• 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.

Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Recent NVidia cards have sacrificed compute performance so I'd say it's not really relevant to gaming.

M6000 and Titan X don't perform all that much better than the K6000 (Kepler) in FP32 compared to the increase games got and they both get utterly destroyed by Kepler in FP64.
 
mmj_uk said:
Recent NVidia cards have sacrificed compute performance so I'd say it's not really relevant to gaming.

M6000 and Titan X don't perform all that much better than the K6000 (Kepler) in FP32 compared to the increase games got and they both get utterly destroyed by Kepler in FP64.
Click to expand...

I believe it was double precision performance the new Titan sacrificed, for other compute performance applications its still a monster.

OpenCL performance looks good but just remember AMD has traditionally always been stronger in this area.
 
mmj_uk said:
Recent NVidia cards have sacrificed compute performance so I'd say it's not really relevant to gaming.

M6000 and Titan X don't perform all that much better than the K6000 (Kepler) in FP32 compared to the increase games got and they both get utterly destroyed by Kepler in FP64.
Click to expand...

Look at the Quadro M6000, its the same 3072 Shader GM200 as the Titan-X.
 
Clicking on gaming performance, I was able to find gaming benchmarks of the AMD Radeon Graphic Processor. However, as our readers are probably aware – the GFXBench OpenGL based tests are unreliable at consistently predicting gaming performance. But I am also sure they would like to take a look regardless so the GPU score and a TITAN-X comparison is given below:
Click to expand...

Hotlinked image.

The Fiji based AMD ‘Fury’ graphic card scores an approximate 102.2 FPS as compared to the TITAN-X which scores 137.7 FPS. The Fiji die is (according to this test) roughly 25% slower than the TITAN-X. Sadly, only the Manhattan test was conducted so we don’t really have another frame of reference to be able to gauge how much of this is driver/incompatibility issue, and how much of this is real performance. Please do note that even though the Manhattan test is usually unreliable, there is a very significant possibility of this being close to real world values. In any case, I am pretty happy with the compute side of this leak Not to mention this is one of the first authentic benchmarks of Fiji.
Click to expand...

http://wccftech.com/benchmarks-amds-fiji-gpu-surface-open-cl-compubench-performance-beats-titanx/
 
If the Fury graphics card is 25% slower than the Titan X, then it's pretty bad news for AMD fans. (I get that it has beaten the Titan X in many other tests, but I was hoping they would push ahead on all fronts)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Last edited:
humbug said:
Oh for crying out loud, cherry picking, AMD have always been slow at Manhatten, they are slow at elsewhere too, they are much faster than Nvidia at other things, you can't win them all.....

What matters here is Fiji? is A LOT FASTER THAN HAWAII in all of it.
Click to expand...

Thats right..its 30-40% faster in all the tests
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom