[Rumor (Various)] AMD R7/9 3xx / Fiji / Fury

[raghu78]

1. Right, so if Fiji Pro after-market cards are $549, do you realize what that means? Possibly ~90% performance of the Titan X for nearly half the price 3 months later, a number I threw around months ago. That's pretty good if you ask me. I will say that for single GPU users, possibly paying $100 more and getting 980Ti's 20% overclocking could be worthwhile. Another way of looking at it, is someone who didn't buy a Titan X for $1K may be able to get 70% more performance with Fiji PRO CF for $100 more just 3 months later. WOW.

2. Yes the Fiji PRO is a lot more cut-down this time, but that also means AMD can price it more aggressively and differentiate Fiji XT cards more. However, if those specs are true, Fiji PRO still has the entire back-end intact (ROPs/memory bandwidth->HBM). That means at the same clock speeds, Fiji XT may only be 14% faster best case for hundreds of dollars more. If AMD pulls a GTX970 on the high-end and prices Fiji PRO at $499, it'll be a HUGE seller. That's probably what I would do in AMD's shoes because it would instantly make 980 irrelevant and also for a lot of gamers $500 is their psychological barrier for high-end GPU purchases. This strategy would allow AMD to claim indisputable price/performance on the high-end with Fiji PRO and still get the profit margins and premium performance halo their desire with Fury XT cards.

3. What difference does it make how AMD accomplished the improvements, whether it was from a new architecture, a new node, a new memory type, etc. Since we are comparing this generation, what matters is the end product. NV used a new architecture vs. AMD that keeps building on GCN which is still a very good architecture. It's just a different way to approach GPU design. For example the new Corvette Z06 is beastly but so is the new McLaren 650S, yet their engines are completely different. That's what engineers get paid $$$ for - to accomplish certain objectives using different means.

As long as AMD's next architecture doesn't flop against Pascal, I don't think we should worry that "AMD needed HBM1 to achieve perf/watt improvements." It's not like AMD is sitting still. Eventually they will debut an all new GPU architecture (post-GCN). They used VLIW for a long time, from 2006 to 2011. By December 2016, GCN will also turn 5 years old. What an amazing architecture that survived Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell. You can say AMD is way behind since they needed all-new HBM memory to keep up but another way of looking at it is NV needed 3 brand new architectures to stay in the game. Both companies do things differently.

On paper Fiji cards look like they will use more power than the 980Ti/Titan X but if AMD managed to cram DP performance, that would be mighty impressive since it'll make the card a dual-purpose product for just 40-50W more.

RS I have repeated time and again that you are underestimating AMD. There is no way AMD has left perf efficiency aka perf/sp untouched. I am betting on a big improvement. This line-up comes 3.5 years after the HD 7970 launch. Tonga made improvements to the rest of the chip but left the core shader untouched. AMD makes continuous incremental improvements so that the APUs like Carrizo also benefit from the improvements. Carrizo has all the changes of Tonga as I expected. I expect AMD to have improved perf/sp by atleast 20-25%. We will see in a week's time what the actual improvements are.

Do you think AMD designed a chip with 128 Tonga ROPs without improving perf/sp. Thats illogical and something I won't bet on. People have thoroughly underestimated AMD. The transition to HBM and a monster GPU at 550 - 600 sq mm die gives AMD all the incentive to make significant architectural improvements to the core shader architecture. I am confident that AMD is going to surprise everyone with the magnitude of improvments. :thumbsup:

As for the actual performance and the competitive stand-off lets wait till we have results. Anyway since you are speculating and having fun let me do too. Fury Pro will beat Titan-X and GTX 980 Ti by 5-10% and land at USD 599. :whiste:

 

[tential]

raghu78

I remember you earlier saying the M390x would be capable of 4K gaming too. You have really high hopes for this lineup by AMD. That was a long time ago though.

I do hope this lineup as good as you've talked it up to be.

 

[tential]

Well I will wait a couple more days before I pull the trigger to know for sure who will have the performance crown.right now I am eyeing up the xfx R7 260x 2gb short card or maybe the zotac GTX 750 2gb short card. trying to find some Benchies pitting the 2 against each other.If I find out the 360x is better I waill just wait and grab that..

You're waiting for the wrong reason dude. The low end cards aren't being touched. This is all about the high end man. If you're waiting to see benches on the 360x you'll be waiting a long time.

Unless people theorize that AMD has a whole new lineup and also boosted their low end too by utilizing Glo Flo, I'd just buy now man before things go out of stock and get a good deal. I see 260x really cheap too.

 

[guskline]

RS, you have PM

 

[LTC8K6]

The 370 looks to be GCN 1.0.

