Hmm is that 120mm or 140mm :/So this is making the rounds at the moment:
Need to check my own case for fan slots.
AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
Need to check my own case for fan slots.
ohyouagain
Member
There can't be such cards since the HBM is on the GPU AMD sell them.
When an 8GB HBM version exists it'll exist everywhere since AMD have to make it themselves.
As for 4GB, if they come out and show benchmarks with games that everyone claims need 6GB and match them with 4GB, what will people do then? Could it be that they were just being honest when they said the inefficiency in the framebuffer is huge?
I'll be extremely impressed.
However, an important provision is that all such benchmarks have to be 99 percentile frametime-based, not just FPS.
99% certain it is 120mm because that is the defacto standard.
Look at the 970. There was nothing wrong with its performance in the vast majority of games.
Crimsonsky
Member
I'm near positive it's 4GB of HBM. I remember that was in quite a few articles a month or so back.
Irobot82
Member
That's why we have Tech Report and PCPER. Hopefully they'll have added some of the newer titles to their testing suite.
It will be some other excuse, just you wait and watch.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I think it's more or less confirmed that the 390X is not the HBM card at this point and that those will be named Fury.
Thread title could do with updating.
Thread title could do with updating.
What games right now can hit that? Mordor?
King Gilga
Member
I know Fiji is the gpu or w.e, but it's so much of a better name than lolfury.
Thread title change has been requested.
Well it's back to the old days of angry names, e.g. ATI Rage
No idea myself, and for me 4k is only going to be for supesampling any time soon.
It's harking back to the Rage Fury Maxx from 15 years ago which was two Rage 128 Pro chips on one card.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah it's a homage to their old cards and with that considered, it's not that bad as the name also ties in with the whole volcanic islands and fire theme.
I mean it's better than 'Inferno', or 'Molten' etc.
Cant a fair few do it at 4k?
I saw you are from Aussieland and its night so didnt bother you.
(I'm in China so almost the same time zone)
dgrdsv
Member
Do we actually have games that need 6GB? What everyone claims is pretty much irrelevant. I've yet to see a game which needs more than 4GB of VRAM. During the whole 970 memory fubar story people tried really hard at illustrating the issue and we've only found a couple of titles where it was visible - and you needed SLI to actually see it as single chip performance was too low to make any difference.
But there are several "buts" in this related to Fiji:
a. Fiji is much more powerful GPU than 970 so it's possible that any lack of VRAM will not be hidden on it under a general lack of shading power like it was/is on 970.
b. Fiji is releasing more than half a year later and the possibility of new games appearing which will actually need more than 4GB of VRAM is somewhat higher now than it was a year ago.
Still, I think that even finding a game which needs 6GB of VRAM and doesn't achieve this need via some 8K resolution with unplayable fps on pretty much any card on the market will be difficult.
tycoonheart
Member
Mordor easily goes over 6GB for me. Ultra textures + 1440p.
Nothing is announced, so it's all still rumours and unsubstantiated leaks. Some sites have briefly leaked prices on the 300 range and if they're accurate, your price range will probably buy you the 390x. An updated 290x featuring 8GB VRAM, a small improvement to overall performance.
The next product up from that will be the entry level Radeon Fury and I don't think AMD have decided on pricing for this GPU yet. There don't seem to be any reliable leaks there. There are now rumblings that its release could be delayed with the 300 range going on sale soon after the 16th June and Fury getting its release later on in the summer. Who knows?
jfoul
Member
I think Titan sounds just as silly.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I also believe the 390 is going to give the 970 a run for its money, assuming those price leaks are real.
Shai-Tan
Banned
well that's in 1080p. In higher resolutions you can easily go over in a lot of games with AA enabled. I get horrible stuttering in some games with DSR because of the memory issue. Few current games go over 4gb though it could be a problem in the future (the 970 problem is it going over 3.5gb but it's made much worse because of how their shitty 0.5gb extra memory works)
dgrdsv
Member
AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance
I'd say that we're looking at another price drop on a 980 soon and 970 possibly. The rest of the line will probably stay as it is.
It will cache a lot of data into VRAM if it's available but it can just as well work without this.
I'd say that we're looking at another price drop on a 980 soon and 970 possibly. The rest of the line will probably stay as it is.
It will cache a lot of data into VRAM if it's available but it can just as well work without this.
Mordor is not a good example.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,14.html
AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance
I'd say that we're looking at another price drop on a 980 soon and 970 possibly. The rest of the line will probably stay as it is.
It will cache a lot of data into VRAM if it's available but it can just as well work without this.
I was hoping for a little better performance than that, but assuming the pricing is good, they'll sell a lot of these.
AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance
I'd say that we're looking at another price drop on a 980 soon and 970 possibly. The rest of the line will probably stay as it is.
It will cache a lot of data into VRAM if it's available but it can just as well work without this.
Fury X bench but no Fury Pro. Also, I'm much less concerned about 3DMark than I am actual in game performance. Still, it is useful for a single point of comparison, I guess.
Unknown Soldier
Member
AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance
I'd say that we're looking at another price drop on a 980 soon and 970 possibly. The rest of the line will probably stay as it is.
It will cache a lot of data into VRAM if it's available but it can just as well work without this.
Well this doesn't look good for the Fury X but the regular Fury might be a 980 killer if it's only lightly cut down from the Fury X.
General Lee
Member
The numbers seem a bit too convinient to me. But I suppose we don't have to wait for long to see real benchmarks.
They are a bit too convenient. Everyone comes out a winner here basically.
I'm expecting there to be something of a gap one way or the other once actual benchmarks come out.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
That chart clashes with the 10-20% faster than Titan X estimate.
Ooo it's getting exciting.
Ooo it's getting exciting.
How representative are synthetic tests like 3dmark of game performance usually?
I think they can be helpful to get a general idea of a cards relative performance.
It does put Fury around 54% faster than 290X like WCCFTech claimed though. I remember Nvidia being favoured in 3DMark in the past, but I'm not sure if that's still the case nowadays. So if Fury is dead on with Titan X in this benchmark and the gains vs a 290X are correct, Fury might even surpass it depending on the game. But like someone already said, 3DMark benches don't say a lot on their own.
Netherscourge
Banned
That will be a hugely important question.
If at stock the top fury card beats a Titan X but at max overclocks a 980ti can beat it (with both 980ti and Fury overclocked) then it wouldn't be good because they'll price it based on stock performance, not how much headroom there is.
dgrdsv
Member
That's not the only question I have =)
Like, where does this performance manifest itself the most? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit faster than GM200 in 4K but actually slower in 2560x1440/1600 - which is where I game right now.
Or is this result for the WC edition? Will the regular AC edition be as fast as WC edition?
What estimate? Everything I've seen suggested that Fiji won't be much faster than 980Ti/TitanX.
You'll have to wait till Fiji's successor then. Partners will not be able to change the RAM size on HBM cards.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
According to WCCF, because the die for the Fury GPUs is so large, it has a much bigger contact area to dissipate heat so its easier to cool = good for overclocking.
Despite the rumour tag, this all sounds pretty logical to me.
That's no good if they've already taken it to the limit as stock though. Even with the best cooling you can only go so far. If they sell it at 1000mhz and the best anyone can get is 1100mhz then that's no good.