R9 380x rumor and speculation thread

[Red Hawk]

So its basically gonna be a expensive overclocked 280x with 1gb more vram and a 256 bit bus?

Look at the specs of a 280x
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx
Dam I had high hopes for this card.

Er...what were you expecting, exactly? We've known for a long time that Tonga is pretty much Tahiti with a few retuned parts. Twice the tessellation units and more refined at that, with a 256 bit memory bus and delta color compression on the ROPs to hopefully result in power savings without reducing effective memory bandwidth, and 8 asynchronous compute engines over Tahiti's 2. It also has a full 4 GB, unlike the 285 which was always hamstrung by AMD skimping out with only 2 GB of RAM, and it has DirectX Feature Level 12.0 instead of 11.3.

As far as sheer performance goes, for now it will only show an advantage in geometry-limited use scenarios. Looking forward towards DirectX 12, it's possible that it will enjoy a compute advantage thanks to the extra ACEs (enough to match Hawaii).

Tonga was meant to replace Tahiti in AMD's product stack as a more up-to-date chip, but it's not meant as a replacement for Tahiti owners. Tahiti owners who want more power have Hawaii and Fiji as their options (from AMD).

I agree that this should have been on the market a year ago, and I'm sure AMD would agree too, it's just that supplies were low and supplying Apple took priority. Maybe this is overpriced, we'll have to wait for reviews to get the final word on that. If it is, a price drop is inevitable.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8460/amd-radeon-r9-285-review/4

GCN 1.2 is also AMD's best image/video processor

The 285 is already faster than the 390X in this area.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1512?vs=1559

 

[Techhog]

I don't understand why you wrote all this?????

I was talking about the 380x 250$ price vs all Nvidia cards on the market today.
At 250$ its not sell vs a 279$ gtx970 or be fast enough vs a 170$ 4gb gtx960. or be be fast enough over the normal 280x for 250$ after having so many 185$ 280x's out for so long as you said.

Fixed. You're also still trying to treat it as a rebrand...

 

[Silverforce11]

Amazing they are launching new SKUs with that level of performance around the $200 mark, when most of this and last year, R290 custom models could be had close to $200 that blows 380/X/960 away, with 4GB vram and huge bandwidth for extra longevity.

 

[littleg]

On page 6 in this thread, happy_medium is responsible for 9 replies. Honestly, there is such a thing called "spamming". It's one thing if you post 9 times in the entire thread and quite another if it's 9 times on a single page.

I hope there is stricter enforcement of this in the future.

Shills gonna shill.

 

[RussianSensation]

Amazing they are launching new SKUs with that level of performance around the $200 mark, when most of this and last year, R290 custom models could be had close to $200 that blows 380/X/960 away, with 4GB vram and huge bandwidth for extra longevity.

XFX R9 290 with lifetime warranty is $225 US after rebate and $25 off $200 AMEX deal. This basically ensures that every single videocard from $150-200 is a bad deal for gaming, including all 285/280/280X/950/960 cards. For someone who plans to use their GPU for 2-3 years, it's hard to imagine just saving $50 and going with a way slower R9 380/960 over an R9 290. But eeeeeeeh marketing FTW! Remember 290 uses as much power as an African village and runs at 95*C in all versions, and it sounds louder than a vacuum cleaner, in all versions. / sarcasm

It's such a shame that so many PC gamers fell for perf/watt and driver marketing BS and shied away from R9 280X and after-market R9 290/290X cards. The amount of hype GTX960 received is unbelievable and even R9 380 seems to be more popular than the far superior R9 280X. Worst, as I mentioned earlier, "professional" review sites like TR and HardOCP understated how good R9 280X has been for the last 12 months, instead overhyping turds like the R9 380 and especially GTX950/960. Even in poorly unoptimized console ports, the R9 280X still wipes the floor with R9 380 and 960.

This generation 100% proves that most PC gamers purchase cards based on brand image and perception, not actual performance or how well rounded a GPU is. Next thing you know next gen they might try to sell us a mid-range next gen chip for $650. I keep joking about this but I am almost expecting it.

As far as I am concerned, the new mid-range sweet-spot for GPUs is the ~$250-350 price bracket. I expect this to continue with the sweet-spot actually moving up closer to $299-349. It makes sense of course since GTX970/980 are mid-range successors of the $199-249 sweet-spot GTX460/GTX560/GTX560Ti level cards. With new marketing schemes, R9 380/960 sound mid-range but we know those are just making names on what historically would have been x60 level AMD and GT940/950 level cards, max.

 

[Mondozei]

It makes sense of course since GTX970/980 are mid-range successors of the $199-249 sweet-spot GTX460/GTX560/GTX560Ti level cards.

This is so much nonsense. RS, you're typically a good poster but you keep insisting on comparing mid-high range cards to budget cards that sold for nothing and think it's a valid comparison. It never was and it isn't now. The successor to those cards is the 960 and below.

I'm not sure if you're trolling right now. But I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that you're not and this has become some kind of fix idea in your head, which is totally amusing. I guess even the sun has its spots.

As for your comments on most buyers basing their GPU decisions on brand perception and basically being uninformed, I couldn't agree more. This is why marketing exists in the first place.

 

[tential]

I think he means successors as in when you look at the underlying chip. Not marketing.

 

[AtenRa]

RS is right,

GTX460 = GF104 at 40nm, 332mm2 die size, released on July 2010 at $229
GTX560Ti = GF114 at 40nm, 332mm2 die size, released on January 2011 at $249
GTX 680 = GK204 at 28nm, 294mm2 die size, released on March 2012 at $499
GTX 980 = GM204 at 28nm, 398mm2 die size, released on September 2014 at $549

 

[nurturedhate]

This is so much nonsense. RS, you're typically a good poster but you keep insisting on comparing mid-high range cards to budget cards that sold for nothing and think it's a valid comparison. It never was and it isn't now. The successor to those cards is the 960 and below.

I'm not sure if you're trolling right now. But I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that you're not and this has become some kind of fix idea in your head, which is totally amusing. I guess even the sun has its spots.

As for your comments on most buyers basing their GPU decisions on brand perception and basically being uninformed, I couldn't agree more. This is why marketing exists in the first place.

He's right though. We have the same chip breakdown as we have basically always had and yet prices have shifted $100-$150 upwards. A 980 today sits at the same place in the chip stack as the 560ti/460 did yet at double the price. That isn't inflation and it isn't limited to Nvidia anymore either.

The sad fact is this is the world we now live in. I really don't like it and the only way any headway is going to be made against this practice is to load up forum after forum with posts against the practice. Do that for a couple years and market perception/willingness will change.

 

[crisium]

This is so much nonsense. RS, you're typically a good poster but you keep insisting on comparing mid-high range cards to budget cards that sold for nothing and think it's a valid comparison. It never was and it isn't now. The successor to those cards is the 960 and below.

No, RS is exactly right. You must remember that models numbers are completely arbitrary and based on marketing. Look at performance, look at what percentage each card is of the flagship. It's actually worse than you think.

GTX 580 = GTX Titan X
512/48/384 = 3072/96/384 (<-Shaders/ROPs/Buswidth)
$500 = $1000

GTX 560 = GTX 980
336/32/256 = 2048/64/256
$200 = $500 (originally $550)
65%/66%/66% = 66%/66%/66% (<-percentage of flagship)

It's much more expensive to get relative performance now then ever before.

edit:

Oh, it's really bad when you think about it this way: The 960 is exactly half the configuration of the 980 (the 560 of its generation). It launched at $200 - the same price as the 560. You literally get half of what you used to for the same price.

 

[happy medium]

580, 680,780,980 = flagship and added ti versions later, kinda like 7970/7970 GHZ boost
570, 670, 770, 970 = high end tier
560 (ti), 660 (ti),760, 960 = upper mid range tier
550 (ti), 650, 750 (ti), 950 = lower midrange tier

That's how I see it. I think the confusion is because they were on 28nm so long.

 

[AtenRa]

580, 680,780,980 = flagship and added ti versions later, kinda like 7970/7970 GHZ boost
570, 670, 770, 970 = high end tier
560 (ti), 660 (ti),760, 960 = upper mid range tier
550 (ti), 650, 750 (ti), 950 = lower midrange tier

That's how I see it. I think the confusion is because they were on 28nm so long.

Flagships were at 500mm2+ since GT200 onward.

GTX280 was 576mm2 at 65nm
GTX480 was 529mm2 at 40nm
GTX580 was 520mm2 at 40nm

GTX680 was 294mm2 at 28nm oups
GTX980 is 398mm2 at 28nm oups again

 

[happy medium]

Flagships were at 500mm2+ since GT200 onward.

GTX280 was 576mm2 at 65nm
GTX480 was 529mm2 at 40nm
GTX580 was 520mm2 at 40nm

GTX680 was 294mm2 at 28nm oups
GTX980 is 398mm2 at 28nm oups again

since when does the size of the chip or even price of the chip determine its tier of performance.

who made this up? Its the performance of the gpu's not the size or price.

 

[Silverforce11]

since when does the size of the chip or even price of the chip determine its tier of performance.

who made this up? Its the performance of the gpu's not the size or price.

Since forever in the history of semiconductors.

Die size is the key factor in performance & cost.

~300mm2 was the mid-range for a long time. Until Kepler put it at high-end prices and moved high-end up to stratospheric levels of $1000.

You should know this if you are a hardware enthusiast who has been around awhile.

 

[happy medium]

You should know this if you are a hardware enthusiast who has been around awhile.

I know the 680 was a flagship and was well under 500mm2+

 

[tential]

Since forever in the history of semiconductors.

Die size is the key factor in performance & cost.

~300mm2 was the mid-range for a long time. Until Kepler put it at high-end prices and moved high-end up to stratospheric levels of $1000.

You should know this if you are a hardware enthusiast who has been around awhile.

Will amd follow though. Right now amd is at that kepler phase for product naming (where nothing has changed yet but they introduced their Titan gpu). After that names were reshuffle. My guess is same will happen for amd with arctic Islands once all gpus are on the same architecture (if this even ever happens for amd.....)

 

[crisium]

I think AMD will follow. Remember the rumours of an $850 Fury X? I can see that since it was slower than the Titan X but certainly faster than the 980. Obviously the 980 Ti killed that possibility, but if AMD can ever get the performance crown or the closest-to-Titan crown anytime soon I'd expect their top card card to be well over $650.

 

[AtenRa]

I think AMD will follow. Remember the rumours of an $850 Fury X? I can see that since it was slower than the Titan X but certainly faster than the 980. Obviously the 980 Ti killed that possibility, but if AMD can ever get the performance crown or the closest-to-Titan crown anytime soon I'd expect their top card card to be well over $650.

AMD steadily year after year they increase the die size and the prices.
They will follow NVIDIA to $750 and $1000 price segments next year surely.

 

[nurturedhate]

I know the 680 was a flagship and was well under 500mm2+

If I produce a ~300mm2 and a ~550mm2 die at the basically the same time which is the flagship and which is the mid range?

 

[AtenRa]

I know the 680 was a flagship and was well under 500mm2+

Yes, and then the real flagship came (Titan) at 1K :biggrin:

 

[Silverforce11]

If I produce a ~300mm2 and a ~550mm2 die at the basically the same time which is the flagship and which is the mid range?

They did produce it, perhaps the bigger die even earlier, but it went into Teslas first to fulfill orders.

They release mid-range first, milking it at flagship prices because they can.

AMD will certainly do the same if they could, these are corporations with the sole aim of making as much $ from us gamers as they can get away with.

There's no need to defend their greed.

 

[nurturedhate]

They did produce it, perhaps the bigger die even earlier, but it went into Teslas first to fulfill orders.

They release mid-range first, milking it at flagship prices because they can.

AMD will certainly do the same if they could, these are corporations with the sole aim of making as much $ from us gamers as they can get away with.

There's no need to defend their greed.

In no way am I trying to defend their greed. Both companies need to be berated into the ground on every forum and more people need to vote with their wallets to stop this practice. I understand inflation is life but they DOUBLED their cost for the same tier from one generation to the next. In no form what so ever should they be defended.

I was shooting happy medium's post into the ground.

I do agree, AMD will do this as well. We saw them lay the groundwork with the Fury branding in the same way Nvidia did with kepler and titan. And I am pretty sure gk110 went into production before gk104 (someone correct me if I am wrong).

 

[railven]

In no way am I trying to defend their greed. Both companies need to be berated into the ground on every forum and more people need to vote with their wallets to stop this practice. I understand inflation is life but they DOUBLED their cost for the same tier from one generation to the next. In no form what so ever should they be defended.

I was shooting happy medium's post into the ground.

I do agree, AMD will do this as well. We saw them lay the groundwork with the Fury branding in the same way Nvidia did with kepler and titan. And I am pretty sure gk110 went into production before gk104 (someone correct me if I am wrong).

Did you see that article on NV's finances for this last quarter? Face it, we're all boned. NV saw the money, AMD wants the money, we're going to have to open our wallets up wide.

I guess I can alternate my upgrade pattern If NV/AMD resort to the current bisected release schedule, I can skip a card line up.

 

[Silverforce11]

Did you see that article on NV's finances for this last quarter? Face it, we're all boned. NV saw the money, AMD wants the money, we're going to have to open our wallets up wide.

I guess I can alternate my upgrade pattern If NV/AMD resort to the current bisected release schedule, I can skip a card line up.

If AMD could, they would milk us the same as NV.

They tried to, $850 Fury X matching Titan X for less! Til the 980Ti landed at $650..

See, this is why we need these companies to be healthy competing against each other. If they aren't fighting it out between themselves, we gamers lose our $.