FAQ #1: Where's Fiji?
Ans. Reviews from 24th June; market-availability within the following 3 weeks.

FAQ #2: Why R9 390 series when you can R9 Nano?
Ans. that's why

GCN 1.1 ?? R9 390 Series

Fury Nano might cost 450 if you follow the product line :confused:

btarunrYes, GCN 1.1. Fiji is expected to feature GCN 1.2 (same as Tonga).

Hmmm not good :wtf:

mroofieGCN 1.1 ??

Yes, GCN 1.1. Fiji is expected to feature GCN 1.2 (same as Tonga).

Why would you buy a 390X if there are still 290X's out there?

And if the driver derived tech get's culled from the 290X cards, there ought to be freaking uproar.

Edit: Well, I suppose the mandatory 8GB makes a diff as do the 10% clock increases. Fairy nuff.

Affordable but not playable.

So we are imagining these use a similar SK Hynix (H5GQ2H24AFR-R0C) it was spec'd to run at 1500 MHz 6000 MHz GDDR5 effective. So basically the same old chip, though just double capacity, because there’s no space to stuff more… while running at red-line. I hope they get them to run cooler; while memory of the reference design wasn’t it Achilles heel it didn’t appear to be running cool. I’m interested in seeing if they made revisions to the reference cooler.

290X - 1250 MHz 5000 MHz effective @320 GB/s Bandwidth
390X - 1500 MHz 6000 MHz effective @384 GB/s Bandwidth (+16.6%) fixed

I still say AMD is unfortunately not assertive enough on price anywhere in their stack from the 390X down. But it would be tough to get into a war with Maxwell's, which work from smaller die's, and PCB's that work the lower memory bus and less heady power sections, unquestionably leading to better cost BoM’s. However the Granada being ~10% larger than a GM204, AMD isn't that far off in in this area of the contest. I imagine AMD will bring Nano and then perhaps then make 390/390X price corrections, as these MSRP’s can't be justified on the back of additional 4Gb and improved clocks that eat into the OC'n headroom which was part of a the 290/290X charisma.

CasecutterSo we are imagining these use a similar SK Hynix (H5GQ2H24AFR-R0C) it was spec'd to run at 1500 MHz 6000 MHz GDDR5 effective. So basically the same old chip, though just double capacity, because there’s no space to stuff more… while running at red-line. I hope they get them to run cooler; while memory of the reference design wasn’t it Achilles heel it didn’t appear to be running cool. I’m interested in seeing if they made revisions to the reference cooler.

290X - 1250 MHz 5000 MHz effective @320 GB/s Bandwidth
390X - 1500 MHz 6000 MHz effective @348 GB/s Bandwidth (+9%)

I still say AMD is unfortunately not assertive enough on price anywhere in their stack from the 390X down. But it would be tough to get into a war with Maxwell's, which work from smaller die's, and PCB's that work the lower memory bus and less heady power sections, unquestionably leading to better cost BoM’s. However the Granada being ~10% larger than a GM204, AMD isn't that far off in in this area of the contest. I imagine AMD will bring Nano and then perhaps then make 390/390X price corrections, as these MSRP’s can't be justified on the back of additional 4Gb and improved clocks that eat into the OC'n headroom which was part of a the 290/290X charisma.

Pretty much.

The fallacy of giving a card that can barely run 4K double the memory it had (which was already decent) was a mistake. If they could have refined the power delivery to enhance clocks to make it run 10-15% faster through core alone, then that would have helped.

It's bullshit that they sell it as 4K when we know it's not powerful enough. Given a single 980 (non ti) isn't good enough for 4k, trying to pimp this as a solution is a bit weak.

Hell we know even a 980ti needs a nice overclock to be 'comfy' at 4k. Well, 6 more days and we get to laugh or cry at what Fury X can do.

btarunr4K Ultra HD, with reasonably high eye-candy

the54thvoidIt's bullshit that they sell it as 4K when we know it's not powerful enough.

Sure not truly ready for 4K primetime, but anyone purchasing (GPU/monitor) at that level, and not a enthusiast enough to realize what you're doing or reading, while only looking to sides and packaging you deserve what you get. "Stupid is as stupid does"

To say you have been on a 1440p and something marginal now like say a 280X/7970/670/770 and think you should get this now to max out the 1440p. Then say less than a year from now thinking about 4K panel could be an acceptable move (as you say more just get a nice 290X cheap); although still costly and then there's Nano out there, and that's why it's not compelling to me...

