# Is This The XFX Radeon R9 390 Double Dissipation?



## btarunr (Apr 9, 2015)

Some of the first pictures of XFX' Radeon R9 390 Double Dissipation graphics card made it to the web, weeks ahead of its launch. The card features a tall dual-slot cooling solution, featuring two 100 mm spinners, ventilating a large aluminium fin-stack heatsink. The card draws power from a combination of 6-pin and 8-pin PCIe power connectors. It features bridge-less XDMA CrossFire, much like the R9 290 series. 

The second-best SKU carved out of the "Bermuda" silicon, the R9 390 will be positioned a notch below the R9 390X. There's no word on its specs, or how AMD carved it out of the "Bermuda" silicon, which features 4,096 stream processors based on the latest version of the Graphics CoreNext architecture, and a 4096-bit HBM memory interface, churning out 640 GB/s of memory bandwidth. AMD could allow its partners to come up with custom-design cards from day-one, with memory amounts ranging between 4 GB and 8 GB. The R9 390X and the R9 390 will be competitive with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX TITAN X, and other upcoming cards based on the GM200 silicon, such as the GTX 990.



 



*Update 09/04:* Some readers believe this card could be an R9 380, looking at the layout of components on the PCB from the top. We find this observation equally plausible. The R9 380 is essentially a rebadged R9 290 series, which AMD could sell at price-points competitive to the GTX 970.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

HSBC edition you mean?

edit: for reference:
http://www.advisedinworcestershire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/hsbc.jpg


----------



## DeNeDe (Apr 9, 2015)

doesn't it read 380 there ?


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 9, 2015)

smexy, pretty darn big as well


----------



## ne6togadno (Apr 9, 2015)

DeNeDe said:


> doesn't it read 380 there ?


i thought the same but numbers after 3 and R are the same so it is indeed r9 390


----------



## Finners (Apr 9, 2015)

Will be nice if they have partner cards available at launch, if true with that many cards around we can expect benchmark leaks soon. 

I'm a little worried about the length of the card, I have about 15mm clearance on the end of a reference 290 PCB. These look even longer.


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

Finners said:


> I'm a little worried about the length of the card, I have about 15mm clearance on the end of a reference 290 PCB. These look even longer.



If you can afford new high-end GPUs all the time, surely you can afford a chassis which can fit standard PCI Express cards, no?


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

It's a dual slot design versus very dense fin stack, large fans and tall card ... very similar to last year's XFX DD radeons that throttled their VRMs because they reached 128 celsius while gpu was at 90 something ... I cannot tell if this will be better if it is really capable of pulling 300W.


----------



## alwayssts (Apr 9, 2015)

You guys are missing what's _really _important here...

...Bermuda? 

I don't know if I should mention this for fear of anyone important actually catching on, but BTA has a tendency to 'correct' things in his news posts when he knows something, which in itself can be telling of a situation (often shortly before launches).

You holding out on us, man?   

There must be a reason for this quick post when, what is this, like the 3,584th 390 series story? 

(*waits for 'no comment'*)


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> It's a dual slot design versus very dense fin stack, large fans and tall card ... very similar to last year's XFX DD radeons that throttled their VRMs because they reached 128 celsius while gpu was at 90 something ... I cannot tell if this will be better if it is really capable of pulling 300W.


Yes, and a design that lends itself to an AIO with little modification.


----------



## micropage7 (Apr 9, 2015)

btarunr said:


> featuring two 100 mm spinners



its dual fans

looks pretty nice, just curious how far from previous cards


----------



## HumanSmoke (Apr 9, 2015)

Finners said:


> I'm a little worried about the length of the card, I have about 15mm clearance on the end of a reference 290 PCB. These look even longer.


Judging by the length ( scaling the PCI-E slot connector), it actually looks to have roughly the same dimensions as their existing 290....






...weren't the HBM stacks supposed to aspirin sized?  
Interesting if this is a 390 - about time AMD allowed vendor designs on launch day.


----------



## Ebo (Apr 9, 2015)

IF this is a true pic of the R9 390, im just waiting for Sapphire to launch their model, then Im in


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 9, 2015)

For dimensions, you can use the PCIe connection as reference. That one is the same length on all cards, then you just extrapolate the dimensions according to the scale obtained from the PCIe connector.

