videocardz AMD Radeon R9 290X Memory Bus: 512-bit

[Black Octagon]

I choose to run 2560x1440 with no AA too, also because I feel that it gives less visual benefit at that res than it does at 1920x1080

That is NOT to say I would not use AA at this res if I had a card that could do it while also keep me at about 120fps. I think as res goes up, AA yields less returns for bigger performance hit. But we're not quite at the point where AA is totally lacking in benefit. 4k may be that point, but 2560x1440 isn't quite it

 

[raghu78]

Well he is right about not needing AA at higher res..so point is?

no he is not. AA is required even at 1600p. do you think the tech websites are testing with MSAA at 1600p for no reason. "1600p does not need MSAA" is just misinformation. heck there are sites testing with SSAA at 1600p in few games which support it. SSAA is even more demanding than MSAA.

 

[Imouto]

no he is not. AA is required even at 1600p. do you think the tech websites are testing with MSAA at 1600p for no reason. "1600p does not need MSAA" is just misinformation. heck there are sites testing with SSAA at 1600p in few games which support it. SSAA is even more demanding than MSAA.

That's just the retarded methodology of "Everything maXxXed!!!". It's stupid to bench anything if it's running at 20 FPS.

 

[wand3r3r]

Some speculated Specs?

They are saying 1125 memory, wasn't the leak at 1250? They also are wondering about 800ish core and 1000ish boost, vs. the 1020MHz in the leak. Price is also $650. They are probably just guessing? I'm not sure why they went with a little different specs than in that leak. (http://udteam.tistory.com/539)


GPU Config (?) 2816 : 176 : 44
Video Memory 4GB GDDR5
Memory Bus 512-bit
GPU Clock ~ 800 / 1000 MHz
Memory Clock 1125 MHz
Effective Clock 4500 MHz
Bandwidth 288 GB/s
PCB VRM Phase 5+1
Power Configuration 8+6 Pin
TDP 260 W
Die Size ~420 mm2
Launch Price $649

http://videocardz.com/45837/amd-hawaii-gpu-2816-stream-processors

 

[HurleyBird]

Rumor has it that there are two Bios settings, and the leaked benchmarks were using the more aggressive Bios.

That said, 5+1 phases is obviously wrong.

 

[ShintaiDK]

With the relatively minimal die size increase. Yet 33% wider memory bus, ~40% more SPs, 50% more ROPs and TMUs. I do wonder if they axed some of the compute features in favour of gaming performance. Specially the GK110 is a huge waste there compared to the GK104.

 

[Abwx]

Memory Clock 1125 MHz
Effective Clock 4500 MHz
Bandwidth 288 GB/s

512bit bus to yield the same bandwith as a 384b radeon 79xx.?..

Doesnt make sense , this site is not credible at all and even
suspicious...

 

[3DVagabond]

With the relatively minimal die size increase. Yet 33% wider memory bus, ~40% more SPs, 50% more ROPs and TMUs. I do wonder if they axed some of the compute features in favour of gaming performance. Specially the GK110 is a huge waste there compared to the GK104.

If AMD wants to compete in the big die market they need compute. I would be surprised if Hawaii isn't better at compute.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If AMD wants to compete in the big die market they need compute. I would be surprised if Hawaii isn't better at compute.

But something gotta give. If the diesize goes up with something like 16-17%. Yet increases are from 33% to 50% across the board.

Also how much "compute" does AMD really sell? And wouldnt there be more money in non compute so to say aka Pitcairn type? The GK104 showed what makes money for nVidia, and it wasnt compute. And look at the GK110 was a gaming card vs diesize and price. That isnt really working out well.

 

[sontin]

no he is not. AA is required even at 1600p. do you think the tech websites are testing with MSAA at 1600p for no reason. "1600p does not need MSAA" is just misinformation. heck there are sites testing with SSAA at 1600p in few games which support it. SSAA is even more demanding than MSAA.

Yes, but not when the result is even under 30 FPS.

 

[3DVagabond]

But something gotta give. If the diesize goes up with something like 16-17%. Yet increases are from 33% to 50% across the board.

Also how much "compute" does AMD really sell? And wouldnt there be more money in non compute so to say aka Pitcairn type? The GK104 showed what makes money for nVidia, and it wasnt compute. And look at the GK110 was a gaming card vs diesize and price. That isnt really working out well.

I specifically said if they want to compete in the big die market. GK104 isn't big die, and therefore they don't need to sell it in the HPC market to make it worthwhile..

 

[raghu78]

Yes, but not when the result is even under 30 FPS.

A voltage overclocked Hawaii at 1.2+ Ghz should have no problems playing Crysis 3 at above 30+ fps at 1600p with MSAA. it seems to be hitting close to 27 - 29 fps even at 1 Ghz. so not a difficult task

http://translate.google.com/transla...UTF-8&u=http://udteam.tistory.com/539&act=url

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-862351-1-1.html

 

[Imouto]

And buying a $600 card to play at barely 30 fps is as stupid as it can get.

