Radeon R9 and Radeon R7 Graphics Cards Pictured Some More

[springs113]

According to my sources the NDA lifts sometime next week.

 

[Hilux SSRG]

Thanks AMD, you pulled a Nvidia. Everything below the flagship appears to be a rehash of a rehash.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Unless AMD's PowerPoint skills suck, R9 290X Firestrike is under 8000.
Notice the top block (which ends at 8000) is fading at the top. GTX TITAN's Firestrike score is ranging between 8,200 and 8,700.

A more relevant comparison may be between the two cards in the slide (same source, same µarch). The 280X is for intents and purposes an HD 7970GE (with a 20MHz core bump and slightly faster memory if the voices in the walls are to be believed).
If the 290X scores ~8000, and the 280X rebadge scores 6800 (according to the two AMD slides), wouldn't it follow that AMD's own calculation is that the 290X is 17-18% faster than a warmed over 7970GE ?

Its been noted in one of the mirriad of Amd new gpu threads that the crossfire bridge link bandwidth is not upto 4k + and it crossfires through the pciex buss, thats due to the 2.5gb/s bandwidth on that link not being enough for page transfers at Uhd resolutions.

The Crossfire bridge is good for 2.5GT/sec (gigatransfers) which is 250MB/sec, not 2.5gb/s

 

[Casecutter]

R7-260X is Bonaire XTX... a slightly faster HD 7790 with 2GB of VRAM as standard (default HD 7790 had 1GB).

It is in no way or shape "basically a 7870". And about the price, 7790 launched at 150$ (1GB version)... so I don't know what you're smoking, the price sounds just about right.

As for HD 7870 replacement, that's R7-270 or R7-270X (not sure which one), no clue about the codename (probably Curacao Pro), but probably a beefed up Tahiti LE (HD 7870 XT) as it's reported to ~10% slower than a GTX 760.

Anyway, what is it with all this outrage. Aside from the stream drops and a not a lot of stage presence from most of the people that hosted it, it's all great and/or interesting news.

IDK... Even I have to say it all left me underwhelmed. Is there any date for when NDA are lifted? I seem to have all the same question as I had prior.

Like Bonaire XTX aka R7 260X; It supports this new TrueAudio would this mean the original Bonaire always had this but wasn't implemented? Or is this XTX an new spin of the original? If the Fire Strike numbers projected are factual, I'm not overwhelmed as 3500-3600 was what most claim the 7790 offers, AMD's slide says 3700 that’s like 5%? What’s so XTX about it? Then that price of $140 even giving it 2Gb it's not great, I believe a GTX 650Ti Boost is 3800.

The R9 270X as at $200 has me feeling 7870 with not any extra performance given the 5500 score seems blasé. A R9 280X (7970Ghz) at $300 seem to come out alright the supposed recent MSRP of a 7970Ghz was like $380, but hasn't been hard to find at $275 working rebates and code.

They might be all okay once we see some real gaming B-M, but I want(ed) more than a bump in clocks. I hope AMD did something more than re-name Pitcairn as Curacao, they had to do some minor tweaks or this is almost more underwhelming than what Nvidia got away with.

If the 290X scores ~8000, and the 280X rebadge scores 6800 (according to the two AMD slides), wouldn't it follow that AMD's own calculation is that the 290X is 17-18% faster than a warmed over 7970GE ?

That's a very reasonable use of the data. Good call! And a little unnerving...

 

[HumanSmoke]

Is there any date for when NDA are lifted?

3 October by all accounts. The same day pre-orders are available.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

A more relevant comparison may be between the two cards in the slide (same source, same µarch). The 280X is for intents and purposes an HD 7970GE (with a 20MHz core bump and slightly faster memory if the voices in the walls are to be believed).
If the 290X scores ~8000, and the 280X rebadge scores 6800 (according to the two AMD slides), wouldn't it follow that AMD's own calculation is that the 290X is 17-18% faster than a warmed over 7970GE ?


The Crossfire bridge is good for 2.5GT/sec (gigatransfers) which is 250MB/sec, not 2.5gb/s

Thanks for correcting my vague memory.

While it's nice to wax lyrical about benches its premature to be stating any numbers as fact or one as beating the other.
All will be revealed when the nda clears and wizzards review arrives.

