Poll: 390X: How fast do you think it will be.

[Kaapstad]

The flagship will be around 50% faster (if not more) than the 290X thats almost sure. So it should match the TX easily.
+45% shaders, and GCN 1.2 (or 1.3) compared to hawaiis GCN 1.1 cores.

AMD can bring up a card to match the 980 if they upgrade the 290X with the new features -better tesselation, and color compression - Tonga (R9 285) has now.

Don't forget +45% shaders = +45% heat, will this effect clockspeeds ?

 

[humbug]

no i meant it will be a 295 x 2 but just as one card lol

I thought it didn't read right earlier on.

Sorry, missed this. will update.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't forget +45% shaders = +45% heat, will this effect clockspeeds ?

From what I gather with HBM there should be a decent power saving over using GDDR5,not only for the physical VRAM but the memory controller,so it should help.

 

[humbug]

Don't forget +45% shaders = +45% heat, will this effect clockspeeds ?

Power-consumption is the only problem i foresee, if the specs are correct i see no reason why it can't edge out the TX, i voted 1, but only just, it will be tight over that +5%

Power-consumption doesn't scale linear like that with Shaders, +45% Shaders should result in about an extra 30% powerdraw, which should bring it to 350 Watts, 270 + 80.

300 Watts or more is too high, i wouldn't like to see it much more than 280 Watts.

i think HBM can save about 30 Watts, they need to get it down another 30 to 40 Watts, about 10 or 15%.

If they can do that and do it at an architectural level (not some firmaware that doesn't work outside of some goldy locks zone) then they are onto a power house that can be cooled just as easily as the 290X

 

[Kaapstad]

Power-consumption is the only problem i foresee, if the specs are correct i see no reason why it can't edge out the TX, i voted 1, but only just, it will be tight in that +5%

Power-consumption doesn't scale linear like that with Shaders, +45% Shaders should result in about an extra 30% powerdraw, which should bring it to 350 Watts, 270 + 80.

300 Watts or more is too high, i wouldn't like to see it much more than 280 Watts.

i think HBM can save about 30 Watts, they need to get it down another 30 to 40 Watts, about 10 or 15%.

If they can do that and do it at an architectural level (not some firmaware that doesn't work outside of some goldy locks zone) then they are onto a power house that can be cooled just as easily as the 290X

There is another problem that could crop up, with the memory so close to the GPU things are going to get a bit warmer than they would with GDDR5. Even with an AIO cooler the extra heat could hold the GPU back.

As to the TXs they are a tough act to beat as they are probably the best overclockers in the Maxwell range. Their stock clocks are lower than the 980s but overclocked they get very close to the 980s max clocks.

Only time will tell how the 390X goes but if they are faster than the TXs I will probably be one of the first to say so.

I also said that multiple 290Xs @2160p were faster than their 980 counterparts when everyone else was saying that all the 980s needed was a driver update. I am still waiting for the drivers 7 months later.

 

[humbug]

There is another problem that could crop up, with the memory so close to the GPU things are going to get a bit warmer than they would with GDDR5. Even with an AIO cooler the extra heat could hold the GPU back.

As to the TXs they are a tough act to beat as they are probably the best overclockers in the Maxwell range. Their stock clocks are lower than the 980s but overclocked they get very close to the 980s max clocks.

Only time will tell how the 390X goes but if they are faster than the TXs I will probably be one of the first to say so.

I also said that multiple 290Xs @2160p were faster than their 980 counterparts when everyone else was saying that all the 980s needed was a driver update. I am still waiting for the drivers 7 months later.

Agreed keeping those HBM's cool so close to the GPU could be a problem, maybe if they separate the IC cooling from the GPU plate it would help, having an extended GPU plate to go over the IC like they do with GDDR5 isn't too good as you get heat transfer.

The HBM IC's themselves are low power and shouldn't generate much heat on thier own, its just about stopping the heat transfer from the GPU.

 

[Kaapstad]

Agreed keeping those HBM's cool so close to the GPU could be a problem, maybe if they separate the IC cooling from the GPU plate it would help, having an extended GPU plate to go over the IC like they do with GDDR5 isn't too good as you get heat transfer.

The HBM IC's themselves are low power and shouldn't generate much heat on thier own, its just about stopping the heat transfer from the GPU.

Whatever the possible problems maybe I think the 390X is going to be a very fast card and in the long run the way forward.

As good as the TX is it is not going to get any better, I think this card is a good place to say goodbye to 28nm/GDDR5.

The King is dead long live the King.

 

[humbug]

Whatever the possible problems maybe I think the 390X is going to be a very fast card and in the long run the way forward.

As good as the TX is it is not going to get any better, I think this card is a good place to say goodbye to 28nm/GDDR5.

The King is dead long live the King.

Yeah 28nm has actually done pretty well, it will take a while for the next manufacturing node to come as good, it may not be much good at all in relative terms with the first series of GPU's

 

[Phixsator]

Just increasing shader counts would be a dumb move by AMD imho. They must have increased the power effeciency to accommodate for the huge increase in the shader department.

 

[RanxZy]

Just increasing shader counts would be a dumb move by AMD imho. They must have increased the power effeciency to accommodate for the huge increase in the shader department.

In the use of "GCN 1.3 architecture" you would hope it would be at least slightly improved in terms of power efficiency almost two years after GCN 1.1. No where near as good as the potential double performance per watt of GCN 1.4 next year though.

 

[FlanK3r]

5 Faster than the GTX 980 @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K (Faster = over +5%)

But at 4K the performance gap to the 980 will increase and it will close in on the titanX.

the same tip

 

[xLegendary]

If, FIji is not as good as Titan as apparently still not - Im expecting AMD to do pricing around 799 mark for the XT and 599 for the smaller Fiji which should come on top of 980.

 

[Geck0]

I voted faster than the Titan at all resolutions, my money is on HBM making a bigger difference than people expect. That and it has a bunch more cores and it's using the same memory compression as Tonga did.

I think a number of people will go very quiet on this BB when the reviews come in.

 

[Kaapstad]

I voted faster than the Titan at all resolutions, my money is on HBM making a bigger difference than people expect. That and it has a bunch more cores and it's using the same memory compression as Tonga did.

I think a number of people will go very quiet on this BB when the reviews come in.

If the 390X uses compression with the memory that is a black mark against performance already, I hope the card comes with out it.

It is one of the reasons why the 290X (which does not use it) performs better against the Maxwell cards at high resolution.

Compression is crap as you have to waste time resources compressing data.

 

[Doogles]

Faster than the GTX 980 @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K

I think it will be just below the GTX 980ti and £100 cheaper. (When I say below I mean price wise) Nvidia tax is real.