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

[mahius]

As you can see from the bench contests we run in this forum, my cards are amongst the quickest reference 980s of the forum members here and AMDMatts cards can beat them in many scenarios.

I run with water and custom bios on my 980s and the 290X holds its own.

And so if they re-spin the 290X into a lower TDP card with 8GB of Vram it will place it slightly beyond the 980 (Non-ti) in terms of performance.

I wish the 290x were better. But from the benchmarks I've seen (e.g. LTT, DigitalFoundry), the 290x competes and is beaten by 970 at resolutions like 1080p. If it were better than a 970, then I'd expect it to overtake that card in sales considering the current price. I will admit, the 290x holds it's own at higher resolutions against the 980, as I've seen from benchmarks somewhere.

I wonder what magic AMDMatt did to get his 290x run so well? I hope the 390x does compete with the 980 and it comes at a similar price point to currently priced 290x (I've seen 8GB versions for under £300 at OCUK). If so, I may buy one instead of a 970, though I do hope MSI hurry and release an MSI Gaming 390x quickly following launch, since I don't trust reference coolers to run so quiet and I'm fussy with noise levels. Otherwise, it could mean bad things for pricing higher up the chain with the Fury X.

A lot of folks are saying the Fury X is out of league of the 980ti and is a Titan X competitor instead. But folks are forgetting that the 980ti is a TX competitor and is essentially a TX with half the VRAM at a better (but still unreasonable) price. If Fury X wants to compete price/performance, it needs to go up against the 980ti, which is better than the TX IMO. AMD are free to price it higher, if the Fury X performs significantly better than the TI. But given the rumored benchmarks, I doubt that'll be the case.

In any case, I'm looking at the £200-350 price mark for graphics cards over the next couple of weeks. If AMD give me better price/performance with a quiet air cooler than a 970, then they will get my money. Otherwise it'll go towards an Nvidia via a MSI Gaming 970.

 

[andybird123]

Based on those performance metrics, I expect it to trade blows with a TX not the 980ti.

Assuming the Fury X has an AIO water cooler then it can't really be compared apples-to-apples with a air-cooled 980ti on cost, it needs to be compared with a TX.

If it has a water cooler I am also expecting the Fury X to have a greater range of OC capability than a bog standard or mid-ranged Nvidia air-cooled card (as you would expect).

I don't see the 4GB Vram as being a problem, it may be the cards advantage in terms of OC and Heat.

4GB RAM and an AIO cooler could make the Fury X a bit of an OC beast.

You aren't making much sense, the aftermarket 980ti's are overclocking better than stock TX's, so performance wise, price wise and VRAM wise the FuryX is looking to be closer to a 980ti than it is to a TitanX that even if for the 12GB of VRAM alone is a super niche card

If I'm in the market for a FuryX, I'm also in the market for a 980ti, not a TX

the fact it is having to come with an AIO could also mean that it is already near it's limits, not that it has great OC potential

 

[Mayh3M]

I wish the 290x were better. But from the benchmarks I've seen (e.g. LTT, DigitalFoundry), the 290x competes and is beaten by 970 at resolutions like 1080p. If it were better than a 970, then I'd expect it to overtake that card in sales considering the current price. I will admit, the 290x holds it's own at higher resolutions against the 980, as I've seen from benchmarks somewhere.

I wonder what magic AMDMatt did to get his 290x run so well? I hope the 390x does compete with the 980 and it comes at a similar price point to currently priced 290x (I've seen 8GB versions for under £300 at OCUK). If so, I may buy one instead of a 970, though I do hope MSI hurry and release an MSI Gaming 390x quickly following launch, since I don't trust reference coolers to run so quiet and I'm fussy with noise levels. Otherwise, it could mean bad things for pricing higher up the chain with the Fury X.

A lot of folks are saying the Fury X is out of league of the 980ti and is a Titan X competitor instead. But folks are forgetting that the 980ti is a TX competitor and is essentially a TX with half the VRAM at a better (but still unreasonable) price. If Fury X wants to compete price/performance, it needs to go up against the 980ti, which is better than the TX IMO. AMD are free to price it higher, if the Fury X performs significantly better than the TI. But given the rumored benchmarks, I doubt that'll be the case.

