AMD launches Radeon Pro DuoWorld’s Fastest Graphics Card With 16 TFLOPs

[thesmokingman]

I do! http://imgur.com/dY8zj3C

That's like a flashback to 1998!

 

[Innokentij]

That's like a flashback to 1998!

Why stop a trend!

 

[3DVagabond]

I do! http://imgur.com/dY8zj3C

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[Elixer]

It's two gpus w/ 8gb total which in reality means 4gb per gpu.

While there is 4GB per GPU, I wonder if the drivers could use more VRAM and do something along the lines of pageswaps between GPUs, kinda like the 970 3.5GB + .5GB allocation if not in xfire mode?

 

[moonbogg]

The DX12 will use both RAMS and stuff. Except that's exactly what WON'T actually be happening...

 

[Bacon1]

Remember, they are also pushing this card for development as well as VR, most gamers aren't the target audience for this. They talked about how it can help with ray trace rendering and thats what their demo was for.

 

[Erenhardt]

This card would be a failure for a 'regular' desktop experience due to only 4GB per GPU. But in VR you don't get as much fidelity as on a regular display. VR requires compute power for the most, which is what this card has in spades.

If anyone things there will be a GPU in 2016 that will match or beat this card is living in a dreamland.

It looks nice. Something everyone would like to have in a case with a giant side-window. The price is prohibitive, as it should. Not everyone needs that kind of GPU power.

Can you run 4 of these in DX12?

 

[Silverforce11]

This card would be a failure for a 'regular' desktop experience due to only 4GB per GPU.

I wonder why people keep saying that.

CF Fury/Nano/Fury X run all the modern games just fine, once AMD sorts out the drivers, ofc.

4GB has not been shown to be a limitation at all, I would love some evidence to prove me wrong. And no, not 4K + SSAA or 8x MSAA where it's unplayable slow. I don't care for slideshows.

 

[casiofx]

I wonder why people keep saying that.

CF Fury/Nano/Fury X run all the modern games just fine, once AMD sorts out the drivers, ofc.

4GB has not been shown to be a limitation at all, I would love some evidence to prove me wrong. And no, not 4K + SSAA or 8x MSAA where it's unplayable slow. I don't care for slideshows.

Call of duty aw & bo3, shadow of mordor and few other games can break over 4GB.

I would not pay high end prices for a 4GB card in 2016. Except the <$500 nano.

 

[3DVagabond]

Call of duty aw & bo3, shadow of mordor and few other games can break over 4GB.

I would not pay high end prices for a 4GB card in 2016. Except the <$500 nano.

I agree that Nano is the one to get. Push the power slider up to eliminate throttling and you've basically got Fury X on air for under $500.

 

[Erenhardt]

I wonder why people keep saying that.

CF Fury/Nano/Fury X run all the modern games just fine, once AMD sorts out the drivers, ofc.

4GB has not been shown to be a limitation at all, I would love some evidence to prove me wrong. And no, not 4K + SSAA or 8x MSAA where it's unplayable slow. I don't care for slideshows.

I was talking about future games.

 

[Pariah]

Do you put the little stickers on your case? Cute.

I do not, but whoever designed this case obviously does:

If you look at the other photos, you can clearly see it is using an MSI motherboard, HyperX memory, Samsung SSD, and a Maingear rebranded PSU while the CPU is conspicuously covered by a Corsair cooler. No attempt was made to conceal the brands of any parts in this marketing system except the CPU. Considering how important the CPU is to a system like this, intentionally hiding the maker of it is deceiving at best, and borders much closer to outright dishonesty as they placed an AMD logo below the Radeon branding on the front of the case where you would expect the logo of the CPU maker. If an Intel CPU is required to maximize the potential of AMD's video card, then an Intel logo should be visible somewhere on the system to give them the credit for producing a product that AMD was unable to produce themselves.

 

[sandorski]

I do not, but whoever designed this case obviously does:

If you look at the other photos, you can clearly see it is using an MSI motherboard, HyperX memory, Samsung SSD, and a Maingear rebranded PSU while the CPU is conspicuously covered by a Corsair cooler. No attempt was made to conceal the brands of any parts in this marketing system except the CPU. Considering how important the CPU is to a system like this, intentionally hiding the maker of it is deceiving at best, and borders much closer to outright dishonesty as they placed an AMD logo below the Radeon branding on the front of the case where you would expect the logo of the CPU maker. If an Intel CPU is required to maximize the potential of AMD's video card, then an Intel logo should be visible somewhere on the system to give them the credit for producing a product that AMD was unable to produce themselves.

O-M-G putting a cooler over the CPU? Scandalous and dastardly!

 

[Pariah]

O-M-G putting a cooler over the CPU? Scandalous and dastardly!

Great job intentionally trying to distract from the point.

 

[Silverforce11]

Call of duty aw & bo3, shadow of mordor and few other games can break over 4GB.

I would not pay high end prices for a 4GB card in 2016. Except the <$500 nano.

So can Rise of the Tomb Raider. Over 7GB vram usage in fact.

All of those games dynamically cache into vram, but it makes no difference to actual gameplay though if you have 4GB.

