• 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.

[WCCF] AMD Radeon R9 390X Pictured

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Silverforce11 said:
Anything going from TSMC 28nm to GF 28nm is already going to get major power leakage reduction alone, without any uarch changes. Add some minor tweaks & redesigns.. viola, a very competitive Grenada SKU against 970/980.
Click to expand...

Is there any info that would suggest that they moved to GF for their GPU's?
 
Performance wise, R9 390X is only 10% faster than R9 290X. 5% is from the core clock increase from 1000MHz to 1050MHz. The other is most likely from higher bandwidth due to higher VRAM clock.


Performance wise its a huge meh. Looks like AMD have decided to try to rebadge and increase VRAM to have a change to sell these cards.

Fiji XT got whopping 2x8pin so I wonder if AMD managed to increase efficiency much over 290X. The card can draw 375W even though it have HBM so I need to see the TDP and everything before deciding to praise this card or not.
The two 8 pin could be to make overclocking headroom for the GPU, but I have some doubts about that.
Even the water cooling could be the only way to cool this card properly.

Lots of if`s and but`s about this card.
 
Last edited:
Cloudfire777 said:
Performance wise, R9 390X is only 10% faster than R9 290X. 5% is from the core clock increase from 1000MHz to 1050MHz. The other is most likely from higher bandwidth due to higher VRAM clock.

Performance wise its a huge meh. Looks like AMD have decided to try to rebadge and increase VRAM to clear out inventory.
Click to expand...

What was the performance jump from 4870 -> 4890 or 480 -> 580? About 10%. The major bonus came from new features or improved efficiency. Would Grenada be a good product if its R290X + 10% performance at 200W? I think it would do just fine.

AMD doesn't need much more performance at that segment, considering the 980 is ~10% faster than non-reference throttling R290X. Their only problem is the big power use gap.

My prediction still the same as it was:
Fiji XT WCE 65% above R290X. Fiji XT 60% (air) above R290X or ~10% above Titan X, Fiji Pro 50%, Fiji Pro 3rd tier 35%. With a new Grenada (Hawaii respin on GF) at 10% above R290X, that stack up very well top to bottom.
 
Noctifer616 said:
Is there any info that would suggest that they moved to GF for their GPU's?
Click to expand...

They signed a huge wafer contract (~$1B) with GloFo recently as per their conference call. There's no way they can meet their contractual demands if they kept on using TSMC.

Also, GloFo presentation already claimed they are making the first 2.5D stacking HBM massive GPU.

GloFo's node is advertised & publicly presented as offering higher performance and reduced power leakage.

As said, R290X + 10% perf at ~200W is nothing to scoff at, if its priced at a reasonable ~$399, which puts the Grenada Pro at ~R290X performance, would make a great deal at ~$299. If both have 8GB vram, it would offer a nice selling point against 970/980.

There's only one thing wrong with the R290/X, huge power usage gap compared to its competitors. Once that's resolved, its a very competitive product. GCN is a very strong uarch as shown with how it has matured and in recent titles its keeping up with 970/980. A little bump in perf and a big reduction in power, its a winner.
 
Last edited:
Cloudfire777 said:
Performance wise, R9 390X is only 10% faster than R9 290X. 5% is from the core clock increase from 1000MHz to 1050MHz. The other is most likely from higher bandwidth due to higher VRAM clock.


Performance wise its a huge meh. Looks like AMD have decided to try to rebadge and increase VRAM to have a change to sell these cards.
Click to expand...

That would put it very close to GTX980 in terms of performance. But it would offer double the VRAM. How about a price?

What would you prefer:
$550 GTX980
or
$300 GTX980 that uses 50Watts more?

I see a clear winner here.

But lets hold until reviews with any solid conclusions.
 
Silverforce11 said:
They signed a huge wafer contract (~$1B) with GloFo recently as per their conference call. There's no way they can meet their contractual demands if they kept on using TSMC.

Also, GloFo presentation already claimed they are making the first 2.5D stacking HBM massive GPU.
Click to expand...

If the contract is larger than what they did in the past and there won't be any new CPU's coming anytime soon I guess it makes sense if they shifted their GPU production to GF. I guess we will know more next month. Could be interesting if true.
 
The leaks make perfect sence. Updated Hawaii with up to 20% more performance than GTX980 at around 200W TDP according to ChipHell.

Also, FUDzilla and WCCFTech claimed that R9 390X will not beat the Titan X with performance only up to 20% higher than GTX 980.

I like this concept very much. 8 GB Updated Hawaii with performance higher than GTX980. I really hope that Apple will put those cards in new Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
Erenhardt said:
That would put it very close to GTX980 in terms of performance. But it would offer double the VRAM. How about a price?

What would you prefer:
$550 GTX980
or
$300 GTX980 that uses 50Watts more?

I see a clear winner here.

But lets hold until reviews with any solid conclusions.
Click to expand...

The winner is GTX 980 and have been for a long time now. Its a reason why AMD have been going down the drain financially and why Nvidia had huge sucess with GTX 980 and 970 taking new mrketshare every single month away from AMD. Despite 290X being much cheaper. The strategy isnt working. Not only is the profit margin for AMD most likely very low for the 290X cards, but they are not stopping Nvidia at all.

As long as the 390X is a rebrand, people will see through that and will pick the card with other benefits, like thermals and power and newer architectures. 10% better performance is a huge MEH. Even with 8GB VRAM. The card offer nothing new, unless it got GCN 1.3 with new features. Then we will talk. So yeah, lets wait and see.

Im not holding my breath though. For me Fiji XT is the only card that interest me.
 
Last edited:
290X with higher stock clocks is still a 290X. Higher stock clocks boosting it closer to the 980 wont really make it any faster for anyone that's willing to overclock.

So personally a higher stock clock doesn't make a 290X any more attractive to me.

Glo. said:
The leaks make perfect sence. Updated Hawaii with up to 20% more performancem than GTX980 at around 200W TDP according to chichrałam.

Also, FUDzilla and WCCFTech claimed that R9 390X will not beat the Titan X with performance only up to 20% higher than GTX 980.

I like this concept very much. 8 GB Updated Hawaii with performance higher than GTX980. I really hope than Apple will put those cards in new Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

You do realize that in order to achieve 20% over the 980 a hawaii chip has to be clocked in the 1300-1350MHz range?

Do you have any idea how much power a 1300MHz hawaii card pulls? 200W is laughable. Even twice that isn't enough.
 
Alatar said:
290X with higher stock clocks is still a 290X. Higher stock clocks boosting it closer to the 980 wont really make it any faster for anyone that's willing to overclock.

So personally a higher stock clock doesn't make a 290X any more attractive to me.



You do realize that in order to achieve 20% over the 980 a hawaii chip has to be clocked in the 1300-1350MHz range?

Do you have any idea how much power a 1300MHz hawaii card pulls? 200W is laughable. Even twice that isn't enough.
Click to expand...

The chip is surely a new revision as well as PCB, and as such it'll likely attain higher clocks and lower power draw. Not saying it's going to be earth shattering, but improvements to both of those areas none the less.

It could well match or surpass 980 performance but power consumption will still be a good chunk higher imho - better than current iteration Hawaii though.
 
Alatar said:
290X with higher stock clocks is still a 290X. Higher stock clocks boosting it closer to the 980 wont really make it any faster for anyone that's willing to overclock.
Click to expand...

You are under the illusion that it's a TSMC produced Hawaii with zero revisions or tweaks, as is current 100% R290X with 50mhz OC & a new sticker on it.

I'm confident you will be in for a surprise.
 
Cloudfire777 said:
The winner is GTX 980 and have been for a long time now. Its a reason why AMD have been going down the drain financially and why Nvidia had huge sucess with GTX 980 and 970 taking new mrketshare every single month away from AMD. Despite 290X being much cheaper. The strategy isnt working. Not only is the profit margin for AMD most likely very low for the 290X cards, but they are not stopping Nvidia at all.
Click to expand...

The winner is the 970 due to its great perf/$ and perf/w fitting in with the mid-range segment really well.

The big power use difference has been a real factor against R290/X.

You really think a 30W extra 390X with equal or better 980 performance with 8GB vram isn't competitive when its much cheaper?

That's entirely different from the current R290X vs 980. It's slower and uses ~80W more with the same vram count.
 
Silverforce11 said:
The winner is the 970 due to its great perf/$ and perf/w fitting in with the mid-range segment really well.

The big power use difference has been a real factor against R290/X.

You really think a 30W extra 390X with equal or better 980 performance with 8GB vram isn't competitive when its much cheaper?

That's entirely different from the current R290X vs 980. It's slower and uses ~80W more with the same vram count.
Click to expand...

As long as the TDP is 290W, they will not move many 390X cards against Nvidia`s 165W/145W GTX 980 and X 970. Don`t even begin the old power draw discussion with graph this and graph that. It is what it is.
I`m not even sure why we are even discussing this. Rebrands is garbage. Slapping on a new name and increasing the core clock by measly 50MHz is ridiculous. Defending a 1.5 year old rebrand is also ridiculous. Nothing else to say.

I`m done talking about them. Move on. Fiji XT or GX 980Ti water cooled are the only cards im interested in. The only cards worth investing in. Nvidia can keep their sucky GTX 980 that offered very little performance over previous cards, AMD their rebrands.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
The winner is the 970 due to its great perf/$ and perf/w fitting in with the mid-range segment really well.

The big power use difference has been a real factor against R290/X.

You really think a 30W extra 390X with equal or better 980 performance with 8GB vram isn't competitive when its much cheaper?

That's entirely different from the current R290X vs 980. It's slower and uses ~80W more with the same vram count.
Click to expand...

If that is the 390X that emerges, and it's priced reasonably, I might buy two rather than a single 980ti.
 
Cloudfire777 said:
As long as the TDP is 290W, they will not move many 390X cards against Nvidia`s 165W/145W GTX 980 and X 970. Don`t even begin the old power draw discussion with graph this and graph that. It is what it is.
I`m not even sure why we are even discussing this. Rebrands is garbage. Slapping on a new name and increasing the core clock by measly 50MHz is ridiculous. Defending a 1.5 year old rebrand is also ridiculous. Nothing else to say.

I`m done talking about them. Move on. Fiji XT or GX 980Ti water cooled are the only cards im interested in. The only cards worth investing in. Nvidia can keep their sucky GTX 980 that offered very little performance over previous cards, AMD their rebrands.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't understand.

You think a 580 is a 480 rebrand?
 
Silverforce11 said:
You are under the illusion that it's a TSMC produced Hawaii with zero revisions or tweaks, as is current 100% R290X with 50mhz OC & a new sticker on it.

I'm confident you will be in for a surprise.
Click to expand...

If you are going stock, it should be a great product for the price, and maybe steal away some 970 sales. For those who want 'balls-to-the-wall' overclocking potential, it will be tough to beat an aftermarket 980/970 UNLESS we see that the tweaks on the 390x really allow for a greater OC ceiling that what we see today.

The price is definitely compelling, but I don't see it being THAT much more attractive than the current 290/x options.

This seems a lot like the 480/470 -> 580/570 move from NV and as RS has stated, the best option might be to get a cheap 290 or 290x (or 2) now and enjoy them at a discount. The extra RAM might be nice if you are 1440P or greater, but 2x290s would be a great stop-gap solution until 14/16nm...

Edit: I sort of feel abandoned by both AMD/NV this time around. I am comfortable spending ~$500 on a top-tier GPU (or ~$1000 for 2x), there likely will not be an option for me until late this year, the way things seem to be going. Looking more and more like that I will have to limp by on my 970 until 2016... 🙁
 
Last edited:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-fiji-xt-photo.html

Guru3d just posted this

index.php



Dual 8 pin like the 295x2. Interesting. The image quality is questionable, although it lines up with the other images so far.
 
Silverforce11 said:
You clearly didn't understand.

You think a 580 is a 480 rebrand?
Click to expand...

No. You don`t seem to understand the difference.

GTX 480 was a GF100 and GTX 580 was a GF110. In addition to that GTX 480 had 448 cores and GTX 580 had 512 cores.
R9 390X might be a pure GCN 1.1 290X rebrand and we know it have exact same cores as R9 290X.

Try to research a little more.

.vodka said:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-fiji-xt-photo.html

Guru3d just posted this

index.php



Dual 8 pin like the 295x2. Interesting. The image quality is questionable, although it lines up with the other images so far.
Click to expand...
It was posted a while ago.
8+8pin certainly makes me wonder the TDP of this thing.
I also wonder why its seems so thick?
 
Last edited:
Cloudfire777 said:
No. You don`t seem to understand the difference.

GTX 480 was a GF100 and GTX 580 was a GF110. In addition to that GTX 480 had 448 cores and GTX 580 had 512 cores.
R9 390X might be a pure GCN 1.1 rebrand and we know it have exact same cores as R9 290X.

Try to research a little more.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree here. IF (and that's a big IF) the numbers posted above are correct, 10% performance improvement with 5% of that bumped clock-speed would indicate the same cheap. maybe some process tweaks and so forth, but 5% improvement is definitely VERY minor. The only other area available for a considerable improvement is power consumption. I guess we will have to see.
 
Alatar said:
You do realize that in order to achieve 20% over the 980 a hawaii chip has to be clocked in the 1300-1350MHz range?

Do you have any idea how much power a 1300MHz hawaii card pulls? 200W is laughable. Even twice that isn't enough.
Click to expand...
YMUhMS9.jpg

y8sAjvf.png

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-1182382-1-1.html

Its from November last year. 20% faster GPU than GTX980 while using 8% more power.

Nothing about memory count, memory type, anything. However. Later leaks on WCCF, and FUDzilla suggested that R9 390X will not be faster than Titan X, but only up to 20% faster than GTX980.

Is it based on Hawaii? Core count of the card can suggest that, but the technology inside the card can be completely different.

So far, leaks from ChipHell look incredibly legit. Extremely spot on.

If R9 390X is really respin of Hawaii, the photo of XFX 390 can suggest that card need smaller cooling system, more compact in height. And that indicates smaller power consumption as well.

Also, the guys from there were suggesting in November of last year that R9 380X could comparable to full Tonga. Coincidence?
 
Last edited:
If they are using an interposer to connect two 4gb stacked memory chips together to have a gfx card with 8gb of video ram, could they theoretically use interposer tech to connect three 4gb stacks and have 12gb of video ram? Is it theoretically possible? As far as I can tell have said so far is that HBM 1 is limited to 4gb a stack, what if they were to use 3 stacks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top