[Sweclockers] Radeon 380X coming late spring, almost 50% improvement over 290X

[n0x1ous]

Looking very strong, which is good because NVidia will have to lower it's prices.

So how much faster is the 390x going to be compared to the 380x?

I though the consensus was leaning towards 390x being the dual gpu part and the x80 being flagship single gpu again

 

[n0x1ous]

Why not?



Are you choosing to ignore the potential 50% gains over a R290X with a tiny increase in power usage (we're talking 7W extra!)?



Why can't enthusiasts be happy with a high power, high performance card? In terms of efficiency gains, if the bench is real, that's already a major efficiency gain on top of massive performance gains.



Hybrid water cooling makes for the best reference design on enthusiast setup. Who can't fit a 120mm rad in their high-end rigs these days? Who wouldn't benefit from reduced temps, noise and heat exhausted out their case?



Water cooling is a damn winner, don't try to smear crap on it, it won't stick.

Amen. Hybrid AIO is exactly what I want out of a reference card. Sexy looks like 295x2 and low noise and all the heat out the back.

 

[StinkyPinky]

So the 380x is the new 290x? Is there going to be a 380 (aka 290)?

 

[garagisti]

Why not?

Are you choosing to ignore the potential 50% gains over a R290X with a tiny increase in power usage (we're talking 7W extra!)?

Why can't enthusiasts be happy with a high power, high performance card? In terms of efficiency gains, if the bench is real, that's already a major efficiency gain on top of massive performance gains.

Hybrid water cooling makes for the best reference design on enthusiast setup. Who can't fit a 120mm rad in their high-end rigs these days? Who wouldn't benefit from reduced temps, noise and heat exhausted out their case?

Water cooling is a damn winner, don't try to smear crap on it, it won't stick.

Hey, it is AMD, but if it were Nvidia, it will be called innovation. Nevermind that the rumours suggest that the performance is as good as is suggested for a card on the same node. 40% or so, iirc you used to see such gains when you changed nodes. Anyways, Maxwell, when it does the same as 780Ti and a little better for slightly lower power, 'miracle!'

 

[tential]

Hey, it is AMD, but if it were Nvidia, it will be called innovation. Nevermind that the rumours suggest that the performance is as good as is suggested for a card on the same node. 40% or so, iirc you used to see such gains when you changed nodes. Anyways, Maxwell, when it does the same as 780Ti and a little better for slightly lower power, 'miracle!'

Sometimes, a certain company just is the trend setter.

Similar to Apple. People can do things before Apple and it's "too nerdy/complicated/etc." If Apple does the same thing it's a revolutionary experience.

When Nvidia releases an AIO Cooler it'll finally be accepted.

Til now, since only AMD is doing it, it's a "necessary evil".

 

[destrekor]

Why not?

Are you choosing to ignore the potential 50% gains over a R290X with a tiny increase in power usage (we're talking 7W extra!)?

Why can't enthusiasts be happy with a high power, high performance card? In terms of efficiency gains, if the bench is real, that's already a major efficiency gain on top of massive performance gains.

Hybrid water cooling makes for the best reference design on enthusiast setup. Who can't fit a 120mm rad in their high-end rigs these days? Who wouldn't benefit from reduced temps, noise and heat exhausted out their case?

Water cooling is a damn winner, don't try to smear crap on it, it won't stick.

Should water cooling be required? Are you saying that, if you want to buy an enthusiast GPU, you have to accept watercooling? It does not work in every computer case, not everyone is ready to accept it. Yes, quite a few gamers WILL accept it, and it's a neat solution... but it shouldn't be a requirement to enter the enthusiast market. I find that to simply be taking things too far.

If their hardware is not mature enough to reach that performance level without requiring a custom AIO solution to simply stay within reasonable temp levels, they need to slow down until they can shrink it or reach higher efficiency, or they seriously risk letting Nvidia gain further marketshare. Quite a few will accept AMD's solution, but many, I can bet, will not.

Let me be frank: I find that if these benches are accurate and AMD has improved the efficiency that much, that's amazing. But if they only went up 7W but need AIO now, that tells you that the base was too high in the first place, and it seems the base measurements were based on a 95ºC reference if I have found the right sources, which is frankly ridiculous beyond argument IMO.

I WANT AMD to make a damn good card, and this is in the right direction if current leaks are accurate. However, if the solution still requires an AIO cooler, we're treading in the wrong direction. No single-GPU card should ever REQUIRE an AIO solution. Dual-GPU? Sure, why not, that can be the cost of two GPUs on a single PCB sometimes. But I can't think of a reason why ANY flagship *standard market* computer part should require *extreme* cooling measures. Make no mistake: no water cooling system, of any variety, is anything but *extreme* in the consumer market.

Frankly, I can't even work with them in my current case, not without being forced to go with an AIO cooler on my CPU too. This is especially true if I want to go SLI/Crossfire (which may be required for multi-monitor or 4K at ultra settings for awhile). Just because my situation won't permit a 120mm radiator (without going with inefficient airflow routes in the case, like side-panel exhaust), that means I can't have an enthusiast GPU? Since when? If technology is to follow the same march of progress as every other sector of technology, then we should have more performance AND greater efficiency. AMD might be making a more efficient product, but that's only when comparing to their own products, not the market in general.

I hope it's a terrific product, but if it requires AIO, I'm out of their market from the start.

 

[Silverforce11]

Should water cooling be required? Are you saying that, if you want to buy an enthusiast GPU, you have to accept watercooling? It does not work in every computer case, not everyone is ready to accept it. Yes, quite a few gamers WILL accept it, and it's a neat solution... but it shouldn't be a requirement to enter the enthusiast market. I find that to simply be taking things too far.

You make it seem like there's only ONE model.

There's always custom variants from AIBs, typical MSI, ASUS, Sapphire etc etc.

For those who want water cooling out of the box, they can pick this new design from AMD. Choice. It's good.

ps. If NV release a 300W monster single GPU with massive performance over a 980 and slap a water cooler on it (so it'll run cool, quiet, dumping heat OUT your case), it'll be an automatic winner for the enthusiast market. Don't deny it. I mean who the heck buys premium GPUs that could end up selling for >$700 and can't afford a proper case to fit 120mm rads?! Really, crapping on water cooling... must be the new trend.

 

[destrekor]

Amen. Hybrid AIO is exactly what I want out of a reference card. Sexy looks like 295x2 and low noise and all the heat out the back.

It's a great solution, but not for everyone.

Sometimes, a certain company just is the trend setter.

Similar to Apple. People can do things before Apple and it's "too nerdy/complicated/etc." If Apple does the same thing it's a revolutionary experience.

When Nvidia releases an AIO Cooler it'll finally be accepted.

Til now, since only AMD is doing it, it's a "necessary evil".

You won't hear that from me, at the least. I don't like it, period.

I like the idea, but not the requirement. Get the AIB partners to release multiple solutions, a reference AIO cooler and whatever cooler they want, or, heck, two different "reference" coolers, leave it to the consumer to decide which they want. Do it like EVGA: they have some of their cards available in both ACX and the blower style.

 

[Paul98]

it's the same power as the 290x, why would water cooling be required? There are plenty of air coolers that do a great job.

 

[garagisti]

Should water cooling be required? Are you saying that, if you want to buy an enthusiast GPU, you have to accept watercooling? It does not work in every computer case, not everyone is ready to accept it. Yes, quite a few gamers WILL accept it, and it's a neat solution... but it shouldn't be a requirement to enter the enthusiast market. I find that to simply be taking things too far.

If their hardware is not mature enough to reach that performance level without requiring a custom AIO solution to simply stay within reasonable temp levels, they need to slow down until they can shrink it or reach higher efficiency, or they seriously risk letting Nvidia gain further marketshare. Quite a few will accept AMD's solution, but many, I can bet, will not.

Let me be frank: I find that if these benches are accurate and AMD has improved the efficiency that much, that's amazing. But if they only went up 7W but need AIO now, that tells you that the base was too high in the first place, and it seems the base measurements were based on a 95ºC reference if I have found the right sources, which is frankly ridiculous beyond argument IMO.

I WANT AMD to make a damn good card, and this is in the right direction if current leaks are accurate. However, if the solution still requires an AIO cooler, we're treading in the wrong direction. No single-GPU card should ever REQUIRE an AIO solution. Dual-GPU? Sure, why not, that can be the cost of two GPUs on a single PCB sometimes. But I can't think of a reason why ANY flagship *standard market* computer part should require *extreme* cooling measures. Make no mistake: no water cooling system, of any variety, is anything but *extreme* in the consumer market.

Frankly, I can't even work with them in my current case, not without being forced to go with an AIO cooler on my CPU too. This is especially true if I want to go SLI/Crossfire (which may be required for multi-monitor or 4K at ultra settings for awhile). Just because my situation won't permit a 120mm radiator (without going with inefficient airflow routes in the case, like side-panel exhaust), that means I can't have an enthusiast GPU? Since when? If technology is to follow the same march of progress as every other sector of technology, then we should have more performance AND greater efficiency. AMD might be making a more efficient product, but that's only when comparing to their own products, not the market in general.