Also, call me whatever you want but for some reason I don't trust XFX much. I'll be going with Gigabyte WindForce 3X yet again. Amazing cooler design. I'll also be going with the R9-390 (non X) unless the price will be really good for 390X. Which I doubt but still.
C'mon AMD, bring us the cards!


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> Interesting if this is a 390 - about time AMD allowed vendor designs on launch day.


Funny how you are extra careful with conditionals ... when you think about it, what else could it be - I highly doubt someone would troll the world with a custom cooler on 290 card with XFX logos all over ... would kinda risky and open for legal action.
About vendor designs, I hope AMD decided it's better to not do reference cooler at all this generation, because they would've had to cheap out in its production anyways and repeat all the throttling issues they had with reference Hawaii at launch (I'm sure Bermuda is much more efficient, but that's offset by increase in cores to stay in the same power envelope)


RejZoR said:


> Also, call me whatever you want but for some reason I don't trust XFX much.


I'll call you rightfully cautious  ... IMO they were great quality-wise around 2009-2010 with their first series of core edition cards ... I still have their GTX 260, but after that they went AMD exclusively iirc.


----------



## lZKoce (Apr 9, 2015)

Reminds me of Scythe Musashi with that sleek silouette.


----------



## natr0n (Apr 9, 2015)

Looks fancy.
Sonic would be proud of them gold rings.


----------



## NC37 (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> I'll call you rightfully cautious  ... IMO they were great quality-wise around 2009-2010 with their first series of core edition cards ... I still have their GTX 260, but after that they went AMD exclusively iirc.



Still lifetime warranty. Heck if that covers the fans, be worth it for me. Had both fans on one of my Gigabyte 460s go bad. Had to splice in some spares around. Then a 3rd fan has been acting up on the other for some time. Fan just literally disintegrates on the inside then pops off the card.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

natr0n said:


> Sonic would be proud of them gold rings.


Hah, only if they'd fall off eventually, bounce around the house and needed to be collected


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 9, 2015)

NC37 said:


> Still lifetime warranty. Heck if that covers the fans, be worth it for me. Had both fans on one of my Gigabyte 460s go bad. Had to splice in some spares around. Then a 3rd fan has been acting up on the other for some time. Fan just literally disintegrates on the inside then pops off the card.



No such problems with HD7950 WindForce 3X and you know how old it is. And it's running almost 24/7. Though I do have custom made fan profile so it never spins like mad, making it nicer on the bearings I guess. I do keep it dust free and when cleaning with compressor, I block the blades from spinning.


----------



## AsRock (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> It's a dual slot design versus very dense fin stack, large fans and tall card ... very similar to last year's XFX DD radeons that throttled their VRMs because they reached 128 celsius while gpu was at 90 something ... I cannot tell if this will be better if it is really capable of pulling 300W.



HUH, pretty much the same the vrm are not on a plate no more by the looks of it which covered all vrm's and ram chips.  Does look like there is a plate over the ram chips and maybe the cooler vrm chips but the possible problem vrms have that silver heatsink.

I never seen mine throttle the cooler works how ever this looks a bit worse than the XFX 290XDD, the cooler sits even closer to the PCB than before which blocks chances of adding more cooling without replacing the main part of the cooler.

The VRM's ( #No2) could be a issue even more so in average cases with semi good cooling, but the GPU cooler never had a issue.

I do with they kept the same black and made it all black and gave better clearance over the VRM so a 3rd party vrm cooling be more possible.


----------



## joyman (Apr 9, 2015)

Looks like this is indeed R9 380, which is supposed to be rebrand of R9 290, which is the same size, have same cooler, have nothing to be developed, just bios flash for the name of the card - all fits.


----------



## ne6togadno (Apr 9, 2015)

joyman said:


> Looks like this is indeed R9 380, which is supposed to be rebrand of R9 290, which is the same size, have same cooler, have nothing to be developed, just bios flash for the name of the card - all fits.


----------



## Ikaruga (Apr 9, 2015)

I know I do not add much to this conversation, (please accept my appology) but "WCCFTech"?, really?