 

[The Von Matrices]

I've been discussing the lineup with some other people in a few forums, and aggregating the data, the best determination we've come up with based on the available specifications (memory capacity and Firemark scores) is:

R9 290X = Hawaii XT (Full Chip - 2816 SP, 4GB w/512-bit, ~$600)
R9 290 = Hawaii Pro (Binned Chip - 2304 or 2560 SP, 3GB w/384-bit, ~$400)
R9 280X = Tahiti XT2 (7970 Ghz - 2048 SP, 3GB w/384-bit, ~$300)
R9 270X = Tahiti LE (7870 XT - 1536 SP, 2GB w/256-bit, ~$200)
R7 260X = Bonaire XT (7790 - 896 SP, 2GB w/128-bit, ~$139)
R7 250 = Cape Verde XT (7770 - 640 SP, 1GB w/128-bit, <$89)

The R7 250 is the unique card because while all the other rebrands have equal or higher clock speeds than their predecessors, the R7 250 is a 7770 with lower clock speeds to fit into the 75W PCIe power specification. It would surpass the 7750 in performance due to the extra shaders, but it would not surpass a 7770 due to the lower clock speeds.

It would seem that Pitcairn is dead. This also makes a lot of sense considering Tahiti is a relatively big chip and if the lineup only contained full Tahitis and full Pitcairns you have nowhere for partially defective dies to be used. The reason the R7 250 is a Cape Verde chip and not a cut down Bonaire is that it doesn't feature the audio processing hardware.

 

[HumanSmoke]

While it's nice to wax lyrical about benches its premature to be stating any numbers as fact or one as beating the other.
All will be revealed when the nda clears and wizzards review arrives.

Hence my use of the words "May" and "IF". Nor did I state any of the numbers as "fact", hence the qualifications I made -that is your (mis)interpretation of my post.

I'm pretty sure my analysis stands up to scrutiny a whole lot better than some of the emotive arguments flying around the forums

If you aren't sold on AMD's own comparative benchmarks on their own products what does that say about the level of confidence you (or anyone else) has in what the company? If their own internal benchmarking is flawed or spurious, what about the company's other claims? Or is this more a case of picking and choosing depending upon the feelgood factor ?

I've been discussing the lineup with some other people in a few forums, and aggregating the data, the best determination we've come up with based on the available specifications....

Seems spot on...I had reached much the same conclusion on another site, so in the interests of self-interest I'd say your guesstimates are excellent!

 

[Casecutter]

The best I could find as a Fire Strike score for the 7870 Tahiti LE was like - 6000. If we say AMD slide is using a FX-9590 that might account for a 5550 score. But if a Tahiti LE they have to do something about power consumption. If they think the LE is a good $200 offering I would absolutely disagree.

 

[NeoXF]

Seems spot on...I had reached much the same conclusion on another site, so in the interests of self-interest I'd say your guesstimates are excellent!

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that discussion and the one in this thread as of late as well.

Another slide from that site, showing a more updated chart with 1050-1100MHz/6000MHz (same speculated specs for R9 280X) Radeon HD 7970 shows it getting more than 7800 points. How exactly is that the same thing with 6800...

On that same test system, w/ the 4,5GHz i7-3960X, QC DDR3-1866CL9 and SSD, I'd wager R9 290X would go for over 9000 marks (no joke intended).

 

[Zaxx420]

Next question is ofc...how well will they o/c? Hoping the 260X will allow a decent O/C cuz that's right in my 'Best Bang for the Buck' price range of $120 to $150.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that discussion and the one in this thread as of late as well.

Another slide from that site, showing a more updated chart with 1050-1100MHz/6000MHz (same speculated specs for R9 280X) Radeon HD 7970 shows it getting more than 7800 points. How exactly is that the same thing with 6800...

Probably because the 7800 is obviously a factory overclocked 7970GHz?

On that same test system, w/ the 4,5GHz i7-3960X, QC DDR3-1866CL9 and SSD, I'd wager R9 290X would go for over 9000 marks (no joke intended).

Maybe, maybe not. That still doesn't explain why my hypothesis based on AMD's own information is "bollocks".
Do AMD use different system specifications when doing comparative testing?
Are AMD's technical staff too ignorant to interpret a benchmark?
Are AMD deliberately lying?

 

[Vario]

Reminds me of the 8800 gt to 9800 gt nonexistent innovation stunt from Nvidia in the mid 2000's LOL.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Reminds me of the 8800 gt to 9800 gt nonexistent innovation stunt from Nvidia in the mid 2000's LOL.

