AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th

I'm watching Nintendo with AMD on mute, since they've yet to show something interesting...

God they are loud for the wrong reasons at times... Also I somehow doubt it beeing the fastest GPU, at least by regular measurements.

Also apparently 45fps is High speed, and 60 is Ultra High speed... /AMD...
 
The Fury X has 4096 stream processors, 8.9 billion transistors, 8.6 teraflops
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X. 1.5X perf/watt over the R9 290X

Nano is 2X perf/watt compared to R9 290X
Radeon R9 Nano, a 6" card


 
Seeing their air cooled new Fury cards (cooling vs. power consumption), logic dictates that these are full on 20nm chips. Would explain the delay as well.
 
King Gilga said:
Is there a pic of the normal air cooled mid tier fury?
Click to expand...

big_msi-radeon-r9-furcikm1.jpg

according to HotHardware anyway
 
Since our leak last week, AMD has called and banished us from all of their events (meaning the E3 PC Gaming Show today at LA and tomorrow's conference here in Brazil).

The worst part is we never signed any NDA's, because they never sent us one, even though we got in touch many times this month.

Even worse, we already had invitations guaranteed...
That sucks, but at least you got some info. We really hope these Fury cards deliver on their promisses
 
I'm getting the Fury X
The normal Fury even looks a fantastic deal being 100$ cheaper but god damn, I wasn't expecting that price for the Fury X
 
That seems pretty impressive to me. Sure, no good 5k / 8k performance, but that's a fairly small niche right now I'd have thought (and probably covered by the 2X that's coming).
 
I can't wait to see benchmarks between the 970 and 390. At that price, they have to be confident there is some serious competition going on there.
 
PROS:

Fury X $650 price keeps things competitive.
Fury & Fury X: 1.5X performance per Watt means it's efficient almost like Maxwell (+/- 5%)
Fury Nano: 2.0X performance per Watt means it's 20% more efficient than Maxwell.
Astonishing.

CONS:

Missed opportunity by not releasing uncut/full Tonga XT (380X 4GB).
Because of this the entire 300 series is boring & borderline unnecessary when you consider that progressively cut versions of Fury should have been used instead & they should have ditched all former cards except perhaps ultra low-end R7 250 & Tonga XT.

As to that last point, I'm guessing HBM yields are the only good reason they can't fill out an entire product stack with Fury cards.

Overall a nice presentation. If the Fury Nano comes in at a reasonable price point it might almost make up for missing the boat on Tonga XT at the all-important ~$250 price point. I'm guessing the Nano will be too expensive to take back a ton of market share all by itself since it'll be in the ~$400 range. But, it should easily be the price/performance/watt champ for the upper mid-range & will easily take the crown for all-time best miniITX game rig status.

I'll be waiting for Nano & upgrading to that. Looking forward to it!
 
R9 390 & R9 390X each with 8GB of GDDR5 and 275W for 4K gaming
Click to expand...

The R9 390 and R9 390X replace the R9 290 and R9 290X and are both 300
GFLOPS faster than their predecessors (5,100 GFLOPS and 5,900 GFLOPS
respectively) without increasing power in typical workloads.
Click to expand...

For comparison, 290X TDP was 290W so its in fact slightly less.

http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com...e-to-Radeon-by-Moor-Insights-and-Strategy.pdf

Yes, such a desperate move by the AMD guy telling to wait and not read too much into the 375W stickers. DESPERATE I SAY!
 
Renekton said:
Even if Fury X outperforms, 980Ti has that 6GB in the minds of gamers.
Click to expand...

True. My guess is after-market will drop prices of Fury X down to ~$600 - $625 with rebates fairly soon after launch.

badb0y said:
What? No. I'm not sure how you can end up with that conclusion. From what we have heard it's fast than a 290X but uses something like half the power.
Click to expand...

Fury Nano (from Lisa Su during the presentation) is "significantly faster than 390X at half the power usage". We will see how this works out, but if this is true then the upper end of 300 series becomes obsolete/redundant instantly.
 
Renekton said:
Some days ago we mistaken Nano for the watercooled flagship, but it turns out Fury X is the flagship.

Nano is a small cool part targeted specifically at Mini-ITX users who previously selected GTX970.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeh I remember reading posts here last week about how the Nano was the top performer so I wanted to ask if that was true.
 
Memorabilia said:
Fury Nano (from Lisa Su during the presentation) is "significantly faster than 390X at half the power usage". We will see how this works out, but if this is true then the upper end of 300 series becomes obsolete/redundant instantly.
Click to expand...
No they dont. Not everyone values perf/W over price.

I think the Fury stack would be like this

Dual Fury X - $999
Fury X - $649
Fury - $549
Fury Nano - $499
300 Series - $429 and below
 
wachie said:
No they dont. Not everyone values perf/W over price.

I think the Fury stack would be like this

Dual Fury X - $999
Fury X - $649
Fury - $549
Fury Nano - $499
300 Series - $429 and below
Click to expand...

My point is the Nano *objectively* changes the price/performance/watt equation. That's not up for debate.

If you want to say the 300 series remains relevant, well, that's your opinion. Given that it's a bunch of re-brands using certifiably obsolete power gating I'd say that's a tough argument to make.

Edit: To your point about the product stack...the 300 series will sell because there are no Fury options at lower price points. HBM yields no doubt prevent this. But I wasn't arguing in terms of what would sell. I was talking about the actual technology being used in Fury vs. the 300 series.
 
Memorabilia said:
My point is the Nano *objectively* changes the price/performance/watt equation. That's not up for debate.

If you want to say the 300 series remains relevant, well, that's your opinion. Given that it's a bunch of re-brands using certifiably obsolete power gating I'd say that's a tough argument to make.
Click to expand...
There is no question that with 2x the perf/W Hawaii would stick out like a sore thumb. However they are not in the same pricing tiers so I doubt people would think of them as direct replacements, with the majority going for the 390 at around the $300 mark.

The efficiency in Nano will come with a price premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AMD announces FSR4, available “only on Radeon RX 9070 series”
News Hardware  2 3 4 5 6
283
26K
Bry0 replied
AMD Radeon 9070XT review thread
News Analysis Review  17 18 19 20 21
1K
52K
SolidQ replied
LTTP: Hellblade 2 (Xbox Series X)
16
148
Kvally replied
LTTP: The Outer Worlds (Xbox Series X)
39
718
Thebonehead replied
Leak: AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT priced at $600
Rumor Hardware  2
50
6K
llien replied
Top Bottom