[WCCF] AMD Radeon R9 390X Pictured

[rgallant]

Also, Lisa Su noted that while AMD had started multiple 20nm designs, those projects aren’t going to come to market, due to minimal profitability on that silicon.

just shows amd still does not understand the gpu fanboys market.
faster 20nm gpus for the next 2 years . who cares - good enough for gpu's , fall in line with are award winning cpu's planning. money making gpu's make our cpu's guy's look bad.

 

[Silverforce11]

The thing about 4gb vram is that its not enough for 1440p in some games, and do we think thats gonna happen more often or less often, ie, new AAA games pushing the boundaries or rescinding? Obviously moving forward its a BAD idea to be limited to 4gb vram on the top GPU.

Then there's the unspoken factor, VSR/DSR super sampling, for more older games, once you crank it to 4K on a 1080/1440p monitor, it still needs more vram.

Fiji XT class with ONLY 4gb vram is a mistake of epic proportion.

 

[Riceninja]

390x with 4gb would be a terrible match against a 6gb 980ti. performance wise it'll likely equal titan x/980ti at 1440p and fall off slightly at 4K but from a marketing perspective 4gb vs 6gb it'll just get slaughtered. the mainstream buying crowd isn't spending hours reading up on hbm. add in the GW bias on the major AAA titles this year and the 390x would be facing a very steep uphill battle.

i really hope this isn't the case because we need 390x to drive down those ridiculous nvidia prices.

 

[Silverforce11]

390x with 4gb would be a terrible match against a 6gb 980ti. performance wise it'll likely equal titan x/980ti at 1440p and fall off slightly at 4K but from a marketing perspective 4gb vs 6gb it'll just get slaughtered. the mainstream buying crowd isn't spending hours reading up on hbm. add in the GW bias on the major AAA titles this year and the 390x would be facing a very steep uphill battle.

i really hope this isn't the case because we need 390x to drive down those ridiculous nvidia prices.

Yup, the battle is not vs 970/980 but against GM200 6GB SKUs.

Also, spoken like a true gamer first. We want strong AMD competition to keep prices good for everyone.

 

[destrekor]

If the 4GB only at launch rumor holds true, I really, really hope AMD has plans to release an 8GB variant. At this stage in the game, it is definitely going to be needed in order to secure market share, regardless of actual performance implications.

The other remote possibility is that Fiji as we know it as not actually the 390X, the one likely SKU that needs 8GB the most for market purposes. I may be forgetting a particular reveal, but have we actually had any solid piece of evidence that Fiji XT is the top end GPU?

 

[RampantAndroid]

390x with 4gb would be a terrible match against a 6gb 980ti. performance wise it'll likely equal titan x/980ti at 1440p and fall off slightly at 4K but from a marketing perspective 4gb vs 6gb it'll just get slaughtered. the mainstream buying crowd isn't spending hours reading up on hbm. add in the GW bias on the major AAA titles this year and the 390x would be facing a very steep uphill battle.

i really hope this isn't the case because we need 390x to drive down those ridiculous nvidia prices.

I'm not going to take any real speculation on the 390x's performance seriously...but on the competition point, yes. We need some competition. I don't care if AMD goes out of business - as long as someone else steps in. I don't prefer red, blue or green. I'll take whichever is the best value for me...

 

[Wag]

Yeah, I think this is going to be the year of 4k (it is for me). New high-end cards need to have 6GB at a min. Anything less would be unacceptable.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm not going to take any real speculation on the 390x's performance seriously...but on the competition point, yes. We need some competition. I don't care if AMD goes out of business - as long as someone else steps in. I don't prefer red, blue or green. I'll take whichever is the best value for me...

Only AMD & NV have the IP to compete seriously in graphics on PC. Its why Intel can't make a good graphics card, they have to try to go around the IP minefield owned by AMD/NV.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Only AMD & NV have the IP to compete seriously in graphics on PC. Its why Intel can't make a good graphics card, they have to try to go around the IP minefield owned by AMD/NV.