Constantly pushing their own technology, entire rebrands for OEMS and new product generations... not to mention endless games with AMD logos at the start.

You have to give them credit, they are finally learning to take a hint.

Hell, keep this up they may eventually be considered the bad guys.

 

[The Von Matrices]

Do AMD use different system specifications when doing comparative testing?
Are AMD's technical staff too ignorant to interpret a benchmark?
Are AMD deliberately lying?

You have to give them credit - if they wanted to obfuscate performance, there are few better ways than using Firemark scores.

 

[Fluffmeister]

You have to give them credit - if they wanted to obfuscate performance, there are few better ways than using Firemark scores.

Only AMD can get away with hosting 4 hours of PR nonsense, reveal barely anything at all about the product most people were interested in... and still get credit for it.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Probably because the 7800 is obviously a factory overclocked 7970GHz?


Maybe, maybe not. That still doesn't explain why my hypothesis based on AMD's own information is "bollocks".
Do AMD use different system specifications when doing comparative testing?
Are AMD's technical staff too ignorant to interpret a benchmark?
Are AMD deliberately lying?

Are you so neg on Amd you will jump on any possible neg stat , , sorry poorly (possibly on purpose) stated stat in a chart im not assed if the card blows a fart but reading your never ending vitreous is tiring which is nice its bedtime after all.
I would not mind buying this card but im still waiting on wizards review as yours is poor and largely unfounded opinion.

Based on possibly a rumour tickling graph.

Let me put a widely sensible supposition to you Say Amd release a top spec card and at the same time they Know there competition can release a similar spec card specialy cooled if needed to piss on the fire slightly by present day benches in pr terms not good even if it were a paper launch.

They are and have kept details secret on And with purpose . THAT is a fact.

 

[Vario]

Well the 7970 is a beast, no doubt about it, if they can keep churning out rebranded ghz editions on the cheap then I don't see a downside. Sort of like the 8800gtx/ultra->9800gtx/ultra as I said earlier. I'd like to see what the 90x can do!

 

[1d10t]

Its been noted in one of the mirriad of Amd new gpu threads that the crossfire bridge link bandwidth is not upto 4k + and it crossfires through the pciex buss, thats due to the 2.5gb/s bandwidth on that link not being enough for page transfers at Uhd resolutions.

I've been discussing the lineup with some other people in a few forums, and aggregating the data, the best determination we've come up with based on the available specifications (memory capacity and Firemark scores) is:

R9 290X = Hawaii XT (Full Chip - 2816 SP, 4GB w/512-bit, ~$600)
R9 290 = Hawaii Pro (Binned Chip - 2304 or 2560 SP, 3GB w/384-bit, ~$400)
R9 280X = Tahiti XT2 (7970 Ghz - 2048 SP, 3GB w/384-bit, ~$300)
R9 270X = Tahiti LE (7870 XT - 1536 SP, 2GB w/256-bit, ~$200)
R7 260X = Bonaire XT (7790 - 896 SP, 2GB w/128-bit, ~$139)
R7 250 = Cape Verde XT (7770 - 640 SP, 1GB w/128-bit, <$89)

The R7 250 is the unique card because while all the other rebrands have equal or higher clock speeds than their predecessors, the R7 250 is a 7770 with lower clock speeds to fit into the 75W PCIe power specification. It would surpass the 7750 in performance due to the extra shaders, but it would not surpass a 7770 due to the lower clock speeds.

It would seem that Pitcairn is dead. This also makes a lot of sense considering Tahiti is a relatively big chip and if the lineup only contained full Tahitis and full Pitcairns you have nowhere for partially defective dies to be used. The reason the R7 250 is a Cape Verde chip and not a cut down Bonaire is that it doesn't feature the audio processing hardware.

so best bet for R9 290 are 2560 SP,4 GB VRAM,512 bit wide,feature link-bus Crossfire,launch price $499,and will take a seat 5 - 10% slower than GTX 780

 

[The Von Matrices]

so best bet for R9 290 are 2560 SP,4 GB VRAM,512 bit wide,feature link-bus Crossfire,launch price $499,and will take a seat 5 - 10% slower than GTX 780

I just noticed that the TPU GPU database has the R9 280X powered by a Curacao XT (aka Pitcairn XT). While it might be true, it confuses me from a manufacturing standpoint:

This would mean that except for the R9 290 (non-X) that AMD would be using only fully-enabled dies. This seems to make no business sense since any chips with defects can't be sold. Granted, 28nm is a mature process, but usually manufacturers have two tiers of product - a fully enabled one and a feature cut one to use the defective dies. Especially for Tahiti - a 365mm^2 chip has to have a significant number of defective die, and I doubt AMD wants to put a disabled Tahiti into their mobile lineup due to power concerns. I guess then have OEM products to use the defective parts?

