Assuming there is a GCN 1.3.
It would be odd if GCN 1.2 doesnt see more broad usage. GCN 1.2 holds quite some important improvements in terms of future gaming. Not to mention the fixed UVD that is broken in GCN 1.1.
Assuming there is a GCN 1.3.
It would be odd if GCN 1.2 doesnt see more broad usage. GCN 1.2 holds quite some important improvements in terms of future gaming. Not to mention the fixed UVD that is broken in GCN 1.1.
The Grenada silicon will have the same specs as Hawaii - 2,816 GCN stream processors, 176 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and a 512-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 4 GB memory. Refinements in the silicon over Hawaii could allow AMD to increase clock speeds, to outperform the GTX 980 and GTX 970. We don't expect the chip to be any more energy efficient at its final clocks, than Hawaii. AMD's design focus appears to be performance. AMD could save itself the embarrassment of a loud reference design cooler, by throwing the chip up for quiet custom-design cooling solutions from AIB (add-in board) partners from day-one.
The only truly new silicon with the R9 300 series, is "Fiji." This chip will be designed to drive AMD's high-end single- and dual-GPU graphics cards, and will be built to compete with the GM200 silicon from NVIDIA, and the GeForce GTX TITAN-X it will debut with. This chip features 4,096 stream processors based on the GCN 1.3 architecture - double that of "Tonga," 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and a 1024-bit wide HBM memory interface, offering 640 GB/s of memory bandwidth. 4 GB could be the standard memory amount. The three cards AMD will carve out of this silicon, are the R9 390, the R9 390X, and the R9 390X2.
http://www.techpowerup.com/209719/radeon-r9-380x-based-on-grenada-a-refined-hawaii.html
In other words, the R9 390x will be the real deal
Source: 3D Center
^ Same rumours regurgitated over again. How can they state with 100% certainty that R9 390X is GCN 1.3 instead of GCN 1.2 or GCN 2.0? AMD doesn't officially name the various revisions of GCN. Remember that AMD already implemented major changes to colour fill-rate, memory bandwidth efficiency, and geometry performance in Tonga. If they grow Tonga to 550mm2 and use HBM instead of GDDR5, 390X could still be just GCN 1.2 but larger with more efficient memory interface. OTOH, they could implement even greater architectural advancements in 390 series. We just don't know but TPU is 100% certain it's GCN 1.3.
I want that dream to come true. even if 390x full load is 400 watt, I would buy if it is 70% more performance vs 290x :thumbsup:I believe that the benchmarks, if real, were of the higher end card. It's just that the earlier rumours were conflicting as for the name - some said the top card will be called 380x and some 390x. So, if the benchmarks are real and this rumour is true as well they were describing the 390x.
That said, I wouldn't mind if they described the 380x and 390x will be much higher
Well, one can dream, right?
I want that dream to come true. even if 390x full load is 400 watt, I would buy if it is 70% more performance vs 290x :thumbsup:
to be honest, market share is way more important. alot of posters here defend nv because they have no choice, they bought nv :\ going against nv would be like admitting they were wrong.AMD won't be able to win on the internet unless they are ahead perf/W. It's THE spec that is always mentioned by reviewers at the moment. No matter what anyone says positive about it, better performance, better price, you are going to hear, "It uses X million watts = major fail and it proves AMD can't compete.
If it's 50% faster than Hawaii and has a 300W TDP I think that will be terrific. Especially if AMD doesn't add to much of a premium. Although I do know they need the money, they also badly need market share. Let's just hope they make enough of them and we don't see supply/demand inflation and AMD can capitalize on it if it's as good as purported.
to be honest, market share is way more important. alot of posters here defend nv because they have no choice, they bought nv :\ going against nv would be like admitting they were wrong.
I usually find the types of consumers who argue that Highest sales = best product or Highest market share = best purchase are those who are most misinformed and are least confident in their own purchasing decisions. If you need to buy the most popular products just because they are most popular, it doesn't sound like the type of consumer that can make decisions on his/her own.
If AMD/Intel/NV made the best product at some point in time based on specific needs, I would still buy it even if any of those brands had 5% market share. Conversely, even if a brand has 95% market share, it can still release bad products. A lot of companies have some really great products, good products, average products and some mediocre products. For example, the 970 is a good card but 960 is overpriced and VRAM-gimped. GTX650/650Ti were overpriced and bad buys but GTX670/680 were good products.
It won't matter. Whatever metric Nvidia is leading by at the time will suddenly become the most important consideration when purchasing a video card.AMD won't be able to win on the internet unless they are ahead perf/W. It's THE spec that is always mentioned by reviewers at the moment. No matter what anyone says positive about it, better performance, better price, you are going to hear, "It uses X million watts = major fail and it proves AMD can't compete.
It won't matter. Whatever metric Nvidia is leading by at the time will suddenly become the most important consideration when purchasing a video card.
No matter how fast it will be, 4GB is no go for me. 6GB minimum and 8GB ideal.
No matter how fast it will be, 4GB is no go for me. 6GB minimum and 8GB ideal.