• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aurhinius said:
Well I'm 99.9% sure people will be disappointed on reveal day when they see it's 4GB
Click to expand...

I doubt it, there's a lot of nonsense posted about vram requirements. Time again people fail to get that seeing a card use 5GB of vram does not mean only having 4GB will have any performance impact in a given scenario.

I note Witcher 3 on high res at 4k uses about 2.5GB for me.
 
Nutella33 said:
Its also been mentioned there's nothing stopping them linking stacks with an interposer.

Which is why its not a given that it is limited to 4gb
Click to expand...

Which just complicates it more, if it was that simple im sure 8 gig would be a certainty, as it doesn't seem to be a certainty it must not be as easy as that.

straxusii said:
I doubt it, there's a lot of nonsense posted about vram requirements. Time again people fail to get that seeing a card use 5GB of vram does not mean only having 4GB will have any performance impact in a given scenario.

I note Witcher 3 on high res at 4k uses about 2.5GB for me.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is its hard to tell if a card actually using the ram or just using a lot of it for caching, afaik there's no real way to tell one way or the other.
 
Gerard said:
I think the issue is its hard to tell if a card actually using the ram or just using a lot of it for caching, afaik there's no real way to tell one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Also, does RAM work in a sort of RAID configuration? IE, the same data is stored in multiple RAM chips to increase the speed that the GPU can access it? Seeing as the most tried and tested way of increasing RAM performance for graphics cards has been giving it a wider bus with more chips, would HBM with it's much larger bus width per chip need far less duplication to occur and therefore less memory usage overall?
 
That Asus card looks nice. Issue is I would never see the fans as they would face down. Would prefer something nice on the top side of the card.

Hopefully next week we will start seeing some nice leaks.
 
Not too long ago AMDMatt said that 4GB was not enough for 4K.
He had done lots of tests with 4GB and 8GB 290X cards and said that the number of games that encountered issues with 4GB would surprise people (in context it was pretty clear he meant more than people would think).
I believe he also kept his 8GB cards and sold his 4GB cards, so considering the 8GB clock worse (on the memory) and would've sold for more it seems quite obvious that he thought he needed more than 4GB.

Of course this was back when Nvidia released 4GB 980s and AMD released 8GB 290Xs, so it may have been a sales pitch.
I guess we'll see if Matt picks up the new cards if they only have 4GB knowing that he needs more than 4GB.

Matt was testing games that needed more than 4GB VRAM, not games that struggled with bandwidth, so I doubt the extra bandwidth of HBM will help if a game needs 5GB VRAM.

Interesting days ahead.
 
Which just complicates it more, if it was that simple im sure 8 gig would be a certainty, as it doesn't seem to be a certainty it must not be as easy as that.
Click to expand...
I think its more of a production and cost thing than a difficulty thing from what people have said in interviews.

Let's face it. HBM is a complete unknown quantity. We don't know any of its real world qualities or frankly anything about the actual cards! :) ruling out either possibility on 4 or 8 doesn't make sense.
 
I honestly couldn't care less about 8GB to the point that if there was a cheaper 4GB alternative I'd buy it depending on the cost difference. I have ZERO intention of gaming at 4k, I prefer pushing 120fps rather than 60hz and don't have a 4k screen. I won't buy one for minimum of over a year by which time further cards will be available. I have a 1080p screen, I'm waiting to buy a good-ish value 1440p/144hz screen which with the Acer being available about £370 now and then is pushing into that price range. Quite interested to see how the Asus IPS freesync comes along though and what it does to prices. I'm looking for a card for 1440p, if I cared about 8GB I'd have 8GB 290x's now, if 8GB was crucial then the majority of people would have sold their 290x 4GB's which obviously don't have enough memory and no one at all would have bought gtx980/970s because again, 4GB is clearly not enough at all.

The guys banging on about 4GB not being enough are mostly guys with cards with 4GB of memory who have no issues. My screen for some reason when messing around with VSR(but back on normal 1080p) was randomly using 60hz and I spent an hour just at desktop thinking... why the hell is everything blurry as **** today, why are my eyes feeling more tired. Eventually checked the refresh rate put it back to 120hz and desktop, the place I spend hours more a day than gaming, became so much more comfortable to view. There is zero chance of me buying a 4k screen before 120hz+ screens are available. 4GB is enough for most games in 4k anyway and enough for effectively every game at 1080p and 1440p really. Why are people so desperate to spend more on memory most won't use? I find it ridiculous.

How many Nvidia guys refused to buy GTX 980s and got a 8GB 290x instead? How many bought a 980/970 but are now convinced a 4GB Fiji would be laughable?

I honestly don't know the situation currently with DP 1.3, I wouldn't surprise me if no Nvidia or AMD gpu's actually have a DP 1.3 port on the cards so even when DP 1.3 and 120hz 4k screens arrive likely late 2016 or early 2017, the current range of cards and soon to be released AMD cards still won't support them anyway.

Buying for the future is pointless. I'd prefer a super fast 4GB card today when 4GB is all I need and save spending the premium for memory I use then sell that card next year and buy the same not quite top end card next year which will have more memory AND be significantly faster and you'd still likely have saved more money. No performance difference while you don't need the memory, better performance from a newer card when you actually need that memory.
 
Last edited:
Also agreed with the above mostly, as long as i can get high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p (likely my next upgrade) with 1 card and 4gb vram is enough, then i won't have a problem with it.
 
arc@css said:
Hopefully, if prices shake up enough, I'll grab me a GTX980. Should be enough for my needs for a while, well, until I get a new monitor anyway.
Click to expand...

It's funny as I've sat here for 6 months thinking I want to wait for more of a performance boost than a 980 gives over my 290x yet now I'm actually wondering whether a 980 or 390x (If it's not Fiji) will do until 16nm if I stay on 1080p, I'm not keen on the current 21:9 free-sync monitors really and that's what I wanted so I might wait for the 16nm cards and the 120/144hz 21:9 screens that should be coming from both of the Sync twins..
 
Vinno said:
With the prices being banded around for this this and the 980ti I'm tempted to try and get a cheap card second hand.
Click to expand...

Same here, think i might look at maybe getting a reference 290x, getting the corsair bracket for aio and going trifire, sweet spot for the time being.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom