AMD to introduce its Radeon R9 300-series lineup at Computex

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,482
612
136
OT, but would rather get a used 7950 / 280 / 7970 / 280X than a 960 right now, for the money.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
While we all want shiny new faster things, the 290(x), 295x and 285 being the last AMD releases make sense.

When 290(x) launched, the next big game engine was Frostbite 3, and they were prepared for that, and had Mantle to throw in as a "hey look what can be done" freebie for gamers.

GCN 1.2 and 1.1 cards were the line in the sand before a re-design to GCN 2.0 or whatever is next.

This had to be known when 290(x) was released; the calculated risk was that they were going to stay competitive with the games / engines on the market.

I am thinking the coming 300 series is a complete product stack overhaul, for reduced power consumption and feature addition.

There's been a change at CEO since Hawaii was released. Plans could have, and most likely have, changed since then. Not what or when chips will be ready, that's decided long ago. Release strategy though seems like it has changed. Whether out of necessity or design we don't know.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
It doesn't sound like it will be at Computex, just more towards that time. I am sure they are trying to get them out as soon as they can, they just won't be able to release this month.

I am excited to see what comes, I am looking to get a new graphics card in the somewhat near future. Depending on how these turn out I could very well be getting a new graphics card in the 3xx lineup.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
Are those canadian prices? Bit lower at newegg in the US. I paid $309 before taxed and free shipping for a 290x a few weeks ago, it hit $280 before it sold out. There are a couple in that range still, non-x a bit less. I notice some 970's way cheaper than they were too, pretty early on to be cutting prices so much.

Yep.

Note that any potential difference is exasperated by a 13% tax rate.

IMO, I expect Hawaii to be rebranded and tonga to cover the midrange. A successor to Pitcarin will likely be released sometime in the future. I expect pitcarin performance at much reduced power levels.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
To be honest you can't complain about the 970's 3.5 GB (yes you can complain about Nvidia's sneakiness but not about the 3.5 GB limit) if you accept that a card ~50% faster than a 290X has the same amount of vram as the 290x.

If 3.5 GB on the 970 isn't enough then 4 GB on a card ~50-60% faster isn't enough either.

There are 2 issues with the 970. 1) The RAM. Not only is there 500Gb less full speed RAM than we were told, the last full gig shares resources and is crippled once you get past the 3.5Gb. It's barely better than the 3gig designs it replaced. It's a broken design that's hardly any faster then the generation it replaces. This is more like a next gen CPU performance increase than a GPU but people think it's the bomb. 2) nVidia lied and then lied again trying to cover up the first lie. They've never been honest since day one. First they told us they made a mistake and when people didn't buy that, now it's a feature. I can't believe that people are still trying to defend this.
 

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,709
316
126
There are 2 issues with the 970. 1) The RAM. Not only is there 500Gb less full speed RAM than we were told, the last full gig shares resources and is crippled once you get past the 3.5Gb. It's barely better than the 3gig designs it replaced. It's a broken design that's hardly any faster then the generation it replaces. This is more like a next gen CPU performance increase than a GPU but people think it's the bomb.

You seem to have a problem with how people perceive the 970, and that is sad. If the card fits people's needs, why do you care if they think its "the bomb"?

2) nVidia lied and then lied again trying to cover up the first lie. They've never been honest since day one. First they told us made a mistake and when people didn't buy that, now it's a feature. I can't believe that people are still trying to defend this.

This has nothing to do with how the 970 performs, so this isn't an issue with the 970, more an issue you have with Nvidia.

Yet another AMD thread that goes off-topic to talk about the 970 issue. It'll get locked and people will complain that another AMD thread was locked by those pesky "Nvidia fanboys". :rolleyes:
 

FatherMurphy

Senior member
Mar 27, 2014
229
18
81
The GTX 970 memory issue has nothing to do with the topic of AMD releasing its 300 series in May.

