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

Tom Martow · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:18

I know they've lined up the date for release, but now the 980 ti is out not many people will be waiting for AMD's response.

Personally, I think it's too late, but if the AMD card is better than the 980 ti the people who waiting will be the wiser ones (maybe).

theor14 · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:21

4GB is pretty poor really, they need to make 8GB happen because they won't gain any traction with 4k gamers at such a small amount of Vram.

Final8y · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:22

rolypolyman said:
Aye but point is 4Gb launch card is a big fail and that's how it will be portrayed, look at Nvidia 12Gb card first and then the 6Gb to follow, selling bucket loads while Amd have been selling very little for 3 months now, cannot be good. Marketing has always been Amd's weakness, when you launch a new card you don't parade the gimped version first whilst your biggest , sorry only competitor is doing the opposite, I just don't get the strategy here.

Anyway gotta go to work.

The 980 4GB and the 970 3.5GB came first, talk about short memory.

ubersonic · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:28

eyetrip said:
Don't see how when nobody has any bloody stock

Nvidia are shipping out thousends of units which have already been preordered.

The are a number of way AMD could throw a spanner in the works, stalling and staying hush isn't the best choice.

Davedree · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:31

Troezar said:
The one thing we can be sure of is no one in this thread actually knows anything concrete

We already said that nearly a year ago ;-)

ubersonic · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:32

Final8y said:
The 980 4GB and the 970 3.5GB came first, talk about short memory.

Nvidia always have less memory.

The GTX580 had 3/4 what the HD6970 had, the GTX680 had 2/3 what the HD7970 had, the R290 had 33% more than the GTX780.

AMD releasing a card with 33% less RAM than it's competitor after spending half a decade shouting about having more VRAM makes you better is just weird.

Martini1991 · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:33

Weren't Nvidia fans getting slammed when they said the card would be 4gb?

Classic AMD.

Final8y · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:33

ubersonic said:
Nvidia always have less memory.

The GTX580 had 3/4 what the HD6970 had, the GTX680 had 2/3 what the HD7970 had, the R290 had 33% more than the GTX780.

AMD releasing a card with 33% less RAM than it's competitor after spending half a decade shouting about having more VRAM makes you better is just weird.

The 980 4GB and the 970 3.5GB came first, fact, what is a good idea or not does not change that fact.

Mtom · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:37

rolypolyman said:
Aye but point is 4Gb launch card is a big fail and that's how it will be portrayed, look at Nvidia 12Gb card first and then the 6Gb to follow, selling bucket loads while Amd have been selling very little for 3 months now, cannot be good. Marketing has always been Amd's weakness, when you launch a new card you don't parade the gimped version first whilst your biggest , sorry only competitor is doing the opposite, I just don't get the strategy here.

Anyway gotta go to work.

Well for calling it a fail lets just wait for benchmarks first.

BTW Its really funny that for many people the thing nv has an uper hand is above all. When amd has more vram no one cares, when nv has more vram its above all.
Same for power consumption....

Final8y · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:39

Mtom said:
Well for calling it a fail lets just wait for benchmarks first.

BTW Its really funny that for many people the thing nv has an uper hand is above all. When amd has more vram no one cares, when nv has more vram its above all.
Same for power consumption....

Same for anything that NV has an upper hand in, that becomes the most important factor.

Bonjour · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:40

At least, once the 4GB version is released we'll get an idea of performance and whether it's worth waiting for the Fury 8GB.

slick rick · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:41

4gb at initial release is a little disappointing. I will just wait for cards sporting a die shrink and HBM2 I think next year and build a whole new system.

TallPaul_S · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:42

theor14 said:
4GB is pretty poor really, they need to make 8GB happen because they won't gain any traction with 4k gamers at such a small amount of Vram.

Forget 4k, even at 1080p if I want a card that will last me 2-3 years minimum, 4GB just ain't gonna cut it.

Martini1991 · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:43

Final8y said:
The 980 4GB and the 970 3.5GB came first, fact, what is a good idea or not does not change that fact.

And one fact is a lot of people (Who are deemed Nvidia fanboys) were going on about 4GB cards, and were getting slammed (By AMD fanboys).
You're all as bad as each other.

Also, Nvidia have a 6GB card out at 550. So, unless AMD's pricing sits with the 980/970, then it is a bit meh to only go 4GB default. It's also the first time for a while AMD haven't upped the default VRAM.

Mtom · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:49

TallPaul_S said:
Forget 4k, even at 1080p if I want a card that will last me 2-3 years minimum, 4GB just ain't gonna cut it.

If you want a card for 2-3 years wait a year more as 14nm will stomp on every 28nm card

Final8y · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:51

Martini1991 said:
1)And one fact is a lot of people (Who are deemed Nvidia fanboys) were going on about 4GB cards, and were getting slammed (By AMD fanboys).
You're all as bad as each other.

2)Also, Nvidia have a 6GB card out at 550. So, unless AMD's pricing sits with the 980/970, then it is a bit meh to only go 4GB default. It's also the first time for a while AMD haven't upped the default VRAM.

1) i was not one of the AMD users slamming NV for having 4GB cards, so no i dont have to answer for the others actions.

2)Yes its a bit of a let down but i think both 8GB and 4GB is still needed, 8GB would be wasted on the majority.

For my needs i would not buy anything with less than 8GB so really besides the Titans there is nothing for me ATM.

ubersonic · 3 Jun 2015 at 09:58

Final8y said:
The 980 4GB and the 970 3.5GB came first, fact, what is a good idea or not does not change that fact.

Well, actually while my post you quoted doesn't change that "fact" it does prove it to be wrong and that they did not come first

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 3 Jun 2015 at 10:00

Mtom said:
"AMD's chief Lisa Su has first shown the chip of the next high-end graphics card in public at Computex press conference. Around the designated with the codename Fiji GPU are four stacks of video memory, along to this combination are the fastest graphics card in the world - said AMD vice president Matt Skinner a few minutes earlier.

According to our information, the Fiji-based graphics card on 4 GB High Bandwidth Memory to have, in addition to three DisplayPort outputs installed AMD an HDMI 2.0 output. The board is very short with less than 20 cm, as the storage stack to sit next to the graphics chip and not as GDDR5 memory distributed over the entire board.

The two 8-pin connectors allow together with the PCIe slot theoretically a power consumption of up to 375 watts, but AMD's Graphics CEO Joe Macri said Golem.de that Fiji graphics card should not require more energy than the Radeon R9 290X. Thus, should the upcoming models remain at under 300 watts - possibly even significantly."

This is the first "official" mention of the power consumption as well...

That would be a massive jump in performance per watt for AMD then.

fs123 · 3 Jun 2015 at 10:02

Having more than 4GB is only for those who want to play on multi-monitor or 4K setups. For the majority who are still on 1080p this 4gb fiji will be ideal if priced at around 980/ti level. Also 2 of these in Crossfire may allow unified memory access making it 8gb anyway.

TallPaul_S · 3 Jun 2015 at 10:02

Mtom said:
If you want a card for 2-3 years wait a year more as 14nm will stomp on every 28nm card

Not when I'm running a 1.5GB GTX580, either single card or SLI (depending on the game/temps).

Also it's the same story every time, "oh the next architecture will blow everything away, 40/50/60% faster!!!11!"

When it actually arrives, it's the usual increase of 15-30%.

If I was to wait for the next set of cards, it would be for the 2nd gen when the full fat chips are released (at least for the nvidia cards), so that's 18 months at least.