-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
pettson3816
Member
So, will there be unbiased benchmarks out today you think? Or will we have to wait until tomorrow?
jfoul
Member
Guru3D.com - AMD Radeon Fury X Teaser - Posted about an hour ago.
Supposedly around 24th June 12pm UTC+0, when NDA breaks alongside retail availability.
The only source is OCUK Gibbo but he didn't clarify if it is a permanent restriction. Anymore peep from him and lawyers will smack him good
How good are the current DP to DL DVIs?
The thing is, some (such as DF) credit the biggest reason for the 390X increase in performance over the 290X on the higher clocked memory. 450 is only 17% more bandwidth more than the 384 in the 390X, even though it has 45% more shaders. I hope that memory is able to OC, as that should help performance.
pettson3816
Member
Thanks man. How likely is it that this card will kick 980 Ti's ass in benchmarks?
http://i.imgur.com/Xh46h1g.png
I see HDMI 2.0, is this box bogus? (edit: shopped)
- "Excellent" and "gets better" at 4K which suggests it beats 980Ti stock at UHD
- Likely trading blows at 1080p and 1440p
- 980Ti G1 version will still be the best GPU for now
I see HDMI 2.0, is this box bogus? (edit: shopped)
No idea. If you read between the lines.. the post by Gibbo OCUK seemed to suggest:
- "Excellent" and "gets better" at 4K which suggests it beats 980Ti stock at UHD
- Likely trading blows at 1080p and 1440p
- 980Ti G1 version will still be the best GPU for now
Nostremitus
Member
Who knows. But I don't think anyone ever confirmed that venders couldn't add HDMI if they wanted to.
What's the yellow port?
Its a different width and length compared to the other three. That would mean it's not DP like the others?
DouglasteR
Member
HDMI 2.0.
All problems solved.
All problems solved.
The guy that just ordered a 980Ti yesterday specifically due to lack of HDMI 2.0 sure thought it was confirmed.
Who knows. 24 hours to go.
Where are the sources for these box pics?
adampa1006
Banned
Box looks super fake, really big for a small card, crooked AMD logo in top right, why only HDMI in red??
I'm pretty sure the original source said 1200 UTC. 12pm would be written 2400 UTC.
Nostremitus
Member
12pm is noon...
I checked the source, seems to be a prank photoshop. Looks like there is no HDMI 2.0 after all
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=28215327#post28215327
I checked the source, seems to be a prank photoshop. Looks like there is no HDMI 2.0 after all
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=28215327#post28215327
Yup. Don't get your HDMI 2.0 hopes up yet, sadly.
Ah, sorry. Someone else thought it was midnight and it's ten years since I had 12-hour clocks in school.
Since this is a reference design that is an AIO watercooled part I think Sapphire would be a safe choice.
Official retail Fury X box!
It is 95% of 980Ti prices here.
450GB/s HBM only?
Not the full 512GB/s. :/
Almost a good photoshop? Close but not quite!
Jack Videogames
Member
Sorry if this has been answered guys but any data on the Nano? Which level of performance can we expect from it? I've googled it but they seem to be keeping it sort of under wraps
longdi
Banned
It is all real!
Benchmarks incoming tonight, i guess.
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/h...iew]-sapphire-amd-r9-fury-x-rise-5087633.html
Nostremitus
Member
Well, the very first images from AMD show HDMI... You know, the shots in the OP.
digitalrelic
Banned
Well, the very first images from AMD show HDMI... You know, the shots in the OP.
It has HDMI... Just not HDMI 2.0
Nostremitus
Member
Oh gotcha, I thought the original claims that got people fired up were that the card was Display port only.
digitalrelic
Banned
Nope. It just doesn't have HDMI 2.0, which is the only version of HDMI that supports 4k. And, of course, the vast majority of customers with 4K displays own 4K TV's, where HDMI 2.0 is the only option. A huge oversight by AMD.
Interesting. So active adapters are coming this summer to adapt the Fury X to HDMI 2.0. Evidently it was a "time to market" decision (whatever that means) that lead them to stick to the lower spec HDMI and not any issue with the card itself. They also contend that display port is the superior spec for this card because it allows Free-sync and daisy chaining, etc but they understand the want for the higher HDMI spec.
Out of the box 4 way Cross-fire is supported and it sounds like he said that AMD would allow board partners to devise their own cooling solutions for the Fury X as long as it was still water cooled.
justgames7604
Member
Got to see if the performance is there. The price seems to be right.
TBiddy
Member
I highly doubt it's an oversight, to be honest.
4k gamers on Steam amounts to about 0,01% (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/).
I'm not quite sure how many of these have TV's instead of monitors, but it's probably not all 0,01%. Let's go with half and say 0,005% of all Steam gamers use 4k TVs without DisplayPort to play.
Steam has around 125 million users. 0,005% of those equals 6,250 people. How many of those doesn't already own a GTX 970, 980 or another card capable of running 4k?
In my mind, AMD has taken a valid business decision by not paying for a HDMI 2.0 compatible chip + royalties, in order to support the relatively small number of people who needs it.
Crazymoogle
Member
The Nano looks amazing for mITX builds. Obviously need to see how it performs, but that's maybe the smallest card I've seen since the 2600XT
Watch this be the sticking point to downplay this, even by people who won't have such setups.
Valid argument if this weren't a high end card being advertised as good-for-4k.
anchorman128
Member
"This reference design is not a limitation. We don't for example tell our board partners, you can't change things"
So it sounds like besides from moving away from water cooling, there is nothing limiting partners from putting in HDMI 2.0, or changing power design etc.
Unless I'm imagining things, there seems to be multiple options for that - 4K.
Cirekiller
Member
Or you know, up to about 2 weeks ago there was no way to play in 4k without spending 1000$ on a card. I have a 4k TV and I want to upgrade to 4k gaming in the near future. I'm sure there are others like me who have finally seen the price barrier drop to acceptable levels. However, no hdmi 2.0 pretty much limits us to Nvidia cards. It's not about what the demo was when price of entry s too high, it's about how many people want to jump in now and the near future, and they'll probably not go to amd.
None of which will be useful for somebody with an HDMI 2.0 TV, which probably make up a good amount of 4k-equipped consumers.
cleveridea
Member
Is there a release date or review NDA date for Fury X?
I dont see it for sale at amazon or newegg, yet its listed at AMD's site but with no release date there
edit - ah I see that above youtube link has tomorrow's date (hopefully with independent benchmarks)
I dont see it for sale at amazon or newegg, yet its listed at AMD's site but with no release date there
edit - ah I see that above youtube link has tomorrow's date (hopefully with independent benchmarks)
longdi
Banned
I feel 4K will only be really usable next year, with sales of 16nm GPU.
Today's top GPU can run 4K games but at around 30fps on average, but with plenty of frame times spikes, i dont think it is worth it from an gaming experience POV.
It is a good thing when you think of how fast 4K gaming becomes a reality by 2016. It took us quite a while to go beyond 1024x768 and then 1920x1080.
Today's top GPU can run 4K games but at around 30fps on average, but with plenty of frame times spikes, i dont think it is worth it from an gaming experience POV.
It is a good thing when you think of how fast 4K gaming becomes a reality by 2016. It took us quite a while to go beyond 1024x768 and then 1920x1080.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I wouldn't put much stock in anything DF say when it comes to hardware. They're amatuers when it comes to PC hardware and software as they come from a console background. You should read somewhere more reputable that has been covering PC for years.
It's definitely not an oversight. AMD said as much in the video that was linked previously. They decided to leave out HDMI 2.0 as a "time to market" decision which I take to mean that it would have taken longer to get the boards manufactured and may have added more cost than they were comfortable with. I'm not privy to the details but, right or wrong, this is how AMD spec'ed out the reference card.
I wonder if any of the board partners will take the leap to add HDMI 2.0? AMD seems to indicate that modifications of that nature would be allowed (they just can't go non-watercooled for the Fury X).
Official retail Fury X box!
It is 95% of 980Ti prices here.
450GB/s HBM only?
Not the full 512GB/s. :/
Lmao what's up with Sapphire reducing the memory clock speeds?
Edit: Upon further inspection, it appears to be a photoshop. Lmao @ the hater who's responsible.
Crazymoogle
Member
NCIX has the Gigabyte model listed at $829.99 CDN ( $673 USD, so probably 625-650 USD before customary Canadian dollar gouging) but they started hiding it from their site search tool for some reason. Still shows up for a brief second (or via Google)
Yeah NCIX is where I saw them this morning they also have a sapphire version and a club 3d version on there.
I want to get this card and a new 1440p free sync monitor but man that's going to run me close to 1600 bones
longdi
Banned
Nay, it is real box, already posted a link above.
Here is first 4K Shadow of Mordor scores of Fury X
Average 48.95
Max 66.11
Low 35.06
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/94716834-post75.html