On topic, if I were AMD, I wonder if now would be a good time to strategically "leak" some performance metric about the 390x. Otherwise, Titan X is going to continue to hog the limelight and mindshare of enthusiasts through GTC in a couple of weeks. Then again, it might be best to "leak" performance info shortly after the Titan X reveal to rain on Nvidia's parade.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
I think AMD pushing the 300 series' release back until it can clear inventory of the 200 series is potentially a bad sign, and a forecast that the top end 300 series GPU (Fiji) does not perform that much better than Hawaii.

Here is my thinking. The only reason the release of the 390x/390 would interfere with the sales of the 290x/290 is if the 390x/390 is released in the same price ranges or performance ranges as the 290x/290. If, for example, the 390x is a larger die with expensive HBM and a fancy water cooler, and comes in at 50% faster than the 290x, there is no way AMD will sell that part any near the price range where the 290x sits. Under that scenario, the 390x likely comes in at $500 or more, because it would beat a 980 while maintaining similar price/performance as the 290x.

If I can sell the 390x at $500 or $550, and I could release it now (i.e. barring supply constraints or other issues keeping AMD from getting the 390x to the market in March), releasing a part at that price with that kind of performance would put it in a different market than the 290x. People who want top tier will buy the 390x, people looking for mid-range bargains would keep buying the 290x.

On the other hand, if the 390x is not such a great jump in performance/feature set over the 290x, then bringing the 390x to market now would encroach on the 290x's price/performance market segment.

This thinking, of course, wouldn't apply to the release of a new mid-range ASIC that would perform like Hawaii but at a much lower TDP and better feature set. I can understand why AMD would hold off releasing such a new card until inventory of 290/290x depletes. See, for example, the GTX570/GTX660 situation RussianSensation brought up.

My hope, of course, is that the real reason AMD has apparently delayed the introduction of the 390/390x is that it anticipates really high demand because it has a really competitive product, and it cannot meet its expected demand due to supply issues (e.g. securing enough HBM memory). So, it is building inventory of the 390x/390 over these next two months.

AMD have said they are releasing the 390(X) along with an entire new stack and that's why they are doing it in June, because that's when everything will be ready. I think the clearing of inventories is speculation by the press. It doesn't mean that it's not true, but it isn't the official reason for the release timing of the 390(X) being later than we expected.

For AMD's sake I hope they have all of their ducks lined up with this release. We can already see the nVidia spin on it only being a 4gig design, and that's going to be driven into the ground upon release. That's a pretty weak counter though, as long as that's all they have to complain about.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
There's no reason to hold back on the 390X just to wait for the rest of the new stack. Staggered releases are quite normal in fact. That excuse or rumor does not fly.

The 390X isn't released because its just NOT ready.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I hope to see the at least Tonga features in all of the 3xx series. I just don't really expect to see Hawaii again in the 3xx series.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
You seem to have a problem with how people perceive the 970, and that is sad. If the card fits people's needs, why do you care if they think its "the bomb"?



This has nothing to do with how the 970 performs, so this isn't an issue with the 970, more an issue you have with Nvidia.

Yet another AMD thread that goes off-topic to talk about the 970 issue. It'll get locked and people will complain that another AMD thread was locked by those pesky "Nvidia fanboys". :rolleyes:

Don't you try and spin it that I'm going OT. I was purely responding to your post. I also never mentioned nVidia fanboys. Stir much?

Anyway, I had my response to your post. Contrary to what you've said I actually did address performance of the 970. You haven't actually addressed anything I said, so there's no reason to continue. Peace! :)

Oh, and don't be sad for me, I'm fine thanks.
 

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,709
316
126
That... wasn't my post...

The 390X isn't released because its just NOT ready.

It has been a while since any new performance "leaks" for the 300-series has happened, I wonder if those past leaks were even close to what the 390(X) is now.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
It has been a while since any new performance "leaks" for the 300-series has happened, I wonder if those past leaks were even close to what the 390(X) is now.

Or if they was ever real. The same site got its supposed cut and uncut GM200.

There's no reason to hold back on the 390X just to wait for the rest of the new stack. Staggered releases are quite normal in fact. That excuse or rumor does not fly.

The 390X isn't released because its just NOT ready.

Exactly. AMD isnt sitting on a 500-800$+ card they just decided not to release, just because its much better to give the money to nVidia while bleeding marketshare at an alarming rate. And its not exactly a threat to their own line today at the current prices either.
 
