› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

AMD 390X new leaked specs and whopping 50/60% faster then 290x!

ClassicstarClassicstar Member UncommonPosts: 2,697
in Hardware

If this real then this will be by far the fastest single GPU card in world for while.

Price right and specs true AMD have winner on there hands.
On PC sites ive never seen so many Nvidia owners who wanne swap over to AMD if price is right.

Remember it´s still not official, so take it with grain of salt.http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/more-radeon-r9-390x-specs-leak.html

Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!

MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit

«1

Comments

  • ClassicstarClassicstar Member UncommonPosts: 2,697

    And rumored prices.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2z94im/cebit_rumors_amd_r9_300_series_380_330_380x_400/

    Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!

    MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
    CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
    GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 10 64bit

  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 9,196

    AMD is getting ready to destroy Nvidia.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

    Hmm..

    It says the 290x won't support DX12.

    And it also doesn't mention anything about TDP, which is a bit concerning.

    I don't think I buy it yet - I haven't dismissed it out right, but it still doesn't quite set right.

    Although I would love for AMD to have something that competes against Titan X, or even stacks favorably against the 980. I'm afraid this is just some early hype (or some well-wished hype from the fan club). AMD doesn't need to be the fastest to be able to compete, and releasing a trick pony of a card that burns power and requires a full tower case just so they can say "Fastest" doesn't service them very well.

    But if it's a legit card, I would welcome it.

  • ClassicstarClassicstar Member UncommonPosts: 2,697

    So when Nvidia produce fastest cards most of the time at insane high price it´s ok but when AMD makes card thats maybe fastest(btw AMD 295 single card is fasted and crushed titan z totally)then its not ok?

    As i said already its rumor but let's hope it's true it benefit ALL PC USERS not only AMD, remember when AMD came with 290x Nvidia drop the price on it's cards also.

    This prolly is most advanced card in years both have released.

    Good competion brings good prices and innovations so Nvidia should encourage this for healty PC market.

    Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!

    MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
    CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
    GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 10 64bit

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,531
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    Hmm..

    It says the 290x won't support DX12.

    And it also doesn't mention anything about TDP, which is a bit concerning.

    I don't think I buy it yet - I haven't dismissed it out right, but it still doesn't quite set right.

    Although I would love for AMD to have something that competes against Titan X, or even stacks favorably against the 980. I'm afraid this is just some early hype (or some well-wished hype from the fan club). AMD doesn't need to be the fastest to be able to compete, and releasing a trick pony of a card that burns power and requires a full tower case just so they can say "Fastest" doesn't service them very well.

    But if it's a legit card, I would welcome it.

    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

    -----

    Nvidia took the GPU compute stuff out of Maxwell, and didn't put it back into the top chip.  That's interesting.  I'm not sure if it's good or bad.  But they can't justify the GTX Titan X as being an entry-level compute card like they could with the original Titan.  It doesn't offer Quadro driver support, either (though there will presumably be a Quadro version of the chip that does), which leaves games as the only justification for it.

    If the Radeon R9 390X, or whatever AMD decides to call it, is competitive with Titan X, it will be interesting to see what happens to prices.  If AMD isn't able to create a competitive card, I'd expect Titan X prices to stay at $1000.  Regardless, I wouldn't rush out and buy it just yet.

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Mikeha

    AMD is getting ready to destroy Nvidia.

    Yeah, and i just saw a pegasus fly by my window this morning too.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 573

    Ridelynn,  what has your mentioning of 290X  have to do with the OPs  topic which is the 390X?

     

  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 573

    Classicstar, your links seem to be broken, atleast to me.  Comes back as invalid address.

     

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,531
    Originally posted by Jamar870

    Ridelynn,  what has your mentioning of 290X  have to do with the OPs  topic which is the 390X?

     

    When considering purported leaks, it is always relevant to search for signs that the "leaks" are completely fake.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919

    Is it the 17th? Oh it is, AMD (if true)  just happened to "leak" a story on the day NVidia released details of the Titan X.

    Oh its a rumour that next Feb/March AMD will be launching a faster card. Faster cards in 12 months time. The last time that didn't happen was decades ago. 

    AMD's problem however is not performance. They have the 295 on the market that can go toe to toe with the new Titan X on pure performance.

    As was the case with CPUs however - which used to be all about having the most GHz - other factors are now at play. The Titan X's and 295s will run at 5K; multiple cards will run games smoothly at 2K and if you merely want full HD you have a wealth of choices. Intel's on-board HD chips are no slouches either.

    Pure performance is not AMDs problem. Maxwell is. And power consumption. And next year Pascal. Yes believe it or not there are rumours of faster NVidia cards next year as well. How totally expected.

    What's that you say? My rigs 295 is under load, drawing over 400Ws and the fan is working overtime. Say again please.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Jamar870 Ridelynn,  what has your mentioning of 290X  have to do with the OPs  topic which is the 390X?  
    When considering purported leaks, it is always relevant to search for signs that the "leaks" are completely fake.

    Yup, this. The slides linked by the OP mention it (as in, comparing the 390x to the 290x), and the 290x slide only lists DX11 compatibility, when it's been made widely known that DX12 will likely be supported on all GCN-based cards (just like Mantle is now).

    Which leads me to suspect all the data on the slides.

    It's also suspicious that this drops on the day of the Titan X NDA lift, although we've seen similar data before.

    And maybe it all turns out to be true - I would ~LOVE~ for this to be true. SO don't get me wrong at all, but right now it's all rumor, nothing has been confirmed or released, and these rumors right now aren't really passing the smell test.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

    This is true, but we aren't looking at an API specification white paper here - we are ~supposedly~ looking at a marketing slide, from AMD, comparing the 390x to the 290x.

    And if the Marketing slide is pitching that DX12 compliance is a sales point for the 390x, and not the 290x, that ~implies~ that the 290x is not going to recieve DX12 compliance at all (because, if it is, why would you mention it in marketing material?)

    This is all me speculating based on speculation - so it's still in the tinfoil hat realm. Just one potential inconsistency I found with the purported source is all.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

     

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

    This is true, but we aren't looking at an API specification white paper here - we are ~supposedly~ looking at a marketing slide, from AMD, comparing the 390x to the 290x.

    And if the Marketing slide is pitching that DX12 compliance is a sales point for the 390x, and not the 290x, that ~implies~ that the 290x is not going to recieve DX12 compliance at all (because, if it is, why would you mention it in marketing material?)

    This is all me speculating based on speculation - so it's still in the tinfoil hat realm. Just one potential inconsistency I found with the purported source is all.

    AT GDC 2015 AMD released a 450 page MANTLE reference API and asked game developers to focus development on DirectX 12 or GLNext rather than on MANTLE "1.0". (For those unaware MANTLE remained AMD GPU specific and had had low adoption). The MANTLE API will still be available and may be appropriate for some non-game uses. The clear implication is that, going forward, AMD cards will support DirectX 12 on which, it was also reported, AMD have worked closely with Microsoft and other partners. 

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,531
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

     

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

     

    This is true, but we aren't looking at an API specification white paper here - we are ~supposedly~ looking at a marketing slide, from AMD, comparing the 390x to the 290x.

    And if the Marketing slide is pitching that DX12 compliance is a sales point for the 390x, and not the 290x, that ~implies~ that the 290x is not going to recieve DX12 compliance at all (because, if it is, why would you mention it in marketing material?)

    This is all me speculating based on speculation - so it's still in the tinfoil hat realm. Just one potential inconsistency I found with the purported source is all.

    I think your point is that those slides don't look like they were made by AMD, in which case, I'd agree.  Some could easily have grabbed the information on API support for the 290X from an official AMD source (e.g., their web page), but I don't see a reason for AMD to claim that the 290X won't support DX 12, even if they weren't planning on supporting it.

  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791
    Think they already mentioned that all GCN cards will get Dx 12 support o.O Would make no sense otherwise. Microsoft should push them if nobody else. Dx is not the only kid on the block atm
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

     

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

     

    This is true, but we aren't looking at an API specification white paper here - we are ~supposedly~ looking at a marketing slide, from AMD, comparing the 390x to the 290x.

    And if the Marketing slide is pitching that DX12 compliance is a sales point for the 390x, and not the 290x, that ~implies~ that the 290x is not going to recieve DX12 compliance at all (because, if it is, why would you mention it in marketing material?)

    This is all me speculating based on speculation - so it's still in the tinfoil hat realm. Just one potential inconsistency I found with the purported source is all.

    I think your point is that those slides don't look like they were made by AMD, in which case, I'd agree.  Some could easily have grabbed the information on API support for the 290X from an official AMD source (e.g., their web page), but I don't see a reason for AMD to claim that the 290X won't support DX 12, even if they weren't planning on supporting it.

    Just to support your post, and respond to him.  AMD absolutely would be the heigh of stupid to not support DX12.  Them not supporting would quite literally mark the end of their business.  That would be like BMW suddenly deciding they're only going to sell cars that use diesel fuel and not gasoline.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     

    Originally posted by Quizzical
    API support doesn't always get updated in the initial specs, even as it gets added in drivers later.  For example, I have a Radeon HD 5850.  Here's AMD's specs on it:

     

    http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/5000/5850

    It only lists OpenGL 3.2 support--the latest version when the card launched.  But they've supported newer versions as they came out, and I've run OpenGL 4.2 code on it just fine--including a bunch of things not available in 3.2.

     

    This is true, but we aren't looking at an API specification white paper here - we are ~supposedly~ looking at a marketing slide, from AMD, comparing the 390x to the 290x.

    And if the Marketing slide is pitching that DX12 compliance is a sales point for the 390x, and not the 290x, that ~implies~ that the 290x is not going to recieve DX12 compliance at all (because, if it is, why would you mention it in marketing material?)

    This is all me speculating based on speculation - so it's still in the tinfoil hat realm. Just one potential inconsistency I found with the purported source is all.

    I think your point is that those slides don't look like they were made by AMD, in which case, I'd agree.  Some could easily have grabbed the information on API support for the 290X from an official AMD source (e.g., their web page), but I don't see a reason for AMD to claim that the 290X won't support DX 12, even if they weren't planning on supporting it.

    Just to support your post, and respond to him.  AMD absolutely would be the heigh of stupid to not support DX12.  Them not supporting would quite literally mark the end of their business.  That would be like BMW suddenly deciding they're only going to sell cars that use diesel fuel and not gasoline.

    They do have some sick twin turbo diesel engines though :D

  • saurus123saurus123 Member UncommonPosts: 678

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9UACXikdR0

     

    its not about with card is the fastest

    its all about used technology

  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791
    Welp, 295X2 already destroys Titan X  - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091-3.html
  • ClassicstarClassicstar Member UncommonPosts: 2,697

    Originally posted by Jamar870
    Classicstar, your links seem to be broken, atleast to me.  Comes back as invalid address. 

    Try links now FIXED.

    Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!

    MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
    CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
    GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 10 64bit

  • ClassicstarClassicstar Member UncommonPosts: 2,697

    Originally posted by Leon1e
    Welp, 295X2 already destroys Titan X  - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091-3.html

    Yeh and its for 2x gpu cooled very well and quiet for a price these days its crime people don't buy more its still KING nomatter what Nvidia fanbois say.

    Btw if crossfire works well 290x in crossfire still in top 3 fastest also.

    Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!

    MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
    CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
    GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 10 64bit

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

    Originally posted by Leon1e
    Welp, 295X2 already destroys Titan X  - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091-3.html

    Too bad it requires hand-curated driver profiles to work well in any particular title. The titles that have them run wonderfully. The ones that don't, you may has well just have a underclocked 290x.

    The card itself is a marvel of engineering, my only beef is with the updating and maintenance of Crossfile profiles (and I have the same issue with nVidia SLI - I don't advocate multi-GPU setups in general).

  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785

    My corporate entity is better than your corporate entity! nyah nyah.

     

    Back in the world of us mere mortals, I'll be excited when these cards drop into the $300 price point. Until then I'll go stand in the poor's corner.

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Originally posted by Mikeha

    AMD is getting ready to destroy Nvidia.

    Nvidia preemptively released the specs on it's new Titan X card a few days ago.

     

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • PyndaPynda Member UncommonPosts: 856

    But why does any of this matter anymore? If you've got a video card and cpu that can handle games better than the latest generation of consoles, then it seems to me you've got everything you're going to need until the next generation (of consoles) comes out. Because let's face it, exclusive PC Gaming is completely and utterly dead.


    But if you're doing science or other professionally oriented graphics projects with your PC, that might be another story. However you're still going to have to work with only goosed up laptop cpu's. Because the dedicated desktop processor is now dead too.

Sign In or Register to comment.