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

[monstercameron]

Thank goodness we FINALLY have a date for the 390x!

http://wccftech.com/amd-fiji-r9-390x-skipping-computex-debut-e3-separate-event/

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to derail. Carry on!

Nearly 2 months out, please be worth the wait.

 

[railven]

980/970 is already 8 months old and isn't NVidia's top of the line card. 390x isn't even released yet and will be AMD's best offering for the foreseeable future. 980/970 having 4GB of ram is exactly why I haven't upgraded yet and Titan is too rich for my blood. 980Ti is the card to fill that void in NVidia's line up and is the only option worth considering IMO if 390x isn't offered with more than 4GB.

So back it up, if GTX 980 Ti does launch with 6GBs, is it "unacceptable" since it has LESS than the console you cited.

Nearly 2 months out, please be worth the wait.

Well, guess I got to find something to do

 

[boozzer]

I think there is a very real potential for 4gb to be an issue at 1080p. Consoles are targeting 1080p resolution and can allocate more than 4gb to VRAM.

I don't agree but at least now I know that is where you are coming from. you are in the same boat as silver and wants 8gb because you will be keeping the card for 3+ years.

buy whatever fits your needs. I won't judge you, no one has the right to. but don't make claims left and right about 390x though

 

[Red Hawk]

I think you are missing the point entirely. The people buying top of the line cards aren't looking to merely match console quality. When I buy FC4 for PC I don't want it to match my PS4, I want it to be head and shoulders above it. Plenty of console ports use WELL above 2GB of VRAM when maxed out at 1080p. FC4 approaches 3GB with no MSAA.

You are trying to point to consoles having a memory advantage over graphics cards with as much as 4 GB of memory as a reason why 4 GB of memory would be limiting even at 1080p. My point is that practically, there is no advantage even compared to graphics cards with 2 GB of RAM. The console's 8 GB is used for both the operating systems and for non-graphics related tasks when running games. Consoles being technically able to allocate more than 4 GB to video memory is irrelevant when no game is going to actually do that.

Console ports may or may not use more memory than 2 GB with all the settings turned up, but that's unrelated to the amount of memory the consoles themselves use.

That said, I do believe AMD's absolute top-end graphics card should have 8 GB of RAM for 4K gaming, but I'd be fine with them also offering a version that just has 4 GB. More choice is a good thing.

 

[2is]

So back it up, if GTX 980 Ti does launch with 6GBs, is it "unacceptable" since it has LESS than the console you cited.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

Developers have access to 4.5-5GB of RAM on the PS4. The rest is reserved for the OS, of which I have 16GB of. Any other questions/concerns?

 

[railven]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

Developers have access to 4.5-5GB of RAM on the PS4. The rest is reserved for the OS, of which I have 16GB of. Any other questions/concerns?

Odd, when I said something similar, you said it was still unacceptable. Oh well.

 

[boozzer]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

Developers have access to 4.5-5GB of RAM on the PS4. The rest is reserved for the OS, of which of have 16GB of. Any other questions/concerns?

so 980 n 970 is trash right? and please don't write that 980 is not top of the line. it was top of the line before titan x and it is a 550$ flagship even if it is only a mid range card. and since 5gb ram is all we need, what do you think of titan x and it's useless 12gb? because by the time we can use more than 4gb per you, it's gpu power would be the same as a mid range card by 2016.

so 980 is trash, titan x is a waste. looks like nv gpus got problems left and right.

@rail you should quote it, funnier that way, and would make a perfect point at the rediculousness of it.

 

[2is]

You are trying to point to consoles having a memory advantage over graphics cards with as much as 4 GB of memory as a reason why 4 GB of memory would be limiting even at 1080p. My point is that practically, there is no advantage even compared to graphics cards with 2 GB of RAM. The console's 8 GB is used for both the operating systems and for non-graphics related tasks when running games. Consoles being technically able to allocate more than 4 GB to video memory is irrelevant when no game is going to actually do that.

Console ports may or may not use more memory than 2 GB with all the settings turned up, but that's unrelated to the amount of memory the consoles themselves use.

That said, I do believe AMD's absolute top-end graphics card should have 8 GB of RAM for 4K gaming, but I'd be fine with them also offering a version that just has 4 GB. More choice is a good thing.

I'll simply it. Existing console ports are already getting to around 3GB of vram usage at 1080p running at max settings, and that's with low to no amounts of AA and before we even take mods into account if you're into such things. Even a game as old as BF4 will flirt with a 4GB ceiling at 200% resolution scale with settings cranked. These are all scenarios that exist now, at 1080p so yeah... 4GB without an 8GB option is a failure.

 

[railven]

I'll simply it. Existing console ports are already getting to around 3GB of vram usage at 1080p running at max settings, and that's with low to no amounts of AA and before we even take mods into account if you're into such things. Even a game as old as BF4 will flirt with a 4GB ceiling at 200% resolution scale with settings cranked. These are all scenarios that exist now, at 1080p so yeah... 4GB without an 8GB option is a failure.

You do know 200% resolution scale != 1080p?

EDIT: For the record, I too prefer 8GB, but you are jumping through some hoops to defend your position that 4GB would be "embarrassing" or "unacceptable."

 

[2is]

so 980 n 970 is trash right? and please don't write that 980 is not top of the line. it was top of the line before titan x and it is a 550$ flagship even if it is only a mid range card. and since 5gb ram is all we need, what do you think of titan x and it's useless 12gb? because by the time we can use more than 4gb per you, it's gpu power would be the same as a mid range card by 2016.

so 980 is trash, titan x is a waste. looks like nv gpus got problems left and right.

I'd be just as foolish to buy a 980 now as I would be a 390x if it only has 4GB given what I know is coming soon.

There is no nVIdia card that has what I want yet, which is why I haven't upgraded, but there will be soon, which is when I'll upgrade. Pretty sure I already said all this.

 

[2is]

You do know 200% resolution scale != 1080p?

The signal being sent to my monitor is 1080p, it's an option available in the game that I'd like to take advantage of without having to worry about vram. It's an option i'd like to be able to take advantage of in future games as well.

 

[2is]

Odd, when I said something similar, you said it was still unacceptable. Oh well.

What you said wasn't similar. You said 4.5 is "close to" 4, I responded saying it's still less. Nothing has changed, nothing is odd... Bust out the calculator if you need to.

390x 4GB
PS4: 4.5-5GB
980Ti 6GB

What part are you confused about exactly?

 

[railven]

What you said wasn't similar. You said 4.5 is "close to" 4, I responded saying it's still less. Nothing has changed, nothing is odd... Bust out the calculator if you need to.

390x 4GB
PS4: 4.5-5GB
980Ti 6GB

What part are you confused about exactly?

After reading your "it's still 1080p to my monitor" part, my fault for having that convo with you. It's all good.

 

[boozzer]

I'd be just as foolish to buy a 980 now as I would be a 390x if it only has 4GB given what I know is coming soon.

There is no nVIdia card that has what I want yet, which is why I haven't upgraded, but there will be soon, which is when I'll upgrade. Pretty sure I already said all this.

haha, hey as long as we got that clear up.

you know, I am sure there are 8gb 290x, why didn't you buy it then? 290x is 80 to 100% increase over 680. it actually fit your needs perfectly.

nvidia fan? lets get this clear up


Bye
-Rvenger

 

[ShintaiDK]

What about latency (timing)? DDR3 has much lower latency than GDDR5, but DDR3 doesn't have as much bandwidth. Does HBM bridge the gap, offering low latency along with the high bandwidth? Is it more like one than the other?

Latency is pretty much same same.

 

[boozzer]

Nearly 2 months out, please be worth the wait.

it is another rumor god, why the hell do tech websites post rumor, and 2 articles about the same rumor. so glad I have adblock on right now.

 

[ShintaiDK]

But at half the power. And GDDR5 + memory controller do use a considerable amount of the total power of a gpu. All in all you can save up to 60w on a 300 w TDP card and use it for more CUs.

I would say thats an extremely overoptimistic projection.

 

[ShintaiDK]

it is another rumor god, why the hell do tech websites post rumor, and 2 articles about the same rumor. so glad I have adblock on right now.

Because of the thing you block

Its so bad even women in a hair salon think its over the top.

