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

Razor Time · 11 Jun 2015 at 00:47

I wouldn't be surprised if that graph is correct considering every generation the top end cards seem to come out fairly even. I would love if one or two gens one company came out and wiped the floor with the competition causing the other company to release a better and faster card.

JediFragger · 11 Jun 2015 at 01:31

easyrider said:
The fury x needs to beat the Titan or go the **** home!!

Fixed

JediFragger · 11 Jun 2015 at 01:32

Razor Time said:
I wouldn't be surprised if that graph is correct considering every generation the top end cards seem to come out fairly even. I would love if one or two gens one company came out and wiped the floor with the competition causing the other company to release a better and faster card.

Thing is, considering the leap ahead in memory tech then everyone is expecting the top Fury card to beat the TX by a fair margin....

I know I am

If not then the reduced R&D budget is really hitting AMD hard, and Pascal will more than likely tear them (and us!) a new one if this trend continues :eek:

JeffyB · 11 Jun 2015 at 01:49

So Bigger or less, lets see. Speculation at it's finest.

Kaapstad · 11 Jun 2015 at 01:50

JediFragger said:
Thing is, considering the leap ahead in memory tech then everyone is expecting the top Fury card to beat the TX by a fair margin....

I know I am

If not then the reduced R&D budget is really hitting AMD hard, and Pascal will more than likely tear them (and us!) a new one if this trend continues

The problem is the Fury can not beat the TX as it does not have 12gb of VRAM.

The card the Fury really does have to beat is the 980 Ti as this is in the same market segment.

2160p is not going to happen for the Fury until AMD increase the amount of memory on board.

JeffyB · 11 Jun 2015 at 02:05

too much talk not enough actual numbers. Like money is moving until we see anything meaningful.

Wah007 · 11 Jun 2015 at 04:01

Not long to go now. I'm very curious to know the pricing of the Fury X.

FinglisHobbit · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:11

Kaapstad said:
The problem is the Fury can not beat the TX as it does not have 12gb of VRAM.

The card the Fury really does have to beat is the 980 Ti as this is in the same market segment.

2160p is not going to happen for the Fury until AMD increase the amount of memory on board.

It cost you nearly 4000 pounds to get a framerate you are happy with at your resolution.

The rest of us of the gaming community is a lot more easily pleased. For me and many others 1440p at a reasonable price is enough.

By the time we have enough good games or monitors at a good enough price titans and furys will be obsolete. I can't help feel your posts only represent a small minded opinion of someone who spent the equivalent of a small car on his graphics cards and just wants everything else to fail.

Kaapstad · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:39

FinglisHobbit said:
It cost you nearly 4000 pounds to get a framerate you are happy with at your resolution.

The rest of us of the gaming community is a lot more easily pleased. For me and many others 1440p at a reasonable price is enough.

By the time we have enough good games or monitors at a good enough price titans and furys will be obsolete. I can't help feel your posts only represent a small minded opinion of someone who spent the equivalent of a small car on his graphics cards and just wants everything else to fail.

No not at all, I am just being honest in how I see it.

I will be buying the Fury, will you.

What I do find small minded in these sort of threads is people who want one brand to beat another brand without giving it any logical reasoning.

mururoa · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:41

FinglisHobbit said:
The rest of us of the gaming community is a lot more easily pleased. For me and many others 1440p at a reasonable price is enough.

How is this relevant regarding what he said about 2160p and vram requirements? :confused:

By the way, AMD themselves have been quite vocal about all things 4K so you would expect them to deliver on that front.

Troezar · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:42

Kaap has a point when you're taking about quadfire and 4K. Much more likely to hit a vram wall at those settings. All depends on DX12 and how it handles things/individual game code.

Silent_Scone · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:44

I keep hearing the power consumption for this thing is going to be pretty crazy so people should probably be prepared for that.

We're talking monster. Only thing is I'm not sure what these figures equate to in terms of clock speed and voltage, but it's not pretty. Let's just say Kaap, for quad configuration it's going to give your dual setup a run for its money lol.

Mayh3M · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:45

Troezar said:
Kaap has a point when you're taking about quadfire and 4K. Much more likely to hit a vram wall at those settings. All depends on DX12 and how it handles things/individual game code.

Forget four, two cards are more than enough to take you past 4 GB at 4k. Easily too.

Silent_Scone · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:49

FinglisHobbit said:
It cost you nearly 4000 pounds to get a framerate you are happy with at your resolution.

The rest of us of the gaming community is a lot more easily pleased. For me and many others 1440p at a reasonable price is enough.

By the time we have enough good games or monitors at a good enough price titans and furys will be obsolete. I can't help feel your posts only represent a small minded opinion of someone who spent the equivalent of a small car on his graphics cards and just wants everything else to fail.

But then if you turn this around (and I don't think you actually meant small minded), you could say the same that 4gb is entirely sufficient for 1440p, because it isn't. Maybe in a great deal of cases, but not all...

Kaapstad · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:49

Silent_Scone said:
I keep hearing the power consumption for this thing is going to be pretty crazy so people should probably be prepared for that.

We're talking monster. Only thing is I'm not sure what these figures equate to in terms of clock speed and voltage, but it's not pretty. Let's just say Kaap, for quad configuration it's going to give your dual setup a run for its money lol.

The machine I will be using has a pair of 1200 watt PSUs.

What does spring to mind though is if they use that much power and therefore produce a lot of heat, how much overclocking headroom have they got when compared to the GM200 cards ?

Silent_Scone · 11 Jun 2015 at 06:53

Put it this way, with three of these once overclocked a 1600w may just well topple. Which in fairness is nothing we haven't seen before, but it HAS to beat the TX. It has to...

I'm not sure about other people but wouldn't want to go back to having that amount of heat dumped into the room this time of year

Mayh3M · 11 Jun 2015 at 07:09

Silent_Scone said:
Put it this way, with three of these once overclocked a 1600w may just well topple. Which in fairness is nothing we haven't seen before, but it HAS to beat the TX. It has to...

I'm not sure about other people but wouldn't want to go back to having that amount of heat dumped into the room this time of year

If benchmarks are to be believed it has around a 300 watt TDP which is only 50 more than the 980ti.

Although I doubt they take the AIO into account, which could add around 50 more.

r7slayer · 11 Jun 2015 at 07:12

How do you come to that conclusion? It only has two 8 pin PCI-e power connectors with a max of 375 watt envelope and it's been said same envelope power wise as 290x. So where do u keep getting those crazy conclusions from silent?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jun 2015 at 07:13

Kaapstad · 11 Jun 2015 at 07:19

Mayh3M said:
If benchmarks are to be believed it has around a 300 watt TDP which is only 50 more than the 980ti.

Although I doubt they take the AIO into account, which could add around 50 more.

300 watts is a lot and worse still with the HBM chips packed around the core it is a bit toasty even before you start thinking about overclocking.

The AIO setup won't use much more power than an air cooled setup either. The D5 pumps on my custom loop only use 37 watts when absolutely flat out.