In that case the lineup would look like this

R9 290X = Hawaii XT (Full Chip - 2816 SP, 4GB w/512-bit, ~$600)
R9 290 = Hawaii Pro (Binned Chip - 2560 SP, 4GB w/512-bit, ~$400-450)
R9 280X = Tahiti XT2 (7970 Ghz - 2048 SP, 3GB w/384-bit, ~$300)
R9 270X = Curacao XT (7870 - 1280 SP, 2GB w/256-bit, ~$200)
R7 260X = Bonaire XT (7790 - 896 SP, 2GB w/128-bit, ~$139)
R7 250 = Cape Verde XT (7770 - 640 SP, 1GB w/128-bit, <$89)

Only AMD can get away with hosting 4 hours of PR nonsense, reveal barely anything at all about the product most people were interested in... and still get credit for it.

I disagree that it's specific to AMD; that's what most electronics-related press conferences are like nowadays. Think of the 2013 Microsoft and Sony press conferences at E3; they were basically identical in structure to the AMD press conference and revealed very little about the hardware itself.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Are you so neg on Amd you will jump on any possible neg stat , , sorry poorly (possibly on purpose) stated stat in a chart im not assed if the card blows a fart but reading your never ending vitreous is tiring which is nice its bedtime after all.
I would not mind buying this card but im still waiting on wizards review as yours is poor and largely unfounded opinion.

Based on possibly a rumour tickling graph.

Let me put a widely sensible supposition to you Say Amd release a top spec card and at the same time they Know there competition can release a similar spec card specialy cooled if needed to piss on the fire slightly by present day benches in pr terms not good even if it were a paper launch.

They are and have kept details secret on And with purpose . THAT is a fact.

Wow. That was a chore to read. Ever heard of punctuation and grammar, or English your second language?
Please let me simplify:
Either the charts AMD posted are correct- in which case information can be extrapolated from them OR they are incorrect and AMD is either lying or has some serious QC and/or internal communications problems.
It is either one or the other.

For someone who isn't "assed if the card blows a fart" you seem to be posting an awful lot. Personally I am interested in the new releases, both from an enthusiast standpoint, and as someone who advises and builds systems for others. If you don't like what is said please use, by all means use the ignore function in your CP.

YW

 

[wolf]

Well for a new generation card, this seems severely underwhelming, what is it maybe ~20% faster give/take than a 7970Ghz?

I expected more, especially with 3840x2160 firmly in the sights of consumers over the next couple of years.

I can only hope it drives prices down, and that Nvidias answer will be better than this. I hope this for the sake of GPU's getting faster overall.

Also, WTF with their new naming scheme :/

Thanks AMD, you pulled a Nvidia. Everything below the flagship appears to be a rehash of a rehash.

Thanks Hilux SSRG, you pulled a fanboy.

 

[kn00tcn]

you expected more on the same 28nm? what about 6970 on the same 40nm as 5870?

there's talk that maxwell will also be 28nm in 2014, then a 'big maxwell' late 2014 or even early 2015 at 20nm

i dont expect miracles without massive architecture changes or massive size changes

i'd rather have 2 separate chips, gaming & compute, but that's expensive to do (we can see the results of such a split, 680 has much better gaming even though it has worse compute over 580)

the other area to boost is software, which is what mantle is doing, we'll see what bf4 will be like in december

 

[Lionheart]

Here's a video from Linus tech tips at AMD's event but just skip to around 11:38 in the video to have a glance at AMD's new flagship GPU

http://youtu.be/3MU-DIKvY3U?t=11m38s

 

[fullinfusion]

Here's a video from Linus tech tips at AMD's event but just skip to around 11:38 in the video to have a glance at AMD's new flagship GPU

http://youtu.be/3MU-DIKvY3U?t=11m38s

And to add to my excitement I see a bios switch!