3DMark Firemark Scores Radeon Fury X surfaces - but are they real ?

Absolutely. And that's why I have the 970 over the 290x. That being said, the 970 isn't popular because it is priced amazingly. the 290x, if anything, is priced just as well.

I am confident in saying that the £209 Asus DCUII 290x will perform on par with 970 and run reasonably cool 'n quiet with that beefy cooler, while costing £50 less than a similar 970. Thing is, I wen't with the 970, for the reasons I mentioned above.

What worries me is the FuryX. It makes the 390X look good. Which is worrying.

 

It's actually even more complicated because each pin has power & ground. So it's nearly 10K connections per HBM module. The interposer is good because it's 65nm, so you essentially have a giant bridge to tap into, as oppose to trying to do that through PCB.

I definitely agree, it's exponentially more complicated and I think it will have a negative effect on yields. That being said the payoff is huge. Latency is significantly reduced. The entire card can be made smaller. And eventually they'll probably put even more stuff on there. Plus AMD has a leg up now because they have practice with it.

 

I don't think they drill through it. I think the Through Silicon Via's are added, layer by layer. Samsung does it quite well with their TLC SSD memory iirc.

Also, the scales are magnitudes different between etching even on 65nm, an old process as an example, and a PCB layout.
I don't know what process the interposer is done on, but it won't be 28nm, it may not even be 65nm. It doesn't have to be.
Connecting the various chips to the interposer could be a bit of a challenge though. i can't see an easy way of doing that, but they use microBGA or nanoBGA or something.

 

Ya the interposer itself isn't hard to do, it's the combining of everything that's tough. I think AMD confirmed it's a 65nm interposer. At least I remember reading in multiple places its 65nm.

 

Yeah, I get to select higher resolutions than native in games.
It just looks like it does it to the desktop as well at some point, at least with the steam version of Call of Pripyat.
Its not an option I even want to think to try on GTA V

 

A relatively cheap process, and the yields for such a simple piece of silicon must be high.
Connecting is the tough bit, i agree.

 

That is actually only 8% boost in score over gtx970.
In Hitman 290x does 24% better on 1440p.
In Metro it does 4% better and it is nVidia title.
BF Hardline 20% better.
Bioshock: Infinite - 290x is 15% worse - nVidia title.
Tomb raider 5% better. Thief 7% better. GTA 5 - 4% better - nVidia title.
Witcher 3 - 290x is 7% worse - nVidia title.

Look at pattern there. In AMD title AMD does like 5~20% better, in independent even 24%. In nVidia titles up to 15% worse and up to 4% better.

I would say Firestrike actually is very close comparison for raw graphical, platform agnostic performance. Because in average 290x is that small bit stronger than stock gtx970.

Just look at gtx770 and hd7970GHz, those are in reality very close match and nVidia has here 3% advantage. Only 3 percent. I say Firestrike is so popular because it is good test.

 

For me it was looking at my PSU (720w) and seeing I could squeeze in a pair of 970s, or a single 290x. Also the prices were more dead even at that time.

I'm more interested to see the benchmarks on the 390 and 390x at this point than the Fury. Hopefully we see samples being sent out real soon.

 

Not so surprising to me from my personaly point of view that market share changed so much over almost the last year with the 290X Vs 970 things...

I am sub'd to various hardware vendor newsletters, judging by just those from popular UK suppliers you might be forgiven for thinking AMD did not even exist in the GFx card market. The suppliers were really pushing the 970 and 980, while I could go through what felt like months of these promotional sales offers and not see any AMD cards.
- was actually starting to get annoyed with the bias hurting AMD's sales and their possible future ability to compete with NVidia

 

Maxwell in general has been amazing (wish my R9 285 had the power draw of the GTX 960)...and the GTX 970 was a reasonably priced card for the enthusiast market without breaking the bank. Lower power draw means lower temps, which means quieter fans, and likely a longer lasting card. And $350 vs $400 isn't that big a deal when someone's looking to spend bank on a GPU. So most would go for the one with better drivers, lower power draw etc.

 

Supply & Demand. It's not like the whole world was pushing 970s and 980s over their AMD competition. Most major retailers have the cards worth buying from both Nvidia & AMD (970, 980, 290, 290X, 295X2, etc...).