 

[2is]

haha, hey as long as we got that clear up.

you know, I am sure there are 8gb 290x, why didn't you buy it then? 290x is 80 to 100% increase over 680. it actually fit your needs perfectly.

nvidia fan? lets get this clear up

Not enough of an upgrade over my 680 SLI setup

It's been clear for quite some time. It's not the first time I've made similar statements in this thread. You're either not reading or not understanding.

 

[LTC8K6]

Updated info:

AMD Radeon R9 300 Series coming 18th of June – Fiji XT landing on the 24th

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-300-series-fiji-xt-release-date/

 

[2is]

After reading your "it's still 1080p to my monitor" part, my fault for having that convo with you. It's all good.

It's hard to argue with facts isn't it?

EDIT: For the record, I too prefer 8GB, but you are jumping through some hoops to defend your position that 4GB would be "embarrassing" or "unacceptable."

Not jumping through anything. It's you who's trying to convince me otherwise and I've answered all your questions and have explained my reasoning, even to the extent of giving you actual examples of games right now where 4GB or very close to 4GB can be utilized. It would be quite foolish to think that number won't increase further.

I've been on your side of the argument before. I was making the same ones 2 years ago. I was wrong then, I'm not now.

If you're content having to turn down settings because you settled for a top of the line 4GB card then you won't have a problem. When I buy my card, I'm doing it so I don't have to turn settings down, at least not for a while. Heck, My existing 680's will be viable gaming cards for a few more years if I keep turning down my settings.

 

[NomanA]

Regarding the 4GB debate, if 980Ti is out with 6GB, and is within 10-15% of 390x 4GB in performance, and if the prices are in the same ballpark, then I can see someone going with the card with higher VRAM. My point is that there will be factors to consider, instead of blindly saying "Nope, flagship card can't have 4GB". This particular reasoning may be important to some, but not all. There will be many who would go with raw performance numbers over 1440p and 4K resolutions in current games. There will be those who go for the lower priced part, even if it's 10% slower.

After all, 980 and 970 are selling right now. Many comments about 980SLI systems talk about their release eight months ago, as if all 980SLIs were sold right then, and the market had a sudden sea change where no one is buying those cards anymore. There are folks spending $700-1200 on 970SLI and 980SLI 4GB systems right now, and there will be people buying 390Xs or 390s in the coming months if they have much better performance and price ratio. When 980Ti is out, 980SLI will still be sold perhaps at lower prices.

I personally am waiting for the fastest card at 1440p resolution in the current games and in the $350-400 range. Whether it has 4 or 8GB, does not matter. I am sure, overclocking that GPU will get me within 10-15% of TitanX on those resolutions, if not closer.

 

[boozzer]

Updated info:



http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-300-series-fiji-xt-release-date/

it is a rumor bro :'(

Not enough of an upgrade over my 680 SLI setup

It's been clear for quite some time. It's not the first time I've made similar statements in this thread. You're either not reading or not understanding.

of course it is not fast enough now compare to titan x.

but when it was first release oct 2013, it was the fastest gpu on the market, especially when it is the vapor x version with non of the problems of the reference models.

so 80 to 100% performance increase is not enough for you to upgrade? hahahahahahahaaaaaa, ok I am done

@noman see, your response is sensible, something I can agree and relate to. who cares about vram numbers when majority of gamers game at 1080p or lower? I just want to see performance! all I care about is how smooth my gaming experience is. not some stupid vram gbs. damn 17 more days to computex.

 

[sm625]

There is no way AMD ships a HBM card with more than 4GB in 2015 for anything but the very top SKU. It would be colossally stupidly expensive just to give the extra 512MB that some games need beyond 4GB. It is far more likely that games like GTA V will be optimized and patched to work with 4GB with no performance penalty. There is no reason any reputable game maker should be using more than 4GB at this time, unless you go beyond 4K.

 

[ShintaiDK]

There is no way AMD ships a HBM card with more than 4GB in 2015 for anything but the very top SKU. It would be colossally stupidly expensive just to give the extra 512MB that some games need beyond 4GB. It is far more likely that games like GTA V will be optimized and patched to work with 4GB with no performance penalty. There is no reason any reputable game maker should be using more than 4GB at this time, unless you go beyond 4K.

512MB?

The consoles 4.5GB is System+VRAM. Not just VRAM.