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

[exar333]

I agree.

I just see the price being higher for the 6GB card and people will just say save money and get more RAM.
Also, if both cards are within 10-20% of each other, why wouldn't you get more RAM?

Both 6GB and 8GB are 'more than 4GB' and allow more flexibility for resolutions, multi-monitors and quality improvements.

The only reason 6GB will be the 2015/early 2016 NV 'standard' is due to the current config of halfing the Titan X. It's not a target, but 3GB would be a disaster.

8GB makes sense for AMD as that is double the 4GB HBM gen 1. I don't profess to know enough about HMB to see if 6GB or other configs could easily be done. Again, 8GB may just be the easiest option for AMD > 4GB. Again, not a specific target, but what the current arch allows for easily...

There COULD be cases where 8GB does have it's advantages over 6GB, but those will be much more rare vs. either over 4GB. 4GB will simply start not being enough for flagship products very soon.

 

[2is]

Only 4.5GB of the 8GB is normally available on a PS4 with 3.5GB being allocated to the OS. An additional 1GB of "flexible" memory is available being split into two areas – 512MB of on-chip RAM and another 512MB of paged memory. So the most memory PS4 developers can use is 5GB, but they'll have to jump through some hurdles in order to utilize it.

Since 4.5GB of regular PS4 memory is pretty close to the 4GB available on video cards, I don't see this as being a huge issue.

Even if we take your numbers, "4.5GB is pretty close to 4GB" 4.5 is still more than 4 and again, PC often times are "blessed" with higher quality textures.

If you're happy with your flagship video card having "close to" the amount of VRAM PS4 games can use, then there's no argument here. I'm not trying to convince you to get something you don't want, but I'm aiming a little higher.

Bottom line here is whether we use your numbers or my numbers, the situation where the PS4 can allocate more than 4GB of assets exists.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Based on that, 6GB is the minimum I want for my next card. A 4GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti isn't even a choice as far as I'm concerned. An 8GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti and it's hard to ignore AMD.

Fair points. :thumbsup:

 

[exar333]

Fair points. :thumbsup:

Yup.

6GB/8GB would give me confidence to use that card for a couple years, if I was spending $500+ today. 4GB, not so much. Especially with a true next-gen product on a smaller node coming in the next 18 months...

 

[Creig]

Even if we take your numbers, "4.5GB is pretty close to 4GB" 4.5 is still more than 4 and again, PC often times are "blessed" with higher quality textures.

Right now there are plenty of games that run at higher than PS4 resolutions with higher quality textures and yet they still only use 4GB of VRAM.

If you're happy with your flagship video card having "close to" the amount of VRAM PS4 games can use, then there's no argument here. I'm not trying to convince you to get something you don't want, but I'm aiming a little higher.

Well, it sounds like you plan to game at 1440P or higher, in which case you might need more than 4GB of VRAM. Regardless, 1080P is still going to remain the most popular resolution and 4GB of VRAM will work just fine there.

Bottom line here is whether or not we use your numbers or my numbers, the situation where the PS4 can allocate more than 4GB of assets exists.

Very true. But being so close in size, it would be an easy matter for the game developer to fit 4.5GB worth of PS4 textures on a 4GB video card through compression techniques not available on the PS4.

 

[96Firebird]

Not to mention console games run at 1080p max, sometimes even lower (900p). Add to that the texture differences, more choices for AA, it all adds up. Like I said before, if you're ok with not running everything at Ultra/maxed out, 4GB will probably be fine. However, a lot of people who buy the top cards (especially more than one) want to run everything as high as it can go...

 

[Enigmoid]

Only 4.5GB of the 8GB is normally available on a PS4 with 3.5GB being allocated to the OS. An additional 1GB of "flexible" memory is available being split into two areas – 512MB of on-chip RAM and another 512MB of paged memory. So the most memory PS4 developers can use is 5GB, but they'll have to jump through some hurdles in order to utilize it.

Since 4.5GB of regular PS4 memory is pretty close to the 4GB available on video cards, I don't see this as being a huge issue.

Now add better textures, higher settings and resolutions, and AA.

Console is 720p/900p/1080p with med/high textures and settings and mild AA.

On a 1440p monitor you are going to want high/ultra settings, ultra textures, and mild/med AA. Vram usage is definitely going to increase.

 

[lilltesaito]

Both 6GB and 8GB are 'more than 4GB' and allow more flexibility for resolutions, multi-monitors and quality improvements.

The only reason 6GB will be the 2015/early 2016 NV 'standard' is due to the current config of halfing the Titan X. It's not a target, but 3GB would be a disaster.

8GB makes sense for AMD as that is double the 4GB HBM gen 1. I don't profess to know enough about HMB to see if 6GB or other configs could easily be done. Again, 8GB may just be the easiest option for AMD > 4GB. Again, not a specific target, but what the current arch allows for easily...

There COULD be cases where 8GB does have it's advantages over 6GB, but those will be much more rare vs. either over 4GB. 4GB will simply start not being enough for flagship products very soon.

I am saying if AMD comes out with 8GB and is cheaper compared to Nvidia's 6GB card and they are withing 10-20% of each other. Why would anyone pay more for it?

After seeing both companies long term cards, I would even go to say AMD will last longer. Some reason they get stronger over the life time of the cards, while Nvidia's cards seem to drop off a lot faster.

2is keeps talking about holding onto cards longer, to me it seems it would be better to stick with AMD cards if you want to hold onto them for say 2 years.

RS already pointed out that they do better for that amount of time.

 

[exar333]

Now add better textures, higher settings and resolutions, and AA.

Console is 720p/900p/1080p with med/high textures and settings and mild AA.

On a 1440p monitor you are going to want high/ultra settings, ultra textures, and mild/med AA. Vram usage is definitely going to increase.

We already have seen 2 games in the last 6 months hit at or close to 4GB at 1080P. I am sure there will be more, and many people will be playing on 1440P or higher displays (or multi-monitor setups).

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2vcepp/discussion_4gb_vram_being_used_at_1080p_in_2/

 

[pj-]

Well, it sounds like you plan to game at 1440P or higher, in which case you might need more than 4GB of VRAM. Regardless, 1080P is still going to remain the most popular resolution and 4GB of VRAM will work just fine there.

What relevance does "most popular" have in a discussion about $500+ graphics cards? Unless you have stats on "most popular resolution among people willing to pay $500-700 for a graphics card in mid to late 2015", I don't think you can really say 4GB and 1080p is good enough.

 

[Headfoot]

Once 14nm GPUs come out in 16-18 months 4GB will be too small. Until then its on the low side of fine. All it would mean is you turn textures from "Ultra" to "High," and notice literally nothing different like in Titanfall, Shadows of Morder, etc. etc.

14 GPUs will be a colossal upgrade because this is 2 cumulative node jumps at once due to crapy 20nm. 28nm GPUs will be totally irrelevant once 14 launches.

Anyone buying one of these 28nm GPUs intending to keep it for 3-5 years is delusional and should instead buy a cheaper one now, and spend the rest for a 14nm GPU that's faster than the Titan X for $250. GPUs are literally the easiest component to replace. It takes 5 minutes if you're slow.

 

[Cloudfire777]

I hope that site isn't correct, because the picture it paints is very bleak. It's hard to tell because of the translation, but the site seems to be saying that the R9 300 series will consist of only five cards, two of which are new Fiji cards and three of which are rebranded trash silicon (360, 370, and 380). Even the full Tonga doesn't seem to be mentioned. It seems outlandish that AMD would completely give up on everything but the ultra high end.

They are not the only one...
This one is messy. I dont understand it

 

[2is]

Very true. But being so close in size, it would be an easy matter for the game developer to fit 4.5GB worth of PS4 textures on a 4GB video card through compression techniques not available on the PS4.

I don't want to spend $500+ on a card that isn't even out yet for it to be "good enough" for games that are already available. I know there's no such thing as "future proof" but all things considered, I think buying a high dollar 4GB card today is an extremely short sighted purchasing decision.

 

[Erenhardt]

Based on that, 6GB is the minimum I want for my next card. A 4GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti isn't even a choice as far as I'm concerned. An 8GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti and it's hard to ignore AMD.

You learned that from the mistake of going gtx680 2GB instead of 7970 3GB?

3GB>2GB
6GB>4GB

 

[xLegenday]

Fiji wont be named 390, or 390 according to my knowlage. Something more as Titan when it comes to nvidia kind off naming.
390 series will be 290 renaming.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Once 14nm GPUs come out in 16-18 months 4GB will be too small. Until then its on the low side of fine. All it would mean is you turn textures from "Ultra" to "High," and notice literally nothing different like in Titanfall, Shadows of Morder, etc. etc.

14 GPUs will be a colossal upgrade because this is 2 cumulative node jumps at once due to crapy 20nm. 28nm GPUs will be totally irrelevant once 14 launches.

Anyone buying one of these 28nm GPUs intending to keep it for 3-5 years is delusional and should instead buy a cheaper one now, and spend the rest for a 14nm GPU that's faster than the Titan X for $250. GPUs are literally the easiest component to replace. It takes 5 minutes if you're slow.

16/14nm isnt 2 nodes.

Also dont underestimate the cost. A 400mm2 16/14nm chip will cost more than twice of a 28nm 400mm2 chip. So either pay more or smaller dies.