 

[3DVagabond]

Not as stupid as paying $1000.

 

[raghu78]

Not as stupid as paying $1000.

:thumbsup:

 

[railven]

Woof, $600 beans!? What to do...sell CFX...???

 

[Jacky60]

Any news on whether a dual GPU version is planned as in 9990 or 290Xx2 as a pair of them would certainly be what's I'd like in my next build. If those benches are correct its going to be difficult to choose between two of them and two 7990's.

 

[Silverforce11]

Its about as best as they could manage on 28nm TBH.. I think 30% above a 7970 is a fair target for a new chip this late on 28nm.

If it has decent OC headroom like the current gen stuff, it should be awesome, another 30% extra via OC and you really have a great GPU.

 

[Skurge]

As resolution increases, need for AA diminishes. Personally I got zero need for AA at 2560*1440.

Even without AA, the gap still grows as you increase resolution. So however you look at it. It's a plus. I don't why you are blow it off.

I don't know how far you sit from your monitor, but I certainly do have a need for AA and everyone I know would tell you the same thing.

If this is accurate. I am getting one at launch no doubt. even if it is U$650. I have to support AMD for going for top performance and bringing Nvidia's pricing back in line.

 

[Fastx]

Woof, $600 beans!? What to do...sell CFX...???

IMO with the current BM's no way I would just wait for 20nm with 7970 CF or least hold tight for Maxwell 28nm.

 

[Fox5]

I think you need to give some examples.
1,What CUDA apps is Titan worth $350 more than the 780?
2,What compute, besides CUDA which AMD cards can't run, does Titan stomp Tahiti in that makes it worth ~3x as much?

Titan will run the Adobe After Effects Ray Tracer, and a variety of plugins. AMD won't.
And generally, Nvidia still performs better in CUDA under Adobe products than AMD under OpenCL.

That would be the big one, I can't think of any other major prosumer products right now.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hold on, so now AA at high resolutions doesn't matter? Don't some of you realize if you remove MSAA, in many titles the performances goes up 30-50%? In that case, there is no point in getting a $650 GPU. A $280 1Ghz 7970 can play nearly every game smoothly at 1440P if you start removing MSAA. Regardless, the main point of flagship GPUs is to have the option to use MSAA. If you choose not to, that's each gamer's own prerogative. As games become even more memory bandwidth limited, it makes sense to test flagship GPUs with AA at 1440p/1600p.

512-bit bus is definitely a surprise. If the memory can hit 6300mhz, you are over 400GB/sec. If this card can beat the Titan out of the box and retains 1/4 DP similar to Tahiti, this is a huge turn-around for AMD to have a 420-430mm2 chip outperform a 561mm2 one in games and compute! One key ambiguity is 32 vs. 44/48? ROPs.

 

[ICDP]

Hold on, so now AA at high resolutions doesn't matter? Don't some of you realize if you remove MSAA, in many titles the performances goes up 30-50%? In that case, there is no point in getting a $650 GPU. A $280 1Ghz 7970 can play nearly every game smoothly at 1440P if you start removing MSAA. Regardless, the main point of flagship GPUs is to have the option to use MSAA. If you choose not to, that's each gamer's own prerogative. As games become even more memory bandwidth limited, it makes sense to test flagship GPUs with AA at 1440p/1600p.

512-bit bus is definitely a surprise. If this card can beat the Titan out of the box and retains 1/4 DP similar to Tahiti, this is a huge turn-around for AMD to have a 420-430mm2 chip outperform a 561mm2 one in games and compute! One key ambiguity is 32 vs. 48 ROPs.

Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. It's the usual hypocrisy from the usual suspects. I don't recall anyone claiming the Titan or GTX780 performance increase was unnecessary or pointless. It beggars belief that any true GPU enthusiast would brush aside any advance that allowed increased performance. Especially if it brings lower prices with it.

 

[DownTheSky]

Its about as best as they could manage on 28nm TBH.. I think 30% above a 7970 is a fair target for a new chip this late on 28nm.

If it has decent OC headroom like the current gen stuff, it should be awesome, another 30% extra via OC and you really have a great GPU.

According to the leaks performance is anywhere from 30% to 80% higher than 7970. At least in the games they tested.

But something gotta give. If the diesize goes up with something like 16-17%. Yet increases are from 33% to 50% across the board.

The mem controller gave. The new 512bit they're using is smaller than the old 384bit one. That's the only thing we know so far. Also the die seems bigger than 420sqmm they keep advertising.

 

[Lonyo]

Even without AA, the gap still grows as you increase resolution. So however you look at it. It's a plus. I don't why you are blow it off.

I don't know how far you sit from your monitor, but I certainly do have a need for AA and everyone I know would tell you the same thing.

If this is accurate. I am getting one at launch no doubt. even if it is U$650. I have to support AMD for going for top performance and bringing Nvidia's pricing back in line.

In previous cards, the gap also began to favour AMD up to 2560x1600, but when it came to multi-monitor setups they sometimes started falling off again.
Will be interesting to see if the improvements are maintained even at super high resolutions.