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

itchy · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:33

Kaapstad said:
The Fury is not going to do anything to the Titan X as it only comes with 4gb of memory making it a non contest @2160p.

The 295x2 beats the titian and it has 4gb less ram. This new HBM is a unknown quantity so no one has a clue how it will perform. But if does what it says on the tin, it will hammer your CPU at high rez with only 4gb mem.

slick rick · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:35

itchy said:
The 295x2 beats the titian and it has 4gb less ram. This new HBM is a unknown quantity so no one has a clue how it will perform. But if does what it says on the tin, it will hammer your CPU with only 4gb mem.

Its not really a fair comparison though due to the Titan being a single GPU and the 295x2 being dual.

Kaapstad · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:35

itchy said:
The 295x2 beats the titian and it has 4gb less ram. This new HBM is a unknown quantity so no one has a clue how it will perform. But if does what it says on the tin, it will hammer your CPU with only 4gb mem.

I think you should try running Watch Dogs @2160p maxed on a 295X2 and see watch happens or rather what does not happen.

Under the same conditions the Titan Xs run it no problem.

itchy · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:48

Watch dogs that unoptimized shallow game. :mad:

I agree the 295x2 is 2 GPUs, but still its only one card.

The is no other way I can see AMD winning here unless Fury is X295 ball park performance, abate the 4gb ram.

Kirby Wurm · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:51

The real question is why would anyone want to run Watch Dogs at all?

And why would it be a no contest at 2160p when the majority of games (even new titles like The Witcher 3) don't exceed 4GB VRAM usage at that res?

ubersonic · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:51

DBT85 said:
EDIT: I just checked the steam hardware survey for May.

More people are playing at 800x600 than at 3840 x 2160.

How.

Well basically, super high end hardware enthusiasts are a niche market, and the amount of people who have upgraded to 4K is still lower than the amount of people still using 800x600.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2013 that 1920x1080 finally overtook the old 4:3 aspect 1024x768 resolution, and as of Jan 2015 the most popular resolution is still 1366x768 by a massive margin.

Mtom · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:54

slick rick said:
Its not really a fair comparison though due to the Titan being a single GPU and the 295x2 being dual.

295 is 4gb/gpu so it is a good comparison.

slick rick · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:57

Mtom said:
295 is 4gb/gpu so it is a good comparison.

I don't see how dual card vs single card is a good comparison but that is just my personal opinion.

Legend · 14 Jun 2015 at 17:58

A better example is surely the 980Ti vs the Titan X... would anyone seriously have believed a "rumour" prior to its release (assuming no confirmed specs had been released), that a card with HALF the RAM of its big brother would punch at the same weight? No, you wouldn't. So let's just wait and see what the Fury X delivers... we may all be pleasantly surprised.

Anyone saying "well 4GB is still only 4GB" is not really understanding the tech very well... those people will surely be falling over each other to buy the overpriced rebranded 390X 8GB cards then lol? I think not.

Martini1991 · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:00

Legend said:
A better example is surely the 980Ti vs the Titan X... would anyone seriously have believed a "rumour" prior to its release (assuming no confirmed specs had been released), that a card with HALF the RAM of its big brother would punch at the same weight. No, you wouldn't. So let's just wait and see what the Fury X delivers... we may all be pleasantly surprised.

Anyone saying "well 4GB is still only 4GB" is not really understanding the tech very well... those people will surely be falling over each other to buy the overpriced rebranded 390X 8GB cards then lol? I think not.

Erm, as far as the 980ti/Titan X goes, it was obvious it was performing near the same?

Like the whole original Titan/780ti?

Gregster · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:02

humbug said:
The 390X just has to match or beat the 980 for <£350.

If it is just a 290X rebox they will sell less well than the 290X currently does (if that's even possible) with a mass of current 290/X users switching to a 970/980.

Legend · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:03

Martini1991 said:
Erm, as far as the 980ti/Titan X goes, it was obvious it was performing near the same?

Like the whole original Titan/780ti?

Of course it was, because we knew about it... I'm saying if NO specs or anything had been released, and Nvidia simply said there's going to be an amazing new card with 6GB RAM, and that's all they said.

Besides, I don't think many people expected it to perform as well as it did and render the Titan X virtually obsolete within a matter of months.

Martini1991 · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:03

No way he's back?!

DBT85 · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:06

ubersonic said:
Well basically, super high end hardware enthusiasts are a niche market, and the amount of people who have upgraded to 4K is still lower than the amount of people still using 800x600.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2013 that 1920x1080 finally overtook the old 4:3 aspect 1024x768 resolution, and as of Jan 2015 the most popular resolution is still 1366x768 by a massive margin.

Oh I know that its super high end hardware. Its just crazy to think that the former still has more people using it than the latter though. I definitely wouldn't expect 4k to be even close to a leading percentage. Its not even 0.1% of the steam survey.

Mei · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:09

Legend said:
Besides, I don't think many people expected it to perform as well as it did and render the Titan X virtually obsolete within a matter of months.

not many no but im special^^;
i said all this before the tx release even!

me > everyone 0_0

mururoa · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:16

No I won't get those 15 minutes of my life back, no I won't quit my day job.

Kaapstad · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:18

Legend said:
Of course it was, because we knew about it... I'm saying if NO specs or anything had been released, and Nvidia simply said there's going to be an amazing new card with 6GB RAM, and that's all they said.

Besides, I don't think many people expected it to perform as well as it did and render the Titan X virtually obsolete within a matter of months.

I said there would be a 6gb card even before I bought the TXs.

My only concern about the 980 Ti is it is not as fast as I thought it would be. I was expecting a fully enabled core rather than a cut down one.

The bottom line though is the Titan X will outlast all the 980 Ti's and 4gb Fury Xs simplely because it has got 12gb of VRAM and is fantastic in a multi GPU setup.

People may hate the Titan X for the asking price but for what it does there is no viable alternative - multi GPU 2160p gaming.

Kaapstad · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:25

mururoa said:
No I won't get those 15 minutes of my life back, no I won't quit my day job.

Bad taste

itchy · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:27

I think HBM will be a Dr who tardis!

If that dev tweeted first single card that can do 4k, then I have my hopes up.

Silent_Scone · 14 Jun 2015 at 18:28

People seem to be under an illusion that because HBM has more bandwidth it'll mean current games will have less of an issue with buffer management.

No. Think of what's going on inside the box (or middle ware) as being potentially faster, so memory allocation after deallocation etc is faster ergo potentially more performance or less performance loss.

In the case of permanent buffers for geometry etc - all this stuff is the same size. It won't magically change how much memory is being allocated unless developers feel the urgency to change the game purely because Fury is still memory capacity limited.

Obviously can't speak for DX12 though