Even [H] themselves who have been bashing Fury X for 4GB, when they tried to vram bottleneck it with RotTR, didn't happen, Fury X puts out impressive performance the same as 980Ti and Titan X, including minimum FPS.

You could say "for future games" or more about general future proofing and you may have a case, because when it comes to the unknown, there's always a maybe.

However, for 1080 and 1440p, 4GB will be fine for a few more years.

 

[3DVagabond]

Great job intentionally trying to distract from the point.

Well, how are you supposed to not cover the CPU up? I mean really?

 

[NTMBK]

Great job intentionally trying to distract from the point.

Great job trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. :thumbsup:

 

[TrulyUncouth]

Great job trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. :thumbsup:

Absolutely, I'm about 100% sure he is just joking with us. Surely he doesn't really think putting a cooler on a cpu is somehow disingenuous.

Shortest dual GPU card. It is as long as a R9 290x. Maybe shorter.
Price is high, but it is expected with dual GPU cards.
Look is pretty neat.
4GB is not enough but we don't know what is enough with VR.
Great Output ports (3x DP)
Probably no HDMI 2.0 (in 2016)

4GB should be more than enough for the next ~2 years of VR, going by all statements from the main HMD makers. We're sitting at 1kx1k per eye for the next 18 months easily and the next move up is widely expected to be accompanied by foveated rendering.

The real big downside of this card is that SLI/xfire are almost 100% unsupported in the first round of games. I'd guess this is why AMD is pushing this so hard to devs, in the hopes that future games will get xfire support.

As for HDMI 2.0, you can get DP->HDMI 2.0 adapters for $30 now and reviews are overwhelmingly positive for them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Great job intentionally trying to distract from the point.

AMD has used Intel systems for a while for their video cards, it's not exactly a secret. It's not like too many people in the $1500 video card market are also in the FX market.



As for me, I think the case is more interesting than the card. Bring on the next gen.

 

[Dribble]

So can Rise of the Tomb Raider. Over 7GB vram usage in fact.

All of those games dynamically cache into vram, but it makes no difference to actual gameplay though if you have 4GB.

Even [H] themselves who have been bashing Fury X for 4GB, when they tried to vram bottleneck it with RotTR, didn't happen, Fury X puts out impressive performance the same as 980Ti and Titan X, including minimum FPS.

You could say "for future games" or more about general future proofing and you may have a case, because when it comes to the unknown, there's always a maybe.

However, for 1080 and 1440p, 4GB will be fine for a few more years.

So you are going to spend $1.5k on a card for 1080p?

The fury is not a well balanced card - they famously stutter until AMD produce specific fury fixes I'm guessing to make the dynamic caching smarter. Now we have 2 fury's, still 4GB of ram and the same main memory bandwidth. No way even with the smartest drivers they aren't going to run into serious limitations. Then there's the fact you are reliant on AMD to keep patching drivers for what is going to be a super rare card - do you trust them to do that?

Really I'd be surprised if they sell any?

 

[TrulyUncouth]

So you are going to spend $1.5k on a card for 1080p?

The fury is not a well balanced card - they famously stutter until AMD produce specific fury fixes I'm guessing to make the dynamic caching smarter. Now we have 2 fury's, still 4GB of ram and the same main memory bandwidth. No way even with the smartest drivers they aren't going to run into serious limitations. Then there's the fact you are reliant on AMD to keep patching drivers for what is going to be a super rare card - do you trust them to do that?

Really I'd be surprised if they sell any?

I thought amd's xfire performance was out-doing nvidia sli these days. I will say I had a fury nano for about a month before I sent it back due to coil whine and even though I played a number of mainstream and obscure games using a wide range of engines from 1440p to 4k(got a new monitor halfway through the month) I never saw this stutter you're speaking of. This is of course my anecdotal experience, got a link of a reviewer having the issue?

As for the 1080p/1440p limitation, he was saying future games are capable of causing that, because no one knows the future. I can vouch for 4k not being a limitation in the ~15 games I played during the time, including one in UE4(Paragon)

 

[Silverforce11]

@Dribble
It's nothing unique, AMD needs drivers for CF to function. So does NV. It's the multi-GPU curse.

It's way overpriced, a pair of Nanos are better, as are 2x Fury X separate.

I had a pair of 290s, and I'm sure CF 290/X works fine these days, so we don't have to worry about AMD dropping support for these cards. If you worry about obsoletion, you should be more worried about Maxwell, as you can see what has happened to Kepler. Basically Maxwell has about 6 more months of optimizations. :/

 

[96Firebird]

The DX12 will use both RAMS and stuff. Except that's exactly what WON'T actually be happening...

The sky's the limit with DX12! Until your face gets smashed against the glass ceiling that everyone but a select few can see.

 

[flash-gordon]

The DX12 will use both RAMS and stuff. Except that's exactly what WON'T actually be happening...

DX12 won't do anything... it just opens this options for the devs.

I don't think the majority, the ones that don't get paid by AMD and nVidia, will spend time implementing these things.

 

[nerp]

Yeah! The outrage! Why is AMD not plastering Intel logos all over a case built for the purpose of promoting an . . . AMD video card?

Sheesh.