Intel has their own strangehold on IP, just not the graphics side. Patent reform needs to happen.

 

[Techhog]

Also, Lisa Su noted that while AMD had started multiple 20nm designs, those projects aren’t going to come to market, due to minimal profitability on that silicon.

just shows amd still does not understand the gpu fanboys market.
faster 20nm gpus for the next 2 years . who cares - good enough for gpu's , fall in line with are award winning cpu's planning. money making gpu's make our cpu's guy's look bad.

I can't tell if this is a joke post, or anger that AMD didn't commit financial suicide. In case you haven't noticed, Nvidia skipped 20nm too.

 

[boozzer]

I hope this is the year of 4K for me, and I hope it will be accomplished with a single new AMD GPU.

I will only go 4k when a single gpu can power it. so it is 2016 or 17 for me. if 390x is close to titan performance I would also bite regardless if it is 4gb or 8gb. my current monitor is only 1080p, 4gb is plenty

 

[Enigmoid]

Only AMD & NV have the IP to compete seriously in graphics on PC. Its why Intel can't make a good graphics card, they have to try to go around the IP minefield owned by AMD/NV.

Intel has a license agreement with Nvidia over graphics IP.

 

[crashtech]

I will only go 4k when a single gpu can power it. so it is 2016 or 17 for me. if 390x is close to titan performance I would also bite regardless if it is 4gb or 8gb. my current monitor is only 1080p, 4gb is plenty

I think I mentioned this in the other thread, as long as I can get 30 fps as an absolute minimum, I will be happy because the games I like now are slow paced. I think that can happen with one card.

 

[twjr]

Intel has their own strangehold on IP, just not the graphics side. Patent reform needs to happen.

While I entirely agree, like hell its happening anytime soon. Too much money/power tied up in it. Especially once you start considering the reforms needed for copyright that would need to go alongside.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Intel has a license agreement with Nvidia over graphics IP.

Didn't that fall through in 2008 and end with Intel paying NV lots of money, and NV no longer being allowed to make their own chipsets?

 

[RussianSensation]

The thing about 4gb vram is that its not enough for 1440p in some games,

Which games? Again, no one seems to be able to provide any good data to prove this point. If we had a GPU 50% faster than the Titan X, you'd have a point. Here is an excerpt from HardOCP's latest testing of GTA V, a very VRAM demanding game:

"Finally, the single-GPU GeForce GTX TITAN X is of course slower than these other multi-GPU cards."

What about 970 SLI with 3.5GB of VRAM?

"GeForce GTX 970 SLI is also faster than a single GeForce GTX TITAN X, which is interesting."

What about 4K now?

"GeForce GTX 970 SLI is just a bit faster than R9 290 CrossFire, and both are faster than a single GTX TITAN X. The R9 295X2 seems to do very well at 4K when advanced options are turned off."

Conclusion:

"....Even the brand new GeForce GTX TITAN X is not able to play this game at the highest settings at 1440p.

There is basically no single-GPU video card on the planet at this point in time that can play this game at the highest in-game settings. It will take a future generation GPU to maximize this game at the highest settings.

We found that the lowest configuration you can get away with in order to play the game "maxed out" at 1440p is going to be GeForce GTX 970 SLI. This will allow you to turn on every single graphics feature at 1440p. Even though GTX 970 has its VRAM limitations, those aren't a problem at 1440p. The game is still smooth and playable on GeForce GTX 970 SLI at 1440p."

What about 4K?

"GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI is just one setting away from the highest settings in-game at 4K. It goes to show you though, even with GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI 4K still cannot be maximized, again we will need faster video cards to truly make it shine. To completely max out GTA V you'll need three TITAN X cards."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...igpu_performance_review_part_2/7#.VU258vmqpBc

So the hard reality:

1. If you are only buying 1 card and 1 card only in the realm of Titan X performance or slower, 8-12GB of VRAM is way too much for such a slow product. This may change in the future but for today's games, this is how it is.

