[WCCF] AMD Radeon R9 390X Pictured

[LTC8K6]

Because they show how card behaves at specific resolution in relation to other GPU. In which is R9 290X.

Also, both benchmarks are dated before release of the cards(GTX 980 Ti is right now, Fiji is few days in future).

And how that card performs without OC? its slower than Titan X, which should be obvious.

Both stock and overclock are there:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9306/74813.png

 

[Glo.]

Both stock and overclock are there:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9306/74813.png

You look at the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X and between them.

What you don't take to count is that Chiphell as a point of mark took R9 290X. How much more performance the card give from 290X. And from that point of view, the percentages make more sence. Both on ChipHell and the rest of sites.

 

[thehotsung8701A]

Thats from ChipHell.

If we coount this there are 4 versions with dual GPU.

And yet, Fury with water cooling and should have 8 GB of HBM on single die.

Also, ive checked the benchmarks from Chiphell, that were posted before.

It turns out that cut down Fiji, with 4 GB of HBM and 599$ price tag will not be faster than GTX 980Ti.

I'm not sure what Chiphell is?

So is an 8GB HBM with 4096 core at $850 a better deal than the GTX 980ti at $650 in your opinion?

Also I take it the AMD Fury won't come with any free games?

 

[Glo.]

I'm not sure what Chiphell is?

So is an 8GB HBM with 4096 core at $850 a better deal than the GTX 980ti at $650 in your opinion?

Also I take it the AMD Fury won't come with any free games?

I have completely no idea. Im speculating so far, based on those benches from ChipHell site. And price tags that were on that site.

From my point of view, based on those benches, AMD Fury with 8 GB of HBM will be even faster than Titan X at better price tag.

But again, im still taking it with gigantic grain of salt.

I have not specified. At those benchmarks Fiji XT has 4 GB of RAM, and 1000 MHz core clock. And its faster than Titan X.
We have seen leak on Chiphell today earlier, that we might see 8 GB version with 1150 MHz core clock. So that would make it even faster than that Fiji XT chip.

Whether its fake or not, we will see really soon now.

 

[96Firebird]

You look at the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X and between them.

What you don't take to count is that Chiphell as a point of mark took R9 290X. How much more performance the card give from 290X. And from that point of view, the percentages make more sence. Both on ChipHell and the rest of sites.

The ChipHell chart shows a difference of 10% between the Titan X and the 980 Ti with 19 games @ 4K. TPU shows a difference of 4% between the Titan X and the 980 Ti with 21 games @ 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html

 

[Glo.]

The ChipHell chart shows a difference of 10% between the Titan X and the 980 Ti with 19 games @ 4K. TPU shows a difference of 4% between the Titan X and the 980 Ti with 21 games @ 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html

Yes, I know but ChipHell points the mark on R9 290X. On TPU the mark from which is the rest of benchmark is on the 980 Ti itself.

Thats what makes confusion.

If the mark on ChipHell benches would be on 980Ti the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X would be at around 4-6%. Which would be completely in line with rest of reviews.

 

[LTC8K6]

You look at the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X and between them.

What you don't take to count is that Chiphell as a point of mark took R9 290X. How much more performance the card give from 290X. And from that point of view, the percentages make more sence. Both on ChipHell and the rest of sites.

Chiphell was wrong, period.

They were wrong when they first posted the info, and they are still wrong.

You are not making any sense, so I'll just let you go on.

 

[soccerballtux]

basically, I'm going to become an AMD bot for the 24 hours and continue posting absolutely nothing of value until computex

Infraction issued for thread crapping.

-Rvenger

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, I know but ChipHell points the mark on R9 290X. On TPU the mark from which is the rest of benchmark is on the 980 Ti itself.

Thats what makes confusion.

If the mark on ChipHell benches would be on 980Ti the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X would be at around 4-6%. Which would be completely in line with rest of reviews.

sweclockers used the 290X as a 100 % reference, not chiphell...

http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/9933?key=923d6ff6dc760e76e7f2ab9e9bb25c6a

 

[96Firebird]

Yes, I know but ChipHell points the mark on R9 290X. On TPU the mark from which is the rest of benchmark is on the 980 Ti itself.

Thats what makes confusion.

So? You can easily do the math (which I did in my post) and see the the ChipHell chart does not line up with actual reviews. ComputerBase.de gives the Titan X a 1% lead in 18 games @ 4k.

I'm trying to think of other websites that also do performance summaries, but it is looking more and more like the ChipHell chart doesn't relate to actual results between the 980 Ti and Titan X.

If the mark on ChipHell benches would be on 980Ti the difference between 980 Ti and Titan X would be at around 4-6%. Which would be completely in line with rest of reviews.

Not quite... 146.3/132.7 = 1.10, meaning the Titan X is 10% faster than the 980 Ti.

 

[Glo.]

LTC@ ChipHell also took R9 290X as reference mark.

