if at all but no problems on a 280 which is a more or less straight rebrand/name change(just example I am using) A complete feature they say can be used no problems just to find out that no actually it cant is crap at its finest.

Anyways, what they should do IMHO is numbers alone so 250-255-260-265 leave some holes in the numbering line to ensure that there IS a place to put new cards and they fit into the naming scheme and performance/price brackets easier for everyone. Release them in the segment they fit, period. the x50 lowest, x55higher, x59 highest type deal.

If doing the X context, here is concept, when release call it(example) 270-275 when release possible replacers for them tada 270x-275x X will always be faster better more efficient(should be) then non X an XT even more so XTX steroids, these should be forced by AMD and Nvidia so as not to break naming schemes. Either way should be IMHO noticeable performance or efficiency at same performance type deal. 280-285-280x-285x in regards to general product performance/price positioning the way they did/are doing it is crap.

I like the whole X XT XTX stuff but only when done in a good way.

I think the problem lies in, if its a definitive bump up, then by all means a 5 is better then 0, but in the case of the mention Ghz or 285 as example there really is not much a lead overall, it will confuse people for no reason and some will get pissed if its not faster then their "old" xx50 or whatever(though they will sell many who don't know what to look for) they didn't seem to make much effort on recategorizing the differences.

Making sure they clear off the shelves so folks get less confused is a good start but on that xx5 and xx5x should launch same time or not at all. Other thing they could and should have done, 285 name it 275x so it stand on its own merits, when 285x release maybe it will be 3gb 384bit and faster then 7970Ghz/280x for sure, so its naming would add up as well. 295 if its a crazy fast beast compared to 290x well still bad numbering call it 290XT the 295 is and should be the double core card 295X double core on steroids type deal cause I think calling it 299 to signify double core wouldn't sound right.

Anyways rant over.
 
rennyf77 said:
the x1900xt and x1900xtx, then x1950xt and x1950xtx were products separated only by clock speed. the only other time 'xtx' reappears in amd/ati's discrete product nomenclature is with the r7 260/260x of which the latter is internally designated bonaire xtx and is differentiated by 896 stream cores vs 768 stream cores. i feel there isn't enough precedence to assume that 'xtx' automatically means a difference in core count. we can dip into mobile products if you like, but once again the 'xtx' variant is only differentiated by clock speed.
Click to expand...

To be fair, those were back before programmable shaders, but ok, fine ill concede the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top