 

[exar333]

Once 14nm GPUs come out in 16-18 months 4GB will be too small. Until then its on the low side of fine. All it would mean is you turn textures from "Ultra" to "High," and notice literally nothing different like in Titanfall, Shadows of Morder, etc. etc.

14 GPUs will be a colossal upgrade because this is 2 cumulative node jumps at once due to crapy 20nm. 28nm GPUs will be totally irrelevant once 14 launches.

Anyone buying one of these 28nm GPUs intending to keep it for 3-5 years is delusional and should instead buy a cheaper one now, and spend the rest for a 14nm GPU that's faster than the Titan X for $250. GPUs are literally the easiest component to replace. It takes 5 minutes if you're slow.

Keep in mind most buyers don't even know what a 'node' is, never mind that 14/16nm is on the horizon. Many people still happily game with their 5xxx AMD cards or 4xx/5xx NV cards...

I don't disagree that we have some massive performance gains coming, but those are a ways away still...

 

[Headfoot]

Keep in mind most buyers don't even know what a 'node' is, never mind that 14/16nm is on the horizon. Many people still happily game with their 5xxx AMD cards or 4xx/5xx NV cards...

I don't disagree that we have some massive performance gains coming, but those are a ways away still...

Right, but I'm not talking about "most buyers." I'm talking about people who are debating in this thread whether to buy a 390/x at launch if it had 4GB.

Conclusion: 4GB is easily enough to coast us to the next node, which most people in this thread will probably upgrade to at that time. You may have to turn down Ultra textures to the imperceptibly lower High textures. 3GB may even end up being enough if you play at 1080/1440p, though that's more doubtful.

I don't really care what average buyers do. They buy whatever Apple chooses for them.

Also dont underestimate the cost. A 400mm2 16/14nm chip will cost more than twice of a 28nm 400mm2 chip. So either pay more or smaller dies.

I anticipate a 14nm 400mm2 chip would be substantially faster than the Titan X. I bet they'll match the Titan X in half the die size or less given HBM2 and the 2 node jump (28nm to 20nm to 14/16/Whatevertheydecidetocallit FinFET)

 

[Cloudfire777]

Fiji wont be named 390, or 390 according to my knowlage. Something more as Titan when it comes to nvidia kind off naming.
390 series will be 290 renaming.

Thats what the picture above I posted shows I think.
390 is Hawaii while 390X is Grenada.
Then what the heck will Fiji be called?

These rumors lol

 

[xLegenday]

Thats what the picture above I posted shows I think.
390 is Hawaii while 390X is Grenada.
Then what the heck will Fiji be called?

These rumors lol

And also it wont match Titan X performance...
Should come around 899USD for the FijiX and 599USD for Fiji.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I anticipate a 14nm 400mm2 chip would be substantially faster than the Titan X. I bet they'll match the Titan X in half the die size or less given HBM2 and the 2 node jump (28nm to 20nm to 14/16/Whatevertheydecidetocallit FinFET)

Size wise 20nm was the big jump. 16nm for example is completely identical in size to 20nm. And Samsung 14nm isnt that much different than their 20nm in size either. Both are more PR nodes than real nodes.

However transistor cost is still higher. And design cost for a 14nm finfet chip is 4 times higher than for a 28nm arcoding to Samsung.

So price will be substantial. And 28nm cards will look cheap compared.

 

[lukart]

And also it wont match Titan X performance...
Should come around 899USD for the FijiX and 599USD for Fiji.

Looks overpriced to me. Even it Fiji PRO beats 980 nvidia for sure will drop the price to 499USD and end of the party. :whiste:

 

[kapulek]

Then what the heck will Fiji be called?

King of the Hill series?

http://www.redgamingtech.com/amd-radeon-fiji-r9-390x-high-bandwidth-memory-2-5d-300w/

And also it wont match Titan X performance...

Same as this:

Info from Obr:
Hawaii with HBM
390x wont beat TITANX.
390x 40% Faster than 290x
390x 15%Faster than GTX980
Why is Fiji so late?Because NV launched TITANX with 12GB so fast that AMD needs redone Fiji to use with 8GB.
Fiji should be here for months now with original schedule.

 

[Cloudfire777]

And also it wont match Titan X performance...
Should come around 899USD for the FijiX and 599USD for Fiji.

Yeah what the hell.

Fiji*2 is said to reach 980Ti/TitanX performance based on that chart.
Maybe thats why it have 8GB HBM. Dual Fiji with 4GB each?

I don`t even know what to believe any more.

King of the Hill series?

http://www.redgamingtech.com/amd-radeon-fiji-r9-390x-high-bandwidth-memory-2-5d-300w/

According to them, R9 380X is the largest of the "king of the hill" series. Fiji is faster than R9 390X, so that makes no sense

 

[destrekor]

nevermind, did some research