• 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.

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

How fast will the 390X be?

  • Faster than the Titan-X @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K

    Votes: 59 22.1%

  • Faster than the Titan-X @ 4K only

    Votes: 15 5.6%

  • Within +/- ~5% of a Titan-X @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K

    Votes: 70 26.2%

  • Within +/- ~5% of a Titan-X @ 4K only

    Votes: 16 6.0%

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

    Votes: 60 22.5%

  • Faster than the GTX 980 @ 4K only

    Votes: 10 3.7%

  • Within +/- ~5% of a GTX 980 @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K

    Votes: 17 6.4%

  • Within +/- ~5% of a GTX 980 @ 4K only

    Votes: 4 1.5%

  • 94% or less the performance of a GTX 980.

    Votes: 16 6.0%
  • Total voters
    267
gareth170 said:
if this is right, then what i was say in the other thread is right, the 390x won't be near / on pair with a 295x2 or even a TX, just look at the specs of the 390x vs 295x2
Click to expand...

All speculation at this point. You could be right, but then HBM could make a bigger difference than we think. We shall find out in the next 4 weeks ;)
 
HBM will only help in memory bandwidth bottlenecked scenarios, so super high resolutions with AA etc.

If that table is legit the modified 290X with HBM actually looks quite interesting though, especially if it comes in at around £250. I've not really paid much attention to HBM but I'm assuming they won't need a complex 512bit PCB? that should make it significantly cheaper to manufacturer. Is it known how much HBM chips cost compared to GDDR5?
 
gareth170 said:
but the memory bandwidth on the 390x is the same as on 295x2

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...101&compare=radeon-r9-390x-vs-radeon-r9-295x2
Click to expand...

With dual GPUs you must realise that the theoretical combined specifications heavily rely on software to get the most out of the hardware efficiently. This is why a single powerful GPU will always be more consistent. That and it's all good having 640GB combined memory bandwidth, but kinda sucks when you get bottlenecked by the 4GB vram on the 295x2.
 
Within +/- ~5% of a Titan-X @ 1080P - 1440P - 4K.

I think it will be difficult to be much faster and also vastly improvement their efficiency over the AMD previous gen. I don't follow GC's too closely but think for AMD to have a comparable card they need to improve on both fronts (efficiency and performance) . I think they were behind on at least one of those two so they have to try to improve on both unless just go for pure competitive pricing.
Given how much time AMD have had for extra development, at least over the 980, I wouldn't be impressed by a 10 or even 20% improvement over the 980 if the power usage doesn't also get close too. SUre, performance is the ultimate goal of course.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I wouldn't put to much stock in that. More to it than that.
The 295X2 = 1024Bit
The 390X = 4096Bit
Click to expand...

Don't put too much stock into the maximum theoretical bandwidth but go by the bits instead? seriously?

I think what you meant to say is that 295X2 is two 290X's built upon a single PCB, each GPU has the same 320GB/s bandwidth as a single 290X. You can't just double things up like that website has Crossfire doesn't work like that, 295X2 can only be directly compared to a future 395X2(?) or two 390X's in Crossfire if you're going to do it that way.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Don't put too much stock into the maximum theoretical bandwidth but go by the bits instead? seriously?

I think what you meant to say is that 295X2 is two 290X's built upon a single PCB, each GPU has the same 320GB/s bandwidth as a single 290X. You can't just double things up like that website has Crossfire doesn't work like that, 295X2 can only be directly compared to a future 395X2(?) or two 390X's in Crossfire if you're going to do it that way.
Click to expand...

i guess he knows that

but in most crossfire games you do get near or double the performance.
 
gareth170 said:
i know mate. but either way HBM will only help in very high resolutions etc scenarios
Click to expand...

You never know tbh, the reduction in latencies might just be as useful at lower resolutions! Keeping that engine fed at a faster rate could be of a huge benefit in certain scenerios. Looks like it's gonna be a game changer, hope it is!!

AMD have always pushed the hardware envelope, can't wait to see how HBM turns out :cool:
 
crinkleshoes said:
Going by number of shaders on 290X vs number of shaders for 390X... I would expect performance to be 5-15% slower than Titan X depending on game ;)
Click to expand...

According to this The vs the 290X Titan-X is 43% faster @ 1440P and 4K

290X = 2816 Shaders
390X = 4096 Shaders = +45%

290X is GCN 1.1
AMD's latest Arch to date and released is GCN 1.2 (Tonga) it has <4x the Tessellation Throughput and +60% the Texture Bandwidth of GCN 1.1.
Tonga (R9 285) 1796 Shaders @ 920Mhz - 256Bit Bus is is as fast as the 384Bit 950Mhz 280 to faster than the 2048 Shader 1050Mhz 384Bit 280X.
Overall GCN 1.2 is about 15% faster than GCN 1/1.1

So the Titan-X is 43% faster than a 290X, add +45% Shaders add the 15% over performance increase to all those Shaders, without Shader full scaling its going to be about 45% faster than the 290X, perhaps a little more than that.

So that equates to about + a few % faster than the Titan-X

Completely ignoring any performance benefit HBM might have.

Board updated. :)
 
Last edited:
Heh. I misread the bottom option as being the Titan X instead of the 980. D'oh!

I reckon a heavily overclocked 390X will beat a standard Titan X. I'll point out that they were going to launch a 4 GB version of the card a month or two ago but pulled that when they saw that 4 GB didn't cut it. They would have launched it regardless if it had beaten the 980 by a significant amount, so it obviously did not. Hopefully they'll have used the extra time to squeeze extra performance out of the card.

Where the 390X will score will be GPU processing, thanks to the HBM.
 
I'm not sure we really want the 390X to have the same performance as Titan X or more.
i do hope 390X is a 5-10% slower than TitanX and 390 is around 980 level.
what i do really hope is price wars. If 390X is better than Titan X all is nice and toasty but that will enable AMD to charge "an arm and a leg" for it.
I'd prefer it being slower, but at a interesting price.
 
EXxx said:
I'm not sure we really want the 390X to have the same performance as Titan X or more.
i do hope 390X is a 5-10% slower than TitanX and 390 is around 980 level.
what i do really hope is price wars. If 390X is better than Titan X all is nice and toasty but that will enable AMD to charge "an arm and a leg" for it.
I'd prefer it being slower, but at a interesting price.
Click to expand...

AMD could try to but they would not get a penny from me and its not because people dont accept such prices from AMD its because i would not pay either brand for that much for such a card period, it would have to be a dual GPU for those prices.
 
r7slayer said:
Paper based stats tho lol
Click to expand...
For sure but not unrealistic.

A 1796 Shader GCN 1.2 @ 920Mhz 256Bit 190 Watt 285 is nearly as quick as its 2048 Shader 1000Mhz 384Bit 220 Watt big brother, sometimes a little quicker, it wouldn't take a lot of tweaking to get a 2048 Shader 512Bit 4GB Tonga around 290X performance at 180 Watts.

And it would have to be to compete with the GTX 970, or they might as well not bother.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_285_Dual-X_OC/25.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom