Soldato
Thanks, not seen the blog yet.
Interested to know how many shader units the Fury has, considering the Nano allegedly is a full chip. Surely if you manage to fit a block to Nano it would become an absolute gem.
-
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**
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Thanks, not seen the blog yet.
Interested to know how many shader units the Fury has, considering the Nano allegedly is a full chip. Surely if you manage to fit a block to Nano it would become an absolute gem.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2015
- Posts
- 51
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
I'm not angry at all, I just don't want to have to wade through stuff that's not about the thread topic. I was under the impression this thread was to discuss Fiji, having pressed the "last page" option I'm presented with people harping on about TitanX performance.
Anyhow back on topic, so it seems Fiji uses an enhanced Tonga version of GCN, do we know what version this is?
reading that link above regarding the Fiji stuff it's pretty impressive however the one thing that struck my mind is it leaves the doors wide open for Nvidia funded games to really gimp performance towards the AMD cards by having developers utilise the tech the AMD cards are weaker at but Nvidia is stronger at. Likewise AMD could do the same as well.
As a consumer I would just prefer to have a game that plays and looks good without any hidden agenda of crippling other people, would rather the Devs invest the time and energy into making a product that's extremely well rounded and enjoyable for all
Anyhow back on topic, so it seems Fiji uses an enhanced Tonga version of GCN, do we know what version this is?
reading that link above regarding the Fiji stuff it's pretty impressive however the one thing that struck my mind is it leaves the doors wide open for Nvidia funded games to really gimp performance towards the AMD cards by having developers utilise the tech the AMD cards are weaker at but Nvidia is stronger at. Likewise AMD could do the same as well.
As a consumer I would just prefer to have a game that plays and looks good without any hidden agenda of crippling other people, would rather the Devs invest the time and energy into making a product that's extremely well rounded and enjoyable for all
Soldato
Rebrandion lol. That was Techreport, thought that was a good one 
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,374
they would be mental if the nano is a full chip just declocked to 175W
fiji is a big chip, it is extremely unlikely they are getting good enough yields to not bother doing any salvaged parts
fiji is a big chip, it is extremely unlikely they are getting good enough yields to not bother doing any salvaged parts
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
If Fury X => TX (AMDs Benches look like it is faster) it is very relevant in terms of what will be the drawback, VRAM or GPU grunt.
Last edited:
Soldato
Agreed, was just going by the TR blog. Hadn't really followed the Nano as there is next to no info yet. Definitely doesn't make any sense considering what we know may well be the case with the Fury (non X).
Just the notion of having one on a waterblock is slightly mouthwatering
Any need to come in trying to derail it with accusations. People were discussing the merits of competing cards and as can be seen Flopper was obviously misinformed. It was all very civil until you arrived.
The cheaper product won't be a higher bin. It's most likely aggressively underclocked with some driver level special sauce.
TLDR - Fury X / Fury are likely equal or higher bin and therefore upping clocks / adding a new cooler would be pointless on the NANO .... plus the board isn't designed to handle higher TDPs or voltages so you'd never get there anyway.
Last edited:
Soldato
Obviously, I'm not talking about out of the box performance here. You also seem to be insinuating I'm saying it'll be as fast as Fury X. Again not sure why.
[EDIT] Apparently you know a lot about the vregs on the Nano as well.
Last edited:
Associate
I'm more than fine with Nvidia's tech, but stuff like Game works personally is anticompetitive since the source code is locked, not just for AMD, but Intel too. On the topic of Fury, I'm super excited to get my hands on one of these in September.
Last edited:
You're insinuating that performance could be extracted from putting it under water, and not in a way that other Fiji chips could.
The opposite is true as the board isn't designed for higher TDPs and the chip won't be a better bin.
It would be completely pointless to put it under water and (try to) aggressively overclock it, as you'd immediately run into the design limits of the product.
Use your brain. It's a heavily underclocked chip on a VERY small PCB, with a much lower TDP and a single 8pin connector instead of 2x8.
Last edited:
Soldato
No what I said was the card could well be a gem once on water, as naturally you are increasing the cards cooling capacity, coupled with AMDs trend on having decent power regulation it will probably become quite a good card once on water.
Where as you are saying the board won't be able to take any extra power which is something you know that we all don't, for whatever reason. All cards will have an amperage limit but there will be headroom there. Unless you've got one there and can say otherwise.
Your point? Again, where did I say it would compete with Fury X? Seems you're trying to make a point for points sake one that wasn't really in question
Last edited:
We certainly don't know, but given the single 8pin it is fairly likely that it won't be set up for a bigger power draw. It would be pretty rad if it clocked like a beast though
Soldato
That's the irony that's difficult to point out in when he's telling me to use my brain - an 8 pin connector can safely draw over 200w without an issue. You realise this when overclocking for yourself for however many years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,374
By that same logic, people who buy £600 GPU's in the first place are a minority, yet AMD are making a huge deal of Fury's 4K credentials.
Both vendors release "halo" cards whose only real purpose is to give them marketing rights on "being the best". AMD have spent three years playing the "more vram" card and then release both 8GB mid tier cards and then a halo product aimed at 4K with 4GB, they are missing their own messages and these comments are the result.
AMD's own review guide for the 390X 8GB advises using settings that burst through 4GB just so that it looks better against the 980
They cant really have it both ways.
Associate
Can someone explain to me the significance of power draw please? How does it impact on people?
To the uneducated like me, its kinda like the current trend in cars where young people care more about MPG than BHP, it seems almost depressing.
Is it down to temperatures and ability to overclock?
I have a 750w PSU and as long as it can power my card then I dont really care what the card draws.
What is making it such an important characteristic these days?
To the uneducated like me, its kinda like the current trend in cars where young people care more about MPG than BHP, it seems almost depressing.
Is it down to temperatures and ability to overclock?
I have a 750w PSU and as long as it can power my card then I dont really care what the card draws.
What is making it such an important characteristic these days?