The biggest jump in memory since June of 2008 when AMD launched the World's first GDDR5 GPU the ATI HD 4870 (which was my first ATI card), AMD will launch the World's First High Bandwidth Memory GPU at the E3 PC Gaming Show Press Conference Below. Full broadcast below.
http://www.twitch.tv/amd/v/6251824
E3's First ever PC Gaming Show! Looking forward to it!
----------------------------
Pics:
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X – Fiji GPU Based, HBM Powered, $649 US Priced Small Form Factor 8 1/2 TFLOP Powerhouse
AMD R9 Nano. Supposedly half the size of the R9 290X and half the power.
They did say "most powerful graphics card" for the dual gpu card but at no point did they say most powerful or fastest GPU for the Fury X. Titan X wins then
AMD announced first HBM GPU, not launched. The launch (paper probably) will be 24th of June.
"The card will be widely available in mid-July, and will be priced around the $650 mark. It will compete with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX TITAN X graphics cards. "
"Fury X has load level LED indicators (being joked about on stage). 24th of June the Fury X will be available for 649 USD, a little later the regular model Fury will be available for 549 USD."
Sorry for the delay, I was 50miles away from home. :P
Why 4GB? it wouldn't have been much effort to make it 6GB VRAM.
1st gen HBM stack limits wont allow it,
Ah understand. Really game devs need to better optimise games better utilise VRAM. The issue is consoles have approx. 6GB VRAM available to use, so devs are just porting without VRAM optimisations.
AMD announced first HBM GPU, not launched. The launch (paper probably) will be 24th of June.
"The card will be widely available in mid-July, and will be priced around the $650 mark. It will compete with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX TITAN X graphics cards. "
"Fury X has load level LED indicators (being joked about on stage). 24th of June the Fury X will be available for 649 USD, a little later the regular model Fury will be available for 549 USD."
Sorry for the delay, I was 50miles away from home. :P
Don't forget the R9 Nano. This has gotten me interested. It could be AMD's Dark Horse in the line up. It supposed to provide 2X the performance per/watt. Supposedly half the size of the R9 290X and half the power. Interesting...
Why 4GB? it wouldn't have been much effort to make it 6GB VRAM.
1st gen HBM stack limits wont allow it,
Ah understand. Really game devs need to better optimise games better utilise VRAM. The issue is consoles have approx. 6GB VRAM available to use, so devs are just porting without VRAM optimisations.
Actually they have less then 5gb, and that 5gb has to be split between game cache and vram. So the the consoles have less then 4gb to use for vram. They average between 2-3gb.
Why 4GB? it wouldn't have been much effort to make it 6GB VRAM.
1st gen HBM stack limits wont allow it,
Ah understand. Really game devs need to better optimise games better utilise VRAM. The issue is consoles have approx. 6GB VRAM available to use, so devs are just porting without VRAM optimisations.
Actually they have less then 5gb, and that 5gb has to be split between game cache and vram. So the the consoles have less then 4gb to use for vram. They average between 2-3gb.
Why are games relying on more and more VRAM? Since I jumped to 1440p I have noticed in a lot of games my VRAM is reaching 6GB on the 980ti. I just upgraded to this card with a 1440p monitor and in games like GTA5 maxed all the VRAM is being used. But a console has less VRAM available yet plays the same game no probs.
Why 4GB? it wouldn't have been much effort to make it 6GB VRAM.
1st gen HBM stack limits wont allow it,
Ah understand. Really game devs need to better optimise games better utilise VRAM. The issue is consoles have approx. 6GB VRAM available to use, so devs are just porting without VRAM optimisations.
Actually they have less then 5gb, and that 5gb has to be split between game cache and vram. So the the consoles have less then 4gb to use for vram. They average between 2-3gb.
Why are games relying on more and more VRAM? Since I jumped to 1440p I have noticed in a lot of games my VRAM is reaching 6GB on the 980ti. I just upgraded to this card with a 1440p monitor and in games like GTA5 maxed all the VRAM is being used. But a console has less VRAM available yet plays the same game no probs.
Just all depends on the dev's coding abilities and if they take the time to properly code the engine to stream in data as needed instead of throwing almost all assets into the pool at once.
AMD announced first HBM GPU, not launched. The launch (paper probably) will be 24th of June.
"The card will be widely available in mid-July, and will be priced around the $650 mark. It will compete with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX TITAN X graphics cards. "
"Fury X has load level LED indicators (being joked about on stage). 24th of June the Fury X will be available for 649 USD, a little later the regular model Fury will be available for 549 USD."
Sorry for the delay, I was 50miles away from home. :P
Don't forget the R9 Nano. This has gotten me interested. It could be AMD's Dark Horse in the line up. It supposed to provide 2X the performance per/watt. Supposedly half the size of the R9 290X and half the power. Interesting...
I suspect from it to have around 3200 cores and lower than Fury clocks. With low TDP like GTX970/980 we might see companies like Gigabyte, Asus, MSI etc etc selling heavy factory oced (20%!!! higher default clock like Gigabyte G1 GTX970) cards with their costume cooling solutions with high o/c potential.
I am just worried about the price. R9 390X = $429 and Fury = $549. So it must be between $429 and $549.
I wanted to be like $400-450 so it would give both GTX970 and GTX980 a great price competition.
With the right price, R9 Nano has the potential to make AMD take back a lot of the percentage market share they lost...
@Jawad2007 said:
:O
Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench
Source
Thats REALLY GOOD !
I noticed this yesterday from the WCCFTech, which is the least trusted site from all the hardware info sites I know (around 20). Too many rumors are posted as news.
A good example is the rumored Hawaii XTX chip (lol woot? you will say...).:
AMD’s Full Blown Hawaii XTX Core Confirmed – Is this the R9 295X with 3072 SPs and 48 CUs?
