[Rumor (Various)] AMD R7/9 3xx / Fiji / Fury

[Stuka87]

Meh, it's not a speculation. You can clearly see six 64-bit blocks of memory interface on that dieshot.

Yeah, R9 285 and R9 M295X were released quite a while ago, but not in a full chip configuration.

It is 100% speculation until AMD comes out and says "look, here it is" and gives us the actual specs.

 

[Silverforce11]

It doesn't matter if its 256 or 384 bit bus, Tonga lacks performance and its not bandwidth constraint due to the frame compression. A bigger bus giving more bandwidth isn't going to make it an awesome GPU.

Maybe if its made on GloFo, it could get a bit faster than 7970Ghz and use less power, then it could be competitive.

 

[MrTeal]

If that die shot is actually Tonga, then it would seem they built a 384-bit bus onto the chip. That does beg the question of why there aren't any full dies available though. It would seem that either that isn't Tonga, or something is wrong with the chip that they are unable to use the additional MC.
Edit: Or the poster is wrong and those are part of the 256-bit MC, not additional memory controllers.

 

[Enigmoid]

Meh, it's not a speculation. You can clearly see six 64-bit blocks of memory interface on that dieshot.

Yeah, R9 285 and R9 M295X were released quite a while ago, but not in a full chip configuration.

Tonga die

Tahiti

Pitcarin (256 bit)

Cape Verde (128 bit)

For Tonga

Tonga is using different memory controllers. Make of it what you will.

 

[flopper]

http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance

 

[MrTeal]

Tonga die

Tahiti

So, while the other structures look like memory controllers, what is there to say that they actually are?
Tahiti had the same-ish layout, with four 64bit MC's down each of the left and right side, and a large structure that looks similar to the MC's along the top with four main substructures per side.
Tonga has two 64-bit memory controllers on the top and bottom, and again has a matching structure on the right side that looks very similar to MC but is slightly different.

 

[utahraptor]

http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance

I guess all that matters now is the price. It has to be < $ then the 980TI due to 2GB less ram for same performance.

 

[Krteq]

Tonga die

...

For Tonga

Tonga is using different memory controllers. Make of it what you will.

Nope, it's NOT different memory controllers, please refer to my previous post where is the Beyond3D forums link - https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...ation-rumor-thread.55600/page-71#post-1847970

The individual pieces of the MC aren't rotated:

 

[laspariahs]

http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance

Kind of disappointing to be frank.

 

[imaheadcase]

Kind of disappointing to be frank.

Kind of expect to be frank.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Kind of disappointing to be frank.

Again... depending on the street price. Anyone expecting leaps and bounds beyond 980Ti/TitanX was only setting themselves up for disappointment.

For me, the best I was hoping for was 980Ti/TitanX performance for less $$$. I think my expectations are being met, but we'll see where those prices end up.

 

[parvadomus]

http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance

Nice, 54% faster than 290X. Will be like 10% faster than Titan X overall if that gap translates to games.

 

[utahraptor]

Nice, 54% faster than 290X. Will be like 10% faster than Titan X overall if that gap translates to games.

Where are you getting that 10%?

 

[parvadomus]

Where are you getting that 10%?

Easy, latest techpowerup benchmark, multiply 290X score by 1.54 and it trounces everything.

 

[Head1985]

Nice, 54% faster than 290X. Will be like 10% faster than Titan X overall if that gap translates to games.

Yeah if its 54% faster than 290x then it will be 10-12% faster than TITANX in games
But videocardz dont have FIJI.They "calculated" results. :whiste:
clickbait

 

[.vodka]

Yeah if its 54% faster than 290x then it will be 10-12% faster than TITANX in games
But videocardz dont have FIJI.They "calculated" results. :whiste:
clickbait

This.

Six days to go.

 

[parvadomus]

Yeah if its 54% faster than 290x then it will be 10-12% faster than TITANX in games
But videocardz dont have FIJI.They "calculated" results. :whiste:
clickbait

That is possibly, however I dont expect AMD to launch a slower card, it should at least match Titan X.

 

[utahraptor]

I don't believe they are calculated, I think they are from actual benchmark runs.

 

[flopper]

I don't believe they are calculated, I think they are from actual benchmark runs.

seems so but what driver etc..is unknown.

 

[bystander36]

I don't believe they are calculated, I think they are from actual benchmark runs.

I was confused on that, but since they gave them the exact score as the Titan X on each of them, I have to believe it is calculated. Matching exactly seems unlikely.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance

All that HBM hype and it's basically a tie with 980ti and Titan X?

I hope not.

That's gotta' be wrong.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Percentage is calculated as an average from both 3DMark presets.

I guess we'll keep waiting.

 

[flopper]

All that HBM hype and it's basically a tie with 980ti and Titan X?

I hope not.

That's gotta' be wrong.

yea I grain them with salt until the 16.

 

[utahraptor]

All that HBM hype and it's basically a tie with 980ti and Titan X?

I hope not.

That's gotta' be wrong.

I would say there is nothing to be let down about. Considering the differing R & D budgets I would say those results are miraculous if accurate.

 

[LTC8K6]

I would say there is nothing to be let down about. Considering the differing R & D budgets I would say those results are miraculous if accurate.

Well, you know I was hoping for cat's ass performance...

I can't award cat's ass to a tie... :|