Several R9 285's pictured (VideoCardz)

[f1sherman]

Then why the hell didn't they call it R380? If its a new GCN chip, redesigned with all the efficiency focus and all.

Cramming it between R280 & R290 is just stupid.

Product names do not usually bother me. But 285 sounds just plain... stupid.

Also 2GB; if this was nvidia it would be cheap and stupid, but NV being NV perhaps they can get away with 2GB.
AMD, offering low additional value and making sure 7950/70, 280/x owners do not upgrade - this is mega stoopid.

There must be something more to this that we don't know.
Like really small chip, temporary stopgap solution with R9 280/x perf. to fight off GTX 760/70, and with faster 4GB models around the corner.

Anyway, AMD already did something similar with 5850/70 -> 6850/70

 

[Rvenger]

Also you exclude any method AMD may use to reduce memory demand.

Is there a documented technology that Nvidia uses for this? Isn't this dependent by application or may be a possible memory leak caused by the driver to allocate more than usual VRAM?

This is the first I have ever heard of this.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Is there a documented technology that Nvidia uses for this? Isn't this dependent by application or may be a possible memory leak caused by the driver to allocate more than usual VRAM?

This is the first I have ever heard of this.

Something like this?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/real-time-ycocg-dxt-compression.html

 

[Termie]

...

There must be something more to this that we don't know.
Like really small chip, temporary stopgap solution with R9 280/x perf. to fight off GTX 760/70, and with faster 4GB models around the corner.

Anyway, AMD already did something similar with 5850/70 -> 6850/70

My best guess is that this comes in at $200, similar to how the 6850 vastly undercut the 5850 in price while being slower.

 

[Rezist]

280's already go for 200$ sometimes, this is probably going to to fill the 200-300$ range of cards. I could see it being faster at 1080 but losing at 1440 and up.

 

[DeathReborn]

I think R9 280L might have been a better name for this if it doesn't at least match R9 280/280X.

 

[Skurge]

285 with 2GB and 285X with 4GB? Seems like a clever way to do it.... for AMD that is.

 

[3DVagabond]

So we had the 7970,.. then the 7970 ghz edition.

Then 280x,...

And the 285? in late 2014 w/ 2gb VRAM? Sell it for $150 or get the heck out of town.

Huge let down if true. Should call it the 275, or just call it WTF.

Should have just lowered prices on the 280x and 280.

Agreed. This will likely be the most logical placement.

Very well could happen anyway. Tahiti has held it's pricing far longer than it should have and Pitcairn should be a $100 chip now, IMO.

 

[ShintaiDK]

275 is already taken tho

The only sensible thing left would be a 300 series number. Since AMD already excluded the 200 series in terms of numbering if the performance is less than 280/280X. But lets see the actual, people focus too much on memory bandwidth as a direct determination of performance.

AMD even went with slower memory on the 290/290X while the bus got 512bit. I am sure they would have picked faster if it mattered that much.

 

[spat55]

Why do they keep putting in 2GB VRAM? It really isn't enough anymore.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why do they keep putting in 2GB VRAM? It really isn't enough anymore.

It isnt? What exactly do you NEED 2GB+ for that these cards can handle? Simply show me when you need a 4GB GTX770 over a 2GB GTX770.

 

[SPBHM]

AMD even went with slower memory on the 290/290X while the bus got 512bit. I am sure they would have picked faster if it mattered that much.

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this, the 290 have higher memory bandwidth than the 280x/7970, clock went down, but they went from 384 to 512bits as you said,

the 285 would need 9GHz memory to get the same memory bandwidth as the 280x with just 256bit bus.

but yes, memory is not everything and they could make a faster card with lower memory bus/speed.

there is no R9 275 for desktop as far as I know!?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Sorry no 275, just 270/270X. Well then they could use 275.

But I do assume that from AMDs naming, then it will match or beat a 280X.

The only thing we really know sofar is the 2GB.

My point is simply that people overestimate the need for memory bandwidth and dooming this card in advance.

The 2900XT for example with 128GB/sec vs a 3870 with 72GB/sec. Much different perhaps, yes. But still. The 2900XT had 720m transistors, the 3870 had 666m. 3870 won.

 

[3DVagabond]

This will have been a bean counter's decision. Companies do stuff like this all of the time. They remove features and then charge a premium to get them back. I predict this will backfire on them.

 

[psolord]

Why do they keep putting in 2GB VRAM? It really isn't enough anymore.

For 1080p, I've rarely seen the framebuffer usage of my 7950s go above 2GBs. Also I am pretty sure that a large portion of this usage is used for storage of game resources and not rendering. These can be perfectly stored in system RAM.

I've seen games that take up more vram on my 7950s than my 570s, while I use the same settings and the game still runs great on both. For example Bioshock Infinity.

I won't say that more vram isn't better of course. That's one of the reasons I went with the 7950s. It's just not the end of the world.

Heavy game modders and/or 4k lovers, wouldn't take interest on this card anyway.

ps I still test quite a few games on my old 5850s and I'd say that they still make a decent job although some corners need to be cut here and there. The loss of quality isn't that bad in order for some games to run with just 1GB.

 

[3DVagabond]

For 1080p, I've rarely seen the framebuffer usage of my 7950s go above 2GBs. Also I am pretty sure that a large portion of this usage is used for storage of game resources and not rendering. These can be perfectly stored in system RAM.

I've seen games that take up more vram on my 7950s than my 570s, while I use the same settings and the game still runs great on both. For example Bioshock Infinity.

I won't say that more vram isn't better of course. That's one of the reasons I went with the 7950s. It's just not the end of the world.

Heavy game modders and/or 4k lovers, wouldn't take interest on this card anyway.

ps I still test quite a few games on my old 5850s and I'd say that they still make a decent job although some corners need to be cut here and there. The loss of quality isn't that bad in order for some games to run with just 1GB.

Still, you would hope that a card you buy today will give you a couple of years of usefulness. I don't see 2gig being satisfactory in 2 years. The 7970 will likely be more useful 4 years after it's introduction than this card will in 2 years.

 

[toyota]

I am still using 2GB today with 2560*1440. I really dont see the issue with it. Also they could have improved compressions etc to reduce memory need.

well here is some reality for you. 2gb is a limitation for settings something as fast as 285 could other wise handle. Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, Daylight, and Thief could run on max if they had more than 2gb.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why do they keep putting in 2GB VRAM? It really isn't enough anymore.

Of course it's enough man. Please don't propagate this myth, there are literally hundreds of thousands of gamers happily gaming away on 2GB cards, NV and AMD alike. Like anything else, if you jack up the resolution to 4K, with less than 3% of gamers out there use, then you'll likely have an issue with things get hairy on the screen and eye candy is up.

 

[Keysplayr]

well here is some reality for you. 2gb is a limitation for settings something as fast as 285 could other wise handle. Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, Daylight, and Thief could run on max if they had more than 2gb.

Have you seen the 285 run Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, Daylight, and Thief yet?
Maybe the designer has designed the GPU to not be so dependent on memory bandwidth? That would be special.

 

[ShintaiDK]

well here is some reality for you. 2gb is a limitation for settings something as fast as 285 could other wise handle. Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, Daylight, and Thief could run on max if they had more than 2gb.

Thief isnt one of them. Other 3 games I dont have.

But I assume you have a compare between say a 2GB and 4GB GTX770 for example to show me?

 

[toyota]

Thief isnt one of them. Other 3 games I dont have.

But I assume you have a compare between say a 2GB and 4GB GTX770 for example to show me?

if you keep up with games then you would already know those require more than 2gb for their max settings even at just 1080 except for Thief which is fine until 1440. settings a 285 should otherwise handle easily if its about as fast as the 280x.

Thief will peg every bit of my 3gb of vram at 1440 on max settings and high SSAA so yes Thief is one of them. and yes I know some games will allocate more vram than needed but it does need more than 2gb unless some patch came out that changed something.

anyone saying 2gb of vram is enough for 280/280x level cards is flat out wrong.

 

[Keysplayr]

if you keep up with games then you would already know those require more than 2gb for their max settings even at just 1080 except for Thief which is fine until 1440. settings a 285 should otherwise handle easily if its about as fast as the 280x.

Thief will peg every bit of my 3gb of vram at 1440 on max settings and high SSAA so yes Thief is one of them. and yes I know some games will allocate more vram than needed but it does need more than 2gb unless some patch came out that changed something.

anyone saying 2gb of vram is enough for 280/280x level cards is flat out wrong.

They will be fine for 1080p gaming. Everything isn't so cut and dry I'll admit, but don't forget that goes both ways.

 

[toyota]

They will be fine for 1080p gaming. Everything isn't so cut and dry I'll admit, but don't forget that goes both ways.

he was talking about 1440 plus I thought my overall point was simple and clear. I was only giving examples of games that need more than 2gb of vram to run at max settings. again settings that level of card could otherwise handle. 2gb is already a limitation NOW in a few cases but hey if some of you want to purchase 2gb cards go right ahead.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You havent showed me the compare between a 2 and 4GB card.

And no, I dont want to see VRAM usage numbers. I want to see actual FPS of the 2 cards. If its limited by the memory amount the FPS will plummet.

 

[Termie]

You havent showed me the compare between a 2 and 4GB card.

And no, I dont want to see VRAM usage numbers. I want to see actual FPS of the 2 cards. If its limited by the memory amount the FPS will plummet.

Here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...views/65636-pny-gtx-770-oc2-4gb-review-6.html

Some of these are clearly playable on the 770 4GB and not the 2GB model.

The truth is that almost no review sites have actually done this comparison, because in the case of every card that comes in both 2GB and 4GB variants, the 4GB is overpriced versus other cards that are on the market. Witness the 770 4GB that costs as much as a 290.

Anyway, 2GB is fine on a $200 card, and that's why I said earlier that this is the price the card should arrive at. There's a place for a 2GB card with 280X performance, specifically at $200 for 1080p gamers.