SFR mode is a feature of mantle. Civilization does this under mantle in which for CrossFire the memory pools are not replicated. In DX mode it uses AFR.
Google mantle, SFR, Civilization
AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
SFR mode is a feature of mantle. Civilization does this under mantle in which for CrossFire the memory pools are not replicated. In DX mode it uses AFR.
Google mantle, SFR, Civilization
People really misunderstand this a lot.
Low-level APIs don't feature SFR. They allow developers to implement SFR if they choose to.
Also, such custom solutions may or may not replicate all or part of the GPU memory. It's not a simply X+X = 2X calculation.
Thanks for that however I know how this stuff works in terms of APIs. I call it a feature because that's how the wording in the press releases and media refer to it as when Mantle was being talked about. Same with DX 12.
I understand where you're going with this.
Wag
Member
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18676801&page=9
Uh oh. Someone from AMD (legit source) confirms that the Fury doesn't support HDMI 2.0. Seems stupid at this point. I have a Samsung 4k HDMI 2.0 display. If true looks like I'll have to go with Nvidia.
Uh oh. Someone from AMD (legit source) confirms that the Fury doesn't support HDMI 2.0. Seems stupid at this point. I have a Samsung 4k HDMI 2.0 display. If true looks like I'll have to go with Nvidia.
Irobot82
Member
DouglasteR
Member
Theres always DP -> HDMI converters.
Wag
Member
I will wait for next week just to confirm, but I fail to see how they could not include HDMI 2.0 in a card made specifically for "4k gaming"? Seems totally counterintuitive. People are going to hook it up to big screen 4k TV's and are going to need that HDMI 2.0 support.
DP to HDMI 2.0 converters don't currently exist, and when they do they will probably cost >$100.
DP to HDMI 2.0 converters don't currently exist, and when they do they will probably cost >$100.
No idea. If it can, then happy days - this forum suggests there will be. My current 4K monitor only accepts DP but having the option to connect to a 4K TV natively would be great.
Unknown Soldier
Member
No. DisplayPort didn't gain the ability to output a HDMI 2.0 compatible signal until 1.3. There are no DP 1.3 capable video cards. A simple cable will not work.
edit: As far as active converters go, I have no idea but those active converter boxes are not cheap.
King Gilga
Member
No HDM 2.0 no buy
DouglasteR
Member
Felix Lighter
Member
Bizarre decision if it is accurate.
Besthelboy
Banned
AMD engineers "GOT IT DONE", a lot of feats accomplished. Really great work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx8Uu64gIS8
AMD Roy answering questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx8Uu64gIS8
AMD Roy answering questions.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Not bizarre. AMD has been reusing GCN for like 5 years now. It predates HDMI 2.0.
Wag
Member
That's why if true AMD could potentially lose a lot of sales from the 4k gaming crowd. I will wait until next week to confirm just to be sure, if so I will pick up a 980ti.
Jzero
Member
Didn't expect this to release so soon.
When is the regular Fury releasing? Going to buy one when a 3rd party puts their own cooler on them.
velociraptor
Junior Member
When is that nano expected to be released?
Tallshortman
Member
July 14
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Not saying you are wrong, but that only applies to 4K TVs. The overwhelming majority of 4K monitors are DisplayPort 1.2a.
All we know is "summer". So before the end of August.
Didn't that game favor AMD GPUs?
This benchmark had the 290X nearly matching the 980, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the Fury X did better than the Titan X / 980 ti.
Xplatformer
Member
No, this is a problem for people who intend to use a 4k tv as a display.
ScepticMatt
Member
Felix Lighter
Member
That was posted here somewhere I think but I don't think the extrapolation means too much because it was comparing a slide from their event to a completely different benchmark from a review. It was the same game at the same resolution but under completely different circumstances. 30% improvement over the TitanX would be far beyond just about anyones expectations.
anexanhume
Member
Coincidence. As process technology scales, core count will again overtake bus width.
No official specs out for Fury (Fiji Pro).
Even the usual rumor sites left the specs blank this week.
King Gilga
Member
That, not showing it and delaying it after the xt for 3 weeks really rubs me the wrong way.
jfoul
Member
AMD "Fiji" Silicon Lacks HDMI 2.0 Support
AMD rep talking about 4K with 4GB @10:43. He also mentions that we will see more details on the R9 Nano in a couple months, which sucks. It almost seems like they are holding the nano, and waiting to see if Nvidia adjusts prices.
AMD rep talking about 4K with 4GB @10:43. He also mentions that we will see more details on the R9 Nano in a couple months, which sucks. It almost seems like they are holding the nano, and waiting to see if Nvidia adjusts prices.
Nvidia not talking about 980Ti after Titan X should rub the same way too.
Then again I'm not mad only because I'm interested in the $650 segment, if the tables are turned between XT and Pro I could be miffed too hehe.
Didn't know about Mantle supporting it, but my point was mainly that this isn't a hardware feature that will just work with AMD cards. It's going to take specific coding. I really wouldn't buy a card from either side with the expectation that it will be available for all or even very many games.
Original Famous Ray
Member
That Sapphire model for $330 should be a good upgrade from my Radeon 7850 eh? The Witcher is making my poor card cry so I'm in the market for a new gpu by the time Windows 10 is released. The 300 price point is my sweet spot but the card is out of stock. I'm hoping for more deals and maybe a free game for this or a similar card.
dgrdsv
Member
They're holding both Pro and Nano because there isn't enough GPUs to launch cards on cheaper positions than that of Fury X. No other reason would be valid at this point.
dgrdsv
Member
Performance?
I'm wondering if I'm the only one in these threads who are still waiting for benchmarks before jumping to conclusions based on cards sizes, TDP, prices, etc.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Some info on the Nano here:
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-n...ngle-8pin-connector-sff-design-faster-hawaii/
Apparently it's faster than a 290X, which is impressive from AMD's engineers as it has a 175W TDP. This card is looking like a really smart move as I reckon they are going to release it for $499 or under with performance ahead of a 980 as it's basically a cut-down Fiji GPU.
Didn't that game favor AMD GPUs?
This benchmark had the 290X nearly matching the 980, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the Fury X did better than the Titan X / 980 ti.
Oh absolutely. FarCry 4 works well on AMD hardware AND it is only 1 benchmark. I'm quite sure AMD picked this one to show off specifically because it favors their position.
I fully expect the Titan X and the 980Ti to beat the Fury X in some games, at certain resolutions and when the Nvidia specific features are turned on.
With all of that said if the Fury X is neck and neck with the Nvidia offerings in most benchmarks while being nearly silent then it will most likely be my next card.