• 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.

slick rick

slick rick

slick rick

Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2013
Posts
2,589
Mal X said:
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 !!!!
Click to expand...

It is the 4GB ram bit that has me worried being honest as in certain games, like Mordor with the hi-res texture pack I was getting stuttering at 2160p with 4GB available to my current cards. They did make it seem like the Fury got round this limitation somehow but I really need to see bench's and reviews for VRAM heavy games I think.
 

TNA

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,506
Location
Greater London
AlamoX said:
AMD Fans during the stream
happy-twins.gif
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. True dat :D
 

Boomstick777

Boomstick777

Boomstick777

Soldato
OP
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Posts
11,925
Location
UK.
D.P. said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^

It's starting all over again. I think I will just come back to the thread after reviews go live lol.

AMD did a great job ! Looking forward to the benchmarks and reviews.
 

SiDeards73

SiDeards73

SiDeards73

Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
Ok lets put it to bed, if the actual reviews and benchmarks come out and put it on par or better than the TitanX, can all the Nvidiots spamming this thread finally remove their heads from their rear ends and for once admit AMD had pulled off a masterstroke?

Cos believe me if the reviews actually show the card to better its competition, then the usual nvidia crew in here better get Mary Berry on the phone as they are going to need to bake a whole ton of Humble pies.
 

spikerules

spikerules

spikerules

Associate
Joined
24 May 2011
Posts
1,541
D.P. said:
The Fursy X2 and the Nano are clealy the most interesting cards and soemthign Nvidia wont be able to do much about. OK they might squeeze a dual 980Ti but AMD have a big advantage with HBM memory.

My concern with the FuryX2 is each core will only get 4GB which will make it kind of useless for many purposes.
Click to expand...

I'd thought I'd read somewhere that with HBM it would work out as 8GB as it works differently due to the bandwidth? Maybe I dreamt that up?
 

rolypolyman

rolypolyman

rolypolyman

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2007
Posts
3,757
Location
Ayr, Scotland
Ok took me a couple of hours to read through all this and to be honest I feel a little disappointed..........that Amd have not put out their own benchmarks. I am more than a little wary that the Fury X is not as good as they say or surely they would be shouting it from the rooftops. I like the look of the card but I will wait for benchmarks and am probably waiting for the 8GB HBM version as I have always felt 8GB is a must for 4K. Also I'm a little annoyed re gibbo's comments about card shortages, though I shouldn't be because gouging is what usually happens. I may even wait it out for the next gen if the reviews are a little disappointing. Amazed at the numbers on here who seem to have lost the plot, no reviews means keep calm folks and wait..........we will see and then decide eh? That Fury X2 does look interesting though that's out of my league cost wise. :(....:)
 

bru

bru

bru

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
7,360
Location
kent
Well Finally caught up reading the whole thread.

I thought it was a really good presentation by AMD, they showed a lot more than I expected.
Some nice products shown, I certainly like the look of the Quantum and the Nano, well that is a stunning little powerhouse. The Fury X looks ok, but we knew that as it had been leaked.

Prices are better than I expected to be honest, but Gibbo's comments earlier about availability/pricing are a little worrying.

No performance figures, which was as expected.
Overall a nice presentation.

I do like the idea of the Nano. 2*per/W of a 290x but with half the power, which of course puts it about 290x performance, even though Lisa did say "more performance, significantly more performance".
I can only assume it is going to be a competitor for the 970 mini and other such cards, but with 290x or better performance at half a 290x's power, it should be in good standing against the 970mini at 145W, of course depending on price as the 970 is only £260, but the Nano should be faster.
 

ubersonic

ubersonic

ubersonic

Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,101
D.P. said:
Because the Fury X could well perform say 5% slower than a 980Ti.
Click to expand...

Not a chance in hell, lets look at the facts:

Fact 1: Fury X is priced the same as the 980ti

Fact 2: Fury X consumes more power than the 980ti and therefore generates more heat.

Fact 3: Fury X has 33% less VRAM than the 980ti (2GB to be precise).

Fact 4: The is no evidence to suggest that AMD staff have all started smoking crack.

Result: It must be faster than the 980ti, either that or AMD have developed a phobia of money.
 

Mayh3M

Mayh3M

Mayh3M

Associate
Joined
11 Dec 2014
Posts
1,093
Location
Oxford
SiDeards73 said:
Ok lets put it to bed, if the actual reviews and benchmarks come out and put it on par or better than the TitanX, can all the Nvidiots spamming this thread finally remove their heads from their rear ends and for once admit AMD had pulled off a masterstroke?

Cos believe me if the reviews actually show the card to better its competition, then the usual nvidia crew in here better get Mary Berry on the phone as they are going to need to bake a whole ton of Humble pies.
Click to expand...

Nope. If they show HBM uses less VRAM than GDDR5 then yes.
 

Mal X

Mal X

Mal X

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Posts
7,733

andybird123

andybird123

andybird123

Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,374
drunkenmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on game, quite a few games are showing an 8% difference stock for stock at 4k

The games that aren't are showing next to no difference between any of the top 4-5 cards which would indicate a bottleneck other than GPU

Of course you can always cherry pick one review to prove a point
 
Last edited:

mmj_uk

mmj_uk

mmj_uk

Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
Most games will be fillrate limited at ultra high resolutions (if not memory storage limited), 980Ti has the same number of ROP's as Titan X so performance is pretty much the same.
 

spikerules

spikerules

spikerules

Associate
Joined
24 May 2011
Posts
1,541
Whatever the case may be with he FuryX. I might hold out for FuryX2 or Nano as I want to build another micro system. Going to stick with my 980's and get them under water. Just bought all the components to cool my 4770k and 980SLI system. Gives me time to save for a micro build with AMD innards!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom