• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 95 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xthetenth said:
Elaborate please?
Click to expand...

Come this fall there will more than likely be mac pros with the option of:

Dual Fiji XT
Dual Fiji Pro
Dual Tonga XT/Dual Nano

The iMac refresh(normal and retina) will likely have Full Tonga and Cut Down Tonga. Or maybe they will have a mobile version of nano?

Apple is only using AMD going foward, so you can expect the latest AMD gpus in their fall refreshes.
 
Last edited:
Apple not updated the Mac Pro line from 2013. They were waiting for some type of technology.

Now it is here.

Im having a hard time to think what could get into the Mac Pro at base.

But I think it will be this:

FirePro D310: Tonga or whatever the new version of it is.
FirePro D510: Fury Nano.
FirePro D710: Fury X.

Of course, downclocked very much to fit in the thermal envelope, unless... Apple will go for water cooling as an addition to current design and will up the Power Supply.
 
Last edited:
http://videocardz.com/56795/first-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-samples-are-in-the-wild


128 ROPs？

119nbm.png
 
Glo. said:
Apple not updated the Mac Pro line from 2013. They were waiting for some type of technology.

Now it is here.

Im having a hard time to think what could get into the Mac Pro at base.

But I think it will be this:

FirePro D310: Tonga or whatever the new version of it is.
FirePro D510: Fury Nano.
FirePro D710: Fury X.

Of course, downclocked very much to fit in the thermal envelope, unless... Apple will go for water cooling as an addition to current design and will up the Power Supply.
Click to expand...

I was hoping for some actual indication on what the clues in El Capitan were.
 
tential said:
Ok so you're telling us we should all sell our tvs and buy models with display port.

Please direct me to an 80 inch to 70 inch (bare minimum) display with display port.

Tvs aren't made for gaming? Ok.... I guess people with xbox, Ps, and wii don't game? This nonsense is ridiculous. Just give it up. It can't game at hdmi 2.0 and the display port TV options aren't even tvs they're 40 inches.

Some of us like pcs hooked up to big screens with amazing sound systems. It's not for you, and fiji isn't for these people who want hdmi 2.0. Why you don't get that I don't understand and your alternatives have all been extreme downgrades. No. No. No.
Click to expand...

This.

I don't think HDMI 2.0 is a HUGE black-eye for Fiji, but it will either impact you greatly (and then buy a 980Ti instead most likely) or not at all.

If no impact, awesome! But don't pretend it doesn't impact anyone. Couple points:

  • 4K gaming IS the 1%. Any argument that says HDMI doesn't matter for those in the 1% are kidding themselves
  • AMD just announced Freesync on HDMI (which is great) why stick with only 1.4 when this would be a great option for 4K?
  • HDMI 2.0 has been around and mature for 6+ months. I can see older GCN not supporting this, but a 4K flagship SHOULD have it
  • I don't have numbers, but I would bet serious $$$ more 4K TVs are sold vs. 4K monitors. Based on options out today, I would rather get a 4K TV for PC gaming vs. most PC monitors honestly
  • PC gaming has moved into the living room. Period.
 
exar333 said:
This.

I don't think HDMI 2.0 is a HUGE black-eye for Fiji, but it will either impact you greatly (and then buy a 980Ti instead most likely) or not at all.

If no impact, awesome! But don't pretend it doesn't impact anyone. Couple points:

  • 4K gaming IS the 1%. Any argument that says HDMI doesn't matter for those in the 1% are kidding themselves
  • AMD just announced Freesync on HDMI (which is great) why stick with only 1.4 when this would be a great option for 4K?
  • HDMI 2.0 has been around and mature for 6+ months. I can see older GCN not supporting this, but a 4K flagship SHOULD have it
  • I don't have numbers, but I would bet serious $$$ more 4K TVs are sold vs. 4K monitors. Based on options out today, I would rather get a 4K TV for PC gaming vs. most PC monitors honestly
  • PC gaming has moved into the living room. Period.
Click to expand...
Thanks for summing it up I'm stuck on mobile til Google fiber deploys in my area.
I mean I may still end up getting fury x and just waiting til next year to upgrade to a hdmi 2.0 tv+hdmi 2.0 compliant card but then I'd have to sell the card.

It's the 1% but I thought high end stuff was supposed to cater to me. I guess not in amd eyes.

I'll wait for reviews to see if 4k gaming is truly feasible with fury x but imo it just shot itself in the foot as a whole group of high end users now have a massive reason to buy nvidia and amd shouldn't lose consumers over easy fixes
 
jackstar7 said:
AMD wants you to get a 4K Freesync monitor. Just as nV wants you to get a G-sync monitor.

Neither wants you gaming on a TV.
Click to expand...
Explain how nvidia discourages gaming on a TV or even amd for that matter.... They may not support hdmi 2.0 but you still can game on tvs with ease as I have for the last couple of years now.
 
tential said:
Explain how nvidia discourages gaming on a TV or even amd for that matter.... They may not support hdmi 2.0 but you still can game on tvs with ease as I have for the last couple of years now.
Click to expand...

It's not about discouraging, it's about where they are investing. They are putting money into these features. Do TVs support freesync or gsync? No? This is my only point. They want you on monitors where they have better control over your experience and catering to it (with drivers/features/etc.).
 
tential said:
I really want to step into 4k gaming and the fury x was my chance to do so. The 980ti didn't have decent aftermarket versions are prices I wanted. Then also, I was maybe going to downsize pick up a 50 inch Vizio p series for 450 refurbished and use that with a fury x.

How i may down sample like you said but it comes out to the same cost since I have to shop my 70 inch then to use with the fury x now that it doesn't support hdmi 2.0

As for why I'd get both a 4k projector and HDTV? I don't expect 4k projectors to hit the price points I want for 2 years at least. Meanwhile HDTV are well within my range.

Edit
I'm using vsr now and love it. I'm just livid that I waited for the fury, and now when it doesn't have a key feature I want people are suggesting to wait til q4 2015 for an adapter, pick up a smaller HDTV with display port for far more cash than I want to for the size of TV (it's actually just a monitor big enough to be a small TV), etc.
Buying g the fury x to down sample just wasn't what I wanted. I wanted 4k gaming and was willing to get 2. Dunno if I want to give amd cash when following through with a simple thing like hdmi 2.0 isn't important to them. Nano and fury x are great for htpc I just can't fathom why no hdmi 2.0 I still can't believe it until reviews are out. This has better be a big misunderstanding
Just tired of people playing it off like it's no big deal to ignore hdmi 2.0 on a flagship card when your competitor had hdmi 2.0 ready in their lineup the whole time.
Click to expand...

I see. Makes sense.

Also, AMDMatt is double-checking:

https://community.amd.com/thread/183135

Hopefully he gets back with us today.
 
I lost patience and bought Gigabyte G1 980TI. I will wait to see if FURY X SLI is any good for the main gaming rig.
 
007ELmO said:
I lost patience and bought Gigabyte G1 980TI. I will wait to see if FURY X SLI is any good for the main gaming rig.
Click to expand...
It's 5 more days? For someone like me, the gtx 980ti has hdmi 2.0 which I desperately want but don't get you you wouldn't wait 5 days and pick the better option if you're a display port user
 
exar333 said:
This.


  • 4K gaming IS the 1%. Any argument that says HDMI doesn't matter for those in the 1% are kidding themselves
Click to expand...


  • Agree completely but -

    4K gaming is actually way less than 1%.

    Steam HW survey says it's under 1/15th of 1%, about the same number as those with triple 1080p monitors, and it isn't growing by any significant amount :

    3440 x 1440 0.04% +0.01%
    3840 x 2160 0.06% 0.00%
    5760 x 1080 0.06% 0.00%
    5760 x 1200 0.00% 0.00%

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
 
shady28 said:
Agree completely but -

4K gaming is actually way less than 1%.

Steam HW survey says it's under 1/15th of 1%, about the same number as those with triple 1080p monitors, and it isn't growing by any significant amount :

3440 x 1440 0.04% +0.01%
3840 x 2160 0.06% 0.00%
5760 x 1080 0.06% 0.00%
5760 x 1200 0.00% 0.00%

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Click to expand...

because 90% of them play CCS with a gtx960 at maxed @ 1080p, 1ms twitch games .:thumbsup:
 
Seems like that should be changing soon. Besides, with the numbers of gamers Steam has playing, that tiny percentage is still multiple tens of thousands of users I would think. Maybe close to $50 million in sales if they all bought a high end card.
 
crashtech said:
Seems like that should be changing soon. Besides, with the numbers of gamers Steam has playing, that tiny percentage is still multiple tens of thousands of users I would think. Maybe close to $50 million in sales if they all bought a high end card.
Click to expand...

Hehe, well...

The fastest growing resolution is 768p. 1440p is growing (1.11%) but is still about 1/33rd the size of the 1080p crowd.

These kinds of numbers make me wonder why 4K is such a big deal on enthusiast review sites. Who exactly are they talking to?
 
JDG1980 said:
Enthusiasts?
Click to expand...

I think the term bandwagon fits better.

Literally speaking, for every person with a 4K monitor there are ~570 people with 1080p and ~ 400 with 768p. Or about 1670 people not running 4k. So if there are 100million gamers, there are 60,000 running 4k.

So I guess all these review sites are for the 60,000 🙂
 
shady28 said:
I think the term bandwagon fits better.

Literally speaking, for every person with a 4K monitor there are ~570 people with 1080p and ~ 400 with 768p. Or about 1670 people not running 4k. So if there are 100million gamers, there are 60,000 running 4k.

So I guess all these review sites are for the 60,000 🙂
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit of an unfair assessment. We all know 4k is the next big thing. The industry is moving towards 4k. For people in the market for a new monitor/TV, 4k has to be on their radar. I ask you this. Wouldn't those potential buyers want to know if there is enough supporting hardware/software for 4k to make sense to them? Having reviews on 4k gaming is useful. Even if you don't own a 4k monitor, you might want to know if the GPUs out there are strong enough to push those pixels before you take the 4k plunge.
 
iiiankiii said:
I think that's a bit of an unfair assessment. We all know 4k is the next big thing. The industry is moving towards 4k. For people in the market for a new monitor/TV, 4k has to be on their radar. I ask you this. Wouldn't those potential buyers want to know if there is enough supporting hardware/software for 4k to make sense to them? Having reviews on 4k gaming is useful. Even if you don't own a 4k monitor, you might want to know if the GPUs out there are strong enough to push those pixels before you take the 4k plunge.
Click to expand...

4K is not adopting anywhere even close to the 720p->1080p pace. There is no broadcast 4k; there's not even a lot of broadcast 1080p. Most 4k is upconversion 1080p blu-ray.

For these very pragmatic reasons, it's not a big hit. A bit over 12,000 4k TVs were shipped in 2014 out of 6.4 Million sets. It's supposed to double this year, and again in 2016. At that rate, it will be 2018 before it's even in the 1% category.

And there is no single GPU card that can run any top tier game decently at 4k. And by decently, I mean without dropping into low teens on min frame rates (most drop into single digits). Average frame rats at 4k are very deceptive. All of this is why HDMI 2.0 doesn't matter except in a marketing sense.

The reviews and focus on 4K and HDMI 2.0 are sorta like including a tractor pull in a Honda Accord vs Ford Taurus review. Does it really matter which one is better at pulling that trailer? Neither will do it worth a crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top