If you guys will looks at the clocks, and the differences, than yes it makes sence.

But lets leave it on now. We all three have our own opinions.

 

[exar333]

LTC@ ChipHell also took R9 290X as reference mark.

If you guys will looks at the clocks, and the differences, than yes it makes sence.

But lets leave it on now. We all three have our own opinions.

I am not defending the Chiphell benches (actually far from it) but these are OLD. All sorts of things could influence the performance of the 980Ti (pre-release) vs. what we see now. The clocks look about right, but maybe the preview version was poorly cooled and boosted crappy. Maybe the drivers were not optimized. etc. etc.

We are talking about a few % that the 980Ti makes-up for with better boosts vs. the TX...

All that said, I could have 'guessed' 6 months ago and just made-up numbers to hit between 90-99% of the TX performance and said '980Ti SPOILERZ!!' and might still be quoted...just saying.

We have been speculating on the 390/x (now 'Fury') full Tonga, expanded Tonga, 8GB HBM, 4GB limits, 2x8GB configs, and everything based on mostly the same re-hashed rumors.

Its about time for some real info....until then, we will just keep spinning.

 

[Head1985]

That chiphell "leak" is 7 months old

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, we have 980ti cards to play with now.

There is no need to look at anything but current factual data.

 

[B-Riz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
Then AMD is really stupid, and I'd wonder about buying anything of theirs in the future.


AMD would be stupid to turn down contracts with Apple. It's free marketing (and some of the best marketing in the world) for AMD, not to mention guaranteed money. So what, AMD turns down a contract with Applejust so they can leak specs and possibly sway a handful of on-the-fence tech nerds? Give me a break.

Truth.

Apple is the best marketing company in the world.

 

[DownTheSky]

So what you're basically saying is, we're not getting any leaks because of Apple.

 

[freeskier93]

So what you're basically saying is, we're not getting any leaks because of Apple.

It's very possible. WWDC is right after Computex and it has been speculated that Apple will be refreshing the Mac Pro, so timing would be perfect. AMD takes the stage this week to announce/hype up their top of the line 300 series with HBM, then Apple takes stage next week and announces a Mac Pro refresh with AMD graphics using HBM and furthers the hype. All of this hot off the heels of Apple dumping Nvidia completely and going AMD for dGPU in the MBP.

People keep saying Nvidia dropping the 980Ti is a blow to AMD but I would say the exact opposite. Nvidia has played their hand price wise, which is better for AMD. If they respond correctly to Nvidia's new prices they'll be in a really good position next year for the switch to 14/16 nm, being a year ahead in HBM.

Assuming AMD can actually deliver though on performance this could be a great turning point for AMD in the graphics department.

 

[B-Riz]

It's very possible. WWDC is right after Computex and it has been speculated that Apple will be refreshing the Mac Pro, so timing would be perfect. AMD takes the stage this week to announce/hype up their top of the line 300 series with HBM, then Apple takes stage next week and announces a Mac Pro refresh with AMD graphics using HBM and furthers the hype. All of this hot off the heels of Apple dumping Nvidia completely and going AMD for dGPU in the MBP.

People keep saying Nvidia dropping the 980Ti is a blow to AMD but I would say the exact opposite. Nvidia has played their hand price wise, which is better for AMD. If they respond correctly to Nvidia's new prices they'll be in a really good position next year for the switch to 14/16 nm, being a year ahead in HBM.

Assuming AMD can actually deliver though on performance this could be a great turning point for AMD in the graphics department.

It takes quite a bit to get picked up by Apple as a supplier; like having a very well performing product at the price they want to pay... (Did Apple completely drop nVidia?)

 

[freeskier93]

It takes quite a bit to get picked up by Apple as a supplier; like having a very well performing product at the price they want to pay... (Did Apple completely drop nVidia?)

Whoops, just checked. Looks like the iMac (non Retina 5k) is the last holdout using Nvidia, but the iMac with 5k display is AMD discrete.

 

[LTC8K6]

AMD would be stupid to turn down contracts with Apple. It's free marketing (and some of the best marketing in the world) for AMD, not to mention guaranteed money. So what, AMD turns down a contract with Applejust so they can leak specs and possibly sway a handful of on-the-fence tech nerds? Give me a break.

Why would apple care if the specs for a discrete video card were leaked?

I can see why AMD would care, but not Apple.

 

[thilanliyan]

Why would apple care if the specs for a discrete video card were leaked?

I can see why AMD would care, but not Apple.

What else are Apple going to claim as the next coming?

 

[n0x1ous]

 

[biostud]

So the GPU with 4 HBM stacks?

 

[n0x1ous]

So the GPU with 4 HBM stacks?

Yes - this is allegedly Radeon Fury

 

[Cloudfire777]

Interesting.

Hard to figure out the die size from that view.
And thats why you are limited to 4 stacks for Fiji and why they can increase capacity in the future by going up in height of exisiting stacks, not multplying stacks