Well i believe they already stated that the 4gb is due to HBM1 limitation, i don't think they did it on purpose. Or perhaps it was too expensive and the cards wouldn't sell for 650-700 bucks if they had 8gb of vram.
HBM1 for you. We knew that. DX12 there will be a differences as raw GPU power will matter more as the CPU isn't a toll road. GPU bound will become a entirely new thing
I am waiting for win 10, but even then, how much will the cards gain in terms of performance on current games? People have been posting that they are gaining so many fps using the modded win 10 driver on win 8.1, but i didn't see a single fps increase, which means either i did something wrong while installing the drivers which i doubt, or i my setup isn't limited by the cpu-overhead in the first place.
I'm must agree with ---TK--- on this one, it's dumb (and "ridiculous") to have a flagship you can't handle more than 4 GB in 2015, having 8 GB avalaible in "old" 290X and "new" 390X". The same kind of dumbness was in late 2014 to have a complete feature (4 K VSR) in a weak 285 and lacking it in your (at the time) flagship 295X2 (up to 1800p VSR) who costs many times the price of a 285...MANY! Ppl buying the top of the line hardware should get top of the line features and Vram! If not they could feel scammed... :bang:
Tbh maybe they should of went the gddr5 route on the fury x if it were possible instead of hbm 1 limited to 4gb. That fury x is a monster at 4k but for how long in the future with 4gb?
VSR as i've learned from reviews is different from the DSR. VSR is supposedly is used through a hardware scaler, otherwise the r9 290/x would have had 4K along with the r9 285 when it was first introduced. Someone posted somewhere that they are bringing some kind of software downsampling to add 4k to the other cards. What benefit would they have, if they sell more r9 285/380 than r9 290/390/x? Now the 4gb vram is still working on the r9 fury x and it doesn't seem to be struggling with shadow of mordor at 4k. So yeah HBM could work differently than GDDR5. I read somewhere that crossfiring two fury xs doesn't seem to be showing the same properties as other cards, and it's showing the vram of both cards adding to each other instead of working separately, not sure if that is true but it would work wonders.
Atm I'm more worried about 1440p than 4k in Fury X. We really need to see a heavy performance gain in 1080 and 1440 with win10/new drivers.
Windows 10 modded drivers reduce CPU overhead with DX11. So in intensive situations you should see a performance increase. Until games require an entire 4GB of framebuffer.
You're right, the vram definitely helps... Oh... the 8gb 390 looses out to 4gb 980, 4gb FuryX, 6gb 980ti... Basically, it looses to everything that is faster and has less vram. Yeah, 8gb truly justified. It's also a mighty 3fps ahead of a stock 970. Overclock 970 to around 1500mhz (like most do) and the 390 goes for a nap. It won't even bother turning up.
4K VSR works perfectly in 290(X) with modded drivers but only in single GPU. CFX is broke as always...
AMD wasn't able to make gpu more powerful in the Fury because they can't make the interposer bigger and the 28nm manufacturing process is a big limitation too
I've edited my post. Just couldn't leave it Aaaanyway, the most shocking discovery from Undying's chart is how the FuryX gets spanked by the 980ti. AMD are really back... not.
Yea i ain't happy either with how it is performing, but i am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they think they can improve the performance, i am willing to wait and see, not planing to upgrade any time soon anyways and certainly not purchasing any gpu till the arrival of the pascal and amd r9 400 series of cards.
Lower power consumption, lower temps, quicker than previous cards. New drivers are needed and I'm excited to see how it performs when some DX12 games come out (new Deus Ex). Still early days I think with the Fury X. We still have Fury and the nano to come as well.
Lower power consumption than what? Dual gpu cards? http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,10.html It's quiet, sure... it's also faster than the previous cards, I would f*cking hope so lol. It's still slower than it's nvidia counterpart though. So no wins here, no matter how you spin it. I honestly don't know if you were joking or not. I think you were.
DX12 will remove the CPU bound scenario from GPU workloads. In theory. GPU's should run closer to their theoretical maximum than with DX11 and in turn use more power and run hotter.
Well i say kudos to them, they introduced a new type of memory to the market. Good enough for a start, with newer revision of the HBM, we surely will see better and more capable cards. It might not be as fast as nvidia highest end cards, but things might change with better drivers. DDR4 isn't faster than DDR3 and at times it's even slower
You do realize that in that GTA V chart Undying posted just to contradict himself we see the 8gb 390 loosing to some 4gb cards, right? Huh?
You have the game, try ramping it up to max and see how much Vram game will be using, it should be easy to break that 4GB mark. What then? Jaytwocents have great video about '3.5GB 970' about Shadow of Mordor, game is a mess with Ultra textures and stutter is making game unplayable. 390 wont have that problem tho.