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

AsRock said:


> I never seen mine throttle the cooler works how ever this looks a bit worse than the XFX 290XDD, the cooler sits even closer to the PCB than before which blocks chances of adding more cooling without replacing the main part of the cooler.
> 
> The VRM's ( #No2) could be a issue even more so in average cases with semi good cooling, but the GPU cooler never had a issue.



I don't know why VRM gets so toasty in reviews, maybe they are simple mosfets that just look fancy with their metal cover on them :


 

 
Looks like they use CopperMOS/DirectFET ... much better than old d-paks but not as good as integrated circuits.
I have seen cards with less phases and integrated circuits for VRM (driver+mosfet) that really don't need any extra cooling or plate contact.


----------



## GhostRyder (Apr 9, 2015)

Wow, if this is the R9 390 then we are getting near the launch of something or someone likes to mess with us.  To me what I see more than anything is the fact this is a DD edition of the card (Referencing the name of XFX's cooler) and not a stock AIO/Blower because seeing this out well before launch could mean we will see custom versions out the gate this go round.

As far as XFX goes, they have had their ups and downs on the designs of their cooler recently.  I believe the 6XXX series was pretty good while the 7XXX series had its share of issues with the VRM cooling and such.  But I believe that all the R9 series coolers resolved that issue for the most part from what I have seen.  I have a friend who has a pair of the 290 versions and they have been pretty good.



joyman said:


> Looks like this is indeed R9 380, which is supposed to be rebrand of R9 290, which is the same size, have same cooler, have nothing to be developed, just bios flash for the name of the card - all fits.


Well judging from the picture this does not look to be an R9 380 mostly because the middle number in the 3XX part has a curve on the left side but not the right.  Could be a problem with the picture but this looks more to me to be a 9 than an 8.


----------



## AsRock (Apr 9, 2015)

I do the plate is not good enough, it's that simple, design is some what flawed to make it 2 slot.   how ever if they moved some fins around so more air would hit directly on the VRM's and gave a little more space for a bigger \ beefier heatsink it be a none issue.

And yes they use the copper type.

Looks like they may of changed that heatsink, i would have to check as it's been a while since i looked at mine.  Maybe in the next day i will has i need to swap out a motherboard anyways.


----------



## Finners (Apr 9, 2015)

neliz said:


> If you can afford new high-end GPUs all the time, surely you can afford a chassis which can fit standard PCI Express cards, no?



Its not about cost, I prefer the smallest chassis I can get away with, currently have a cooltek w2 with a radiator in the front and bottom. 

Full tower cases just take up too much space for me.


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

Finners said:


> Its not about cost, I prefer the smallest chassis I can get away with, currently have a cooltek w2 with a radiator in the front and bottom.
> 
> Full tower cases just take up too much space for me.



Some manufacturers like to place drivespaces or fans where they're not even supposed to be. These are PCI Express standards and manufacturers like Fractal are known to ignore them in order to provide a more appealing product.


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

Also, overheating of the VRM is largely related to the electrical design, not the components per sé. If the design is bad, it doesn't matter which component you place on it, too high temperatures will be an issue.


----------



## Haytch (Apr 9, 2015)

I have never had any issues with reference cooling from AMD.
Sure, when I pump up the fan speed there is a lot of noise, but that doesn't bother me since I wear headphones with noise cancellation and maximum volume.
Reference cooling max's out under 40C under heavy load ever since my 2900XTX days up until my 290X.
Looking forward to the 390/x's, especially the reference cooling ones.

I always read about people complaining about the reference cooling, maybe I just always end up with a 'Super-fan', maybe people are not adjusting fan speeds, maybe people care too much about noise.  I have always thought that with great power comes great noise 

In-fact, the only reference coolers I ever had trouble with was the Nvidia range. I remember I had to modify my cooler on the 8800GTX, but that was a fun project


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

neliz said:


> Also, overheating of the VRM is largely related to the electrical design, not the components per sé. If the design is bad, it doesn't matter which component you place on it, too high temperatures will be an issue.


