• 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.
LoadsaMoney said:
IF 4GBs only good enough for 1080p, then Furys going to be no good for FreeSync, as all the bloody monitors are 2560/1080,1440p and up, ouch! :D
Click to expand...

Pleb res is supported too :D

mBmgMSU.jpg
 
flopper said:
You see the issue with Titanx and witcher 3 for example as the card cant sustain 60 fps maxed out nor can 980ti at 1080p!!!!!! why have 6 or 12gb when the card cant power up enough performance?
Click to expand...

Because when you add more GPU's the FPS goes up, and memory then becomes a limiting factor.

IIRC Kaap or somebody said multi 290X 8GB was better at 4K than multi GTX980 4GB?
 
ubersonic said:
Because when you add more GPU's the FPS goes up, and memory then becomes a limiting factor.

IIRC Kaap or somebody said multi 290X 8GB was better at 4K than multi GTX980 4GB?
Click to expand...

Yeah when playing 4k maxed out, including AA.

The vast majority of users aren't doing that so it's a non issue.
 
TheRealDeal said:
If the 390 is nearly matching a 970 at 1000/1500 then the 390x at 1050/1500 with more cores is going to be a good bit faster. This is going by that guys results. His 390 score is making me think that there have been changes to the core even if they are minor.
Click to expand...

Don't think the 390X with an extra 150MHz on the vram is going to get much more points in comparison, vram clocking never got me much gains at all on the 290X, maybe at higher res it's different idk.

If it's a straight rebrand with nothing on top out with the clocks, it's pretty crap imo, considering the 290X ROG Matrix is going for so little cash right now with the DCuII even less.
 
Ayahuasca said:
I'm a HBM believer, AMD are not stupid enough to gimp their own top card with 4GB if it doesn't work well at 4k. It was probably the first thing they tested.
Click to expand...


flopper said:
You see the issue with Titanx and witcher 3 for example as the card cant sustain 60 fps maxed out nor can 980ti at 1080p!!!!!! why have 6 or 12gb when the card cant power up enough performance?

While DX12 changes this equation a bit Fury has enough ram with 4gb as nothing else indicate differently.
Click to expand...

Very good points. Only 1 day to go to see how this matches up.

For all we know X amount of GDDR5 doesn't equate to X amount of HBM.Or like Floppers is saying, by the time a GPU core has enough grunt to really push 4K graphics we will have HBM 2.0 and higher amounts of HBM along with higher performing GPU. Maybe 8GB HBM is a better match for Pirate Islands / Pascal.

Not long to go ! Feels like been waiting for years for this E3, all the specualtion haha.
 
Ayahuasca said:
I'm a HBM believer, AMD are not stupid enough to gimp their own top card with 4GB if it doesn't work well at 4k. It was probably the first thing they tested.
Click to expand...

A 4096 SP core GPU probably wouldn't have been possible with GDDR5, for AMD that is. They were probably forced into the move to HBM and I bet they intended for 8GB but couldn't pull it off in time, it's not that big a deal because Fury is not meant to sell by the bucketload and they can milk people again for 8GB somewhere down the line.
 
tommybhoy said:
Don't think the 390X with an extra 150MHz on the vram is going to get much more points in comparison, vram clocking never got me much gains at all on the 290X, maybe at higher res it's different idk.

If it's a straight rebrand with nothing on top out with the clocks, it's pretty crap imo, considering the 290X ROG Matrix is going for so little cash right now with the DCuII even less.
Click to expand...

Yea if it's a straight re-brand your score should be around the same as a stock 390x. That guy was close to your score with a 390pro at 1000/1500. If his result is legit a 390x with 10% more cores and 50mhz more on the core should score over 11k at stock. His 390 score has made the 390-390x a little more interesting to me but fury/x is where it's at.
 
TPU are reporting the 390/x are identical to the ref 290/x, right down to device ID.

Looks like a clock bump, no doubt some binning has been going on, it's a mature process and they have been knocking these cores out for a long time. Disappointing to say the least, but not exactly unheard of.

The proof will be in the pudding - will there be any tangable reason to go 3xx GPU over the equivalent 2xx? The pricing of the latter says no, to me anyway
 
So guys, 'How much VRAM do you really need at 1080p, 1440p and 4K?'

Surprised? Probably. 4GB of VRAM is more than enough for most video cards today, even at 4K. We haven't taken into account any anti-aliasing, as we're going to follow through with another article that looks at 1080p, 1440p and 4K with 4xAA enabled to see how much AA strains the framebuffer in these titles. But in all my years of using PCs, I barely use AA. AA is a personal preference. I'd rather have high framerates on my 120-144Hz screens, but anti-aliasing really helps at 1080p and below.

This test has shown that 8GB of VRAM is pretty useless right now, there's just no need. Sure, NVIDIA has a video card with 12GB of VRAM in the Titan X, and 6GB of VRAM on its new GTX 980 Ti, but most of the time it's not needed, even at 4K. If you start enabling AA, which we're going to be doing soon, then the VRAM consumption is going to skyrocket - which is something that will be interesting to see in our future article.

For now, we've shown you that even the latest games don't push that far over 4GB of VRAM, so you'll feel safe buying yourself a new card with 4-6GB of VRAM.
Click to expand...

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/89/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k/index.html

Don't know what you guys with experience say.
 
tommybhoy said:
Fiji will support mgpu FreeSync out the gate, with Hawaii mgpu support still Awol
Click to expand...

Hopefully the driver released for Fiji will add crossfire freesync for Hawaii at the same time, otherwise that's going to really **** off some existing users who've been waiting months already.
 
SimBy said:
Would be kinda silly to market Fury for 4K and fail at the biggest PC title this year, don't you think? So no, I don't expect memory will be an issue for Fury. :p
Click to expand...

If the reviewers use a single Fury @2160p it won't fail as they will just reduce the settings to get it to run at playable fps.

If the reviewers use several in CF @2160p using max settings then they will fail on memory hungry games.

It is very rare you see a 3gb 780ti fail in a review @2160p is it.:D
 
Just noticed Sapphire seem to have changed their website since yesterday and no mention of the 3xx series or Fury cards at all!
 
ubersonic said:
:D



Well, now we can get back to the topic at hand, a lot of people seem to be getting very hung up on 4GB not being enough for 4K, a thing to remember though is that 4K accounts for a ridiculous low portion of the market, over two thirds of the worlds computers run 1080p or lower anyway. So by saving money on the VRAM but making it super fast, AMD seem to be gearing the Fury for dominance at the resolutions most people game at, which from a business pov looks like a good plan to me.
Click to expand...

You can make the same argument for the 3.5gb GTX 970 and look what happened there !!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom