[BitsAndChips]390X ready for launch - AMD ironing out drivers - Computex launch

[gamervivek]

As one of our most punishing games, this is also a good example of where even GTX Titan X will come up short at 4K. Even without MSAA and one step below Crysis 3’s Very High quality settings, the GTX Titan X can only muster 42fps.

The 120fps is on different settings for in Techspot's review it only gets 26fps with the above settings on.

http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page3.html#allcomments

 

[RussianSensation]

The hype may end up just making it an underwhelming launch if it barely reaches Titan X performance or even beats it by 5%. They'd need at least a clear 15%+ advantage across the board over Titan X to really live up to the hype and being 3+ months late.

Right as if price doesn't matter at all. According to you cards like R9 290 for $399 were irrelevant and underwhelming compared to a $650 780 because 780 released 5 months earlier? That's not how things work for the majority of the market.

Why would R9 390X need to beat Titan X by 15%+ to make it a worthwhile product? Last time I checked we would still be more than 1 year away until 14nm/16nm GPUs. There are countless possibilities on the price/performance curve for R9 390 nonX/X to be a favourable product regardless if it is slower, matches or is only 5% faster than the Titan X. For those who are always on the cutting edge, can easily afford it and want the fastest at all costs, it does not make any sense to wait for the R9 390X as Titan X OC is 90-100% faster than an R9 290X.

Outside of the most hardcore PC enthusiasts/benchers/semi pro CUDA compute users, it's highly likely that consumer GM200 6GB / R9 390 non-X have the potential to provide 87-90% of Titan X's performance for $550. Let's not kid ourselves, people spending $1K a pop on each Titan X are not going to care if in 3 months there is a card nearly as fast for $499-550. The rest of the market though isn't interested in $1K GPUs. Titan X owners are happy to have the latest and greatest for bragging rights while the rest of the market patiently awaits for major improvements in price/performance compared to 750Ti/960/970/980/Titan X cards in the form of a competitive R9 300 series. If one is ONLY interested in the fastest single GPU card, well ya, then R9 390X 3 months later is irrelevant. But everyone already knew that.

Also, what you are saying isn't even logical. NV launched GTX680 2.5 months later with just 8-10% more performance than a stock HD7970, had less VRAM for $500 and undercut the 7970 by only $50 but this alone was enough to take all of the wind out of 7970's sails. The minute there is any card from NV/AMD that offers 87-90% of Titan X's performance for 30-40% lower cost, 99% of the PC gaming market could care less about the Titan X. As far as NV loyal customers go, even if R9 390X somehow ended up 15%+ faster than the Titan X, those gamers would just keep waiting for Pascal anyway. History has already shown for many generations now that NV users will not switch to a faster AMD card (9700/9800Pro > FX series, HD5870 6 months head start over Fermi, 7970Ghz 10 months lead over 680 until the Titan, R9 295X2's lead over 780Ti SLI at 1440P/4K); they'd rather wait it out for 6+ months to get NV.

 

[Silverforce11]

Right as if price doesn't matter at all. Why would R9 390X need to beat Titan X by 15%+ to make it a worthwhile product?

Because someone like Joker doesn't care about money. $1000 or $600 makes no difference to him.

Warning issued for member callout.
-- stahlhart

 

[stuff_me_good]

Where are the days when you could get top class GPU for 600$ and it was considered expensive? Now it seems that it's so cool to pay 1000$ or even 1500$ for one single GPU which is going to be replaced in little after year. It even seems that more and more people are just gladly paying what ever just to be cool kid on the block and it's perfectly ok.

nVidia sure have brainwashed people good. No matter how much improvements amd makes on driver, gpu, cooling, advertisement or any other front, nv loyalist just keep come back to bash for what ever another reason why amd sucks and spread some more doom and gloom.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Where are the days when you could get top class GPU for 600$ and it was considered expensive?

That ship sailed 10 years ago with the 830$(995$ in todays prices) GTX 8800 Ultra and 649$(775$ in todays prices) X1900XTX.

 

[iiiankiii]

Seems like AMD's PR machine is in panic mode and trying to present whatever they can to get people to delay purchasing 980s or Titan X. If it was ready, they'd push it and recoup lost market share. Besides, this thing is built on 28 nm, I think people are expecting way too much out of AMD, HBM or not. The hype may end up just making it an underwhelming launch if it barely reaches Titan X performance or even beats it by 5%. They'd need at least a clear 15%+ advantage across the board over Titan X to really live up to the hype and being 3+ months late. Those that go Crossfire may be in for a world of pain given AMD's track record with driver and crossfire support.

Edit: All of you should also keep in mind that AMD isn't primarily in the business of making graphics, so you should temper your expectations.

I know, right. AMD is super overhyped. It should be atleast 25% faster than the Titan X and be priced at $499. That way, it would force Nvidia to lower the Titan X to $799 so you can grab a pair of Titan X for even cheaper! Win, Win.

 

[StereoPixel]

Fiji spotted in Catalyst 15.3 beta

 

[mirana]

nVidia sure have brainwashed people good. No matter how much improvements amd makes on driver, gpu, cooling, advertisement or any other front, nv loyalist just keep come back to bash for what ever another reason why amd sucks and spread some more doom and gloom.

There are great numbers of people in the hw sw industry and in forums that nV and likeminded companies have influenced with money, free or low cost products or other means. To see all sides and anything that promotes fair competition is good for everyone (except for nV, that is).

Just looking at the news though, anyone can find analysts saying that nV is facing a great economic cliff and that will be posted in graphics industry news.

 

[DownTheSky]

C'mon AMD it's time for some leaks.

 

[exar333]

C'mon AMD it's time for some leaks.

haha, this.

 

[escrow4]

Titan X here is $1500 AUD, a decent 980 (G1 Gaming) is less than $800. Price isn't a problem, but paying $1500 for something I'll likely replace within 2 yrs, not this time Nvidia. Unless GTA V changes things benchmarks wise and even then depending on where this 780Ti sits I may still wait anyway.

 

[DearLord]

Titan X here is $1500 AUD, a decent 980 (G1 Gaming) is less than $800. Price isn't a problem, but paying $1500 for something I'll likely replace within 2 yrs, not this time Nvidia. Unless GTA V changes things benchmarks wise and even then depending on where this 780Ti sits I may still wait anyway.

...2 yrs maximum

 

[Cloudfire777]

Fiji spotted in Catalyst 15.3 beta

Thats interesting. Nice find

 

[RussianSensation]

Because someone like XYZ doesn't care about money. $1000 or $600 makes no difference to him.

Then this type of consumer was never really a target market for an R9 390X. First of all, he is locked into GSync. That means even if R9 390X is 10% faster than Titan X and costs $499, he wouldn't buy it for his primary rig. Secondly, an overclocked Titan X is 90%+ faster than an R9 290X based on AT's review. The chance of an overclocked R9 390X matching or beating that is slim since it's likely AMD will have 10-15% overclocking headroom. Generally speaking during the ATI vs. NV days, the major blowouts for ATI happened with 9000 series vs. GeForce 4/5 and X1900XT vs. 7000 series. But those largely came because GeForce 5 was worthless for DX9 and 7 was garbage for shader intensive games. This time Maxwell doesn't have these types of weaknesses. The chance of a performance blowout is basically non-existent. However, the chance of a price/performance defeat is another story.

For someone who doesn't care about price (i.e., $300+ extra is worth it to them for NV specific features/performance crown bragging rights for 3-4 months, specific games they play run faster on NV), R9 390X won't change anything. For the rest of the market which skipped 970/980/TitanX/290 series of cards, R9 390 variants should offer a lot of reasons to upgrade. This idea that AMD must have X% faster card than Titan X or else it failed is some ludicrously distorted point of view because it assumes that the only card that matters in the world is the Titan X at $1000 and nothing else. Sorry, but the reality is most gamers in the world could care less about a single chip graphics card that sells for $1000 USD in North America, $1300 Canadian and $1300+ USD in Europe.

 

[raghu78]

Secondly, an overclocked Titan X is 90%+ faster than an R9 290X based on AT's review. The chance of an overclocked R9 390X matching or beating that is slim since it's likely AMD will have 10-15% overclocking headroom. Generally speaking during the ATI vs. NV days, the major blowouts for ATI happened with 9000 series vs. GeForce 4/5 and X1900XT vs. 7000 series. But those largely came because GeForce 5 was worthless for DX9 and 7 was garbage for shader intensive games. This time Maxwell doesn't have these types of weaknesses. The chance of a performance blowout is basically non-existent. However, the chance of a price/performance defeat is another story.

Are you going to take a best case in a single game and conclude thats the case on avg. Sorry but I think you are always exaggerating Nvidia's products when it comes to their performance. You are extremely optimistic of Nvidia and extremely pessimistic of AMD. I remember you having a similarly biased opinion that R9 290X will not beat 780 prior to launch. Guess what R9 290X spanked the 780 and the perf today is on par with 780 Ti on avg. In fact if you take only the recent games in the last 6 months R9 290X is outright faster than 780 Ti.

btw Maxwell GM200 does not have Full DX12 tier 3 feature support in hardware. This is something which will be a major factor in DX12 games going forward. As we see Kepler getting thrashed by GCN in late 2014 and 2015 we will see a similar feat being repeated in 2016 with R9 390X dominating GM200 in the most advanced and demanding games. I thinking you should stop hyping up Nvidia products and wait for the competitive reality to play out.

 

[tential]

Titan X here is $1500 AUD, a decent 980 (G1 Gaming) is less than $800. Price isn't a problem, but paying $1500 for something I'll likely replace within 2 yrs, not this time Nvidia. Unless GTA V changes things benchmarks wise and even then depending on where this 780Ti sits I may still wait anyway.

Is my monitor broken? Did escrow4 just say a part was overpriced?
I'd expected you to have these in SLI by now man... Wow...
Holding out for the GTX 980 Ti then?

 

[RussianSensation]

Are you going to take a best case in a single game and conclude thats the case on avg.

No, I looked at many games in this review and this one (Titan X OC vs. 970/980/290X OC).

Titan X's OC performance is flat out amazing if it can hold 1.4Ghz+ clocks. I would have been all over 1-2 of those cards had NV priced them at $550-600 but at $1K I am spending $0. I am not supporting $1K single-chip videocards out of principle. My point though is if someone can afford it and doesn't care about principles, there is no reason to wait for the R9 390X when Titan X OC is ~ R9 295X2. :thumbsup:

That was my point for early adopters of Titan X, it's likely irrelevant what R9 390X costs and what its performance is. If a hypothetical R9 390X is $599 and is 5% faster than the Titan X, they would still find the Titan X worth it because they would say they owned it for 3-4 months. Early adopters pay these huge premiums to have the best on day 1/week 1. Remember how I said before that I thought R9 390X had a chance to beat the Titan X at stock but I was a lot more skeptical about R9 390X overclocking as well as the Titan X.

Think about it, if you strap a water block and unlock the bios, the Titan X has the potential to hit 1.5-1.55Ghz which would be a 40-50%+ overclock. IMO, R9 390X has 0 chance of matching that on water if it's clocked at 1.05Ghz given how historically leaky/dense AMD's chips have been. Look at 4890/5870/6970/7970Ghz/290X overclocking headroom - once they reach a certain wall, it's very very hard to go much higher. 7950/7970 cards are an exception because AMD low-balled their clocks out of the factory. NV cards are a lot more flexibility in that regard and overclock better with a lower increase in voltage. GTX460/470/560Ti/670/680/780/780Ti/970/980 are all awesome overclockers. NV tends to have a better track record for average high overclocks and Maxwell GPUs are among the best ever for NV's overclocking potential.

AMD's last chance to capture the high-end gamers is to launch R9 390/390X before the consumer GM200 6GB launches with AIB coolers. If NV is able to launch EVGA Classified, Asus Matrix, Galax HOF, MSI Lightning consumer GM200 6GB chip before R9 390 series, oh boy, AMD is going to lose a lot of sales. Right now the Titan X at $1K still means that a lot of high end gamers are sitting on the sidelines and waiting. Had NV launched the consumer GM200 6GB AIB cards in March, this would have meant a devastating blow to AMD's strategy with R9 390 series.

 

[raghu78]

No I looked at many games in this review and this one (Titan X OC vs. 970/980/290X OC).

Titan X's OC performance is flat out amazing if it can hold 1.4Ghz+ clocks. I would have been all over 1-2 of those cards had NV priced them at $550-600 but at $1K I am spending $0. I am not supporting $1K single-chip videocards out of principle. My point though is if someone can afford it and doesn't care about principles, there is no reason to wait for the R9 390X when Titan X OC is ~ R9 295X2. :thumbsup:

That was my point for early adopters of Titan X, it's likely irrelevant what R9 390X costs and what its performance is. If a hypothetical R9 390X is $599 and is 5% faster than the Titan X, they would still find the Titan X worth it because they would say they owned it for 3-4 months. Early adopters pay these huge premiums to have the best on day 1/week 1. Remember how I said before that I thought R9 390X had a chance to beat the Titan X at stock but I was a lot more skeptical about R9 390X overclocking as well as the Titan X.

Think about it, if you strap water and unlock the bios, the Titan X has the potential to go 1.5-1.55Ghz which would be a 40%+ overclock. R9 390X has 0 chance of matching that on water if it's clocked at 1.05Ghz given how historically leaky AMD's chips have been. Look at 4890/5870/6970/7970Ghz/290X overclocking headroom - once they reach a certain wall, it's very very hard to go much higher. NV cards are a lot more flexibility in that regard and overclock better with a lower increase in voltage.

The anandtech perf lead % nos for Titan OC vs R9 290X uber at 4k are 80% (BF4), 81% (Crysis 3), 51% (Shadow of Mordor), 75% (Talos principle), 76% (Total War Atilla). For five games the avg is 74.6%. Titan-X OC gains roughly 17 - 18% perf by OC.

If you include Farcry 4, Civilization Earth, Dragon Age Inquisition and Grid Autosport that number will go below 70%. Titan-X has the least perf leads in Civilization Beyond earth (23% faster at stock) , Farcry 4 (29% faster at stock). Dragon Age Inquisition (44% faster at stock) and Grid Autosport(56% faster at stock) are much better.

If you compare with the existing games Farcry 4 lead is similar to Middle Earth and Grid Autosport lead is similar to Crysis 3 (look at stock perf leads). So even at max OC Farcry 4 is likely to be around 50% faster, Civilization at roughly 45%. Dragon Age Inquisition at around 70% faster and Grid Autosport at 81% faster. The avg of these 9 games is 67.5%. Much lesser than the exaggerated 90% which you quote. btw the avg lead for Titan-X over R9 290X is 43% and the max OC perf scales the lead roughly 17% (1.43 * 1.17 = 1.67)

don't keep hyping up Nvidia perf :thumbsup:

 

[gamervivek]

Depends on the review, Techspot had it down to 36% at 4k.

The Titan X was also 47% faster than the R9 290X on average at 2560x1600 while it was just 36% faster at 3840x2160.

http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page11.html

Since it was also faster by a similar amount to gtx980, their 4k benchmarks put 290X equal to 980. Perhaps the Gigabyte 290X they're using it overclocked? Anyway, it shows how overpriced gtx980 is at the moment and how bad AMD's reputation is that they can't move it fast enough to get their new cards out.

