Hawaii XTX simulated benchmarks

Orangey · 26 Jun 2014 at 07:37

It would be 5% faster than 290X. But when HBM is thrown into the mix:

The results now show a 21% improvement which is much more impressive than 5% and very acceptable. So what happens if we ramp it up to 4-Hi HBM? Well you get a performance boost of almost 30% relative to the R9 290X, which means that you have now beaten the Dual Chip 7990. Needless to say these are very impressive numbers but they are Dependant on the fact that AMD will utilize HBM. So unless Red pulls one on us, we are looking at a 5% performance increase in ideal scenarios, with 7-8% performance increase with very optimized drivers.

http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-295x-hawaii-xtx-simulated-benchmarks-5-improvement/

BS Dave · 26 Jun 2014 at 11:15

FoxEye · 26 Jun 2014 at 12:14

BS Dave said:
HBM?

Hopeful BenchMarking?

Hilariously Bad Measuring?

Hidden Bias Manifestation?

Gregster · 26 Jun 2014 at 12:23

I do love wccftech's news. They can be miles off at times but sometimes they are on the ball. Going from what has been said though, I am not even sold that they have this chip done yet. Cool if they have and hopefully it has a new redesigned cooler to run cool, which is cool

erazor51 · 26 Jun 2014 at 12:35

BS Dave said:
HBM?

High-bandwidth memory

Ayahuasca · 26 Jun 2014 at 12:50

If it's anywhere near 21% better than a 290x I'll buy one.

I think anyone with a bit of rational thinking knows it won't be though.

bru · 26 Jun 2014 at 14:20

21%....and I'll have some of whatever they have been smoking please

Dicehunter · 26 Jun 2014 at 14:45

So going from 2800 SP's to 3000 SP's will yield all those miraculous results ? Me thinks someone needs to put the rather large bag of weed down

Gerard · 26 Jun 2014 at 14:48

Dicehunter said:
So going from 2800 SP's to 3000 SP's will yield all those miraculous results ? Me thinks someone needs to put the rather large bag of weed down

Yup, the 290x is what like 3 or so fps with 53mhz on the core aad a few hundred more unlocked stream processors than the 290.

TheRealDeal · 26 Jun 2014 at 14:51

Dicehunter said:
So going from 2800 SP's to 3000 SP's will yield all those miraculous results ? Me thinks someone needs to put the rather large bag of weed down

I doubt they will go for these gains but with the extra shader's and say a clock speed of 1100 will get you somewhere in the range of 15% extra. You could also get some gains from a memory bump. I don't see what's so unbelievable tbh.

For this to happen they would probably have had to work on reducing there power usage.

Without knowing clock speeds it's hard to predict how much faster this card is going to be.

David Bisset · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:05

Dicehunter said:
So going from 2800 SP's to 3000 SP's will yield all those miraculous results ? Me thinks someone needs to put the rather large bag of weed down

So, you missed the HBM bit? They said it'd give marginal gains with just the above.

...not that I think HBM is likely at the moment, just theorycrafting by wccftech.

Silent_Scone · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:09

Speculation stations

Orangey · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:14

Dicehunter said:
So going from 2800 SP's to 3000 SP's will yield all those miraculous results ? Me thinks someone needs to put the rather large bag of weed down

5% is miraculous?

Kaapstad · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:36

Total rubbish in the wccftech link.

If AMD goes from 2816 SPs (existing 290X) to 3072 SPs and uses the same clocks as a 290X you will get 9.1% increase in performance across the board in games and benches.

Where this starts to goes wrong is if you start overclocking as the card with 3072 SPs will produce more heat and overclock less. What performance increase you get over a standard 290X will be down to the silicon lottery and not some wally at wccftech.

Rroff · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:39

Memory bandwidth isn't going to do much overall for games, some things are a little more sensitive to it than others. The 290X already has more than sufficent memory capabilities in most cases for the core spec at stock.

Kaapstad · 26 Jun 2014 at 15:52

Rroff said:
Memory bandwidth isn't going to do much overall for games, some things are a little more sensitive to it than others. The 290X already has more than sufficent memory capabilities in most cases for the core spec at stock.

+1

Faster memory could do a tiny amount if you were silly enough to game @720p but for normal and high resolutions the 290X has plenty.

I tested at low resolutions using a 290X against a Titan and the difference was tiny in favour of the Titan (a lot smaller than 1%). I have also seen loads of benches where the 290X has a significant advantage over NVidia cards @4K due to the wider memory bus. I will be getting a 4K monitor soon and do some testing myself but I think I will get the same as above at high resolutions.

Dicehunter · 26 Jun 2014 at 16:11

Orangey said:
5% is miraculous?

I never said 5% did I

These 30% gains that are in the opening post are miraculous but I can't see them using HBM on just a refresh.

Kaapstad said:
Total rubbish in the wccftech link.

If AMD goes from 2816 SPs (existing 290X) to 3072 SPs and uses the same clocks as a 290X you will get 9.1% increase in performance across the board in games and benches.

Where this starts to goes wrong is if you start overclocking as the card with 3072 SPs will produce more heat and overclock less. What performance increase you get over a standard 290X will be down to the silicon lottery and not some wally at wccftech.

+1

Rroff · 26 Jun 2014 at 16:15

The biggest thing is going to be whether its a new respin that has significant refinements which could let them push the out the box clockspeeds.

almighty15 · 26 Jun 2014 at 20:40

5870 had 10% more shader cores then a 5850 and yet when both were running at the same clocks that only equated to a real world difference of 4-6% in favour of the 5870.

It's the same story with the 6950 vs 6970, 7970 vs 7950 and 290 vs 290x

This card with 7% more shaders will only really equate to 5% at most.

Orangey · 26 Jun 2014 at 21:03