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

Mtom · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:48

wunkley said:
Forgive me, but I can't keep up with all the hysteria.....Is "the fastest" card in fact just a dual X2 type with 2 'chips' on one pcb, right? So apart from being small and cute, it basically means that like all other X2 cards in history it's essentially crossfire, and will therefore rely on crossfire profiles for all new games and decent driver support?

Good luck with that....

So yes you got it all wrong. This is the soon coming Fury X2 on th epic.
the hype is about the one they showed today the Fury Xt...the single gpu.

se_vietboi · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:48

RavenXXX2 said:
Faster than the 980 ti, better components and build quality, insane overclocking ability, swish looking gpu usage leds, AIO cooler. All for the same price as an 980ti. What's not to like?

The 4GB HBM at 5/8k

itchy · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:49

Telecaster said:
Is that including the AIO cooler? Is the air cooled version the same size?

Yes its the same PCB, so it will be roughly the same size, maybe a few extra fins sticking out.

It is going to be a strange world soon, graphics cards with no memory chips! :confused:

Mtom · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:51

drunkenmaster said:
I'd put money on the Nano being 1/2 the SIZE and not power and she miss spoke, it happens on stage. Nvidia guys miss speak on stage also. What was I watching earlier, can't remember, some Swedish guy talking about the Unravel game(forget which conference it was, EA?) and he was literally trembling with nervous energy.

I'd bet on Nano being ultra binned but downclocked, down volted version of the Fury X. It's got a proper fan on it and due to the lay out of HBM pcb's you can get a lot more usable cooler surface area out of any pcb/slot size combination. I'd guess it will be in the 200-225W range and only 15% slower than a Fury X but would maybe run quite hot.

The non Nano will likely have the same pcb and design but the cooler will extend beyond the length of the pcb with a backplate/support bracket that extend the length of the card. It will run normal clocks, higher voltage and be higher tdp.

POwer/voltage/clock speeds aren't a linear relationship. You can quite easily drop 15% performance but significantly more than 15% of the power as a result.

I think the Nano will be a cut down chip to around 3000 shaders, so it will be around 390X performance with half the TDP. Makes more sense i think

DarkFulgore · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:52

Do we know when we can pre-order the Fury X. The Nano is genius

Telecaster · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:52

TheRealDeal said:
How have they blown it. If it's priced at around £550 and as fast as a Titan X then imo it's a Titan beater due to it's price. Nvidia have been working on there Gpu's the same as AMD have. The way you are thinking is Nvidia sat still and AMD have been working all this time. Both companies would have been working hard and it looks like AMD have came to the party with a nice range of cards that can do more than just compete.

Without a die shrink i think you are seeing the very best of what both companies have to offer.

Maybe, but they've had longer to work on it, when was their last top end single GPU release and what have they been doing since?

RichardH754 · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:55

I recon as fast as Titan X in most things

flopper · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:55

RavenXXX2 said:
Faster than the 980 ti, better components and build quality, insane overclocking ability, swish looking gpu usage leds, AIO cooler. All for the same price as an 980ti. What's not to like?

that you dont have a card today?

D.P. · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:55

TheRealDeal said:
How have they blown it. If it's priced at around £550 and as fast as a Titan X then imo it's a Titan beater due to it's price. Nvidia have been working on there Gpu's the same as AMD have. The way you are thinking is Nvidia sat still and AMD have been working all this time. Both companies would have been working hard and it looks like AMD have came to the party with a nice range of cards that can do more than just compete.

Without a die shrink i think you are seeing the very best of what both companies have to offer.

If it was as fast as TItan X they would have said so and they would have priced it closer to the titan X price.

The fact is they chose the 980Ti price point, and from the announcement of power efficiency changes we can assume it is around 980Ti performance. They would have had to make bugger improvements to over take the TX.

There is a big price gap between the 980Ti and Titan X yet AMD choice to meet the 980Ti pricing, why?

sophslump · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:55

I game at 1080p and I'm looking for a new card for £200-£250. I was waiting for the 300 series but at £300+ the 390x (290x plus roughly 10-15% performance and the pointless 8GB) will be terribly priced. If the 290x 4GB drops to around £200, it will be much better value than the 390 and 380, too. Alternatively I might buy a 970 if/when the prices drop, but they'd have to fall a long way.

3 of my last 4 cards have been AMD and if the 390x is £250 I would pre-order one ASAP, but the price of these will be absolutely crucial.

At £300 the 390x is a bad proposition for a 1080p gamer. The only reason to buy it will be the disappearing stock of cheap 290x.

r7slayer · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:57

se_vietboi said:
The 4GB HBM at 5/8k

where the heck is 8k coming from? No one will be playing 8k properly for years, okay let me reword it the majority 99% of gamers will not be playing 8k for years. There is only a small percentage rolling on to 4k at the moment. This year and next is probably when the transition starts properly.

