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

[eRacer]

Secondly, R9 200's image is tarnished and destroyed not because of performance but because of "image that all R9 200 cards are hot, loud and power hungry". Therefore, even if R9 290X was 20% faster than the 980, it would still not sell.

Not true at all. Performance sells. When a product is a performance leader, the topics surrounding that product will tend to focus on the performance leadership and away from the drawbacks that come with it. We can't focus on the 290X 20% performance leadership because there is none, and all that is left to talk about are the drawbacks and pricing.

 

[5150Joker]

Proof, or this is just your opinion.

Name 2 games on the planet where GTX980 SLI is 4GB VRAM limited at playable settings (50-60 FPS averages) at 1080P, 1200P or 1440P. 980 SLI is > 80% faster than a single 290X. Using your logic, Titan 6GB SLI would be winning in most titles against R9 295X2, 970 SLI and 980 SLI at 1080P-1440P. I bet you can't find a single game in the world where OG Titan SLI is beating 980 SLI at 1440P or below.

You're just shifting goal posts and ignoring points already brought up. Specifically, the use of DSR/VSR at lower resolutions which put a big strain on 4 GB cards in newer titles. I've taken shots of GTA V already which show this and can do so for SoM as well. There's also a huge base of PC gamers that like modding games like Skyrim with lots of HD textures which eat through ram. In fact, it's a bit silly to buy something more powerful than a Titan X and be confined to 1080P/1440P w/out using those extra eye candy features. Otherwise they'd be better off just getting a $250 card that can do so.

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS

Once you've used VSR/DSR on 1080/1440p, its very hard to go back. This is why I already raised that point, essentially, with these super sampling, everyone can punish GPUs as if its 4K, even if they are on 1080p monitors.

4GB vram for a card potentially faster than Titan X is a non-starter unless its priced so low below the 6GB GM200 SKU.. I don't think AMD will benefit targeting low-priced segments when they can go for higher margins. All they need is 8GB and they can price it much higher.

 

[LTC8K6]

Irrespective from the owner of the website the "Its only 4GB" statement came from the comments section. Furthermore it was an "I know a guy who knows a guy who owns a dog" type of statement. It really does nothing to clarify anything anymore than Cloudfire's earlier comments.

Below is from the article, not the comments:

Technologies like High Bandwidth Memory are unlikely to make a huge impact in the professional market in the short term, since first-generation HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) deployments are limited to 4GB of RAM or less, and most workstation cards offer 12 to 16GB at the high-end.

 

[LTC8K6]

Seems like the 4GB limit is not even news:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/43742/amd-radeon-r9-390x-limited-4gb-vram-hbm-limitations/index.html

http://wccftech.com/amd-fiji-r9-390x-specs-leak/

 

[RussianSensation]

Yes. I am expecting it to rival Titan X, that means ~35% above 980 already. With some OC headroom, its potentially a 4K capable single GPU. But with 4GB vram it's not. Never will be. This is worse if it ends up faster than Titan X.

All that grunt is wasted if its vram limited, so it may as well not have the extra grunt.

Also, its direct competitor is going to be the 6gb GM200 SKU, not Titan X, not 980.

Hard data disproves your viewpoint:

1. Titan X OC is nowhere close to fast enough for 4K and it gets beaten by 980 SLi. Today we need 2x Titan X performance for good 4K gaming experience.

You already read this review:
http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/titan-x-v-4k-test-gpu.html

That means even if a single R9 390X OC = R9 295X2, it wouldn't be good enough for 4K.

2. VRAM usage is a very tricky thing. Lots of Titan X owners claim to be using well above 4GB of VRAM and then they'll incorrectly correlate this to the game requiring 4GB of VRAM. This is absolutely false. Just because MSI AB shows > 4GB of VRAM usage, doesn't mean the game requires it to run well. Modern game engines are very good with using VRAM dynamically.

OR GTA V dynamic VRAM usage going close to 6GB on Titan X even though it's slower than R9 295X2 4GB.

