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

Bonjour · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:04

I've only just noticed 1080p was specified. Apologies, I'm at 1440.

4GB shouldn't really be required at 1080p.

Jamielicious · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:10

Mordor, Watch Dogs, Witcher 3 will all be better for 4GB

Bonjour · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:22

iB CoMpL3XiTy said:
Ok, but does that actually negatively effect the performance / game play experience?

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. You were asking what games make excessive use of VRAM, and I pointed you in the right direction, thinking I was being of help and assisting you in your investigations.

Now you've altered your stance slightly to whether the use of additional VRAM affects the gaming experience. That is a slightly different discussion, and one that possibly deserves a thread of its own.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:22

Jamielicious said:
Mordor, Watch Dogs, Witcher 3 will all be better for 4GB

SOM seems to be perfectly fine and stutter free using ultra textures @1440P on a 3GB card.

Just had a look at a performance review of watch dogs, even at 1600p maxed a 770 2GB performs where you'd expect it, the reviewer mentioned no issue with VRAM at all, so unless there's some other issue I don't know about I don;t see the problem.

Witcher 3 isn't even out until May... we don't know how much VRAM it'll use at any given resolution.

EDIT: I'll create my own thread about this topic if I have any more questions. Thanks for the input

Boomstick777 · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:23

Yup, Shadow of Mordor runs a lot smoother on 290X 8GB VS our GTX 980. The 980 gets higher peak FPS but gets drops and stutters. Clocked SOM using over 6GB @ 1440P. Wolfenstein is the same smoother on 290X 8GB, higher peak FPS On 980 but better experience on 290X 8GB without drops and stutters.

A 8GB GTX 980 would be a nice option, as long as the vram wasn't gimped and all 8GB was accessible at the same speed..

Impatiently waiting for a 3XX series card with 8GB...

Bonjour · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:32

iB CoMpL3XiTy said:
SOM seems to be perfectly fine and stutter free using ultra textures @1440P on a 3GB card.

Just had a look at a performance review of watch dogs, even at 1600p maxed a 770 2GB performs where you'd expect it, the reviewer mentioned no issue with VRAM at all, so unless there's some other issue I don't know about I don;t see the problem.

Witcher 3 isn't even out until May... we don't know how much VRAM it'll use at any given resolution.

EDIT: I'll create my own thread about this topic if I have any more questions. Thanks for the input

No worries, dude. It is actually an interesting point to consider whether consuming the extra VRAM actually improves the gaming experience.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:41

Bonjour said:
No worries, dude. It is actually an interesting point to consider whether consuming the extra VRAM actually improves the gaming experience.

Sorry for the interrogation! going back and re-reading my posts I realize my questions came off as alittle aggressive, anyway, yes it is an interesting topic, would be nice to see some frame time analysis in SOM (or similar) of a 4GB vs 8GB 290/X to see if micro stutter is an issue.

On a different note, wondering whether to go with another 290 PCS+ for CF or to wait for the new cards...
Looking forward to seeing what HBM brings.

Martini1991 · 8 Feb 2015 at 15:57

If 1080p needs 4GB, then 4K needs 16GB.

Final8y · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:08

Martini1991 said:
If 1080p needs 4GB, then 4K needs 16GB.

You know full well that Vram usage does not scale linearly or exponentially with resolution in games when the other aspects are using a larger percentage of the Vram.

Orangey · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:17

It might actually end up needing 16GB years from now but not just because it's x'd by 4.

Gregster · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:22

Final8y said:
You know full well that Vram usage does not scale linearly or exponentially with resolution in games when the other aspects are using a larger percentage of the Vram.

You know full well that he knows that and was jesting.

Final8y · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:26

Gregster said:
You know full well that he knows that and was jesting.

Is i did but there are bound to be others who did not, i was just covering the bases.

Gregster · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:40

Final8y said:
Is i did but there are bound to be others who did not, i was just covering the bases.

Well it would be kinda funny seeing people trying to buy 16GB GPUs

Dicehunter · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:42

So has AMD actually released any real info or is it the usual lies and BS made up by forum dwellers with too much time on their hands and photoshop ?

Orangey · 8 Feb 2015 at 16:56

When was the last time AMD released ANY info before the actual launch?

It could end up with a completely different nomenclature, tech, cooler etc etc

bru · 8 Feb 2015 at 17:03

Orangey said:
When was the last time AMD released ANY info before the actual launch?

It could end up with a completely different nomenclature, tech, cooler etc etc

+1

Dicehunter · 8 Feb 2015 at 17:27

Orangey said:
When was the last time AMD released ANY info before the actual launch?

It could end up with a completely different nomenclature, tech, cooler etc etc

Very true, Well as this thread is full of pixie dust and dreams I'm going to predict the 390X comes with 8Gb of memory and can outperform 2 x 980's.

Boomstick777 · 8 Feb 2015 at 17:45

Dicehunter said:
So has AMD actually released any real info or is it the usual lies and BS made up by forum dwellers with too much time on their hands and photoshop ?

You just described the whole internet..

Orangey said:
When was the last time AMD released ANY info before the actual launch?

It could end up with a completely different nomenclature, tech, cooler etc etc

+1

thisiswar88 · 10 Feb 2015 at 20:49

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/76685-sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-vapor-x-8gb/?page=9

Boomstick777 said:
Yup, Shadow of Mordor runs a lot smoother on 290X 8GB VS our GTX 980. The 980 gets higher peak FPS but gets drops and stutters. Clocked SOM using over 6GB @ 1440P. Wolfenstein is the same smoother on 290X 8GB, higher peak FPS On 980 but better experience on 290X 8GB without drops and stutters.

A 8GB GTX 980 would be a nice option, as long as the vram wasn't gimped and all 8GB was accessible at the same speed..

Impatiently waiting for a 3XX series card with 8GB...

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/76685-sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-vapor-x-8gb/?page=9

according to these benchmarks the 4gb 980 runs better than the 8gb 290x in all games.

Bonjour · 10 Feb 2015 at 20:55

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't that just say the 980 gets higher FPS?

Boom even says that the 980 has higher peak FPS, as corroborated by hexus, but that the 290 is smoother.

Highest FPS does not always equate to best experience, as nvidia themselves went to great pains to teach us.