Hopefully the bottom end is Bonaire based, which is GCN 1.1

 

[DearLord]

Specs suggest this is a 4K beast, 128x Tonga ROPs with massive vram bandwidth and low latency.

I think it could well be ~65% above R290X at 4K, ie. scaling better at higher resolutions.

Indeed, this might be the first card that can get us a consistent 60fps in this year's AAA titles at 4k with high settings. I'm optimistic on that front, but they really need to up their pr and payola game.

 

[bononos]

Hopefully the bottom end is Bonaire based, which is GCN 1.1

Bonaire? I thought the leaked chart said Tongo pro... I want a Nvidia 960 equivalent by AMD.

 

[iiiankiii]

Indeed, this might be the first card that can get us a consistent 60fps in this year's AAA titles at 4k with high settings. I'm optimistic on that front, but they really need to up their pr and payola game.

If it's 'only' 65% faster than a 290x, it's not fast enough maintain 60fps in newer games at 4k. It needs to be closer to 2x faster than the 290x to achieve 60fps. For instance, the 295x2 isn't even fast enough to maintain 60fps at 4k. The 295x2 is nearly 95% faster than a 290x and it can't do 60fps.

 

[JDG1980]

Bonaire? I thought the leaked chart said Tongo pro... I want a Nvidia 960 equivalent by AMD.

Unfortunately, it looks like the closest we're going to get to a 960 equivalent is the rebranded R9 285, called R9 380. The only difference is that this time it will be available with 4GB of RAM (probably a good idea). But unless all the rumors turn out to be false, it will still be a cut-down version of the Tonga chip with 1792 stream processors. Also, it is looking likely that it will not have any substantive improvements - maybe a new stepping for moderately higher clocks and/or lower leakage, but no added features. This means the 960 will still have the edge in features (HEVC decoding), and will likely still beat AMD's offering in performance per watt. AMD is capable of producing a more efficient Tonga chip (the FirePro W7100 uses Tonga and has a 150W TDP, with only one 6-pin connector), but it doesn't look like they care about bringing better efficiency to the desktop space.

 

[Silverforce11]

If it's 'only' 65% faster than a 290x, it's not fast enough maintain 60fps in newer games at 4k. It needs to be closer to 2x faster than the 290x to achieve 60fps. For instance, the 295x2 isn't even fast enough to maintain 60fps at 4k. The 295x2 is nearly 95% faster than a 290x and it can't do 60fps.

It depends on your settings, generally as soon as you turn on MSAA at 4K, performance is crippled.

With it off, even Titan X is very playable, 45-60 fps on High settings. There's also a ton of options where disabled, doesn't reduce image quality much but saves a lot of performance.

I can run Witcher 3 on my old 7950 rig with High + Ultra Textures, 1080p and its ~45 fps. Looks 99% identical to Ultra.

 

[JDG1980]

If it's 'only' 65% faster than a 290x, it's not fast enough maintain 60fps in newer games at 4k. It needs to be closer to 2x faster than the 290x to achieve 60fps. For instance, the 295x2 isn't even fast enough to maintain 60fps at 4k. The 295x2 is nearly 95% faster than a 290x and it can't do 60fps.

Which games? And are we talking minimum FPS, or average FPS?

A GTX 980 Ti or Titan X can already play most modern AAA titles at 4K@60Hz, if you're willing to not max out everything to Ultra. I suspect the Fury X will match this.

If you insist on cranking up all the sliders all the way, no card will ever suffice, because the developers are always coming up with crazier and crazier ways to waste GPU power. Assassin's Creed: Unity only gets 48.9 FPS on a Titan X at 1080p with all the settings maxed out. Against games this poorly coded, AMD and Nvidia can do nothing.

 

[iiiankiii]

It depends on your settings, generally as soon as you turn on MSAA at 4K, performance is crippled.

With it off, even Titan X is very playable, 45-60 fps on High settings. There's also a ton of options where disabled, doesn't reduce image quality much but saves a lot of performance.

I can run Witcher 3 on my old 7950 rig with High + Ultra Textures, 1080p and its ~45 fps. Looks 99% identical to Ultra.

Which games? And are we talking minimum FPS, or average FPS?

A GTX 980 Ti or Titan X can already play most modern AAA titles at 4K@60Hz, if you're willing to not max out everything to Ultra. I suspect the Fury X will match this.

If you insist on cranking up all the sliders all the way, no card will ever suffice, because the developers are always coming up with crazier and crazier ways to waste GPU power. Assassin's Creed: Unity only gets 48.9 FPS on a Titan X at 1080p with all the settings maxed out. Against games this poorly coded, AMD and Nvidia can do nothing.

You're right. If you're willing to lower the settings, it would be enough. I was talking about preset 'Ultra' settings. In newer games, it isn't enough. It won't average 60fps on 'Ultra' settings. I can see 'high' settings being good enough for a TiX, 980ti or the Fury x.

 

[Udgnim]

 

[Despoiler]

I don't think any card will ever hit 4k @ 60fps across all games, at least at max settings. Some brilliant developer will always be there to decide that the field of grass you're walking through should have each strand made up of 500,000 polygons with its own physics thread.

Let's hope this forces NV's hand and they release a 980Ti Black Edition with 1.2Ghz clocks + full die.



Gotta be careful with that budget since Steam Summer Sale is coming up in 2 days.

Totally feel you Teal, but all you need to do is do it once to claim it. Marketing takes over and blitzes it.

RS. Agreed on NV pushing their current line up to the max, but what happens when they themselves have to self destruct their power efficiency stat? If you go after competitors you go after anything they hold over you. Nix that one. NV might pull equal in max FPS, but again gut feeling is AMD crushes this round outright. People have commended NV for their current pickup in market share, but the long game tells me that if AMD takes the crown across the board late they will likely keep it. NV is way to early in with Maxwell to count on Pascal being out in time to maintain the momentum. HBM2 is at BEST Q2 2016 and more looking like Q4. Q2 is exactly 9 months from when AMD supposedly has Fiji availability. At best, and unlikely scenario, AMD rules for 9 months exactly. Better prediction is 1 year or more. Heck of a coincidence that AMD is dropping Fiji + 300 series exactly 9 months after Maxwell 970/980 dropped. They know what HBM2's availability is. If this plays out the way I think it will, NV waits and gives AMD several months more in free reign or they respin their plans and drop with HBM1. They aren't getting the next round without a major trade off. I think Lisa Su's business operations tutelage under Rory Read has turned her into one savvy business woman.

 

[richaron]

Don't waste your time on Tonga. If you need a card around $200-220, PowerColor R9 290 is the ticket.

This is just bad advice.

When you see that someone is interested in a specific card, perhaps you should ask yourself (or them) "why" they are interested.

 

[TechyGeek]

Rumor has it 390x is priced at 389. Can someone tell me what card will perform similarly to it, and whether or not I can hook it up to un78hu9000 tv with reasonable performance? Is this a good choice for stop-gap card?

 

[Silverforce11]

Rumor has it 390x is priced at 389. Can someone tell me what card will perform similarly to it, and whether or not I can hook it up to un78hu9000 tv with reasonable performance? Is this a good choice for stop-gap card?

R290X is close to 980 currently, I expect 390X to match or exceed 980. But we'll find out once it launches, so just hang tight.

 

[MrTeal]

Rumor has it 390x is priced at 389. Can someone tell me what card will perform similarly to it, and whether or not I can hook it up to un78hu9000 tv with reasonable performance? Is this a good choice for stop-gap card?

At 4k you'll probably be somewhere between a GTX970 and GTX980. Not that you could buy it now anyway, but we'll have to wait to see if the 390X unlike the 290X has HDMI2.0. If not, it won't work well with your TV.

 

[bystander36]

You all realize that 4K gaming capability is available now, and will remain as it is now as long as Dev's target 1080p.

GPU's will never reach a point where they can play at maxed settings at 4K if dev's design the games to run at 1080p using all the available resources the best GPU's have.

As long as Dev's target 1080p, or at least give settings to push a 1080p setup, 4K will require you to turn down settings. The only way a single GPU can play 4K at Ultra is if Dev's don't push the IQ settings.

Until dev's themselves start to lower what the max settings they give do, we have to make a choice between 4K and lower settings, or 1080p and Ultra.

 

[Silverforce11]

@bystander36
True. The same also applies to 1440p, where "maxed" in recent titles drop fps down to ~30 on single GPUs. Generally, people who really max games need multi-GPUs for 1440p and up. Moreso at 4K, you'll need Quad SLI/CF.

Ultimately its a waste of processing power when performance is crippled for so little visual improvements. I like to game on High with Ultra Textures for this reason.

 

[TechyGeek]

Ok don't wanna derail the thread but I'm in the market for 4k card.

 

[monstercameron]

Ok don't wanna derail the thread but I'm in the market for 4k card.

well on the 16th there will be a card for you.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is just bad advice.

When you see that someone is interested in a specific card, perhaps you should ask yourself (or them) "why" they are interested.