I hope it's a terrific product, but if it requires AIO, I'm out of their market from the start.

Is the rumoured performance indicative of a massive increase in performance/ watt?
Yes.

Is AIO water cooling a bad thing?
No, apparently one can easily cool a card with twice as much power as we can see on 295x2, and with more performance to come.

Will there be other custom coolers?
Rumours are positive that there may be air-cooled ones (as per a comment left on chiphell). AIO water cooler is suggested to be the reference.

This certainly will have its full 4gb that AMD is promising, and you can easily bet your bottom dollar that it is HBM. If it is HBM, it will be 1024 bit card if it is advertised such. Best of all, it is not hard to imagine that it will all be competitively priced, given their track record in such matters.

 

[garagisti]

it's the same power as the 290x, why would water cooling be required? There are plenty of air coolers that do a great job.

I think it is because of the bad press they got with the 290s. Surely the reference cards were rather shoddily equipped. Then again, the paid shills for a press never moved on from reference, and always quoted performance figures from reference 290s against custom cooled competition, whether it was the 7XX series or the 9xx series. I'm sure even they will be looking curiously to reviews that may come, with AIO water cooler as standard. Certainly temps and noise wouldn't be a problem, and it should allow for a decent headroom to oc the card. I wonder if the review sites will limit their reviews against only air cooled cards, citing that it is only fair

 

[destrekor]

You make it seem like there's only ONE model.

There's always custom variants from AIBs, typical MSI, ASUS, Sapphire etc etc.

For those who want water cooling out of the box, they can pick this new design from AMD. Choice. It's good.

ps. If NV release a 300W monster single GPU with massive performance over a 980 and slap a water cooler on it (so it'll run cool, quiet, dumping heat OUT your case), it'll be an automatic winner for the enthusiast market. Don't deny it. I mean who the heck buys premium GPUs that could end up selling for >$700 and can't afford a proper case to fit 120mm rads?! Really, crapping on water cooling... must be the new trend.

Crapping on? That's how you see it?

I'm simply saying not everyone wants to. Or, like me, I never intended to go water cooling so I apparently made compromises, just getting a case that had what I wanted and seemed to be reviewed well.

I was in the market when premium GPUs were always blower style, so the heat didn't even go into the case. That's why I'm having trouble figuring out which cards to go with now, because now all the top end cards put heat in the case, and the blowers are generally not that good except on Nvidia cards.

Don't get me wrong, I expect many do want AIO coolers, and yes, when Nvidia brings them, people are going to be very happy. I won't be, not if it's a requirement.

For Nvidia, I doubt it will ever be, because I don't expect that high of wattage from them anymore.

From AMD, I question how AMD might make them as reference, yet another company could actually slap on a standard cooler. If AMD goes AIO for reference, there's a damn good reason, else they wouldn't go that step. That requires far more computer space. Standard AIO water-cool GPUs are likely to always be dual-slot, so not only do you have a dual-slot cooler, now you have a fan slot taken up too.

Again, not everyone plans ahead assuming water cooling. I have enough space for fans, and... if I changed my CPU cooler, I could go to an AIO for CPU cooling and then have a fan spot open for a 120mm AIO, but I'd have to find a second, far less ideal spot for a second card's cooler.

I guess my next system build I'll have to get a larger tower than the 400R - I had never expected AIO cooling solutions to become standard for enthusiast parts, it was always a custom market solution for efficient cooling or extreme overclocking (almost always both, a focus on the former).
I skipped on the H100 at the time of my build for the NH-D14 because it seemed the Noctua approach netted approx. the same results with, well, less complexity. I'm not putting water in my case unless it's necessary, I guess that's just how I view a CPU. To each his own. Water is freaking awesome and a damned neat approach, and I've considered it from time to time, but just don't care to do it personally.

I'm not suggesting the approach be banned, so come on, let's be mature about this. I only argue it's not for me on the base of the matter, and it's definitely not for every computer case. However, there hasn't been a time before when most computer cases could not house a flagship SLI/CF setup.

Are you relatively new to PC building, is that it? Because watercooling was always the fringe, and many enthusiast builders never worried about building a system to accommodate any kind of watercooling solution. To force even AIO solutions onto everyone is not trending in the correct direction for enthusiast PC systems IMHO. As an easy option or an AIB's custom approach? Awesome! Perhaps for my next build, I might just go for that! But many don't want it, or can't house it.