2. What allows Titan X SLI to beat 980 SLI isn't VRAM but more GPU processing power. Titan X is just 33-35% faster than a 980 per HardOCP but has 3X the VRAM - waste.

"If you are playing at 4K and want the best setup for 4K with money as a consideration it definitely falls on the GeForce GTX 980 SLI as your best option."

I would personally MUCH rather take a $400-450 GM200/R9 390 4GB with 85% of the Titan X rather than a $700 R9 390X 8GB with 100% of the performance of the Titan X. 4GB if plenty for 1440P and below and in 2 years, just dump these cards, save $200-300 PER card in CF/SLI and get something much faster.

Put it this way, GTX480/580 SLI did not outlast 470/570 SLI because of VRAM and the same is true for single cards. You are generally better off getting 2nd tier cards, saving a butt-load of cash and upgrading sooner.

Don't forget, massive CPU bottlenecks when going with 390X CF/Titan X SLI in some games, such as GTA V!

"The GTX TITAN X is a very powerful video card, and two of these in SLI is a lot of GPU potential. However, running that much GPU performance at a low resolution like 1440p could create a very CPU dependent scenario, and thus would bottleneck TITAN X SLI performance at 1440p.

It is possible both of these theories are in play, and result in the fact that TITAN X SLI just isn't any faster than GTX 980 SLI at 1440p. Given that information, spending $2000 on TITAN X SLI if you are running at 1440p in this game is a waste of money. GeForce GTX 980 SLI is the best solution at 1440p and allows you to play at the highest possible in-game settings."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...igpu_performance_review_part_2/2#.VU27lvmqpBc

Knowning all this, sub-$900 R9 390 4GB CF would be a smoking hot deal against a single Titan X. For other gamers who really want 3+ years of future proofness and don't mind spending $1400-2000 for a pair of high-end cards, GM200 6GB SLI and Titan Xs will be more fitting. As it stands, there is no way a card priced at $450 with 85-90% of the Titan X's performance with 4GB of VRAM is a failure for 1080P-1440P users.

390x with 4gb would be a terrible match against a 6gb 980ti. performance wise it'll likely equal titan x/980ti at 1440p and fall off slightly at 4K but from a marketing perspective 4gb vs 6gb it'll just get slaughtered.

Let's wait to see prices and performance first. I would never pay $250-300 more for a card 10% faster just because it has 6-8GB of VRAM. GPUs become outdated and drop in value so fast, and knowing that this generation is a 100% stop-gap, why spend hundreds of dollars more knowing a $500 Pascal/16nm Arctic Islands will smash a 390X in 18 months? NV can price GM200 6GB at $699 if it wants to. Those 2nd tier AMD cards have been hands down the best value for high-end gaming for 5 consecutive generations (HD4870, 5850, 6950, 7950 and R9 290). If some gamers want to spend $200-300 more for each GM200 card to future-proof, they can knock themselves out. If R9 390 non-X has 4GB of VRAM but it beats 980 by even 15% and costs $449, it will be amazing. The affluent PC gamers buying $1K 4K monitors and not caring if a GPU costs $500 or $700-1000 and are planning on getting 2 high-end cards, well they can go right ahead and get Titan X/GM200s. For 1080P and even 1440P gamers, there is no need to waste money on wasteful amounts of VRAM knowing this gen is a stop-gap.

While there is no doubt that 680 2GB SLI and 770 2GB SLI setups do not fair well today, I stood firm on my recommendations when Kepler came out and recommended 670 SLI (as an example), and advised that it's way better to skip 680 4GB and 770 4GB, and just resell those 670s and upgrade with the $ saved from not wasting it on 680 4GB or 770 4GB cards. Think about it, $200-300 saved per GPU is $400-600 put aside towards 14nm/16nm GPUs that will literally blow the doors off today's cards. I mean who keeps $700-1400+ cards that they actually paid for for 5 years today knowing how the PC market works? The best way to future proof is to not overspend today and upgrade more often with the $ saved from not spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars extra on that last 15% performance gain and extra VRAM that "might get utilized".