I really hope the R9 Nano delivers excellent performance.
I hope too. And I really hope they wouldn't be so late.
If they would release this earlier before Nvidia's Maxwell, then GTX970 would have 2048 cores (current GTX980) and GTX980 would be 2816 cores (current GTX980ti).
Maybe we could have a lower GM200 like 2560 cores (an other 2SMXs cutted) for GTX970 and GTX960ti would be today's GTX980 (like GTX560ti Fermi era where AMD were more competitive).
I really hope the R9 Nano delivers excellent performance.
I hope too. And I really hope they wouldn't be so late.
If they would release this earlier before Nvidia's Maxwell, then GTX970 would have 2048 cores (current GTX980) and GTX980 would be 2816 cores (current GTX980ti).
Maybe we could have a lower GM200 like 2560 cores (an other 2SMXs cutted) for GTX970 and GTX960ti would be today's GTX980 (like GTX560ti Fermi era where AMD were more competitive).
Why 4GB? it wouldn't have been much effort to make it 6GB VRAM.
1st gen HBM stack limits wont allow it,
Ah understand. Really game devs need to better optimise games better utilise VRAM. The issue is consoles have approx. 6GB VRAM available to use, so devs are just porting without VRAM optimisations.
Actually they have less then 5gb, and that 5gb has to be split between game cache and vram. So the the consoles have less then 4gb to use for vram. They average between 2-3gb.
Why are games relying on more and more VRAM? Since I jumped to 1440p I have noticed in a lot of games my VRAM is reaching 6GB on the 980ti. I just upgraded to this card with a 1440p monitor and in games like GTA5 maxed all the VRAM is being used. But a console has less VRAM available yet plays the same game no probs.
Some games will use unlimited amount of VRAM (as much VRAM as your GPU provides). I've been @ 1440P for about a year now and I still never go above 4GB usage, ever. I'm playing GTA V maxed @ 1440P and not even using all 4GB. HBM is faster then GDDR5 so even though it's 4GB we should still see a pretty big jump in performance. That Fury (Non-X) looks like the card to get if custom loop is already available.
AMD announced first HBM GPU, not launched. The launch (paper probably) will be 24th of June.
"The card will be widely available in mid-July, and will be priced around the $650 mark. It will compete with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti and GTX TITAN X graphics cards. "
"Fury X has load level LED indicators (being joked about on stage). 24th of June the Fury X will be available for 649 USD, a little later the regular model Fury will be available for 549 USD."
Sorry for the delay, I was 50miles away from home. :P
Don't forget the R9 Nano. This has gotten me interested. It could be AMD's Dark Horse in the line up. It supposed to provide 2X the performance per/watt. Supposedly half the size of the R9 290X and half the power. Interesting...
I suspect from it to have around 3200 cores and lower than Fury clocks. With low TDP like GTX970/980 we might see companies like Gigabyte, Asus, MSI etc etc selling heavy factory oced (20%!!! higher default clock like Gigabyte G1 GTX970) cards with their costume cooling solutions with high o/c potential.
I am just worried about the price. R9 390X = $429 and Fury = $549. So it must be between $429 and $549.
I wanted to be like $400-450 so it would give both GTX970 and GTX980 a great price competition.
With the right price, R9 Nano has the potential to make AMD take back a lot of the percentage market share they lost...
Yeah I agree with you there. I would really like it to be in the $350 - $400 range. The Nano with it's HBM Memory and half the size of a R9 290X and 2X the performance per/watt would be a killer product in the $350 - $400. If not now, it would be great if AMD could get it down that price range by November and combine that with the Battlefront code, it could be a killer product.
The Radeon R9 Nano will launch later this Summer. It could compete with the GeForce GTX 970 in both performance and price.
AMD Radeon R9 Nano to Feature a Single PCIe Power Connector
For those that didn't bought new GPUs yet, this will be veeeeeeery tempting and it can make AMD come back in the market share.
I was afraid that this would be expensive, but AMD will make the right decision. At $330 or $350 will sell like hot cakes.
Actually it will cannibalize the sales of R9 390 and R9 390X (like GTX460 did to GTX465 and GTX470)...
Maybe that's why they are delaying the Nano. ;) So, they could get rid of the older re-badged 8GB R9 290X's to make way for the Nano. I remember Lisa Su stating that they expect to clear R9 290/X stock by the summer.
Surprise! AMD shares internal Fury X benchmarks ahead of review embargo (Techspot article)
Today marked the launch of AMD’s new 300 Series graphics cards but truth be told, most everyone is waiting to see what kind of performance the upcoming Radeon Fury X can lay down. Some reviewers already have AMD’s latest hardware in their test beds but as you may have heard, all reviews are embargoed until next week (June 24, to be exact).
As happens from time to time, there was a communications “misunderstanding” and AMD’s internal benchmarks – the ones included in the reviewer’s guide as guidelines of what to expect during testing – were prematurely posted online. With the cards (no pun intended) already on the table table, AMD has given reviewers the green light to go ahead and share these internal benchmarks with readers.
And here are the settings that AMD used in each test.
Here's a little snipped of what you can expect with a 100MHz overclock.
It’s clear to see that the Radeon Fury X outpaces Nvidia’s GTX 980 Ti in every single test. But it’s also important to remember that these benchmarks do come with an asterisk attached.
AMD obviously wants to showcase the Fury X in the best possible light. That doesn’t mean there’s anything shady going on here but it’s pretty much a guarantee that what we’re seeing is a best-case scenario. How will these results compare to true real-world performance? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until June 24 to get those answers.
In the meantime, here's a complete specifications list of the Fury X to chew on.
idk the performance increase is not that great... It also consumes more power, heats way more than 980, and also depends on water cooling, which is super risky to be honest
Log in to comment