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

[MarkeR]

Did I miss anything?

Time to sell my G1 970 and come back to the red team?

 

[AlamoX]

AMD Fans during the stream

 

[D.P.]

No what are you on about. Titan x and 980ti are virtually a lock in performance terms, just about every site has said that. You're waffling about titan x like its somehow significantly faster than the ti which it isn't, there's a couple of fps in it here and there and that's it.

Plus 6GB RAM.

You show me where I said the FuryX wont have 980Ti performance.

i will wait patiently.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Looks are subjective, you call it an abomination and I think it looks wonderfully minimalistic. Though personally performance at 4K will be my yardstick.

Very true, but % wise not many game at 4K. I wont any time soon.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Is the tx not about 10-15% faster than the Ti. Few less rops and obviously less vram?

In Gta 5, Far Cry 4, despite having 8.4% less TMU's and shaders it's basically 1.5-3% behind across resolutions. For all intents and purposes they have almost indistinguishable performance. It pretty much points to the card being bandwidth starved as they both have the same 384bit bus and memory speed. Meaning most of the extra shaders/tmus the Titan X has simply don't have the extra bandwidth required to make use of them.

In most of the games in the Anandtech review there is a 1-2fps difference between them at 4k/high settings.

 

[mmj_uk]

Is the tx not about 10-15% faster than the Ti. Few less rops and obviously less vram?

176 TMU's versus 192 on Titan, ROP count is the same.

 

[Lokken86]

If it's really runs tomb raider that good at 5k then it kinda puts the whole theory of 4gigs not being good enough to bed.
Does tomb raider use a lot of VRAM?

 

[Gerard]

Plus 6GB RAM.

You show me where I said the FuryX wont have 980Ti performance.

i will wait patiently.

I'm not saying that, but the post i quoted you worded it like titan x was somehow significantly faster than the ti, which it clearly isn't.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Plus 6GB RAM.

You show me where I said the FuryX wont have 980Ti performance.

i will wait patiently.

It isn't what he's saying and I'm not sure why you're interpreting it as such.

He's saying very clearly that Titan X and 980ti have almost identical performance, as previous post it has 8.4% less shaders but almost every benchmark, particularly at 4k, shows a 1-2% performance difference.

The cards are almost indistinguishable in performance in real world usage... but you are saying Fury X will compete with a 980ti but WON'T compete with a Titan X...

When two cards have effectively identical performance and you insist Fury X absolutely can't compete with one but will compete with the other one, it sounds ridiculous.

 

[ICDP]

Very true, but % wise not many game at 4K. I wont any time soon.

I'm one of the few percent that do, hence my reluctance to get all excited until I see how it performs at 4K. I sold a 4GB 980GTX recently and it was fine for VRAM use at 4K, just the performance sucked. So once reviews are out I will either get a 980Ti or a Fury X.

One thing I am concerned about is bandwidth, when I bought my GTX980 I was gaming at 1440p and it was ~ 15%-20% faster than my 290X. Once I went 4K the performance was pretty much identical. This pointed to the fact the 256GB bus-width was a major issue on the 980. At 4K I feel bandwidth is more important than VRAM (at least 4GB would be my limit).

 

[Mal X]

Would it be worth going to 2x Fury X from 295X2 + 290X? I am thinking I would be best off waiting for die shrink HBM2 cards perhaps?

well you'll need to check out this 4gb RAM thing at 4K, but i expect it'll be ok because AMD would not have cocked this up.............. this card is built for 4K and has been in use for some time with VR so any issues with RAM would've been noticed months ago............at Xmas !!!!

 

[Secret_Window]

Quite keen to see the reviews on the R9 390 and 390X to see what has improved. I take it they are not just simple rebrands like many people assumed?

 

[Mayh3M]

If it's really runs tomb raider that good at 5k then it kinda puts the whole theory of 4gigs not being good enough to bed.
Does tomb raider use a lot of VRAM?

No

 

[D.P.]

In Gta 5, Far Cry 4, despite having 8.4% less TMU's and shaders it's basically 1.5-3% behind across resolutions. For all intents and purposes they have almost indistinguishable performance. It pretty much points to the card being bandwidth starved as they both have the same 384bit bus and memory speed. Meaning most of the extra shaders/tmus the Titan X has simply don't have the extra bandwidth required to make use of them.

In most of the games in the Anandtech review there is a 1-2fps difference between them at 4k/high settings.

If it was bandwidth limited then overclocking the memory would have a huge effect. It doesn't.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Did I miss anything?

Time to sell my G1 970 and come back to the red team?

I wouldn't sell. If all your games run fine then wait. Why does everyone have to jump to a new GPU every time a new one comes out? I'm waiting until next year. All my games run perfect at 1440p G-Sync with well over 60fps on every game I play. I'm super happy.

 

[mmj_uk]

In Gta 5, Far Cry 4, despite having 8.4% less TMU's and shaders it's basically 1.5-3% behind across resolutions. For all intents and purposes they have almost indistinguishable performance. It pretty much points to the card being bandwidth starved as they both have the same 384bit bus and memory speed. Meaning most of the extra shaders/tmus the Titan X has simply don't have the extra bandwidth required to make use of them.

Or both cards simply have ample TMU performance for any games out there.

If it's really runs tomb raider that good at 5k then it kinda puts the whole theory of 4gigs not being good enough to bed.
Does tomb raider use a lot of VRAM?

It's a year and half old, were >4GB cards even out then? Titan 6GB maybe. Either way it was optimised for AMD and they only had 4GB.

 

[D.P.]

It isn't what he's saying and I'm not sure why you're interpreting it as such.

He's saying very clearly that Titan X and 980ti have almost identical performance, as previous post it has 8.4% less shaders but almost every benchmark, particularly at 4k, shows a 1-2% performance difference.

The cards are almost indistinguishable in performance in real world usage... but you are saying Fury X will compete with a 980ti but WON'T compete with a Titan X...

When two cards have effectively identical performance and you insist Fury X absolutely can't compete with one but will compete with the other one, it sounds ridiculous.

Because the Fury X could well perform say 5% slower than a 980Ti.

If the FuryX was faster than a TX then AMD would have said so, they have said the FuryX2 is the fastest card and yet mysteriously don't say fastest GPU.


We will have to wait for reviews to be certain of anything. All we have is AMD's word that performance per watt increased by 1.5X compared to the 290X, that is the exact same increase Nvidia had with the 780-980 jump.

 

[Mal X]

If it's really runs tomb raider that good at 5k then it kinda puts the whole theory of 4gigs not being good enough to bed.
Does tomb raider use a lot of VRAM?

i think it runs 8K too, because i'm sure there was a BF4 Demo at 8k

 

[Jono8]

It's a year and half old, were >4GB cards even out then? Titan 6GB maybe.

Um , isn't it 2 years and 3 months old? Release was Feb/March 2013 I thought?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

So far so good I'm glad the price is within my range but am I right in thinking we got another month to wait before we can actually buy one. Disappointing.

Fury X is next Wednesday