AMD Radeon R9 Fury Specifications Leaked

[anubis44]

It would be silly not to keep 4GB. R9-290X had 4GB. My ancient HD7950 had 3GB. Nano having the same as so much older HD7950 would be silly and just 2GB would be just plain dumbest thing ever...

They have to keep the full 4GB, because HBM1 only comes in a configuration for 4GB. HBM2 will allow for 8GB.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well what will matter is how close it is to the Fury X this go round. Its price while not announced is probably going to be around $550 so if its performance falls around the less than 10% difference mark it will be a great video card!

I hope to see some non-reference PCB versions so we can get some more overclocking especially once voltage is unlocked by the other programs (MSI afterburner or the likes).

 

[Casecutter]

There won't be a reference R9 Fury board, so I just used whatever pic from my AMD 300 folder.

You'd almost have to think even custom cards (non reference) would (at least at first) be base off the same FuryX PCB. If there's not a "reference" you'd think AMD probably hasn't made a longer PCB version. I suppose AIB could've made custom PCB as mounting an interposer might actually be easier than a GPU die/memory... the AIB might like that better. Actually the PCB might be cheaper and easier to make as basically they just need to hook the power and display outputs to the interposer. Either way the cooler and fans should still be fairly substantial, perhaps not like a 390X, but still need some beef. So might we see the short FuryX PCB and then cooler that just overhangs?

 

[RejZoR]

I HOPE that isn't a Real image of the new Card......It wouldn't be too reassuring, if they didn't even get the "RADEON" logo affixed in the correct orientation. Assuming of course that they would WANT the buyers to see Radeon upright, and NOT Upside down, when the card was installed.

The RADEON text is turned this way so it looks nice on PR photo where the card is placed with the fan intake up. Similar to how Fury X had inverted text for press but was the other way around on actual cards because they have to look nice inside the case...

 

[john_]

4096?

What's to stop people from putting a water cooler on Nano and overclocking it to Fury X specs then? If the chip weren't cut down, the clockspeed would have to be about 60% of Fury X to be close to 390X.

Only one 8pin power connector.

The Four Faces of Fiji, & Quantum Too - The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top

Unlike the R9 Fury, AMD has announced the bulk of the specs for the R9 Nano. This card will feature a fully enabled Fiji GPU

 

[MxPhenom 216]

For once, AMD designs a very sexy reference card, assuming thats what the card will actually look like.

 

[RejZoR]

If R9 Nano will have the grunt of R9-290/390X with a single 8-pin power input and that size with low noise, it might be a win. We could see the rise of high end HTPC's. Imagine Steam Machine with R9 Nano...

 

[Aquinus]

For once, AMD designs a very sexy reference card, assuming thats what the card will actually look like.

The RADEON text is turned this way so it looks nice on PR photo where the card is placed with the fan intake up. Similar to how Fury X had inverted text for press but was the other way around on actual cards because they have to look nice inside the case...

I HOPE that isn't a Real image of the new Card......It wouldn't be too reassuring, if they didn't even get the "RADEON" logo affixed in the correct orientation. Assuming of course that they would WANT the buyers to see Radeon upright, and NOT Upside down, when the card was installed.

At least 3 people didn't read the thread and posted right off the bat.

There won't be a reference R9 Fury board, so I just used whatever pic from my AMD 300 folder.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

At least 3 people didn't read the thread and posted right off the bat.

Well shit....

 

[Haytch]

If the ROP count stays the same on the Fury, we could be looking at a very decent option with price/performance in mind.
I am very interested to see what happens when this comes out. Even more interested to see the Nano, so much talk about it.

 

[RejZoR]

We read the thread just fine. But normal R9 Fury is just meh at this point. If anything I'm interested about R9 Nano since they were very secretive the whole time till now about it...

 

[Steevo]

Huh. I wonder if the smaller ratio of shaders and TMUs to ROPs will show as any tangible benefit. I eagerly await a review.

If it was anything like it's siblings in GCN and the leave the ROP count it could be the card to have and tweak

 

[arbiter]

They have to keep the full 4GB, because HBM1 only comes in a configuration for 4GB. HBM2 will allow for 8GB.

HBM2 will allow up to 32GB

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Ha ha ha.


That "ancient" 7950 is built on the same node as the 9xx and 3xx series. It's preposterous to call something that is functionally only a revision, and not a revolution, out dated.



Seriously though, AMD releasing another air cooled monster that should probably come with a glass window (so you can see it toasting your food) isn't new. It's kind of a good laugh, and I'm sure Nvidia fans are absolutely salivating over how this "definitively proves" Nvidia is better than AMD.