 

[JoeRambo]

Think about it, if you strap a water block and unlock the bios, the Titan X has the potential to hit 1.5-1.55Ghz which would be a 40-50%+ overclock. IMO, R9 390X has 0 chance of matching that on water if it's clocked at 1.05Ghz given how historically leaky/dense AMD's chips have been. Look at 4890/5870/6970/7970Ghz/290X overclocking headroom - once they reach a certain wall, it's very very hard to go much higher. 7950/7970 cards are an exception because AMD low-balled their clocks out of the factory. NV cards are a lot more flexibility in that regard and overclock better with a lower increase in voltage. GTX460/470/560Ti/670/680/780/780Ti/970/980 are all awesome overclockers. NV tends to have a better track record for average high overclocks and Maxwell GPUs are among the best ever for NV's overclocking potential.

AMD's last chance to capture the high-end gamers is to launch R9 390/390X before the consumer GM200 6GB launches with AIB coolers. If NV is able to launch EVGA Classified, Asus Matrix, Galax HOF, MSI Lightning consumer GM200 6GB chip before R9 390 series, oh boy, AMD is going to lose a lot of sales. Right now the Titan X at $1K still means that a lot of high end gamers are sitting on the sidelines and waiting. Had NV launched the consumer GM200 6GB AIB cards in March, this would have meant a devastating blow to AMD's strategy with R9 390 series.

This is sadly the problem AMD is facing. Just like 780 (B1/Ghz revs?) was great overclocker and had insane headroom, the same is happening with GM200. 1.4Ghz Titan X benchmarks are outright scary for single card, beeing able to hit 1440P 60FPS on demanding games in eye candy settings is amazing achievement.

If NV has GM200 "B1 like revision" for cut down card, add some thermal headroom from 6GB less DRAM, combine it with after market cooler and we could be looking at 1.5+Ghz card for $700.

AMD could simply get out-clocked in this round, 290X precedent and rumoured WC out of box are bad signs for overclocking headroom.

 

[JDG1980]

IMO, R9 390X has 0 chance of matching that on water if it's clocked at 1.05Ghz given how historically leaky/dense AMD's chips have been. Look at 4890/5870/6970/7970Ghz/290X overclocking headroom - once they reach a certain wall, it's very very hard to go much higher. 7950/7970 cards are an exception because AMD low-balled their clocks out of the factory.

It would be more accurate to say that AMD is factory OCing their chips. That's definitely what happened with Hawaii - the reference board was not designed to run at the speeds it was shipped, the cooler was inadequate and efficiency went down the toilet. Clocks (and voltages) were set to match GK110, not based on what was most efficient. The same is true of releases like the R9 280X; compared to the original 7950 and 7970, it looks terribly inefficient since they boosted the voltage to eke out a bit of extra clockspeed.

GCN (at least versions 1.0-1.2) isn't as good as Maxwell in terms of efficiency, but it isn't as far off as is often assumed. A commenter on TechReport indicates that they were able to get Hawaii running at about 145W by reducing the power limit by 50%, and the chip still hit about 850 MHz in Furmark and 925 MHz in ordinary AAA games. If AMD wants to quickly and cheaply get rid of their perf/watt embarrassment, they don't need to respin new silicon; they could do it by better binning and tweaking clocks. (That said, they're going to need to do a new midrange chip if they want to be competitive in the laptop market; Pitcairn is just not cutting it any more.)

 

[artivix]

Another graphics card from AMD/ATI just appeared in database --

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC

VIDEO CARD

C63431

MSIP-REM-ATI-102-C63431

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC

2015-03-24

 

[Paul98]

I really hope we see the improvements in tonga plus more in all the rest of the cards if this is true. The desktop card that was released wasn't good, but the improvements made fixed weak points in the previous version of GCN.

 

[mohit9206]

It will be good if the 390X consumes less than 170 watts while gaming. I mean who wants a powerful but power hungry card? And price be like $699 for the non water block model

 

[nurturedhate]

It will be good if the 390X consumes less than 170 watts while gaming. I mean who wants a powerful but power hungry card? And price be like $699 for the non water block model

Are you really asking for a card that is faster than titan x while using less power than a 980? Is that really what I am reading? I want an orange dragon that poops gold also.