That's Nvidias choice, there is no technical reason they can't have them.
Have AMD/ATI ever prevent custom coolers?
AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
That's Nvidias choice, there is no technical reason they can't have them.
Have AMD/ATI ever prevent custom coolers?
dgrdsv
Member
Keep moving the goalposts.
Moving what where? You're talking about 390X now, I'm saying that 275W for that card is hardly a great feature considering that it's competition has 100W less of consumption. So saying stuff like "don't read too much into it" is completely pointless - the end result is still rather bad for AMD here.
Fury is a different beast however.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
15W less power usage for the 390X when it has had a small upclock, offers a rumoured 5-10% boost and has an extra 4GB GDDR5 over the 290X is pretty decent IMO.
For the case of the 290 ans 290x if I recall correctly it took the next quarter before custom coolers hit the market. I would assume that vendors will have stuff ready by October the latest. I believe in the case of the Titan X, Nvidia is allowing custom coolers now.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com...e-to-Radeon-by-Moor-Insights-and-Strategy.pdf
I missed this. Great news if the 390/X are more than just a straight rebadge. More performance, less power power usage.
HazySaiyan
Banned
This is interesting, can't wait to see the benchmarks. I almost bought a 970 the other day, glad I waited.
dgrdsv
Member
It's not like they had any options as going through 300W limit would get the card out of PCIE specs compliance. And 15W less isn't anything to brag about either as a lot of 290/X custom cards had even less than that in various tests a long time ago.
Let's be clear here: Hawaii rebrand is anything but exciting. The only interesting thing out of the new lineup are Fiji based cards.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
That 390 8GB, 300 GFLOPS faster than a 290 is what I've got my eyes on. Overclocked that's going to be a beast for the price.
Nothing spectacular, but definitely welcome.
Wachie is just completely unbearable in AMD threads. Everything which might remotely be interpreted as a negative statement needs to be relentlessly attacked, either directly or passive-aggressively. I get that it's hard to be a fan of a company constantly on the verge of going under, but I still had to put him on ignore at some point.
HazySaiyan
Banned
What could that mean in terms of real world performance (not very techy I'm afraid)? Is this meant to rival the 970 or does it slot more in between the 970 and 960?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I think the 390 will be around the same as a 970 at 1080p, slightly faster at 1440p and 4K.
Definitely won't slot in below the 970, if anything, above it.
300 GFlops is an increase by ~6% over a stock 290. It's never that simple though with modern GPUs, since the listed specs are really more of a guideline. The actual performance you get depends on the specific load, power consumption and temperature limits (and thus transitively on cooling).
E.g. if the cards run cooler then it might well be that the advantage compared to a stock 290 (with default cooling) will be a bit higher than 6% in practice. Still nothing earth-shattering of course.
Estimating a comparison to any NV card is harder yet than to 290, since the exact location where it will end up will likely differ with each game.
However, given this latest comparison from Computerbase:
A ~6% increase should slot in pretty much on par with a 970 as a median across multiple games at 2560x1440.
michaelius
Banned
You are kidding yourself if you think this is any significant change - if they were upgraded to GCN 1.2 then AMD would be screaming about it from the rooftops.
You also missed this part:
Funny thing R9 270 was downgraded to R7 370 this time so obviously it's just coincidence that it is rumored to be same old GCN 1.0 Pitcairn that doesn't support freesync
HazySaiyan
Banned
Interesting, thanks guys! Definitely got my eyes on this, hell maybe even a 390X.
King Gilga
Member
If so that's a real real dick move by amd, not that I'd consider getting the fury x anyways.
I meant the normal fury, not the X, I hope it's in the mid 400s.
Water coolers really don't affect power usage all that significantly, but they do allow for designs/frequencies/voltages which are more power hungry.
Since everything any vendor tells you about power consumption is pretty much useless these days I'd just wait for reviews with actual measurements in load scenarios.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
No. The power usage figure is the power usage for the card, which includes the AIO water cooler. It doesn't need plugging into your PSU either if that is what you mean.
I'm surprised your computer is stable considering the recommended requirement for 290x is 650W. I'm guessing you using something like an 84W Intel CPU or 95W AMD CPU that's not overclocked.
They try to be safe and assume you have a power hungry CPU and bad PSU. They're kinda useless nowadays.
For a long time the best SFX PSU was 450W and tons of people have systems with it powering an OCd Intel CPU (no ITX AMD boards) and a Titan.
The 290x draws under 300w. A 650w PSU is more than enough by some margin.
The thing is that the 290x itself can draw up to 290W by itself, so that leaves like 200W for the rest of the system if the seasonic 550W have an effective load of 90%.
edit: Beaten.
That's not how PSUs work.
If its a 550w PSU then it can supply 550w, not 495w at 90%.
90% just means at 550w usage its costing you 611w at the wall.
One day i'll understand why you put the images into the code tag instead of quote
---
I'm super pumped for the Fury Nano, i really hope this is the end of the era and we put behind 10+ inches long cards.
I need an HBM powered card in the ~300€ price point, the first hardware vendor that can offer me this will have my sale.
Most likely. Which is in turn a Radeon HD 7850.
Looks like it... same core count too. That's quite a sneaky move to have less cores than 270 unless they upclock it big time to compensate <_<
I don't think it's that cheap... that card is targeted at SFF and perf/W rather than fighting price/perf with 970.
King Gilga
Member
Do you think nvidia will price drop the 970 in response to this? Anytime soon?
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
Whatever one is between £250-350 here in the UK is the one I'll probably get. I currently have a 290.
I'd guess that depends on where exactly the performance of prospective 970 competitors in this lineup ends up, and how it affects their sales. It's not out of the question.
If you currently have a 290 already then it's very doubtful (unless the GBP conversion is exceptional) that whatever ends up with in the £250-350 slot will be an upgrade which is worth it.
Unlikely... the 390 (refreshed 290) is being sold at same MSRP.
I know that Fury Nano won't be that cheap i was talking in general even in the future, a card with ≥970 performance and ≥4GB HBM memory is more than enough for my standards.
I think next year is when i will be able to buy such a thing.
jfoul
Member
It's something we do in GAF B/S/T. I'm just used to doing it now when posting a lot of pictures.
6. Format Pictures
If your post involves pictures of your items, you must surround those pictures with the "code" option in the Advanced Editing Options. The viewing experience for mobile users should be just as enjoyable as using a computer, but large and obtrusive pictures slow down the entire thread and create unnecessary clutter. Bottom line - ain't nobody got time for that. If you're unsure about how to fix the pictures, here's step #1 and here's step #2.
It's marketing. The 390X is a tuned 290X GPU...so if they didn't have more VRAM - there would be very, very little to differentiate it from their existing, 2-3 year old GPU.
8GB 290X cards have proven to add very little advantage except for very specific use cases. I doubt much will change with the 390X. It's the same story: not enough horsepower for the higher resolutions, therefore the VRAM is really pointless.
NVIDIA has been taken to task in the past - but this has never proven to actually be a performance issue except in extreme cases (mod xyz + resolution abc, etc.). I ran 3-way, 4-way SLI with 680 and the 780 generations - never an issue with VRAM even at 5760x1080 NV Surround.
Either way - not an AMD or NVIDIA "thing" per se - just a consumer "thing" - everyone wants more VRAM no matter what. There's nothing wrong with wanting more - but going back to my original argument, the 4GB HBM thing will be an issue for AMD regardless of whether it technically affects its cards because of this.
thelastword
Banned
Most definitely, and especially at the price you'll get a 12GB card anyway. More importantly, if such cards don't have the grunt for 4K gaming now it won't miraculously show up 6 months or a year later (despite DX12). By then, there'll be much more powerful cards with newer technologies for much cheaper.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Dual Fiji looks incredible
http://anandtech.com/show/9385/amd-shows-off-dualgpu-fiji-card
Dual GPU on one card is going to simplify cooling and airflow quite a bit. How much of an issue is microstutter these days?
http://anandtech.com/show/9385/amd-shows-off-dualgpu-fiji-card
Dual GPU on one card is going to simplify cooling and airflow quite a bit. How much of an issue is microstutter these days?
While it is true that PSU can supply that amount, you definitely shouldn't be drawing that amount of power on a regular basis. One should target at least a 20% margin between the rated power supply and ones own power requirements. At 50~60% load the PSU is the most efficent, typically.
Not really interested in buying it, but I'm very interested to see the price and performance of this. Seems like it could be a great card.
Let's recap a bit.
1. I post about new cards (300 series) being more power efficient and not reading too much into the 375W TDP sticker on the box referencing Dave.
2. You post
3. Nachmater joins in
4. And then you say this "375W" is a "solid" number that can actually be used for comparison
5. From the Moor report, I point out the actual TDP values to be indeed lower and not anywhere close to 375W
6. You move the comparison (or goalpost) to compare it with Maxwell
This is clear as day for every one to see and judge.
Coming from the person who defends Nvidia in every thread. It is why you find USoldier perfectly fine - comedy gold.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Hey guys, i like graphics cards, they're cool huh?
Really though, that's a very handsome reference shroud AMD has there, much better than the cheap looking plastic monstrosity of their old cards.
Really though, that's a very handsome reference shroud AMD has there, much better than the cheap looking plastic monstrosity of their old cards.
I was close!
I think the rest of my spec approximations will also be close.
Has this been posted yet?
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-f...id-cooling-pump-block-pictured/#ixzz3dKJNDeTc
Water is so the way to go. No reference cooler from any company has ever been nearly this good before.
The site also posts their mathematical performance guess. Stock for stock better than 980Ti is their guess.
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-f...id-cooling-pump-block-pictured/#ixzz3dKJNDeTc
Water is so the way to go. No reference cooler from any company has ever been nearly this good before.
The site also posts their mathematical performance guess. Stock for stock better than 980Ti is their guess.
Felix Lighter
Member
The Nano is really interesting. I wonder if any manufacturer will make a single PCI slot version.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
This bit is interesting:
I think by 'operating' they mean load temp. But this suggests the cards overclock much better than a Titan X, and are also faster at stock if the leaked benches are correct. Downside is power draw is higher. But at least temps look great.
