• 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.
all this talk about them being potentially poor at 4K, hopefully that talk starts ending soon. Just need to see those benchmarks, but definitely looking forward to it.
 
Yeah, prices are nothing without benchmarks.

Certainly looking promising though.

I'm guessing the Fury X is going to be £550 then.

Key for me is the differences between the Fury x and the Fury. At $100 it can't just be the cooling solution.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Nano will be the slowest. It will run lower clocks but lower voltage.

A card will always been more power efficient lets say at 900Mhz and 0.95v than 1000Mhz at 1.1v.

Nano will be a little slower but run lower voltage and be more efficient. It will still be WAY faster than a 290x.

My guess would be Fury X full part higher clocks/voltage. Nano full part lower clocks/voltage, Fury, not quite full part, higher clocks/voltage. Maybe Fury 10% slower, Nano 10-15% slower.

More shaders at lower clock speed/voltage generally also more efficient than less shaders at higher clock/voltage.
Click to expand...

Re the Nano.

They said 2x performance per watt, and 1/2 the watts of the 290X.

Explain why this is "way faster than a 290X" and not "the same as a 290X".

Please....
 
So other than a lot of random numbers and there names and prices they told us jack ****?

Other than the nano = 290x and a fury = 1 and a half 290x's?

Not sure why all back slaping going on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom