Radeon R9 390X and R9 390 to Feature Faster Memory, Core Over Predecessors

[haswrong]

That is but just one card. The whole 3XX line is pretty much the same exact cards from last generation. How much more performance does an extra 50MHz on core realistically give you in games? The OC headroom I fear will be close to nil. Factor on top of that the 290/290X were BOTH overheating beasts that needed to be tamed by AIB partners ASAP because reviews were bashing the crap out of AMD's reference boards. When the 390/390X come out, please compare the prices with current 290/290X and tell me if that is competition.

i hope peeps at tpu are absolutely super-enthusiastic about re-benching all games with the new re-brands +1fps ftw?

 

[moproblems99]

Wasn't paper launch today???? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[PCGamerDR]

I just want to 390nonX to be able to beat the 970 in most benchmarks doesnt have to be in all of them and then i can give my precious money to AMD, please gods of pixels hear my prayer!, my gtx550ti is too old and wants to retire.

 

[Vayra86]

It would be best if all stuff need in one frame are stored in VRAM (read>done). If not, GPU have to wait until all data for the frame is ready. (read>wait>read>done). The wait part, when the VRAM need to get new stuff from RAM, is irrelevant with PCIe 3.0 speed, and the delay was mostly caused by the additional read part.

However, with HBM the speed of this read part is 9 times smaller than that of GDDR5 at same clock. In FuryX and TitanX case, this ratio reduce to 0.6 times smaller due to different clock. Some simple math from here show that with good scheduler from driver, 4GB capacity is not that big issue with frames of 4GB-8GB zone. At 8GB-12GB zone, the difference will be more clear, but the GPU also suffers here, which make the delay of memory less significant. In short, 4GB of HBM on FuryX can keep up with 12GB of TitanX in 4GB-8GB zone, and is superior in sub 4GB area.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. So far there is no evidence anywhere that suggests what you are saying is going to actually work that way in practice *and* result in good gameplay.

Theoretically, yes its possible. In practice, we know there are many hurdles to be taken to turn that performance into a smooth gameplay experience. It took Nvidia a couple of driver updates to get their 970 with its memory arch working the way it should, and there are still fundamental issues with Maxwell drivers, including an unusually high number of crashes even outside the game. And it is only since a couple of years that we have had attention for microstutter/frame pacing issues and are looking to eliminate them from the driver. All this goes to show that while theoretically stuff 'should work fine' it really doesn't and the driver already is a huge collection of tweaks and per-game optimization.

HBM is going to force AMD into a separate driver dev process. Do you see it happening when the third rebrand is not even getting its Tonga optimizations?

I'm just being a realist instead of an optimist.

 

[andy721]

According to my GPU-Z my specs are almost the same as the R9 390(X) wow, as I predicted this would happen and continue. Technology is milked with model names and numbers. Each 3-6months to a year the performance only goes up 0.15-0.20%, sadly the price is the only thing that goes way up and not the performance. I see the pattern, I know this HBM(2)+ is just bullshitting their way through manipulating everything explaining how much quicker and better it is when really you just wasted another $400-$600 on another shitty graphics card. I'm wondering if we reached a peak with this technology due to fake science limiting us to the true potential of technology.

Always look for deals.

All the 390/X that have been shown have an improved cooler. Need to see reviews to see if there is any benefit.

Don't tell people to buy this card, it's a waste of money. They conned everyone same with NVIDIA. It's all milked technology and you all know it.

 

[arbiter]

Don't tell people to buy this card, it's a waste of money. They conned everyone same with NVIDIA. It's all milked technology and you all know it.

Well, AMD conned people with same card, just rebranded and tweaked bios. Nvidia cards had a new gpu though on same 28nm. nvidia cards weren't really a con as much as AMD cards were.

 

[andy721]

Well, AMD conned people with same card, just rebranded and tweaked bios. Nvidia cards had a new gpu though on same 28nm. nvidia cards weren't really a con as much as AMD cards were.

They're all in on the whole con amd and nvidia doesn't matter they're all in the same boat. I hate them both but what choice we have unless we can create our own, a better one at that which we can if we have the materials they use to create video cards which is just a custom heat sink and plastic/processors with a few programming here or there and testing under pressure/temps for stability. I wouldn't mind not paying 400-500bucks per graphics card every 5years or so.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well, AMD conned people with same card, just rebranded and tweaked bios. Nvidia cards had a new gpu though on same 28nm. nvidia cards weren't really a con as much as AMD cards were.

Uhh, no that is not all they did dude... Plus his argument is pretty valid this round since those slight changes were enough to keep the cards in the same ballpark as Nvidia's "new" cards.

The only cards that actually improve anything much this round is the GTX 980ti/Titan X, and the Fury's with the GTX 980ti holding the crown.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I told people to grab up the R# 2xx cards for a reason. XD

Do note that 390X has double the memory. Overclocking doesn't change that.

 

[arbiter]

I told people to grab up the R# 2xx cards for a reason. XD

Do note that 390X has double the memory. Overclocking doesn't change that.

Do note as well that 290x had same 8gb versions as well i guess that slipped your mind.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They were OEM and quite rare.


The picture @andy721 posted shows a 4 GiB 290 versus an 8 GiB 390X.

 

[arbiter]

They were OEM and quite rare.
The picture @andy721 posted shows a 4 GiB 290 versus an 8 GiB 390X.

Rare? really? took 2 sec loaded newegg and "290x 8gb" even now there is still 2 of them for sale you can buy. they weren't rare.

 

[GhostRyder]

They were OEM and quite rare.


The picture @andy721 posted shows a 4 GiB 290 versus an 8 GiB 390X.

Rare? really? took 2 sec loaded newegg and "290x 8gb" even now there is still 2 of them for sale you can buy. they weren't rare.

Even if they are rare or not is not the point. A rebrand consists of the same exact package being branded with a new label as in they took the graphics card off the line making the previous iteration and put a different sticker on them. That is not the case with this card unlike cards like the R9 280/X which were rebrands of the HD 7950 and 7970 with some minor variations in core clocks (Similar to like the HD 7870 and 270/X). The point is if we took a R9 290X and an R9 390X and clocked them to the same levels the 390X would still outperform it because there is more than just 4 more gigabytes of VRAM changed on the card (including improved memory timings for starters) which alone would make it not a rebrand except of the special versions of the R9 290X with 8gb. Does not mean people should be rushing off to the store to purchase the cards if they own the previous generation, but its still improved none the less.

Also, this thread is quite old and its an ancient subject at this point. since the last time this was really discussed was a couple months ago.

 

[Vayra86]

View attachment 70938
According to my GPU-Z my specs are almost the same as the R9 390(X) wow, as I predicted this would happen and continue. Technology is milked with model names and numbers. Each 3-6months to a year the performance only goes up 0.15-0.20%, sadly the price is the only thing that goes way up and not the performance. I see the pattern, I know this HBM(2)+ is just bullshitting their way through manipulating everything explaining how much quicker and better it is when really you just wasted another $400-$600 on another shitty graphics card. I'm wondering if we reached a peak with this technology due to fake science limiting us to the true potential of technology.

Don't tell people to buy this card, it's a waste of money. They conned everyone same with NVIDIA. It's all milked technology and you all know it.

Thread necro and double post, two capital offenses on many a forum.

FYI

 

[erocker]

Please don't revive an old thread to continue a long dead argument.