In any case, I'm looking at the £200-350 price mark for graphics cards over the next couple of weeks. If AMD give me better price/performance with a quiet air cooler than a 970, then they will get my money. Otherwise it'll go towards an Nvidia via a MSI Gaming 970.

While I think the 390X can finally match the 980 or at least 970 at 1080p, it's extremely unlikely it will be comparable in terms of noise. The MSI 970 in particular is insanely quiet even with large overclocks. Believe me, Ive had the pleasure of owning one.

Also the 980ti can be had for slightly over £500. In no way is that an unreasonable price. You said it yourself, it's a Titan X with half the VRAM, and a card that the Fury might not even beat.

 

[Geck0]

Anyone saying anything about 1080P with reference to anything later than 2yrs ago is simply irrelevant. If you are still gaming on 1080 then you are either some sort of FPS super competitive freak or not relevant because you are not capable of running these cards flat out.

 

[Mayh3M]

You aren't making much sense, the aftermarket 980ti's are overclocking better than stock TX's, so performance wise, price wise and VRAM wise the FuryX is looking to be closer to a 980ti than it is to a TitanX that even if for the 12GB of VRAM alone is a super niche card

If I'm in the market for a FuryX, I'm also in the market for a 980ti, not a TX

the fact it is having to come with an AIO could also mean that it is already near it's limits, not that it has great OC potential

He's referring to enthusiast overclocking.

You are right though in that your talking about everyone else, which is what matters. The average end user's performance will determine whether something is a success or not.

 

[ubersonic]

Anyone saying anything about 1080P with reference to anything later than 2yrs ago is simply irrelevant. If you are still gaming on 1080 then you are either some sort of FPS super competitive freak or not relevant because you are not capable of running these cards flat out.

I game at 2560x1080 @75Hz, even the difference between GTX970/980 is noticeable (but not major), Fury/980ti should be even more noticeable when I decide which to go fo.

 

[Mayh3M]

Anyone saying anything about 1080P with reference to anything later than 2yrs ago is simply irrelevant. If you are still gaming on 1080 then you are either some sort of FPS super competitive freak or not relevant because you are not capable of running these cards flat out.

Aside from being ignorant and arrogant, this comment is just flat out wrong.

 

[africanos23]

1080p and 1440p are still CPU bottlenecked @ maxed out settings and MSAA. (Even more so with a AMD GPU) Matts scores are probably some of the best either due to the resolution he is running or a hefty CPU overclock.

4K is where you see the true performers. I have had GTX970s and R9-290s prior to my TXs and the GTX970s where totally turd compared to the R9-290s (due to memory bandwidth) but the GTX970s are better at lower resolutions. The TXs even on stock are in a whole different league (let alone overclocked).

In some of the latest open world AAA titles, you are going to need a very good CPU 4+ cores or OC much much higher when running 1080p (and sometimes 1440p) than what you are use to so your CPU doesn't bottleneck you in the process.

TX beats the GTX980Ti clock for clock and just about everyone can run over 1350mhz. I'm running 1424/8000 with a 65.9% and 73% asics on stock air and voltage.

 

[jupiter_man]

nearly 8000 posts before launch I reckon we will get OVER 9000

When will these new range get in stock?

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Anyone saying anything about 1080P with reference to anything later than 2yrs ago is simply irrelevant. If you are still gaming on 1080 then you are either some sort of FPS super competitive freak or not relevant because you are not capable of running these cards flat out.

Or, maybe some of us prefer high frame rates. I'm waiting until better 1440p screens come out before i upgrade, nothing wrong with 1080p.

 

[ubersonic]

nearly 8000 posts before launch I reckon we will get OVER 9000

When will these new range get in stock?

Five minutes!

 

[Mtom]

You aren't making much sense, the aftermarket 980ti's are overclocking better than stock TX's, so performance wise, price wise and VRAM wise the FuryX is looking to be closer to a 980ti than it is to a TitanX that even if for the 12GB of VRAM alone is a super niche card

If I'm in the market for a FuryX, I'm also in the market for a 980ti, not a TX

the fact it is having to come with an AIO could also mean that it is already near it's limits, not that it has great OC potential

So 1000$ for a TX is justified, because it is a halo product, and you can get something special....high price for an AMD halo product is not justified in any way...because...thats the way we see amd period. No explanation needed.
Please don't start the VRAM argument , the more VRAM is only on the table since NV put more on their cards...when amd had more on their cards there was nothing wrong with the less VRAM...even when 980 arrived with 4GB it was fine, but now...4gb is nothing. If its faster than a Ti then its faster...most ppl are looking at the numbers on the graphs in the benchmarks, and decide that way.

 

[Mtom]

Back to topic

Hotlinked image from WCCF.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-confirmed-official-marketing-material-card-4096bit-wide-memory-interface-hbm/

 

[africanos23]

Back to topic

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-confirmed-official-marketing-material-card-4096bit-wide-memory-interface-hbm/

AMD’s latest and greatest GPU based graphics card which is aimed towards 4K gamers and ultra high-end enthusiasts.

MAKING BEAUTIFUL MEMORY.

AMD Radeon ™ R9 Fury X graphics is the world’s first graphics card to integrate on-chip High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) technology. AMD’s lastest industry innovation delivers more than 3X the bandwidth per watt over GDDR5 and a 4096-bit memory interface for incredible new advances in power and efficiency.

ENJOY THE VIEW.

AMD Radeon ™ R9 Fury X graphics is engineered for 4K gaming, DirectX® 12 and Vulkan ™ APIs, max settings, and ultimate monitor configuration flexibilicy. Expand your field of view with AMD Eyefinity technology and experience the smoothest 6K gameplay using 3×1 1440p FreeSync ™ -enabled monitors.

SMALL SIZE. GIANT IMPACT.

The sleek, envy-inducing new form of AMD Radeon ™ R9 Fury X graphics packs an onboard GPU Tach activity meter and LED illumination, plus the raw graphics processing power for a true GPU paradigm shift.

REDEFINE REALITY.

AMD Radeon ™ R9 Fury X graphics is blazing the trail in virtual reality. AMD LiquidVR ™ ensures world-class VR experiences with low latency and a broad level of head mounted display compatibility.

6K gameplay using 3×1 1440p FreeSync ™ -enabled monitors.
AMD’s latest and greatest GPU based graphics card which is aimed towards 4K gamers and ultra high-end enthusiasts.

 

[HEADRAT]

OK it's getting desperate when stuff like this is news

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Packaging

 

[andybird123]

So 1000$ for a TX is justified, because it is a halo product, and you can get something special....high price for an AMD halo product is not justified in any way...because...thats the way we see amd period. No explanation needed.
Please don't start the VRAM argument , the more VRAM is only on the table since NV put more on their cards...when amd had more on their cards there was nothing wrong with the less VRAM...even when 980 arrived with 4GB it was fine, but now...4gb is nothing. If its faster than a Ti then its faster...most ppl are looking at the numbers on the graphs in the benchmarks, and decide that way.

No, I'm not saying $1000 for anything is justified, hence why I'm not buying a TX.
Yes, when AMD had 4GB AND cheaper than nvidia, that was a selling point. The fact is that more people buy Nvidia cards just for being Nvidia cards. Selling a similar performing card with less Vram is something the market will tolerate if it has a green sticker. I'm not saying that was s fair, or just or whatever, I'm just relaying a fact.

IF these rumours are true and we are looking at a very similar performing card with less vram and less OC potential then it is going to be a very tough sell.

 

[Devrij]

OK it's getting desperate when stuff like this is news

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Packaging

Woooo! I was hoping the box would be white!

 

[Jono8]

Anyone saying anything about 1080P with reference to anything later than 2yrs ago is simply irrelevant. If you are still gaming on 1080 then you are either some sort of FPS super competitive freak or not relevant because you are not capable of running these cards flat out.

What on earth?

 

[eyetrip]

This thread is funny

It's like it's bipolar

 

[Sacrifice]

What on earth?

Absolutely no idea :/. These r9 290's just about do max 120fps. I have no clue about his statement either.

Also, interesting they claim the Fury X can be used for 4K.