Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 17, 2015.
you still have to add the sales tax
...running on EGO3, that's hardly taxing, is it? EGO is basically a modified DX9 engine, and even EGO4 looks dated.
We don't know the overclockability of the fury cards yet, but we'll see.
You are absolutely right with the fact that TX won't ever be able to move that much data. BUT it still doesn't change the fact that cards which are forced to stream system RAM will get crippled.
You can't trust game companies to optimize for low VRAM usage. Witcher 3 is where things went right. Shadow of Mordor is where things went horribly wrong. Or look at AC:U. That thing cripples everything.
My point is that there will always be good and bad examples. And with Gameworks being proprietary technology, this can turn to AMD's disadvantage fast. In fact it already has.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not mocking the Fury X. **** man I hope this card slaps the proverbial fek out of nvidia's greedy hands.
I just don't feel confident about the card. We got some AMD internal benchmarks showing how it slightly outperforms the Ti, but I think everybody here admits those were shady quality settings. That leads me to believe that this card COULD in fact be limited by VRAM, not bandwidth or processing power.
The other thing I am thinking is that the above could point that Fury X could be an excellent 1080p card. But Fury X's main advantage lies in HBM.. Which will probably not be a factor in 1080p since the VRAM requirements are relatively low compared to 4k. Ofc it depends on how bad the game is.
And then I remind myself how the whole 900 lineup from Nvidia destroys 1080p.
I don't know. I'm not very confident in AMD this round.
1080p card? It's not a 1080p card... 1440p at least or more ..
No one is admitting anything, we just don't know the truth to them, but they do appear to show real actual numbers (some leaked benchmarks are starting to show). We'll get more proof once the unofficial ones come out.
Well it seems that a lot of people are starting to have concerns over the new AMD Fury X. People dropping hints on this forum and other forums it may not be this/that.
AMD is trying to move forward in the industry and they are with HBM,HBM is the future.
HDMI 2.0 is a mistake outright.The Fury lineup cards would have been a great addition to ITX/HTPC especially for HDTV 4k .
What I do not get is all the negative stuff on AMD GPU.Why are people who own Nvidia cards trying to derail everything AMD on the forums.
Here is a GPU with AIO Water Cooling for the price of it's competing card Nvidia 980Ti for the same price of a reference card.
I will be running 2 X AMD Fury X on my 1080 144Hz and my 60in HDTV with VSR and will be very happy to do so.
Why would they be broken twice as much? They'd be broken the same amount because in both cases the maximum memory needed by the frame is the same (in AFR anyway). Perfectly example was my GTX690. Card ran Skyrim at 60fps+ fine until I exceeded 2GB of ram. Then it would stutter galore because the GPU was pulling 3/4's of the frame from VRAM and the 1/4 from system memory. When I upgraded to the 980, the overall FPS was equivalent, it was like a sidegrade, but suddenly that problem was non-existent because it was all in GPU ram.
In my mind the memory pool and the memory bandwidth are not related at all.
If you had a DDR3 GPU with 100GB of ram it would be able to load a lot of stuff, but the GPU wouldn't be able to pull that **** into it and render it out quickly at all.
Likewise if you had a HBM GPU with 1GB it wouldn't be able to load enough for the whole frame, so the GPU would be pulling it from system ram and again wouldn't render it quickly.
Both things are required separately. You need more ram then what the frame +cache requires but you also need need more bandwidth than what the GPU requires. Now has memory bandwidth been a problem? I think it has slightly. It's evident by the 290x catching up to the 980 @ 4K resolutions. So I do think HBM speed is going to make a difference at higher resolutions. Is 4GB of ram a problem? Yeah, there are some games where individual frames+cache definitely exceed 4GB of ram. And no matter how fast that ram is, it won't change that.
Well AMD is claiming that they can fix these issues in drivers by handling the memory more appropriately and caching it better. I think that's definitely possible but we'll need to see if it's done or not.
I think some people are being negative, I'm trying to be realistic. I personally think 4GB will be a problem in some games at 4K resolution. But I also think that most people don't play at 4K resolution and I think that AMD will be able to manage it well with drivers in most cases. I think its less of an issue than most people are saying its, but it still would have been nice if they could have had a 8GB HBM1 card.
Man you can type fast.I agree with you 100%.Especially with 8GB HBM1.
AMD was under pressure to release something and 8GB HBM1 would have been killer,Did they mess up or could not get 8GB to work or was it just not possible to have 8GB in a reasonable time and would it take more from their bottom line if they did 8GB HBM.Who knows but they guys at AMD not matter what anyone thinks.There are not clueless.Comment not directed at you.
Well I gave 1080p as an example because by Steam statistics 1080p is the most common resolution. But I know what you mean.
We'll just have to wait for the real benchies.
Definitely, good point. Seeing as Nvidia masked that 970 VRAM problem quite well with smart use of caching, AMD could easily apply something similar.
It could work, at least to a degree.
LE: now that I think about it some more I'm not sure if it should be compared to Nvidia's solution. Even if the 970 is keeping the least used stuff in that slow memory segment, it's still significantly faster than going out through the PCI-Express bus. So they probably have something else in mind.
LMAO!!! so true. each time there a new tech, people go crazy.
Myself i will buy a AMD Radeon R9 Nano GPU since R9 390 use way too much watts & it's not even GCN 1.2 . it's use 2x more watts then the 980 in full load wtf. i love how the R9 Nano looks, it's small, cute & it's a powerhouse.
Yes i know R9 Nano is overkill for 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide in 75hz but i can always run VSR to 3440 x 1440 mode, so i'm good.
AMD R9 Fury X Playing Sniper Elite III at 12K Resolution and 60 FPS
Single GPU pushing 12k @ 60fps?
lol, is there a real translation version of that video to show what he's really talking about?
He is talking about a Spanish dish "Paella", basically rice mixed with all sort of seafood and other awesome stuff. You probably have seen this been cooked on the beach in front of a vacation resort. A big ass skillet.
Well apparently he was asked to prepare the paella but it was too close to the ocean and the high water tides came in and messed up the whole cooking experience.
I speak fluent Spanish and had hard time understanding him as he was laughing most of the time and had very European Spanish accent.
quote and unquote
To me that sounds like marketing.
I'm really hoping for a win for AMD with Fury. They cant afford for this card to be so so. Unless it performs slightly above and has similar power consumption vs TX/980ti, they will have to price it lower than Nvidias cards.