Components matter a lot because all components doing the same thing are rated differently (efficiency, maximum operating temperature etc.), and when integrated circuit replaces several components on the board then you have both better electrical design integrated inside a single component always with increased efficiency (less energy lost as heat).
For example one power phase designed with regular mosfets can output 70 amps while dissipating 60W as heat ... the same phase using integrated power stage can output 60 amps while dissipating only 11 watts as heat. That's why when you see VRM array with integrated circuits it's often with less phases for the same power capability and much less heat. 
Also, it's not that rare for design to have many phases just to make each phase less hot, rather than to allow extra oc.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 9, 2015)

Haytch said:


> I have always thought that with great power comes great noise



You should know better:

Best built/looking gfx card ever. (IMO)


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Components matter a lot because all components doing the same thing are rated differently (efficiency, maximum operating temperature etc.), and when integrated circuit replaces several components on the board then you have both better electrical design integrated inside a single component always with increased efficiency (less energy lost as heat).



Did you read what I wrote? I said if the design is bad, it doesn't matter which component you put on there, it will generate too much heat. So if you have a reference design using D-Pak or PowerPak, and you create your own design with DirectMOS and 2 extra phases, it's not automagically going to give you better temperatures.



> Also, it's not that rare for design to have many phases just to make each phase less hot, rather than to allow extra oc.



It will lower the load on each phase, but again, if they add 2 phases, on a badly designed PCB with, for instance 2 layers less and 2mm less board space, it will not matter how many phases you'll add, you'll get issues.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

neliz said:


> Did you read what I wrote? I said if the design is bad, it doesn't matter which component you put on there, it will generate too much heat. So if you have a reference design using D-Pak or PowerPak, and you create your own design with DirectMOS and 2 extra phases, it's not automagically going to give you better temperatures.


Yes, I did read what you wrote. For some reason you take a bad design as a major cause of overheating VRM, which would be relevant if we were talking about motherboards. Graphics cards VRM designs don't vary that much, that's why I gave an example how different components on the same design can affect heat dissipation because, hey, 11 watts heat to dissipate is nothing and that's all the way at 60 amps at room temperature ... to power a 250 watt gpu you slap 5 phases without a heatsink and call it a day. The same overall VRM design, only the whole power stage is integrated on a chip.


neliz said:


> It will lower the load on each phase, but again, if they add 2 phases, on a badly designed PCB with, for instance 2 layers less and 2mm less board space, it will not matter how many phases you'll add, you'll get issues.


Yes, pcb quality and layout is also important for good heat management ... and your response actually shows you didn't read or get what I wrote.


----------



## neliz (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Yes, I did read what you wrote. For some reason you take a bad design as a major cause of overheating VRM



Yes, because I worked on graphics cards for 4 years at MSI, I kind of know what I'm talking about.


----------



## xixou (Apr 9, 2015)

It looks like R8 380 to me.

R5/7/9 are used, there is space for R6/8/10 ^^


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 9, 2015)

neliz said:


> Yes, because I worked on graphics cards for 4 years at MSI, I kind of know what I'm talking about.


Well that's great, then you can certainly tell me which component is cooler at operation this one https://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/FD/FDMF6823C.pdf or this one http://www.sinopowersemi.com/RE_UPLOAD_FILE/20130808182117430.pdf
You should recognize the second one.


----------



## GhostRyder (Apr 9, 2015)

It looks like site corrected this to be an alleged picture of instead the R9 380 sadly and not the R9 390.  Though I guess the cooler and design will not change much, but at least it points towards something being closer to release.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 9, 2015)

If there is an air cooler for the 390 HBM it will more then likely be bigger heatsink plate due to the HBM.

This just looks like a XFX 290/X with a different shroud really.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Apr 9, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Funny how you are extra careful with conditionals ...
> 
> 
> HumanSmoke said:
> ...


And now you know why.



			
				Article update said:
			
		

> *Note:* Due to images being of really low quality, it was hard to figure whether the card was actually a R9 390 series or R9 380 series cards. While we were led to believe it as the R9 390 at first sight, turns out to be that the graphics card is actually the Radeon R9 380 series from XFX



BTW: I'm usually pretty assiduous in delineating supposition from fact. I've been following tech way too long to take virtually anything not supported by proof as factual.