As a reminder, just look at what happened to GTX780 6GB, the original Titan 6GB or the R9 290X 8GB. All waste of $ vs. a strategy of getting something fast enough and just upgrading again in 2 years. That's why it's still better today to buy GTX970 SLI for 1440P and below than 980 SLI and just dump those 970s in 2 years, saving yourself $500 in the process towards the next upgrade.

 

[beginner99]

So the hard reality:

1. If you are only buying 1 card and 1 card only in the realm of Titan X performance or slower, 8-12GB of VRAM is way too much for such a slow product. This may change in the future but for today's games, this is how it is.

We also should not forget 1080/1440 120 hz gaming which also requires a very fast GPU like 4K but does not need the amount of vram as 4K. Since getting 120 hz will be nearly impossible in modern games, some setting swill have to be lowered and further reduce vram requirements.

So a 4GB 390x could be ideal for 120 hz gaming. Most people keep monitors for very long so if you just bought a 1440p/120 hz one you won't change it anytime soon.

 

[Enigmoid]

Didn't that fall through in 2008 and end with Intel paying NV lots of money, and NV no longer being allowed to make their own chipsets?

This is from that agreement but basically the money intel paid/pays nvidia is for use of nvidia's patents.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Only AMD & NV have the IP to compete seriously in graphics on PC. Its why Intel can't make a good graphics card, they have to try to go around the IP minefield owned by AMD/NV.

No. IP has no impact whatsoever on anyone at this level. Everyone has enough patents on basic stuff that they could prevent each other from selling anything. What this means is that firms cross-licence each other's patents, or if they don't have the relations to do that, they both knowingly infringe on each other's patents while staving off any major litigation by communicating on how they could also take the other guy with them.

Occasionally companies saber-rattle a little to extract some concessions, but no-one will be prevented from competing because of IP. No big player is greatly impacted by IP -- it's only effect is to keep new small competitors out. Given the amount of investment competing here would require, IP really doesn't impact anyone that much.

The reason Intel isn't traditionally nearly as competitive as AMD and nV is GPU drivers. The API implementations contain massive amount of crazy optimization that requires decades to build up. In a sense, I predict that Intel will be the biggest winner of the new lower-level APIs, as DX12 requires less and benefits less from the kind of crazy shit that AMD and nV drivers pull.

 

[krumme]

Which games? Again, no one seems to be able to provide any good data to prove this point. If we had a GPU 50% faster than the Titan X, you'd have a point. Here is an excerpt from HardOCP's latest testing of GTA V, a very VRAM demanding game:

"Finally, the single-GPU GeForce GTX TITAN X is of course slower than these other multi-GPU cards."

What about 970 SLI with 3.5GB of VRAM?

"GeForce GTX 970 SLI is also faster than a single GeForce GTX TITAN X, which is interesting."

What about 4K now?

"GeForce GTX 970 SLI is just a bit faster than R9 290 CrossFire, and both are faster than a single GTX TITAN X. The R9 295X2 seems to do very well at 4K when advanced options are turned off."

Conclusion:

"....Even the brand new GeForce GTX TITAN X is not able to play this game at the highest settings at 1440p.

There is basically no single-GPU video card on the planet at this point in time that can play this game at the highest in-game settings. It will take a future generation GPU to maximize this game at the highest settings.

We found that the lowest configuration you can get away with in order to play the game "maxed out" at 1440p is going to be GeForce GTX 970 SLI. This will allow you to turn on every single graphics feature at 1440p. Even though GTX 970 has its VRAM limitations, those aren't a problem at 1440p. The game is still smooth and playable on GeForce GTX 970 SLI at 1440p."

What about 4K?

"GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI is just one setting away from the highest settings in-game at 4K. It goes to show you though, even with GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI 4K still cannot be maximized, again we will need faster video cards to truly make it shine. To completely max out GTA V you'll need three TITAN X cards."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...igpu_performance_review_part_2/7#.VU258vmqpBc

So the hard reality:

1. If you are only buying 1 card and 1 card only in the realm of Titan X performance or slower, 8-12GB of VRAM is way too much for such a slow product. This may change in the future but for today's games, this is how it is.

2. What allows Titan X SLI to beat 980 SLI isn't VRAM but more GPU processing power. Titan X is just 33-35% faster than a 980 per HardOCP but has 3X the VRAM - waste.

"If you are playing at 4K and want the best setup for 4K with money as a consideration it definitely falls on the GeForce GTX 980 SLI as your best option."

I would personally MUCH rather take a $400-450 GM200/R9 390 4GB with 85% of the Titan X rather than a $700 R9 390X 8GB with 100% of the performance of the Titan X. 4GB if plenty for 1440P and below and in 2 years, just dump these cards, save $200-300 PER card in CF/SLI and get something much faster.

Put it this way, GTX480/580 SLI did not outlast 470/570 SLI because of VRAM and the same is true for single cards. You are generally better off getting 2nd tier cards, saving a butt-load of cash and upgrading sooner.

Don't forget, massive CPU bottlenecks when going with 390X CF/Titan X SLI in some games, such as GTA V!

"The GTX TITAN X is a very powerful video card, and two of these in SLI is a lot of GPU potential. However, running that much GPU performance at a low resolution like 1440p could create a very CPU dependent scenario, and thus would bottleneck TITAN X SLI performance at 1440p.

It is possible both of these theories are in play, and result in the fact that TITAN X SLI just isn't any faster than GTX 980 SLI at 1440p. Given that information, spending $2000 on TITAN X SLI if you are running at 1440p in this game is a waste of money. GeForce GTX 980 SLI is the best solution at 1440p and allows you to play at the highest possible in-game settings."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...igpu_performance_review_part_2/2#.VU27lvmqpBc

Knowning all this, sub-$900 R9 390 4GB CF would be a smoking hot deal against a single Titan X. For other gamers who really want 3+ years of future proofness and don't mind spending $1400-2000 for a pair of high-end cards, GM200 6GB SLI and Titan Xs will be more fitting. As it stands, there is no way a card priced at $450 with 85-90% of the Titan X's performance with 4GB of VRAM is a failure for 1080P-1440P users.



Let's wait to see prices and performance first. I would never pay $250-300 more for a card 10% faster just because it has 6-8GB of VRAM. GPUs become outdated and drop in value so fast, and knowing that this generation is a 100% stop-gap, why spend hundreds of dollars more knowing a $500 Pascal/16nm Arctic Islands will smash a 390X in 18 months? NV can price GM200 6GB at $699 if it wants to. Those 2nd tier AMD cards have been hands down the best value for high-end gaming for 5 consecutive generations (HD4870, 5850, 6950, 7950 and R9 290). If some gamers want to spend $200-300 more for each GM200 card to future-proof, they can knock themselves out. If R9 390 non-X has 4GB of VRAM but it beats 980 by even 15% and costs $449, it will be amazing. The affluent PC gamers buying $1K 4K monitors and not caring if a GPU costs $500 or $700-1000 and are planning on getting 2 high-end cards, well they can go right ahead and get Titan X/GM200s. For 1080P and even 1440P gamers, there is no need to waste money on wasteful amounts of VRAM knowing this gen is a stop-gap.

