Will we see low-end gpu's with DDR4 memory instead of DDR3?

[Silent_Scone]

I can not believe this thread, AMD owners blaming the drivers !!!!

The problem is a hardware one and there is only so much the drivers can do however well written they are.

The problem is the low clocked HBM bottlenecking things @1080p. I could name people who know more than any of us debating in this thread who have also said the problem is clockspeed but I won't as it would be unfair on them to get drawn into this.

As for my Fury Xs I am seriously considering throwing them in the bin and walking away as they have caused me way too much trouble with HBM.

The first card I tested straight out the box went pop on the HBM as soon as I ran the Thief bench lol.

The RMA replacement was a very used one with a noisy cooler.

When I finally got all 4 of them together and tried to run them another card went pop on the HBM with memory artifacts all over the screen. This all happened running the cards @stock.

Now do I waste my time and money RMAing another card or do I bin them lol.

HBM is slow and unreliable or maybe my cards came from a bad batch.

This has nothing to do with the memory bandwidth or speed. That is besides the failures, which to me at least don't come as a surprise due to the yield issues Hynix have been having. Could have told you there would be a fair failure rate before launch even.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The design is bottlenecked in certain areas,which you can see if you read the TR review.

The Fiji GPU has the same 64 pixels per clock of ROP throughput as Hawaii before it, so these results shouldn't come as a surprise. These numbers illustrate something noteworthy, though. Nvidia has grown the ROP counts substantially in its Maxwell-based GPUs, taking even the mid-range GM204 aboard the GTX 980 beyond what Hawaii and Fiji offer. Truth be told, both of the Radeons probably offer more than enough raw pixel fill rate. However, these results are a sort of proxy for other types of ROP power, like blending for multisampled anti-aliasing and Z/stencil work for shadowing, that can tax a GPU.

This bandwidth test measures GPU throughput using two different textures: an all-black surface that's easily compressed and a random-colored texture that's essentially incompressible. The Fury X's results demonstrate several things of note.

The 16% delta between the black and random textures shows us that Fiji's delta-based color compression does it some good, although evidently not as much good as the color compression does on the Maxwell-based GeForces.

Also, our understanding from past reviews was that the R9 290X was limited by ROP throughput in this test. Somehow, the Fury X speeds past the 290X despite having the same ROP count on paper. Hmm. Perhaps we were wrong about what limited the 290X. If so, then 290X may have been bandwidth limited, after all—and Hawaii apparently has no texture compression of note. The question then becomes whether the Fury X is also bandwidth limited in this test, or if its performance is limited by the render back-end. Whatever the case, the Fury X "only" achieves 387 GB/s of throughput here, well below the 512 GB/s theoretical max of its HBM-infused memory subsystem. Ominously, the Fury X only leads the GTX 980 Ti by the slimmest of margins with the compressible black texture.

Fiji has a ton of texture filtering capacity on tap, especially for simpler formats. The Fury X falls behind the GTX 980 Ti when filtering texture formats that are 16 bits per color channel, though. That fact will matter more or less depending on the texture formats used by the game being run.

If you look at the design it is ROP limited,and polygon limited too plus Nvidia has stronger tessellation.

It wouldn't surprise me that at lower resolution,the GPU is hitting one of its bottlenecks.

But look at the amount of power the ALUs have though!

So,basically Fiji has a huge amount of processing power due to its shader arrays but is also limited by its limited ROP count,which makes it unbalanced.

I would suspect at lower resolution its hitting certain bottlenecks which are not so apparent at higher resolution.

However,there is one area where those massive shader arrays will be useful - compute units for VR.

Fiji is probably more a design orientated towards VR in a big way IMHO.

Plus,AMD drivers do tend to be more single thread dependent than Nvidia ones,which is why Mantle helped so much in the few titles which had it. Adding that to the mix does not help things either.