----------



## Serpent of Darkness (Apr 9, 2015)

If we assume that photos from Rumor Mills have some degree of inaccuracy and accuracy, we could conclude the following:

If the photos showing the R9-380 has a lower TDP draw in comparison to it's R9-290/290x cousin, it's possible and reasonable to believe in these images, the R9-380 is design this way because the card itself won't generate higher or equal temperatures on loads.

I believe that AMD has a predictable trend with each generation.  AMD 7970 had Frame Time Variance Issues in CrossfireX.  Frames were dropping and runt-frames manifested itself.  This was more noticeable in the AMD 7990 Graphic Cards.  R9-280 was released correcting these issues in the preceding generation.  Frame Time Variance Curves displayed that R9-280 was less spikey, curves didn't hit zero, but they weren't ideal curves like NVidia Frame Time Variance Curves.  Nevertheless, they were improvements.

R9-290x has GPU Core Frequency throttling issues.  This is either due to an increase in temperatures on the GPU or VRam.  So naturally, R9-380 (a revision of the R9-290x) is going to have temperature and power draw improvements.  Power Draw is actually smaller in comparison to the R9-290x.  So the nuclear reactor that we know as an R9-290x, is less radioactive in the R9-380.  With this thought in mind, one can conclude that a massive air-cooled setup isn't necessary.

R9-380 doesn't have HBM which is one of many selling point for the R9-390 and R9-390x.  Justification for the AMD Premium price tag that you'll see on the R9-390/x.  R9-380 will most likely support D3D12.0.  I don't believe R9-290x fully supports it, but I could be wrong.  

Lets take into account that photos from Rumor Mills have shown R9-390x having a TDP Power Draw near R9-290x, but how accurate is that remains to be unclear.  Those numbers won't be confirmed or verified until 3rd party benchmarks and test are made by TPU, etc...  I would reasonably and generously suggest that R9-380 would probably have a 10% to 20% power draw less than R9-290x.  Consider this an educational guess.  In addition, it will probably produce 20% to 30% less generated thermal energy at the same amount of work outputs or loads with the air-cooled solution, on the R9-380.

The "actual" may produce better results than the things I have listed, exceeding the bar of expectations on the R9-380 higher than previously believed.  If we think about it, AMD doesn't really need to produce another R9-290x variant and call it a R9-380, place more units on the market with no tweaks or improvements.  Otherwise, the already flooded market of R9-290x will only increase with the volume of R9-380 products coming in.  The only assumed difference between the R9-290x and the R9-380 would be the labeling in this case.  My point is with the current situation, R9-380 "could" meet a higher level of expectations.  In a sense, the R9-380 has to exceed the R9-290x, or AMD will just be increasing and investing stock to a flagship tier, one generation ago that consumers aren't buying anymore.  Especially with the NVidia GTX 980 pulling a significant performance over it, and the previous generation, the GTX 780 Ti, was already pulling 10% to 22% average FPS over it in the same tier and generation as the R9-290x.  I don't believe R9-380 is going to be sold for $100 to $200 dollars just to make up for losses...  Especially if the average price of an R9-290x is roughly between $300 and $700 dollars.


----------



## kn00tcn (Apr 9, 2015)

Finners said:


> Its not about cost, I prefer the smallest chassis I can get away with, currently have a cooltek w2 with a radiator in the front and bottom.
> 
> Full tower cases just take up too much space for me.


full tower!? that's height, we're looking at depth (or if there are hard drive bays in the way)

the case can be vertically tiny or even a steambox (with pci-e riser to rotate the card) & fit extremely long cards just fine


----------



## Casecutter (Apr 9, 2015)

xixou said:


> It looks like R8 380 to me.
> 
> R5/7/9 are used, there is space for R6/8/10 ^^


 
When I first saw this I was like IDK... It just looked too much like a 290 layout in the heat pipes and other bits. So yea say a 380, that someone doctored.
Interesting thought as to R6/8/10 but that makes for an extremely crowded field


----------



## RichF (Apr 10, 2015)

I hope someone will make a triple slot card to keep the noise down with one of the high-end 390s (single card, not dual GPU model).

