Read more.The 4096 stream processor packing card offers 8.6TFLOPS of performance.
Read more.The 4096 stream processor packing card offers 8.6TFLOPS of performance.
So at 4k its about 50-60% faster than a 290x....considering HBM (and the 4096bit interface), that's probably the best case scenario.
Doesn't look too shabby
Now to see what nVidia will counter with...
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
naaaaa am just waiting for the R9 395 X2 with 16GB HBM GDDR5 Dual GPU it will kill anything Nvidia has ever made with a fatality beyond index.
I'm waiting for whichever gives the best performance for the price in games I play.
Which REALLY should be the opinion most people judge their purchases on.
IF it's real, then it reflects very poorly on AMD's standards of openness and data representation, something they've claimed to be leaders at with their 'open' APIs etc.
so based on gpu design being 'consistent' there's about a 35-40% increase based purely on clock and stream processors increases....these would obviously improve performance even with the same architecture.
With the game performance gains of about 50-60% the actual year on year gain is only really about 10-20% (at best) against the 290X at higher res 4K res....
..there are other factors to consider, at the time I switched from AMD to Nvidia, there was no driver level super sampling or hardware assisted in game video recording, not to mention i could run 2 nvidia 970's on my 650w Superflower PSU which would not have been possible with two Radeon 290's.
AMD have since added the super sampling and video recording features to their drivers, but I'm not too hopeful the heat and power requirements have been addressed with these new cards, I'll have to wait for reviews to see if they have, and if so, I'd definitely have no problem going back to AMD.
nice but this is beyond my needs, I wait to see what AMD will offer in the mid range tier.
(But to be honest, I don't yet feel my 7850 isn't delivering on what I play)
I find it remarkable that the 295X2 is still faster than the new Titan X after browsing several benchmarks for Nvidia's new card today, and only costs around £520. There's no way the Titan X is good value when its bested by a significantly cheaper, 1+ old card.
I was thinking the same, it looks like just a card for fanboys with tons of cash, that nVidia made just to temporary get the crown of "the fastest single gpu card".
Just like with the first titan that was blown out by the 290X a few months after it was out.
If you like nVidia cards just wait for the next generation from both amd and nvidia, both will be better and cheaper than the titan
To be fair, it's not trying to be good value, at least not in the sense of outright performance for the price. However, like many luxury goods, there are people willing to pay more for a solid, reliable single GPU product with nice cooler and more RAM than they need. The lack of FP64 compute is a bit of a blow for those who wanted an elite all rounder though.
Personally I *think* I just have too much respect for the pound (I remember when a choco bar was 20p) to be spending £250 on a Graphics Adaptor.
There are a lot of people who do get a lot of enjoyment from gaming, it's a massive ecosystem, but to do it properly the barrier to entry has gotten a smidgen high. Maybe that's progress (anyone think so?) but for me I am a little too nostalgic for the good old Voodoo 2 days to be spending twice what that cost me on a card that won't do 100hz gaming.
*The Above is a very ill informed ignorable opinion and based on a circumstance that could be 10 or 15 times better - please feel free to ignore that post*
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
I read in a review that the cooler is not that nice. The card doesn't stop the fans at idle (burning 11W in idle doesn't sound hot at all) and with the blower type of cooler it sports can be really hot under load.
When you give 1k for a card you expect at least a dual fan configuration and some serious cooling tech on it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)