To get playable settings, the Titan X OC needs to lay off MSAA and at 4K or DSR/SSAA at 1440P. R9 390X OC on its own won't be fast enough to benefit from 4GB of VRAM because the GPU is not fast enough. 20-30% faster over 980 is not a lot for 4K gaming because in situations where the game actually requires > 4GB of VRAM, 390X OC would be a slideshow fest.

Not true at all. Performance sells. When a product is a performance leader, the topics surrounding that product will tend to focus on the performance leadership and away from the drawbacks that come with it. We can't focus on the 290X 20% performance leadership because there is none, and all that is left to talk about are the drawbacks and pricing.

It is true. Performance doesn't sell when it comes to AMD if the image is tarnished. R9 295X2 cost $600.
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20216-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-i-sli/16#pagehead

When CF works, R9 295X2 is on average 42% and 67% faster than the 980 at 1440P and 4K, respectively.
When CF doesn't work, R9 295X2 = 290X and we get 90% and 94% of the performance of a 980 at 1440P and 4K, respectively.
This makes it a no brainer to go R9 295X against a single 980 if the #1 priority is performance. Yet, the market doesn't care which means the tarnished image of R9 200 series means even if R9 295X2 was $400, 980 would outsell it.

Similarly, HD7970Ghz beat 680 on day 1 of release across almost all major sites yet 680 outsold it by miles. I clearly remember how 1Ghz 7970 Gigabyte Windfroce 3X cards cost $400 on Newegg for months, similar to a $380-400 670 and the AMD versions were not only 15-20% faster than a 670 but had more VRAM too. 670 still outsold 7970 cards. Pretty much the same story with $400 R9 290 vs. $500 780 or $300 R9 280X vs. $380-450 770 2-4GB.

Since R9 200's image is tarnished, R9 290X could cost $199 and 960 would outsell it, guaranteed. Today, Newegg sells R9 290 PowerColor for $220. So far there are only 4 user reviews on that card. That means a card 50-60% faster than a 960 for barely more $ can't even sell. When it comes to AMD cards today, performance isn't enough to sell them anymore if the reviewers crapped all over the cards and refuse to acknowledge the existing of cool and quiet after-market versions.

 

[3DVagabond]

Going by rumoured specs the competition for the 390X is going to be the Titan X and an 980ti, assuming one gets released. Both those cards have (or likely will have) more than 4GB. You know that is going to be a marketing check box nvidia will use.

Furthermore AMD will be relying on these cards as their highend for upwards of 12 months. They will be marketed as 4k cards. Within the next 12 months there will surely be games released that exceed 4gb at 4k.

Not saying that it is a failure if they only come in 4gb models but I don't think it would be a prudent move on AMD's part.

Assuming they only release a 4GB version it doesn't mean they can't add an 8GB later. Another possibility is that the dual link interposer isn't ready for prime time yet.

 

[5150Joker]

If I OC one of my Titan X's to 1.4 GHz and run DSR scaling to reach 4K, then there is no need to pile on 2x MSAA on top of all that. The performance is well within the 45-60+ fps range with grass on very high in GTA V. I can record a video later demonstrating this if anyone is skeptical. So bringing out a card w/water cooling + potential stock performance faster than a Titan X and VRAM limiting it is a huge bottleneck. You are also completely dismissing those that wish to Crossfire.

 

[crashtech]

I'm only speaking for myself because the games I like now are not fast paced; as long as a hypothetical 4K setup can maintain minimums above 30fps, I will be happy.

 

[ShintaiDK]

4gb only would be a failure.

Let's wait and see, all these silly back & forth rumor clickbaits are getting tiresome to follow tbh.

Why?

I never understood why it had to have 8GB to begin with.

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS As soon as you turn off MSAA, Titan X class performance, especially if its faster (Titan X OC), can certainly play at 4K (or 1440p with VSR).

Then there's the smoothness factor, min/avg may not reveal whether there's a disadvantage with 4gb vram when settings are pushed.

I would NOT pay $500 USD or above for any GPU with 4GB vram. I've had 4GB R290s for a long time, I know their limitations with VSR.

@ShintaiDK If you're joining this discussion this late and you don't know why, read back quite a few posts and find out why.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well I got a 4GB card and I run 2560*1440 and I can use DSR as well. And I still dont get why it need to have 8GB. because you can select some super ultra textures with crazy AA in a few select titles? Thats the most useless extra 4GB ever then.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, it's 4Gb of much higher bandwidth memory than current 4Gb cards.