OK so you tell me what major benefits any version of Tonga has over R9 290 that makes it a better buy? HTPC isn't it because 960 > 285 for that. Performance isn't it because it's worse than a 280X/7970Ghz. Perf/watt isn't it since it gets owned by a 960 in that metric or 290 for that matter. Price/performance isn't it either since 290 is better in that metric too.

So, please provide a logical reason how an R9 380 priced at even $199 is a better buy than a $220 after-market 290? It won't be which is why my advice is right on the money for a gamer.

After-market 290 = reference 290X and that means 61% more gaming performance at 1080P and 64% at 1440P. There is no feature in the world that an R9 380 will have that will make it worthwhile for a gamer to buy over a $220 after-market 290.

O.M.G. they finally hired an engineer who cares about sound levels!

That's a Scythe Gentle Typhoon, a very good 120mm fan. (Yes, probably the expert water coolers might not rank it in the top 10 in the after-market rad scene but compared to most of the stock fans that come with 99% of AIOs, this blows them away!)

2-ball bearings - check
1,850 rpm: 0.083 A - 28 dBA - 98 m³/h
60,000 hours lifespan at 60*C

Very good balance of noise levels vs. performance for versions 11, 12, 13, 14 and even 15. Just depends what you need and with PWM, the gamer gets to choose:

And if you want INSANE airflow with a Gentle Typhoon, you can do it too. Such a versatile fan.

Noise level videos of this fan type:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a43MUaY9Xc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcVr4iFnySQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI1sMslHy0w

The combination of a GT + 120mm rad is just a brilliant move. The 980Ti reference cooler is about to get pawned badly, like really badly once overclocked scenarios are compared.

Ok don't wanna derail the thread but I'm in the market for 4k card.

You need 980 SLI or faster (Fiji PROs, 980Tis, etc.)

A lot of gamers want to buy a 4K monitor but they don't think ahead about what would happen once newer games come out in the next 3 years. Even today, no single GPU is good enough. Sure, one might argue that you don't need to run Ultra in every game but one can argue a great 4K monitor is at least $1K and at that point why get that over a $350 2560x1440P monitor and then not run things on Ultra? 4K is for the Elite gamer who is willing to pay $1000+ for flagship cards in pairs or it's going to mean major compromises in performance or IQ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4RyNNlKbJw

Furthermore, since 4K really hammers GPUs, this is actually a panel that will benefit the most from FreeSync /GSync but unfortunately there aren't many great panels of this type on the market just yet. I am not trying to downplay 4K as I think it's awesome and I was close to buying one myself but after contemplating it for 6 months I realized that unless I was straight up willing to buy $1300 flagships in pairs every 2 years, it wasn't going to work until GPUs get faster/4K panels ship with GSync/FreeSync in more than 3 monitors so we have choices. A lot of gamers are willing to go 4K on a 28" TN panel which today only costs $400. It sounds like a great deal at first but just be prepared for a lot of compromises when it comes to the required GPU power necessary to drive that many pixels.

I think AMD is really going to push high-rez gaming though as that's where the enthusiasts are heading. If FIJI cards really do have 128 ROPs, that will be absolutely massive for 4K performance. It cannot be understated how vital pixel fill-rate performance is for 4K. Best to wait until Fiji cards are benched to see if going Maxwell or Fiji is the way to go for 4K.

 

[Silverforce11]

4K on High >>>> 1080/1440p on Ultra.

 

[RussianSensation]

4K on High >>>> 1080/1440p on Ultra.

Maybe but over the course of the next 24 months 4K High becomes 4K Medium and 1440P Ultra becomes High on the same GPU. All of a sudden 4K Medium doesn't sound so good. That's just me.

imo, unless a gamer is ready to buy flagship cards in pairs OR at minimum high-end mid-range (980 SLI style / Pascal successors in pairs) OR $650+ flagships every gen, they will go from 40 fps on High to 25 fps and medium in no time when next gen games roll-out. The move from 1440P to 4K is more GPU intensive than the move from 1080P to 1440P but the IQ improvement is arguably less proportionate. W10 PPI scaling really needs to get fixed though. Right now on my 15.6" 1080P laptop, I am using +125% zoom in all web browsers. It's very fatiguing to use 100% and the DPI of that screen is 'only' 141.21. To get a similar DPI, one would have to get at least a 31" 4K monitor. I think 4K really starts to make sense at 31" and above. 28" 4K sounds painful on the eyes with the current Windows OS implementation.

I know you mentioned you are considering a 40" 4K (Philips). Smart move on that. Your eyes will thank you!
http://pxcalc.com/

BTW, I am seeing some hilarious comments from people online trying to discredit AMD's Fiji:

"Honestly I like the way longer graphics cards look in my system. Just a personal thing though, nothing against AMD for the design here."