While there is no doubt that 680 2GB SLI and 770 2GB SLI setups do not fair well today, I stood firm on my recommendations when Kepler came out and recommended 670 SLI (as an example), and advised that it's way better to skip 680 4GB and 770 4GB, and just resell those 670s and upgrade with the $ saved from not wasting it on 680 4GB or 770 4GB cards. Think about it, $200-300 saved per GPU is $400-600 put aside towards 14nm/16nm GPUs that will literally blow the doors off today's cards. I mean who keeps $700-1400+ cards that they actually paid for for 5 years today knowing how the PC market works? The best way to future proof is to not overspend today and upgrade more often with the $ saved from not spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars extra on that last 15% performance gain and extra VRAM that "might get utilized".

As a reminder, just look at what happened to GTX780 6GB, the original Titan 6GB or the R9 290X 8GB. All waste of $ vs. a strategy of getting something fast enough and just upgrading again in 2 years. That's why it's still better today to buy GTX970 SLI for 1440P and below than 980 SLI and just dump those 970s in 2 years, saving yourself $500 in the process towards the next upgrade.

Excellent post rs !

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS Way to be selective of my quote. Note my emphasis in this thread & others on the usage of VSR, downsampling from 4k to 1080/1440p monitors.

No, I don't need benches of 4K with MSAA to show me that Titan X + can't handle it. Because I won't be running MSAA at native 4K OR if I use VSR.

Are you gonna say with a straight face that now and til ~18 months away when next-gen 14/16nm GPUs come, that more games won't push the 4gb barrier with ultra textures running at native 4K or VSR?

4GB is a mistake for a GPU with potentially that much performance, its crippling it.

ps. This was my plan of upgrade, 390X + either 1440p IPS and use VSR or go with a nice 4K VA/IPS monitor and game without MSAA at native 4K. I've seen it in action, I dont think 4K needs MSAA, and with the trend of games where MSAA destroys performance, without it, games are very playable.

 

[Cloudfire777]

For a company that just presented slides about virtual reality, and is facing 6GB/12GB cards from Nvidia, 4GB would not be ideal.
We have a growing number of games going over 4GB in 1080p today, which will continue to grow from ports from consoles, and since the 390X is aimed at much higher resolution and much higher graphic settings, 4GB would not be very future proof.

I got price for both 4GB and 8GB 390X from my contact like I posted earlier, but if he is spreading BS, it also means the slides videocardz posted was fake then. It specifically says "up to 8GB HBM".
If those slides are fake, then there may not even be a WCE premium version, but just one type.

 

[Subyman]

I'm fine with 4GB again. I'm considering going 21:9 1440p, so I'll be pushing the memory needs higher than most people. If I run into problems, ticking textures down a notch isn't world ending. 8GB would be nice, but there is always a cost involved.

 

[_UP_]

@RS great post. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, about value and things like that.
But, even if there isn't a single game that currently requires 4GB at lower resolutions (1080p/1440p), I do believe this will happen in the very near future.
Because of the integrated memory system of the consoles, and the fact that those run @720p/960p/1080p and the devs have about 4-5GB for that, I think that it is a matter of very little time (e.g. within a year) that we will be seeing 1080p requiring 4GB of VRAM. If that is the case (and again, this is my prediction), then 6GB or so will be required for 1440p and so on. So I'd have to agree with Silverforce and the few others that say that the "top dog" card must have over 4GB. It is supposed to be here for 15-18 months, and not just the next 6-12...

As for the "second card" strategy, well, I just wish they had a Classy or Lightning version of those. I had a good deal on the Classy, and decided to try the Lightning as a comparison later (after having CFX 290X TRI-X), well, just because. I got lucky with some deals, but had the second card quite a few times before (670 and 6950 to name a couple).

 

[x3sphere]

I think it would be a huge mistake for AMD to stick with 4GB again. People have gotten in the mindset that you need tons of VRAM, and to some degree it's justified - we've seen requirements jump significantly over the past year as developers are starting to target the new consoles exclusively, leaving the legacy PS3, 360 codebases behind.

Also, if NV cards already sell like hotcakes at a $100-150 premium over comparable AMD offerings, them having the VRAM advantage on top of it all would not be good for sales.