Last edited:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
That... wasn't my post...

So it wasn't. To be honest I didn't pay any attention to the name, just the context and assumed that you were responding back. Sorry about that. I can't figure why you decided to attack me then, since I wasn't even talking to you? Anyway, don't feel sad for me and carry on. :)
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Or if they was ever real. The same site got its supposed cut and uncut GM200.

Imagine working at a factory where AMD & NV products are being assembled side by side. I wonder if workers have to wear red & green hats to better manage them. I think team red would be severely out-numbered these days & would feel quite unease at lunch time.

Also, surely its not a surprise to expect cut down GM200 SKUs?
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
There's no reason to hold back on the 390X just to wait for the rest of the new stack. Staggered releases are quite normal in fact. That excuse or rumor does not fly.

The 390X isn't released because its just NOT ready.

Of course that's possible. Also "ready" can mean different things to different people. For Rory Read Tahiti was "ready" Maybe for Su, everything has to be more polished to be ready? They want the entire new lineup to be Freesync capable, for example.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
You aren't making sense Vaga. If you had 390X ready to go to sell at >$500, you would released it yesterday to slow down the hurt NV is dishing into them with 970/980.

Then 3 months later when the rest of the lineup (mid-range, low-end) is ready you launch those.

There's zero reason to hold back a product when you desperately need a new launch, particularly at a market segment (high-end) that doesn't impact your old-gen products on price.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
Imagine working at a factory where AMD & NV products are being assembled side by side. I wonder if workers have to wear red & green hats to better manage them. I think team red would be severely out-numbered these days & would feel quite unease at lunch time.

Also, surely its not a surprise to expect cut down GM200 SKUs?

I just had this great image from Red VS Blue...
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Imagine working at a factory where AMD & NV products are being assembled side by side. I wonder if workers have to wear red & green hats to better manage them. I think team red would be severely out-numbered these days & would feel quite unease at lunch time.

Also, surely its not a surprise to expect cut down GM200 SKUs?

Its not about what to expect, its about when we see the socalled benchmark numbers leak and when we see actual products.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
You aren't making sense Vaga. If you had 390X ready to go to sell at >$500, you would released it yesterday to slow down the hurt NV is dishing into them with 970/980.

Then 3 months later when the rest of the lineup (mid-range, low-end) is ready you launch those.

There's zero reason to hold back a product when you desperately need a new launch, particularly at a market segment (high-end) that doesn't impact your old-gen products on price.

I'm simply stating what AMD has told us. I do know that they are concerned with the negative perceptions that their products have received and been stuck with and they want to avoid it.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
There are 2 issues with the 970. 1) The RAM. Not only is there 500Gb less full speed RAM than we were told, the last full gig shares resources and is crippled once you get past the 3.5Gb. It's barely better than the 3gig designs it replaced. It's a broken design that's hardly any faster then the generation it replaces. This is more like a next gen CPU performance increase than a GPU but people think it's the bomb. 2) nVidia lied and then lied again trying to cover up the first lie. They've never been honest since day one. First they told us they made a mistake and when people didn't buy that, now it's a feature. I can't believe that people are still trying to defend this.

My point is that 4 GB will be limiting for a card with 30-50% performance increase over the 290X.

It may not show up right away but it will be the same thing as the 770 or 780/780ti when a year or two down the road you run into vram problems.

At 4 GB even 3-4 years down the road games will be playable. However, settings will have to be turned down.

If its 4 GB things really may be iffy at 4k on future games, especially with crossfire power.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
At 4 GB even 3-4 years down the road games will be playable. However, settings will have to be turned down.

If its 4 GB things really may be iffy at 4k on future games, especially with crossfire power.

Consoles are the speed limit, and with 8GB shared memory and 5GB available to game developers, how much of that is going to be graphics? 4GB at MOST. More likely 3GB or less. Gamedevs aren't going to program for cards that very few people own, that's just a fact and it's always been that way since Crysis and Crytek throwing a fit over how few sales they got vs how many they expected to get.