 

[Silverforce11]

Well I got a 4GB card and I run 2560*1440 and I can use DSR as well. And I still dont get why it need to have 8GB. because you can select some super ultra textures with crazy AA in a few select titles?

That few titles are representative of what the industry is moving towards, unless you want to deny that console cross-platform games are indeed pushing more vram requirements. In another year, we'll see its more common that ultra textures or advanced settings only function for >4gb vram GPUs.

You got your 4GB card awhile ago. But if I were to pay big bucks for potentially Titan X or above performance, I like to think in 2 years time, it can still handle games on ultra textures.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well, it's 4Gb of much higher bandwidth memory than current 4Gb cards.

That doesnt really matter if the GPU is also faster.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That few titles are representative of what the industry is moving towards, unless you want to deny that console cross-platform games are indeed pushing more vram requirements. In another year, we'll see its more common that ultra textures or advanced settings only function for >4gb vram GPUs.

You got your 4GB card awhile ago. But if I were to pay big bucks for potentially Titan X or above performance, I like to think in 2 years time, it can still handle games on ultra textures.

Those titles dont represent anything. Its semi artificial created cases to try and be benchmark extreme.

You also assume the card will be able to run your predetermined games at that setting in 2 years. That alone is questionable.

I also have a 2GB GTX680 in another box. And I can tell you thats still not a problem contra its GPU power.

It seems the issue is not a technical one.

 

[Silverforce11]

Let's have this discussion (re 4GB vram) in a years time when its more common for cross-platform games to run better with more vram.

 

[2is]

If you don't want 50% more performance at 1080P and 10% more performance at 4K for the same price, you are free to buy NV. This idea that AMD has to beat NV in every metric to sell at the same price is absurd but if you believe it, you already know what you need to buy.

It's not absurd. You need not but pull your head out of the sand and look at what the market dictates. If you want to believe that they can release a 4GB card for $600 and gain any sort of market share or in anyway improve their financial outlook, you need to remove your red tinted shades. The card hasn't even been released and look at the negative publicity a move like that is generating.

"you are free to buy nv" is AMD's problem. All you're doing is highlighting the obvious. You sound like an angry kid who just folded his arms, but think about it. I'm not the only one who thinks this way, everyone is "free to buy nv" so how exactly does being "free to buy nv" help your beloved AMD?

Everyone who is "free to by nv" is also "free to by AMD" and what AMD needs is a product that gets the "free folks" to buy their product, crying about it in forums and telling people they are "free to buy nv" isn't gonna generate any sales for AMD.

Well, it's 4Gb of much higher bandwidth memory than current 4Gb cards.

4GB of much higher bandwidth is still gong to tank in performance if you need 6GB of VRAM because at that point, a card with HBM or GDDR5 would rely on the same main memory and the same PCIe bus.

 

[eRacer]

It is true. Performance doesn't sell when it comes to AMD if the image is tarnished. R9 295X2 cost $600.
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20216-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-i-sli/16#pagehead

When CF works, R9 295X2 is on average 42% and 67% faster than the 980 at 1440P and 4K, respectively.
When CF doesn't work, R9 295X2 = 290X and we get 90% and 94% of the performance of a 980 at 1440P and 4K, respectively.
This makes it a no brainer to go R9 295X against a single 980 if the #1 priority is performance. Yet, the market doesn't care which means the tarnished image of R9 200 series means even if R9 295X2 was $400, 980 would outsell it...

If you want to compare a dual-GPU solution to a dual-GPU solution where the #1 priority is performance it is quite clear the 295x2 does not have a 20% performance advantage over two GTX 980 cards in SLI.

How well is the GTX 690 selling these days?

Since R9 200's image is tarnished, R9 290X could cost $199 and 960 would outsell it, guaranteed. Today, Newegg sells R9 290 PowerColor for $220. So far there are only 4 user reviews on that card. That means a card 50-60% faster than a 960 for barely more $ can't even sell. When it comes to AMD cards today, performance is enough to sell them anymore if the reviewers crapped all over the cards and refuse to acknowledge the existing of cool and quiet after-market versions.

Yes, it is tougher to sell at the low end when you don't have a halo product that can significantly outperform the competition.

Also, the GTX 960 and Radeon 290X are a complete mismatch in terms of power consumption which allows the GTX 960 to compete in OEM and power sensitive markets that the 290X couldn't touch. The GTX 960 would likely outsell a $200 GTX 780 Ti too, even though the GTX 780 Ti is a faster card, because 1) 960 is a larger number than 780 and 2) the 780 Ti will need a beefier PSU, cooling and case than the GTX 960 would require.

And if you feel that R9 200 series sales are insensitive to pricing, then we can conclude that NVIDIA Gameworks has no impact on AMD video card sales. After all, since the R9 200 series has such a bad reputation for heat, noise, and power use, then it is fine to cripple Radeon performance because no one was going to buy them anyway.

 

[Enigmoid]

Proof, or this is just your opinion.

Name 2 games on the planet, with hard review data testing, where GTX980 SLI is 4GB VRAM limited at playable settings (50-60 FPS averages) at 1080P, 1200P or 1440P. 980 SLI is > 80% faster than a single 290X. Using your logic, Titan 6GB SLI would be winning in most titles against R9 295X2, 970 SLI and 980 SLI at 1080P-1440P if 4GB limitation was real today at those resolutions. I bet you can't find a single game in the world where OG Titan SLI is beating 980 SLI at 1440P or below.

This was the exact same argument that went around on this forum 3 years ago with the 2 GB 680 vs 3 GB 7970. Fast foreward 3 years and look where 2 GB vs. 3 GB is now.

And at the time the 680 and 7970 performed similarily. Imagine how held back the 680 would be if it had 2 GB vram but 40% more shader power (like a 780 ti with 2 GB).

The problem with 4 GB is not now today but a year or two in the future.

 

[Silverforce11]

@Enigmoid
If you had 4gb vram on a faster than Titan X on a single GPU, the problem is already now in some games, and more in the future. Unless you're of the view of ShintaiDK that its not indicative of future games, as in, devs won't continue to push the boundaries like they've been doing since... forever.

 

[maddie]

390X NEEDS 8Gb Vram because that is where all the NV better than AMD arguments will be focused to convince us to spend more, irrespective of actual game performance.

 

[LTC8K6]

4GB of much higher bandwidth is still gong to tank in performance if you need 6GB of VRAM because at that point, a card with HBM or GDDR5 would rely on the same main memory and the same PCIe bus.

So, if we had a theoretical 4Gb of VRAM that was 5X as fast and 5X the bandwidth of 8Gb of GDDR5, it would not matter.

Maybe a hybrid of 4Gb HBM and 2 or 4 GB of GDDR5?

 

[twjr]

Assuming they only release a 4GB version it doesn't mean they can't add an 8GB later. Another possibility is that the dual link interposer isn't ready for prime time yet.

That is true. And its probäbly a pretty rational standpoint. But its not one nvidia or their fans will take if the 980ti has 6gb whether or not it has any impact on performance. It doesn't matter whether we like it or agree with it but marketing is what sells to the masses and nvidia has an upper hand here.

 

[2is]

So, if we had a theoretical 4Gb of VRAM that was 5X as fast and 5X the bandwidth of 8Gb of GDDR5, it would not matter.

Maybe a hybrid of 4Gb HBM and 2 or 4 GB of GDDR5?

It may or may not matter, it won't help it gain much traction IMO if the performance scenario like I described earlier (quoted below) takes place. When I buy my next card, I don't want to spend $600 and risk this happening.

AMD releasing a card that is competing with it's own card is kind of lame. AMD can't command the same pricing structure that nVIdia can, their position in the market can't support it. If it's going to cost the same or more than a 980, it needs to demolish it in everything. 100fps vs 150fps @ 1080p isn't going to cut it if that 50% performance advantage drops to 10% at 4k because both cards run into vram limitations.

I have 2GB 680's in SLI so I know exactly what it's like to be VRAM limited. It's not a mistake I plan on repeating.