AMD literally said at their event that we are going to get more info in January and while they didn't commit any sort of hard date or anything, they said to expect Vega to release late Q1. So I'm expecting March release date. We are going to get more info January, probably somewhere in the middle, after the holiday stuff is all gone and announce a lot more details.
Anyways 4GB HBM memory is more like 6GB of GDDR5 at 7gbps.
Tell me I'm not crazy but Fury X still looks weaksauce right? I mean look how close that GTX 1060 6GB is....
Eh, I'm not seeing the bargain.... It's barely price effective with the 1070. With the 1060, definitely not.There is a reason Fury X is in the proverbial GPU bargain bin.
It's embarrassing that you didn't even realize the 980 Ti was only 5% ahead of Fury X. Maxwell forgotten so soon.
Maxwell is old news. Pascal has been around for six months.
Fury X is still big news though it seems.
Fury X is also old news, small VRAM, old 28nm process, power guzzler. If you can buy one on clearance it is a decent deal, but at similar prices GTX 1070 is the way to go.
Nobody would buy Fury X vs a 1070 at similar prices. The idea that somehow the 1060 is in the same class is laughable.
No new version of Direct X has reached any relevant market share until at least two years after launch, simply because developers need time to learn how to program for them. As such, DX12 is doing just fine. I don't remember seeing DX11-only titles this early in its lifetime, and there are one or two already for DX12 (and quite a few with it as an option). And even with DX12's improved multi-gpu handling, it still requires significant developer effort. Always has, always will.Direct X 12 was supposed to handle crossfire and SLI much better, I could see AMD planning more dual gpu cards. BUT we all see how direct X 12 is doing....crap so far. Mabe that threw off their game plan?
Funny though, Nvidia seems to shy away from dual gpu cards/ SLI lately.
Working with a handful of developers on VR titles is a sign of a new high-end dual GPU? Sure, AMD went after a high-end niche with the R9 Mano, but at least then it had a similarly priced "mainstream flagship" for those who didn't fit that particular niche. Making a dedicated GPU for multi-GPU VR? Sure, I bet they'd sell a few hundred. Maybe even a few thousand. Globally. No more, no way. The group of "VR headset owners with a GPU worse than the GTX 1070 and a budget of less than $400" is not large. Launching a product like that as a standalone flagship would be brand suicide.With the work AMD has been doing with VR developers like Croteam's Serious Engine for Multi-GPU VR using Liquid VR I can see the 490 being a Dual GPU card a lot more than a HBM GPU. Timing seems very good for it
And a link for Multi-GPU VR info :
https://youtu.be/UeY-RxFxYi0
Huh?It's embarrassing that the 980 Ti was only 5% ahead of Fury X. Maxwell forgotten so soon.
Huh?
They are COMPETING GPUs. A reference 980Ti is 5% ahead of Fury X before we use AIB models? Look how much that adds for the GTX 1070? Then before we factor in the fact that the 980Ti is one of the best OCing gpus?
The 980Ti makes it even more obvious just how terrible of a GPU Fury X still is.
Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.Fury X wasn't terrible, but 980 Ti was awesome.
Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.
Vega if it does get the RX490 to be on par with the GTX 1070, by the time it comes out, Nvidia will be on the GTX 2070 coming up shortly. That's just being stuck between a rock and 4 different hard places if you're an AMD high end user.
According to tpu, the Fury X added around 37% to the previous gen's flagship (290x) at 4k, while consuming a bit less power on average when gaming.Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.
Vega if it does get the RX490 to be on par with the GTX 1070, by the time it comes out, Nvidia will be on the GTX 2070 coming up shortly. That's just being stuck between a rock and 4 different hard places if you're an AMD high end user.
This is what I mean when I'm saying we're muddying the waters. This is from Fury X launch. I literally just posted an aggregate graph that's recent as of 11/15. You could get one that's recent too.According to tpu, the Fury X added around 37% to the previous gen's flagship (290x) at 4k, while consuming a bit less power on average when gaming.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
I'm not defending anything. You're using wrong numbers to make your point.snip
Fury X is also old news, small VRAM, old 28nm process, power guzzler. If you can buy one on clearance it is a decent deal, but at similar prices GTX 1070 is the way to go.
Whilst I agree Fury X is old news (and a very poor purchase now, considering it's VRAM limitations), it's worth remember that it's power consumption is very similar to TItanX Maxwell and Pascal. So if you consider Fury X to be a 'power guzzler, then both TitanX's are too
I'm not defending anything. You're using wrong numbers to make your point.
The 390 is more representative of a 290x in that tpu graph and the difference is 35%, and even in the swe numbers, the Fury X beats the 290x by 31%.
I'm not saying that the Fury X is awesome. It's just not terrible as you're trying to paint it. I agree,though, that the AIB 980tis are much better cards.
Edit: re-reading your post it looks like you actually did use the 390 and not the 390x in the TPU chart, but it appears you accidentally calculated against the Fury and not the Fury X.
Poor performance per watt compared to 980 Ti, though.
Poor performance per watt compared to 980 Ti, though.