Trying to squeeze all that cooling performance out of dual slot design makes sense if you're going to run Crossfire but not so much otherwise.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 10, 2015)

alwayssts said:


> I don't know if I should mention this for fear of anyone important actually catching on, but BTA has a tendency to 'correct' things in his news posts when he knows something, which in itself can be telling of a situation (often shortly before launches).
> 
> You holding out on us, man?








"So what's the deal, little fella?"

"Well that's classified."

"So I couldn't tell you, even if I wanted to."

"But it is pretty cool." 

"So I might tell you."

"I'm gonna tell you."


----------



## alwayssts (Apr 10, 2015)

btarunr said:


> "I'm gonna tell you."



...........  

(For what it's worth, I see what you did there...love ya for it_....you're a clever bastard dude.)_


----------



## NC37 (Apr 10, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> No such problems with HD7950 WindForce 3X and you know how old it is. And it's running almost 24/7. Though I do have custom made fan profile so it never spins like mad, making it nicer on the bearings I guess. I do keep it dust free and when cleaning with compressor, I block the blades from spinning.



Could be. Mine do hit 100% all the time. Just no way around it here. But they are pretty cheap fans. When they popped off I got to see that first hand. 

I took some old PSU or CPU fans and spliced them on. Cut them out of their frames first, of course. Used gorilla glue to attach to original mounting bracket after I cut the middle spindle out. They spin slower but sit taller and its surprising how much better they cool. My 2nd card is a solid 10-20 deg C cooler. So these GPUs can run much cooler, its just the fans which suck.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 10, 2015)

100% ?! That can't be right. I even tried once running it with forced 30% fan speed. Some newer games caused some problems regarding temperature, but for the most part, games worked just fine at temperatures slightly below 90°C. For an absolutely silent experience it's not bad actually. Now I'm using my own custom fan curve that never goes beyond 55% (I think) fan speed. It's slightly audible, but if there is music or even quiet environmental effects, I don't really hear it anymore.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 10, 2015)

The R9 390 series is going to overheat so bad with air coolers.

But that won't stop AMD from lying about the clock speeds and using the boost clock as the advertised clock speed.


----------



## Aceman.au (Apr 11, 2015)

I'll be sitting back and waiting for the 390x2

I'll be getting 3 40 inch monitors for Eyefinity.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 13, 2015)

I've been watching this discussion, and have come to one conclusion.  Anyone else out there looking forward to the 4xx series and 10xx series?  

I'm looking at the 9xx series, and the performance leap isn't what I'd have expected from the 7xx series (not to say they don't perform better).  I'm looking at the 2xx series, and they seem to be half way to turning my computer into a forge (can't say the same for the 3xx series, as no actual data has been confirmed).

Hopefully Nvidea and AMD can make 2016 a better year.  As it stands, I see no reason to buy a new card with what I've already got.  On the other hand, if the 380 can bring the price of a 970 down to the $250 mark I'd reconsider that opinion.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 13, 2015)

Eric_Cartman said:


> The R9 390 series is going to overheat so bad with air coolers.
> 
> But that won't stop AMD from lying about the clock speeds and using the boost clock as the advertised clock speed.


Haha cry more Nvidiot!

The custom cooled 290X's run quieter and cooler than the Titan X.


----------



## 64K (Apr 13, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I've been watching this discussion, and have come to one conclusion.  Anyone else out there looking forward to the 4xx series and 10xx series?
> 
> I'm looking at the 9xx series, and the performance leap isn't what I'd have expected from the 7xx series (not to say they don't perform better).  I'm looking at the 2xx series, and they seem to be half way to turning my computer into a forge (can't say the same for the 3xx series, as no actual data has been confirmed).
> 
> Hopefully Nvidea and AMD can make 2016 a better year.  As it stands, I see no reason to buy a new card with what I've already got.  On the other hand, if the 380 can bring the price of a 970 down to the $250 mark I'd reconsider that opinion.



Yeah, it's not what it could have been if TSMC had gotten it together for 20nm. The improved efficiency would have allowed for more performance per watt. If TSMC can get it together for 16nm then we will see a huge jump with Pascal hopefully this year maybe early next year. AMD has got me wondering if they will have a much cooler GPU on the way with Arctic Islands. I don't think they would have chose that codename otherwise.


----------

