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

edscdk · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:25

Mauller said:
Processors are always bottlenecked by memory, especially memory that is off die, there are two things that determine the bottleneck but they are both independent of eachother; Latency and Bandwidth.

It is the reason why CPU's have a large amount of die dedicated to prediction and caching.

When a processor is bottlenecked by latency, many of its clock cycles will go to waste, regardless of the bandwidth there is between the Processor and the memory cells, its a matter of speed and capacity. A processor can't perform work, when it has no data to crunch, even if it can be sent gigs of data at a time.

so with lower latency memory, the processor can do more work in the same amount of time, etc.

You mean to say on a video card, general purpose CPU does not usually matter so much, if you reduce the speed of the RAM in your PC by 50% i bet you would struggle to see any performance difference.

Kaapstad · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:34

africanos23 said:
Ok so here is something for all of you

Why does the GTX980 256-bit with 224 GB/s dominate (except for a few hand picked games) the R9-290X 512-bit 320 GB/s ?

In a "perfect world" like most people want to make it, isn't the R9-290X supposed to be faster?

Just so you don't tell me its a newer chip (look at the 780Ti aswell)

This is a hypothesis as we know nothing about first gen HBM.

You are going to be beta-testing a new memory architecture for AMD so Nvidia can make it better in Pascal

+1

Worse still AMD users will be paying extra for the new tech so NVidia can come along later and do it cheaper.

TNA · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:37

africanos23 said:
You are going to be beta-testing a new memory architecture for AMD so Nvidia can make it better in Pascal

Kaapstad said:
+1

Worse still AMD users will be paying extra for the new tech so NVidia can come along later and do it cheaper.

TheRealDeal · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:39

Kaapstad said:
+1

Worse still AMD users will be paying extra for the new tech so NVidia can come along later and do it cheaper.

Nvidia and doing it cheaper. Best laugh I will have this week.

Kaapstad · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:39

TheRealDeal said:
Nvidia and doing it cheaper. Best laugh I will have this week.

I did not say they would pass the savings on.

Bonjour · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:40

They won't charge less. Merely have greater profit margins.

africanos23 · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:40

Not trying to troll AMD or something, it's what always happens with first gen implementations, there will be drawbacks like usual.

In two years HBM will be perfected and we will see its true potential. IMHO

TNA · 31 Mar 2015 at 07:57

africanos23 said:
Not trying to troll AMD or something, it's what always happens with first gen implementations there will be drawbacks like usual.

In two years HBM will be perfected and we will see its true potential. IMHO

But can't you see, all that is besides the point. The point is what performance any card gives at a given price point. Who did it first or last and all those other silly fanboy games does not matter. It does not matter if it is made by nvidea or amd.

If it were nvidia doing HBM first I get the feeling you guys would be saying something along the lines of AMD is falling behind and Nvidia innovates etc. Come on guys.. lol. :rolleyes:

africanos23 · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:19

TNA said:
But can't you see, all that is besides the point. The point is what performance any card gives at a given price point. Who did it first or last and all those other silly fanboy games does not matter. It does not matter if it is made by nvidea or amd.

If it were nvidia doing HBM first I get the feeling you guys would be saying something along the lines of AMD is falling behind and Nvidia innovates etc. Come on guys.. lol.

It's not exactly AMD who have innovated (for HBM) but for the execution on a GPU first (when/if), I will give them credit.

"In two years HBM will be perfected and we will see its true potential. IMHO"

I didn't mentioned who would perfect it though. If it's AMD I would grab one if it's good performance wise.

Ofcourse I'm a rare case as I'm thinking of getting a 390X even though I have the Titan X

SiDeards73 · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:24

africanos23 said:
It's not exactly AMD who have innovated (for HBM) but for execution on a GPU first I will give them credit.

"In two years HBM will be perfected and we will see its true potential. IMHO"

I didn't mentioned who would perfect it though. If it's AMD I wouldn't grabbing one if it's good performance wise.

Ofcourse I'm a rare case as I'm thinking of getting a 390X even though I have the Titan X

You do realise AMD worked alongside SK Hynix on the development of HBM right? so many people spout factless stuff on here

http://wccftech.com/amd-working-hynix-development-highbandwidth-3d-stacked-memory/

http://electroiq.com/blog/2013/12/amd-and-hynix-announce-joint-development-of-hbm-memory-stacks/

http://www.memcon.com/pdfs/proceedings2014/NET104.pdf

TaKeN · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:26

"Titan X How do YOU Troll!?"

So much nonsense being spouted in here yet again.

africanos23 · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:30

Sorry typo on post : If it's AMD I would grab one if it's good performance wise.

Co-development happens industry wide it's not something new.

Martini1991 · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:47

Can't wait to have all that bandwidth with my second place card.

nashathedog · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:48

Kaapstad said:
If a GDDR5 setup is not bottlenecked switching to HBM will give zero performance improvement. Graphics cards get their performance from the core not the memory.

That's what I'm expecting, No improvement in performance that's down to the new ram. I think it's a bit odd that people are claiming that using HBM will make the card any faster, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

nashathedog · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:55

Tonester0011 said:
HBM has advantages, obviously. However we're currently not at the point where those advantages will show in games. Give it another generation, or two

+1

Ayahuasca · 31 Mar 2015 at 08:56

Yeah mention anything about HBM and expect a 1000 word reply from DM.

fs123 · 31 Mar 2015 at 09:03

africanos23 said:
Ok so here is something for all of you

Why does the GTX980 256-bit with 224 GB/s dominate (except for a few hand picked games) the R9-290X 512-bit 320 GB/s ?

In a "perfect world" like most people want to make it, isn't the R9-290X supposed to be faster?

Just so you don't tell me its a newer chip (look at the 780Ti aswell)

This is a hypothesis as we know nothing about first gen HBM.

You are going to be beta-testing a new memory architecture for AMD so Nvidia can make it better in Pascal

I wouldn't say the 980 dominates at all. At higher resolution where bandwidth is needed the 290X appears to match the 980 or even beat it in some cases. For an architecture that is over a year older than the 980 it not bad is it?

Have a look at the games tested in the HardOCP review posted a few days ago...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/30/powercolor_pcs_r9_290x_video_card_review/5#.VRpTQY4YHJA

The 290X matches the 980 in most of the games tested except for a few titles which favour Nvidia cards anyway. The 290X is half the price of a 980 and much older so pretty embarrassing for the 980 I would say. The bandwidth of the 980 may be limiting it here so it would be interesting to see the TitanX results for these games.

Bonjour · 31 Mar 2015 at 09:03

We'll find out in due course, of course...

africanos23 · 31 Mar 2015 at 09:14

fs123 said:
I wouldn't say the 980 dominates at all. At higher resolution where bandwidth is needed the 290X appears to match the 980 or even beat it in some cases. For an architecture that is over a year older than the 980 it not bad is it?

Have a look at the games tested in the HardOCP review posted a few days ago...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/30/powercolor_pcs_r9_290x_video_card_review/5#.VRpTQY4YHJA

The 290X matches the 980 in most of the games tested except for a few titles which favour Nvidia cards anyway. The 290X is half the price of a 980 and much older so pretty embarrassing for the 980 I would say.

MAX OC PCS+ vs Stock GTX980 ok very fair comparison thanks for that

That FC4 FPS is not representative of the actual experience. I know first hand from both AMD and Nvidia hardware.

nashathedog · 31 Mar 2015 at 09:23

fs123 said:
I wouldn't say the 980 dominates at all. At higher resolution where bandwidth is needed the 290X appears to match the 980 or even beat it in some cases. For an architecture that is over a year older than the 980 it not bad is it?

Have a look at the games tested in the HardOCP review posted a few days ago...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/30/powercolor_pcs_r9_290x_video_card_review/5#.VRpTQY4YHJA

The 290X matches the 980 in most of the games tested except for a few titles which favour Nvidia cards anyway. The 290X is half the price of a 980 and much older so pretty embarrassing for the 980 I would say. The bandwidth of the 980 may be limiting it here so it would be interesting to see the TitanX results for these games.

I hate that site, There always complicating the results by lowering this setting or that setting for one card against another, Sure it reads great for the 290x which is good for me but from what I've read the 980 gives a decent little chunk of performance over the 290x, Often with as much as 10 frames on the averages.