I've seen no one question how good HBM1 is based on HBM2. Instead, using basic reading and comprehension skills, I can see that people are questioning the intial VRAM limitation of 4 GB HBM, and whether or not it is equatable to a larger amount of GDDR5 memory. Based on the fact that there are much larger amounts of HBM being produced in the near future, its not unreasonable to assume HBM doesn't mitigate GDDR5 VRAM capacity limitations.
-
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!!!!!!)
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
- Status
I've seen no one question how good HBM1 is based on HBM2. Instead, using basic reading and comprehension skills, I can see that people are questioning the intial VRAM limitation of 4 GB HBM, and whether or not it is equatable to a larger amount of GDDR5 memory. Based on the fact that there are much larger amounts of HBM being produced in the near future, its not unreasonable to assume HBM doesn't mitigate GDDR5 VRAM capacity limitations.
Yeah, seems like utter crap really. May as well pick up that ASUS 290X for 220
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
So $370 for the 390X with 8GB, about the same price or slightly higher than current 290X prices in the US, which seems like good value to me.
Unless HBM had built in compression then it would not, but AMD may use a new compression algorithm to fit more in.
That's a 390 non X.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,756
- Location
- West End, Southampton
was hoping it would at least get to compete with a 980gtx. Not good at all if that's the case. Also what's rather alarming, loud and hot. They've had 2 years to come up with a cooler, quieter solution than the 290x and they havent even done that. Appears to be rather lame if this video can be believed. Very poor showing by AMD. Guess they have been putting all their eggs in the FuryX basket. Lets hope so anyway.
Ignoring the non sequitur.
Considering the no doubt not insignificant cost to develop, they would want to tap/attract as much custom as they can and be in a position to continue to do so. That seems a better fit when pairing the development on increased capacity HBM stacks with a not unreasonable assumption....
Yes, I am being obtuse
3D positional audio is definitely important in VR. Way more than watching regular screen.
Tbf that's an XFX card and they are known for poor coolers.
I guess it depends how competitively priced the lowest Fury card is for most if not there's going to be no new card for a lot of people
Still, not very good though if it is priced more than 970.
Edit: Thought you was replying to the video. lol. My bad.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2014
- Posts
- 402
I have a feeling that FuryX is going to have some serious problems in games that require more than 4GB vram, even a 290 will do better in those games.
Enough to make TrueAudio a useful and implemented feature and be a competitive advantage I hope.
LOL.
Its something that has disappointed me for a long time that progress has slowed up so much sound wise - got to play with some Aureal demos back in the day including one with a modified Quake 2 (not the mod that added A3D) where not only was sound positioned in 3D it was also modified by a simplified version of the level geometry - including per surface material calculations so stuff moving between you and a sound source would change it, materials around the sound source would change it, etc. it really takes the immersion up another notch.
Am I missing something here? Why are the scores identical to the last digit with 290X? Even if its a rebrand that's kinda weird.
Ignoring the non sequitur.
Considering the no doubt not insignificant cost to develop, they would want to tap/attract as much custom as they can and be in a position to continue to do so. That seems a better fit when pairing the development on increased capacity HBM stacks with a not unreasonable assumption....
Yes, I am being obtuse
It's definitely a weak argument, I know that. But AMD are purported to release 8 GB HBM variants in August. If 4 GB HBM is enough for 4K+, then why do this? I realise this move doesn't mean HBM = GDDR5 in terms of capacity, but then it comes back to what I was initially saying about AMD's marketing.
Final8y could be right, but I wish AMD was much more vocal about the wonders of HBM. They could at least sway a lot of people ordering 980 Tis. The fact that they aren't is why I assume the 'worst'.
Only a few days to go now though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
No problems with the one on mine, keeps it cool and quiet.
That sort of added realism would be great. Although it might require a health warning on spooky/suspense heavy titles!
I have to admit to being a relatively simple creature when it comes to gaming. I only recently, after buying a headset, came round to appreciating how immersive and uselful sound can be in for eg something like bf4, rather than it being more of a background accompaniment to the game.
It's definitely a weak argument, I know that. But AMD are purported to release 8 GB HBM variants in August. If 4 GB HBM is enough for 4K+, then why do this? I realise that doesn't mean HBM = GDDR5 in terms of capacity, but then it comes back to what I was initially saying about AMD's marketing.
Final8y could be right, but I wish AMD was much more vocal about the wonders of HBM. The fact that they aren't is why I assume the 'worst'.
Only a few days to go now though.
My guess is we wont see 8GB until HBM2 is available. Question is how ready the Fiji memory interface is for HBM2. Might be just a matter of swapping the HBM stacks with HBM2.
- Status