• 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.

**AMD Fiji Thread**

Would it need to be cut down that much though, if at all?

If we take their word on it - pending independent testing - they are saying they can do the Nano - which is a given to be cut down - at 175W and still beat a 290X on performance and the X pulls 275W under 'normal gaming conditions'.

So, yeah, if they tried putting it out with their normal blower it'd be hot and loud but if they go straight to AIB solutions then it should be doable, no? Just with no where near as much potential o/c headroom.
 
Clov!s said:
I think £550 will be the base price, what he's trying to say for EG is:

100 Fury X's @ £550 all sell out, new stock arrives a few weeks later, because demand is high they can put the price up, people will pay whatever AMD ask if the card is in high demand.

A £100 price hike though i'm not sure, depends just how high demand will be.
Click to expand...

MrMD said:
He said stocks for launch are really low,and will be priced accordingly(£600-£650).So they will certainly sell out in mintes
Pre-orders will also go live for £550,and people will get their cards as the supply arrives over the coming month/s
Click to expand...

Yeah if there is a hike of that much at launch I am happy to wait until there is better supply and prices.

No point losing money in selling the Titan X and then paying over the odds for the Fury X as well. Will keep rocking the Titan X until I see a good price on Fury X.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Yeah if there is a hike of that much at launch I am happy to wait until there is better supply and prices.

No point losing money in selling the Titan X and then paying over the odds for the Fury X as well. Will keep rocking the Titan X until I see a good price on Fury X.
Click to expand...

Wait out for dx12 you never know with all the talk about memory usage, the titan x 12g might be prove worthy.
 
Just waiting on the reviews of the Fury X to come out then see if the price for the first lot of stock is reasonable, i really do want one of these.
 
Not sure if posted yet, a surface analysis and look at Fiji vs Hawaii and GM200:
http://techreport.com/review/28499/amd-radeon-fury-x-architecture-revealed

Techreport said:
Now we have a pretty good sense of things. In certain respects, Fiji has grown by roughly half-again compared to Hawaii, including peak shader arithmetic, texture filtering capacity, and memory bandwidth. That 512 GB/s of memory bandwidth comes courtesy of HBM, Fiji's signature innovation, and puts the Fury X in a class by itself in at least one department.

In other respects, including peak triangle throughput for rasterization and pixel fill rates, Fiji is simply no more capable in theory than Hawaii. As a result, Fiji offers a very different mix of resources than its predecessor. There's tons more shader and computing power on tap, and the Fury X can access memory via its texturing units and HBM interfaces at much higher rates than the R9 290X.

In situations where a game's performance is limited primarily by shader effects processing, texturing, or memory bandwidth, the Fury X should easily outpace the 290X. On the other hand, if gaming performance is gated by any sort of ROP throughput—including raw pixel-pushing power, blending rates for multisampled anti-aliasing, or effects based on depth and stencil like shadowing—the Fury X has little to offer beyond the R9 290X. The same is true for geometry throughput.

The Fury X substantially outruns the GeForce GTX 980 Ti in terms of integer texture filtering, shader math rates, and memory bandwidth, too, since the 980 Ti more or less matches the 290X in those departments. But the Fury X has only about 70% of the ROP and triangle rasterization rates of the big GeForce.

With Fiji, AMD is offering a rather different vision of how GPUs ought to be used by game developers. That's one reason I'd expect to see continuing fights between the GPU vendors over what effects folks incorporate into PC games. Nvidia will likely emphasize geometric complexity and tessellation, and AMD will probably push for prettier pixels instead of more polygons.

The resulting GPUs have dramatically different respective strengths, and early indicators point to them being pretty closely matched in current games.
Click to expand...
 
I've been sitting here thinking for a while, isn't 'Fury' a Kingston Technologies HyperX trademark?

How are AMD getting away with calling their card a FuryX?
 
Type_R said:
I've been sitting here thinking for a while, isn't 'Fury' a Kingston Technologies HyperX trademark?

How are AMD getting away with calling their card a FuryX?
Click to expand...

Probably as they've had cards in the past called rage fury etc. Not as if anyone is gonna mix up a gpu with memory.
 
The reason why Fiji isn't any larger, he said, is that AMD was up against a size limitation: the interposer that sits beneath the GPU and the DRAM stacks is fabricated just like a chip, and as a result, the interposer can only be as large as the reticle used in the photolithography process. (Larger interposers might be possible with multiple exposures, but they'd likely not be cost-effective.) In an HBM solution, the GPU has to be small enough to allow space on the interposer for the HBM stacks. Koduri explained that Fiji is very close to its maximum possible size, within something like four square millimeters.
Click to expand...


Wonder if that's why its restricted to 4 gigs this time around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom