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

easyrider · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

setter said:
True, but depends on price. Paid £575.00 for a 980ti. So see what the equivalent AMD card is.

The 780ti is too damn big...

Klunt Bumskrint · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

So cards are out end of the month, drivers in time for Christmas?

formby · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

Well we just need some game benchmarks to show us for sure that 4k is indeed possible so we can all make up our minds.

CEUOTC · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

AMDMatt said:
Agreed.

Mark me down for four.

lol some of us minions will make do with one

TNA · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

Greebo said:
Titan x only does 26 fps on Tomb Raider at ultra details on 4k. If the fury x does 60 fps then AMD have nailed it

Really?

I am playing it now and get 60fps on Ultra with TressFX on my 295x2. I would think Titan X would get a lot more than 26fps on those settings...

LoadsaMoney · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

I can't believe they pulled it off!

slick rick · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

4GB HBM confirmed.

Ayahuasca · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:21

Shares up 1.5%

Lokken86 · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

Gripen90 said:
Hmm... I just watched this till the end and.... I ordered my 3rd MSI GTX 980Ti

Good for you. Off you go now.

David Bisset · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

jimjam81 said:
Is 295x not the fastest GPU at the moment? Could she be referring to Fury x2 being faster than that instead of TX ?

yep, though if it were conclusively faster in a single GPU config than the Titan X then they'd probably have brought that up I'd have thought.

wunkley · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

This thread is reaching fever pitch levels of drivel now. After watching that frankly ares crawling presentation, we are still none the wiser as the Info we want regarding actual performance just wasn't provided.

Benchmarks required.

D.P. · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

For reference, the Nvidia 980 has 1.5x the performance per watt as the 780 and the 780 was a little more efficient than the 290x.
So at the end of the day these AMD cards are less efficient than the NVidia 970/980TX cards. if you go by AMD's numbers.

Perspective is always need when looking at marketing data.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/27.html
1.5X performance per watt of the 290X is still some way behind the 980.

LS_Chao · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

From the presentation slides, it's quite clear that only the dual card is labeled the fastest. Not quite sure how 4096 cores still can't beat the titan x

Klunt Bumskrint · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:22

I want to see Vram usage comparison with a 290x and a Fury X

r7slayer · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:23

So the fury x can play 5k at 45 fps never mind 4k. Im sure it can handle 4k fine then. Good news!

TNA · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:23

Jokester said:
Was it? Sure they said the Fury X was $649, or is the Fury the same thing but on air?

Fury X is water cooled. Fury is the air-cooled one at $549

FoxEye · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:23

wunkley said:
This thread is reaching fever pitch levels of drivel now. After watching that frankly ares crawling presentation, we are still none the wiser as the Info we want regarding actual perforce just wasn't provided.

Benchmarks required.

I take it benchmarks are still under NDA then... until the 24th or so...

Orangey · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:23

AMDMatt said:
Agreed.

Mark me down for four.

So you'll be needing blowers then... *cough* any word on them?

(word = date)

DBT85 · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:24

The other thing to remember is that even if its not faster as stock, if its as overclockable as the dude said then it might well be faster that way.

Twirlywoos · 16 Jun 2015 at 18:24

Klunt Bumskrint said:
I want to see Vram usage comparison with a 290x and a Fury X

I want to see FuryX against a Titan X playing 4K Ultra settings like pCARS for example. I wonder how they got tomb raider playing at UHD 4k at 60fps.