290x last official price was $300 and the rebrand is $430... REALLY ?

Casecutter290X - 1250 MHz 5000 MHz effective @320 GB/s Bandwidth
390X - 1500 MHz 6000 MHz effective @348 GB/s Bandwidth (+9%)

Minor correction - 390X - 1500 MHZ 6000 MHZ effective @ 384 GB/s Bandwidth (+16.66%)

If the 290X wasn't 4K capable, I don't see how these rebrands can be considered 4K capable. Those minor clock speed bumps aren't going to make the GPUs 4K capable.

the 8 Gb Will help but its not going to be ultra'd so its not for me either im pondering Fury non X tho hmmm

jigar2speedMinor correction - 390X - 1500 MHZ 6000 MHZ effective @ 384 GB/s Bandwidth (+16.66%)

Thank you, Odd I might have started "transposing numbers" in the old age, had it happen earlier in another post... strange!

16.66% is bump, to bad they couldn't have gone with 7000Mhz chips, now that could've offered a real bump and made the price there asking for these 8Gb have some merit.

DarkOCean290x last official price was $300 and the rebrand is $430... REALLY ?

I was trying to see when exactly that was and what was the lowest. It would seem it came about 01/30/2015 with the "4Gb Means 4Gb" push.

And exactly... adding 4Gb of pretty much to same "hum-drum" memory and bump in clocks is not justification for a 43% price premium. Sorry where the 40% increase in performance? I'd say $370 MSRP is being generous, with OC'd customs hardly asking +$20, unless like super high-end. I mean press above $400 for any AIB's super high-end is crazy, most aren't sporting totally new deigned cooler that I've noticed, basically just new shrouds.

the54thvoidWhy would you buy a 390X if there are still 290X's out there?

And if the driver derived tech get's culled from the 290X cards, there ought to be freaking uproar.

Edit: Well, I suppose the mandatory 8GB makes a diff as do the 10% clock increases. Fairy nuff.

ComputerBase have a review up of the cards(all vendor OC design, no reference). Oddly enough, they couldn't use the new driver with the 200-series cards which had to be tested with the old driver.

Also as a comparison:
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB.....$375....1020MHz core/5500MHz mem (eff.)
Sapphire R9 390X Tri-X 8GB.....$430....1055MHz core/6000MHz mem (eff.)

Not only is this a rebrand, but this may be the first time a rebrand is actually WORSE than the previous version.
In the reviews I've seen, this card chews up another 50 watts beyond the 290x, which is not caused by the vram increase. UNREAL!

btarunrFAQ #1: Where's Fiji?
Ans. Reviews from 24th June; market-availability within the following 3 weeks.

FAQ #2: Why R9 390 series when you can R9 Nano?
Ans. that's why

Hard.... to ... reply... when .... clapping... hands... to... the ...limbo...dance.

newtekie1If the 290X wasn't 4K capable, I don't see how these rebrands can be considered 4K capable. Those minor clock speed bumps aren't going to make the GPUs 4K capable.

obviously they're meaning crossfire 390X 4k capable but branding it as single card capable. The extra memory will be beneficial in crossfire, not so much for a single card. Either way it still appears useless with Fury coming out as bta pointed out.

NihilusNot only is this a rebrand, but this may be the first time a rebrand is actually WORSE than the previous version.
In the reviews I've seen, this card chews up another 50 watts beyond the 290x, which is not caused by the vram increase. UNREAL!

TSMC RULES!

TheGuruStudTSMC RULES!

I have seen it go both lower and higher than the 290X. I am guessing it's still the Silicon lottery that determines the consumption, as well as die temps, I can heat my card more and it will pull another 50-100W just due to more heat.

Higher memory clocks and more memory, plus whatever ASIC quality will determine power use and voltage.

SteevoI am guessing it's still the Silicon lottery that determines the consumption, as well as die temps.

I need to ask;
Do AMD and Nvidia use the same process node 28nm (HP) for Hawaii and GM204?
Do we know if either have a more "enhanced" method to sort and bin chips for ASIC quality?