My opinion hasn't changed. I'm looking forward to you 4xx and 1xxx series. Maybe nano will create some ripples, but we need a new node to see any real leap in performance.

 

[Deleted member 138597]

When the Fury X was showing up on tech news sites "...coming with HBM", "HBM offers 512Gb/s bandwith..." "...could be 980 Ti killer" "unprecedented 4K performance..." etc etc, we were all like "ooh" "aah" for it. And when the reviews showed... well, you know about that .

So, it's kinda the same thing again, this time with Fury.

54 CUs, 3584 Stream processors, 224 TMU, probably 64 ROPs - hmmm, looks good.

.....
NOP! NOT TAKING ANY CHANCES THIS TIME

 

[Aquinus]

When the Fury X was showing up on tech news sites "...coming with HBM", "HBM offers 512Gb/s bandwith..." "...could be 980 Ti killer" "unprecedented 4K performance..." etc etc, we were all like "ooh" "aah" for it. And when the reviews showed... well, you know about that .

So, it's kinda the same thing again, this time with Fury.

54 CUs, 3584 Stream processors, 224 TMU, probably 64 ROPs - hmmm, looks good.

.....
NOP! NOT TAKING ANY CHANCES THIS TIME

The question is not necessarily performance, but price point. Proper pricing can make nVidia adjust pricing to be more competitive. Once again though, that depends on price and how it scales up with its direct competitor. So while Fury X might not have wiped the floor, Fury might prove to be a different animal for the price.

What's interesting is fewer shaders and TMUs but, the same number of ROPs. It kind of adds a strange dynamic to the matter. I'm more interested in the difference in performance between Fury and Fury X at the same clocks. Then we can do some math to find out exactly how much those TMUs and shaders are contributing to extra performance at any given resolution (given benchmark info,) and could help solidify the position that 64 ROPs is simply too few for a card with that much compute.

 

[johnspack]

God, anything that drops the prices of even used 970s ect. They still want 400can for a clearly midrange product up here in Canada. 270us for a used one... nope.
I need at least a 970 to upgrade from my 480. No new games for me...... Top end used to be 500+ dollar cards like my 480, now it's 700-1200? I can't even buy used
cards I can afford now. Crap.

 

[Ebo]

I just wanna see if this card is a better buy/upgrade from my R9 290 from Sapphire than going for a 2nd R9 290 in crossfire.

 

[1d10t]

I just wanna see if this card is a better buy/upgrade from my R9 290 from Sapphire than going for a 2nd R9 290 in crossfire.

TBH,two R9 290 are faster and cheaper than single R9 Fury X,throw water on them and overclock and they will perform closed to R9 295X2.Great performance scales across all games I even tempted to get another Asus's R9 290 to three firing them.Judging from your display,you might not need more juices,i say single R9 290 sufficient enough.

-= edited =-
Some proof from Shadow of Mordor
Setting :





Single



Crossfire

 

[Deleted member 138597]

TBH,two R9 290 are faster and cheaper than single R9 Fury X,throw water on them and overclock and they will perform closed to R9 295X2.Great performance scales across all games I even tempted to get another Asus's R9 290 to three firing them.Judging from your display,you might not need more juices,i say single R9 290 sufficient enough.

-= edited =-
Some proof from Shadow of Mordor
Setting :





Single



Crossfire

Just imagine the heat output... let alone the power consumption

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Remember, Fury X2 is still en route. It's going to crush Titan X.

 

[arbiter]

Remember, Fury X2 is still en route. It's going to crush Titan X.

over-hype train is rolling yet again.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

X2 cards usually get at least 160% performance compared to the single GPU model. Fury X is about 10-15% away from Titan X. Simple math is simple but it isn't an apples to apples comparison. A Titan X2 would certainly best the Fury X2. At the same time, Fiji has a huge real estate advantage over Maxwell. A dual GPU Titan X would likely have to reduce GDDR5 memory amount simply to make room for the second GPU; moreover, Fiji's size opens the possibility for a tri-GPU card but power and heat management would obviously become problematical.

 

[Deleted member 138597]

Remember, Fury X2 is still en route. It's going to crush Titan X.

X2 cards usually get at least 160% performance compared to the single GPU model. Fury X is about 10-15% away from Titan X. Simple math is simple but it isn't an apples to apples comparison. A Titan X2 would certainly best the Fury X2. At the same time, Fiji has a huge real estate advantage over Maxwell. A dual GPU Titan X would likely have to reduce GDDR5 memory amount simply to make room for the second GPU; moreover, Fiji's size opens the possibility for a tri-GPU card but power and heat management would obviously become problematical.

Wait, did you just contradicted yourself? Or is it another you talking? I really thought it was somebody else saying that (no offence though...)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Where is the contradiction?