I was even supprised to see 5k at the amd conference as not many people will be rocking 5k.

LoadsaMoney · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:57

D.P. said:
If it was as fast as TItan X they would have said so and they would have priced it closer to the titan X price.

The fact is they chose the 980Ti price point, and from the announcement of power efficiency changes we can assume it is around 980Ti performance. They would have had to make bugger improvements to over take the TX.

There is a big price gap between the 980Ti and Titan X yet AMD choice to meet the 980Ti pricing, why?

so it is as fast as a TX then, as the Ti is

oldestgregg · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:59

D.P. said:
If it was as fast as TItan X they would have said so and they would have priced it closer to the titan X price.

The fact is they chose the 980Ti price point, and from the announcement of power efficiency changes we can assume it is around 980Ti performance. They would have had to make bugger improvements to over take the TX.

There is a big price gap between the 980Ti and Titan X yet AMD choice to meet the 980Ti pricing, why?

This 100%.

If its an absolute titan beater you would think they would say so as a selling point. I bet theres a couple of frames at best anyways but it makes sense

D.P. · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:59

Mtom said:
So yes you got it all wrong. This is the soon coming Fury X2 on th epic.
the hype is about the one they showed today the Fury Xt...the single gpu.

wunkley's point is if the Fury X was the fastest GPU in the world they would have liekly said so, instead they said the Fury X2 is the fastest card in the world. The latter is almost certainly true.

We will have to wait for reviews but based on the efficiency gains, lack of statement and he price point I think we can expect a 980Ti kind of card. perhaps faster at 1080P but hitting a wall in some 4K games.

r7slayer · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:59

D.P. said:
If it was as fast as TItan X they would have said so and they would have priced it closer to the titan X price.

The fact is they chose the 980Ti price point, and from the announcement of power efficiency changes we can assume it is around 980Ti performance. They would have had to make bugger improvements to over take the TX.

There is a big price gap between the 980Ti and Titan X yet AMD choice to meet the 980Ti pricing, why?

are the titan x and 980ti next to the same performance yet there is a steep price difference? probably just for the extra 6gb. AMD probably priced it at 980ti as not many people will consider the titan x now over the 980ti. Makes sense to me as the 980ti is more competitive with its lower price.

SimBy · 16 Jun 2015 at 20:59

drunkenmaster said:
I'd put money on the Nano being 1/2 the SIZE and not power and she miss spoke, it happens on stage. Nvidia guys miss speak on stage also. What was I watching earlier, can't remember, some Swedish guy talking about the Unravel game(forget which conference it was, EA?) and he was literally trembling with nervous energy.

I'd bet on Nano being ultra binned but downclocked, down volted version of the Fury X. It's got a proper fan on it and due to the lay out of HBM pcb's you can get a lot more usable cooler surface area out of any pcb/slot size combination. I'd guess it will be in the 200-225W range and only 15% slower than a Fury X but would maybe run quite hot.

The non Nano will likely have the same pcb and design but the cooler will extend beyond the length of the pcb with a backplate/support bracket that extend the length of the card. It will run normal clocks, higher voltage and be higher tdp.

POwer/voltage/clock speeds aren't a linear relationship. You can quite easily drop 15% performance but significantly more than 15% of the power as a result.

Nano is 2x perf/W compared to 290X. It's on the official slide. Judging by the cooler that means 290X perf at half the TDP.

Mal X · 16 Jun 2015 at 21:00

itchy said:
Yes its the same PCB, so it will be roughly the same size, maybe a few extra fins sticking out.

It is going to be a strange world soon, graphics cards with no memory chips!

no it'll be miles bigger, it'll need a 260W heatsink, so it'll be the size of a GTX970

D.P. · 16 Jun 2015 at 21:00

LoadsaMoney said:
so it is as fast as a TX then, as the Ti is

Until you hit the VRAM limit.

wunkley · 16 Jun 2015 at 21:02

Calm down Lynne. Calm down Lynne. You've got minor women's whiplash

/Alan

Right, there are no benchmarks yet. The live reveal show was awful. I watched it and crawled up my own arse for most of it. The 'facts' about actual performance were pathetic. A mumbled error led 'tombraider running at 4k' a mumbled non descript game running at 5k. Totally useless info really.

And why is no one mentioning the Fury X is only 4GB? Genuine question. A year ago 8GB was the new 'minimum' for 4k. According to many on here

doodah · 16 Jun 2015 at 21:02

Without scrolling through 50 pages since this morning, there should be an official thread/updated OP, what's the crack?

EDIT - didn't realise it's just finished.