 

oh indeed. Just happened to be that all the places I have newsletters coming from pretty much left out AMD's cards and only showed offers for 970 & 980 mostly. They all stock the AMD equivalents.

From my personal point of view in life that is what I experienced. Perhaps siginificant enough, if mirrored enough about the world to impact sales to a point of altering market balance.
- one would hope this experience was an isolated thing & in most of the market there was an avg of equal promotion

Sometimes it is worth sharing such experiences. helps us all see the bigger picture somewhat more clearly - when not taken out of proportion ofc !

 

Reality is that Nvidia is ahead financially, so they can afford more marketing (events, video games with Nvidia logo, etc). so AMD is already at a disadvantage and needs a huge card (or gen) to get back in the race.

 

yup, big time!

Speaking of monies, I'd best stop posting so much here today and go do some work so I can afford to buy one of these shiny new cards not too long from now and through AMD my share of the support they need ^^

 

I do watercool my CPU, but that's not the point for 3 reasons:
1) For any cooling system, be it air or liquid, the less heat you have to move, the quieter it is (quieter pumps, fewer fans and radiators etc.).
2) If you want to wc your GPU there are no real AIO solutions, making it a hassle for most people.
3) If I can save $100 on an AMD card, but have to spend some extra $150 to make it quiet, there is not really much of a decision to be made.

 

mmmm 290x has to be @ 94° to get best performance out of it so the noise form the fans are at 60% which is perfect while gaming. I have a cheap case with two big fans (12cm if I remember correctly) and a tower CPU cooler. The two fans are perfectly able to pull out the heat and the overclocked CPU is ok with the heat going directly out of the back of the case.

I mean I have a really cheap closed case and with OCed CPU and nothing is overheating with 30+ degrees in the room while playing GTA5 @max detail in fullHD. If we are going over fullHD I really do not know but anyway with games like the witcher and GTA5 you would be lowering detail so I guess 970 and 290x will only be able to max out future games at fullHD and at fullHD the 290x can compete with 970 fairly with a bit higher temps but lower price.

I mean it looks to me we all agree that the 290x is direct competitor to 970 and then again everyone praises almighty NVIDIA, it is just funny, they are both making great cards, for some years one team is a bit ahead, then the other one surpasses, it has been like this for years! Ah the power of marketing....

 

1) Maybe, but no one is talking about low power cards here. It mostly depends on the dissipation surface available. Thats why you need lower speed fans on a 240mm radiator compared to a 120mm radiator, air or liquid cooled, to get the same heat dissipation.
2) You can get adapters for AIO systems for most GPU's nowadays.
3) Its a good decision if that cooling system can be passed on to a new card, so the investment endures. Silence is golden, so they say

 

Course all those reasons too, that's why I buy NV in general.
You would typically pay more for those NVidia conveniences, but in the 970's case you can get a card that can beat the 290x with a small OC, my 970 was only $270 in the end. To be fair, that was after selling the free games it came with. Even so,
970 on newegg
290x on newegg
Both cards are priced the same now, at least here in the states.

The main point I attempted to drive home was these high end cards simply are not going to help beyond a bit of hype. Ain't gon' put a dent in that 75 to 25 split. And as much as I love NV, that dominance can't stay. I like my GPU companies on short leash, too many things they could screw you on...

 

1) Of course we are not talking about low power cards. If we were, power consumption would be so low that heat would not be an issue. And of course, the larger the radiator, the lower the fan speed. But so what to the discussion?
2) Yes, one can! But installing a water block on a GPU is much complex/delicate than installing it on a cpu. Installing Corsair H110 (with all its vices and virtues) is simpler than installing some air coolers available. Doing the some with a GPU is way more challenging, to say the least. Most users will feel unconfortable doing it. Just look around and see.
3) For sure silence is golden, but if I can get it without having to pay for it (or at least overpaying it), wouldn`t it be better?

In the end, the question is simple. I have to similar performance cards, GTX970 and ATI290X. The first one available for $329 @evga.com, the other available for $299 @newegg.
The first one idles @28C, the last one idles @41C; the first one has load temperature @63C, the last @94C.
Load noise levels 47dbA on the first and 57dbA on the last (it's all at Anand's).
You tell me to take this $30 difference to put in WC?
No, thanks.

 

If 57dbA is acceptable for you (noise level at full load on a typical 290x), then I rest my case.