 

[Silverforce11]

Are you relatively new to PC building, is that it? .... But many don't want it, or can't house it.

Nope, most of my teen & adult life as revolved around hobby PC building & work in PC hardware distribution & e/retail.

If you don't want it, you can pick other variants. End of story.

 

[destrekor]

Nope, most of my teen & adult life as revolved around hobby PC building & work in PC hardware distribution & e/retail.

If you don't want it, you can pick other variants. End of story.

If you read what I actually argued, that's all I want. I don't want it required. As an option, great, offer what you want. Just don't make it the price of entry for the enthusiast model.

But I am still worried that the next card might require MORE power than the current cards. From the tests I've seen, many of the best coolers can't get the cards even under 70ºC, most trending towards 80ºC, whereas the reference for the 290X is apparently around 90ºC or higher. That's insane. So you might be able to get a custom non-AIO cooler, but it's going to be rather hot, put that in SLI/CF, and a lot hotter.


I'm also laughing at all this "whaa... if Nvidia did it, everyone would be happy! But AMD does it, they all whine!"
Last time I checked, every time Nvidia made a super hot and loud GPU (back then, custom coolers were rarer, and not all that good in comparison - the custom cooler approach is a new thing), the whole internet cried foul. They've had some hot cards that weren't excessively loud in blower-style (like the GTX 280-series) and people complained.

 

[Silverforce11]

But I am still worried that the next card might require MORE power than the current cards. From the tests I've seen, many of the best coolers can't get the cards even under 70ºC, most trending towards 80ºC, whereas the reference for the 290X is apparently around 90ºC or higher. That's insane. So you might be able to get a custom non-AIO cooler, but it's going to be rather hot, put that in SLI/CF, and a lot hotter.

You should check how hot Powercolor PCS+, Sapphire Tri-X or Vapor-X R290X are if you're so concerned with heat.

We're adding 7W to that, pretty sure it wouldn't make a dent into what those custom coolers are capable of.

 

[garagisti]

If you read what I actually argued, that's all I want. I don't want it required. As an option, great, offer what you want. Just don't make it the price of entry for the enthusiast model.

But I am still worried that the next card might require MORE power than the current cards. From the tests I've seen, many of the best coolers can't get the cards even under 70ºC, most trending towards 80ºC, whereas the reference for the 290X is apparently around 90ºC or higher. That's insane. So you might be able to get a custom non-AIO cooler, but it's going to be rather hot, put that in SLI/CF, and a lot hotter.


I'm also laughing at all this "whaa... if Nvidia did it, everyone would be happy! But AMD does it, they all whine!"
Last time I checked, every time Nvidia made a super hot and loud GPU (back then, custom coolers were rarer, and not all that good in comparison - the custom cooler approach is a new thing), the whole internet cried foul. They've had some hot cards that weren't excessively loud in blower-style (like the GTX 280-series) and people complained.

I remember you suggesting that you may be interested in GM200, and how much power do you think that takes? Would you assume 250W to be a reasonable guess, given that it is going to have about 50% more shaders, and more resources for compute than a bog-standard 980? Heck, even if they actually clocked it lower, one may be OC'ing, thereby breaching the TDP specified. 250+ to 290 with water cooling. Meh...

Even otherwise, if you want air-cooled cards, there are air-cooled cards which will be coming, as i mentioned in my earlier post. On the other hand, a reference water cooled card is incredible value to be had, if priced right and performance is seemingly compelling enough.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977-5.html

So yes, as we can see a VaporX 290x can use a lot of power, but can stay very quiet, and cool. Its a card with full 8gb of gddr5. That alone must use crazy amounts of power.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think it is because of the bad press they got with the 290s. Surely the reference cards were rather shoddily equipped. Then again, the paid shills for a press never moved on from reference, and always quoted performance figures from reference 290s against custom cooled competition, whether it was the 7XX series or the 9xx series. I'm sure even they will be looking curiously to reviews that may come, with AIO water cooler as standard. Certainly temps and noise wouldn't be a problem, and it should allow for a decent headroom to oc the card. I wonder if the review sites will limit their reviews against only air cooled cards, citing that it is only fair

If they have two modes make sure the performance mode is labeled "default" too.

 

[destrekor]

You should check how hot Powercolor PCS+, Sapphire Tri-X or Vapor-X R290X are if you're so concerned with heat.

We're adding 7W to that, pretty sure it wouldn't make a dent into what those custom coolers are capable of.

I did. That's where the 70º+ figure came from. And yes, if that is an accurate measurement, the coolers as they are should be able to handle that.

But those are not good temps for those cards to run at, plain and simple. They draw more power at that temp, which means they produce more waste heat.

I'm not happy with the idea of cards running, with maximum cooling from the highest rated aftermarket coolers, well into the 70s. That they seem to be ensuring the same exact outcome will be the norm for this new generation, is a little distressing. Sure, you can get ways to work around it, or simply suck it up and take the heat. I'm just arguing this is not good for the market, plain and simple. It gives Nvidia a leg to stand up on by being the far more efficient cooler, which, believe or not, plenty of enthusiast gamers actually do make decisions based on such metrics for a variety of reasons, or choose Nvidia for reasons such as Linux support or other specific feature. Due to that, whatever Nvidia decides to price their cards at, they will be at least moderately successful, so AMD is under far more pressure than Nvidia would be to create a more compelling GPU in every way they can. They're trying in all the right ways, except addressing the architecture's underlying power draw and heat output.

That's not to say they aren't improving. They have apparently figured out a way to eek out perhaps 30-50% more graphical/computational ability out of the same power draw, likely at a similar transistor count, so they have made strides in increasing the efficiency of their architecture. I just don't think they have done enough, in that they need another generation to reach the full potential of the architecture as they continue to improve upon it.

 

[garagisti]

If they have two modes make sure the performance mode is labeled "default" too.

Good advice, may be you could contact Roy on twitter and let him know given you thought of it. I"d have only one setting, but if two must be had, then it should be dealt with as you suggested. It would certainly reduce scope for benchmarketeers to skew things this or that way.

 

[Silverforce11]

I did. That's where the 70º+ figure came from. And yes, if that is an accurate measurement, the coolers as they are should be able to handle that.

But those are not good temps for those cards to run at, plain and simple. They draw more power at that temp, which means they produce more waste heat.

I'm not happy with the idea of cards running, with maximum cooling from the highest rated aftermarket coolers, well into the 70s.

You're not happy with running GPUs at 65C or greater?

Hmm. Hmmm! Yes, I am lost for words.

Edit: Not sure what you are expecting from air cooling. Since you don't like water cooling but you're not happy with running GPUs at those temps... well below what they are designed to handle. I don't understand.

 

[tential]

He mentions heat and ignores the fact that the GTX 970 was running hotter and louder.

K....

 

[destrekor]

You're not happy with running GPUs at 65C or greater?

Hmm. Hmmm! Yes, I am lost for words.

Edit: Not sure what you are expecting from air cooling. Since you don't like water cooling but you're not happy with running GPUs at those temps... well below what they are designed to handle. I don't understand.

My bad. That number was lower than ones I previously saw.

And that EVGA SSC seems to be a very hot example for a 970.

(No, I am not comparing to the 290X in these images, I realize those are reference design and not the better coolers from AIBs)

Let's be fair here: regardless of what AIBs can make happen, AMD made the card to run at 90+. Can these cards HANDLE that? Sure. Is it good? Eh.. not really. If it's fully within the designed spec, it should be fine. But it's a tremendous waste of power, which means an awful amount of extra heat. If the cards are kept cool enough, they should draw less power. So the AIBs came to the rescue, that's good. AMD is relying on this instead of creating a card that doesn't need extravagant cooling solutions.

You guys take one thing I say and jump on it like rabid wolves, yet ignore the greater points I stress.

It's like you guys can't comprehend that, OMG, I have actually agreed with most of what you have said. I guess I should make it more clear, in that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate and also stressing market consideration, alongside gamer preference and simply an appeal for technological progress.

 

[garagisti]

You're not happy with running GPUs at 65C or greater?

Hmm. Hmmm! Yes, I am lost for words.

Edit: Not sure what you are expecting from air cooling. Since you don't like water cooling but you're not happy with running GPUs at those temps... well below what they are designed to handle. I don't understand.

Don't forget to mention that it has 8gb of gddr5, which is running on 512-bit bus. It is not some 3.5gb+.5gb on less than 256 bit, stripped of double precision card, with which the power consumption is being compared.

 

[tential]

I should make it more clear, in that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate and also stressing market consideration, alongside gamer preference and simply an appeal for technological progress.

Really don't need people doing this... ever...

 

[Carfax83]

I though the consensus was leaning towards 390x being the dual gpu part and the x80 being flagship single gpu again

I'm pretty sure the 390x is a single core video card. After some quick googling, I found that the 390x is projected to be 65% faster than the 290x, which would make it 15% faster than the 380x.

Kind of makes sense, as AMD usually don't have very large deltas between their halo card and their main high end performance part.