The only way you are going to need more than 4GB anytime soon is if you run tri-screen 4K with anti-aliasing turned up, but only a fool would do that since pixel density on 4K screens is so high that AA is largely or entirely superfluous.

I would go far as to say that 4GB VRAM will last from now all the way to the next console generation for single-screen 4K or lower. Furthermore, in 3-4 years the people who can afford crossfire halo cards and tri-screen 4K can simply upgrade their cards in a few years if 4GB is not enough. There is no point in trying to "futureproof" by buying 6GB+ VRAM cards for games. For pro graphics or Tesla, sure. Games? Pffft. Re-upgrade down the line if you have to.

P.S. It remains to be seen if DX12 rumors are true about how you can use both banks of memory in Crossfire under DX12 instead of mirroring them. If that's true then that's makes it even less necessary for >4GB VRAM.
 
Last edited:

YBS1

Golden Member
May 14, 2000
1,945
129
106
That's exactly it. The initial launch reviews of R9 290/290X reference cards (and 7970Ghz) forever tarnished their reputation with most of the market viewing them a hot, loud and power hungry. R9 290 was an amazing value card against 780/780Ti. Just look back in hindsight and R9 290 was $400 vs. $650 780 and $700 780Ti! Even after 780 dropped to $500 it was still a bad value and had just 3GB of VRAM. Today it's obvious as ever. It took NV a whopping 11 months to beat an R9 290 by 5-7% for $70 less with a 970. If R9 290 was an NV card and it took AMD a whopping 11 months to beat it by 5-7% for $70 less, most PC gamers would laugh at such an effort by AMD. Yet, reviewers and gamers praised NV. Talk about marketing spin. In the amount of time that passed since R9 290 came out at $399, 970 hardly changed the landscape for gaming in terms of actual performance but because of how well it was marketed by reviewers and by reviewers bashed the reference R9 290, the 290 seems like a total write-off in comparison all this time. It's unbelievable that it took NV nearly a year to barely beat a $400 AMD card by less than 10% for $330. Other than HDMI 2.0 and lower power usage, 970 brought nothing to the table in terms of moving the performance at the sub-$400 price level. In fact, most after-market R9 290 cards were already selling for $350-375 for several months prior to 970's launch. Therefore, AMD's $399 MSRP was long outdated.

Even when after-market R9 290 cards came out with performance = 290X, almost no one bought them for $400 still as gamers kept buying 770 4GB, 780 and 780Ti. The damage of a terrible reference cooler has been done. Now reviewers won't be able to talk about the card running at 95C while operating at obnoxious noise levels. I still think the usual NV-favoured sites will pimp 6GB of VRAM by downplaying 4GB on the 390X, despite not even mentioning 2GB as a bottleneck on a 960 on day 1 in their glowing reviews, and will try to spin WC as a negative by implying that "AMD needed to resort to WC because air cooling wasn't sufficient to cool their cards" instead of "AMD is working towards improving a reference cooling solution in delivering superior temperatures and noise levels which means the evolution of cooling in the enthusiast segment and moving from air to water". I also think huge fuss will be made over 50W of extra power usage but the pricing delta will be more or less ignored because Price/performance seems to have fallen out of favour in terms of PR/marketing vs. perf/watt.
That speaks to the value of having your ducks in a row for launch. Both the 7970 and 290 series were fantastic hardware. Particularly the 290 series, had it launched earlier and with better launch day cooling things might have went astoundingly well for them. Having the benefit of hindsight I actually wish I had of went with 290X Lightnings rather than 780 Classifieds (again had they launched earlier), mostly due to the superior multi-gpu scaling. I'm hoping they continue this and respond quickly to new game releases with the upcoming 390 series and I'll give it serious consideration rather than automatically rolling green this round.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
I would go far as to say that 4GB VRAM will last from now all the way to the next console generation for single-screen 4K or lower.

The 4gb ram issue is definitely a problem for CF users, because they have the GPU power to run at higher settings that shift the bottleneck into vram.

For single card it should be fine for the next few years.

This puts 4GB 390X at a disadvantage in my eyes as I intend to go multi-card for 4K. So there are drawbacks with going early with HBM.