How do I look at this from a BW point of view?
Is it simply: 64 ROPs x 32 bpp x 1050 GHz x RmW / 8 bits per byte = 537 GBps ?
That should be plenty to fill up the total BW offered? Or do you need more due to caching?
AMD: Pirate Islands (R* 3** series) Speculation/Rumor Thread
- Thread starter iMacmatician
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
Is it simply: 64 ROPs x 32 bpp x 1050 GHz x RmW / 8 bits per byte = 537 GBps ?
That should be plenty to fill up the total BW offered? Or do you need more due to caching?
I remember a time when NVIDIA used to sell GT200-based cards for only <€200 to €300 (GTX260+ to GTX285, respectively). So at $550 to $650, I think AMD will be fine, even if HBM costs an extra $60 over GDDR5 (bearing in mind that AMD is only using 4GB of it).
Last edited:
With their market share, do they have a choice ? with the aggressive marketing of Nvidia, do they have really the choice ? and as Nvidia was first on the market with their 980TI, do they have the choice for the price ? .. Nvidia, even when slower can put an higher price of the competition, because they will use marketing for value this.. im not sure AMD can do the same way in their actual situation....
Again, i dont know the performance ( well not the final one ), so i cant say the price is not a good of indication for it, but i allways find funny when a price fall, and someone said: Same price, the performance are x or y .. ) .. Maybe you are completely right... i dont know .
Is there an offline version of the conference? I get the impression people think it was boring, but it would be cool to see the whole thing anyway. And seeing as I made it through the Nintendo conference just fine, I should survive this one as well. 
@Pressure The 4890s were friggin' AMAZING price/performance. Just unbelievable, especially compared to Nvidia's offerings at the time. Faster, and WAY cheaper. No good for GPGPU really, but the field was so immature back then it didn't matter. For games, those cards rocked really hard (and the reference boards were noisy as hell, and idle power draw was terrible too; 40W-ish at windows desktop, doing nothing... You give some, you get some, heh!)
@Pressure The 4890s were friggin' AMAZING price/performance. Just unbelievable, especially compared to Nvidia's offerings at the time. Faster, and WAY cheaper. No good for GPGPU really, but the field was so immature back then it didn't matter. For games, those cards rocked really hard (and the reference boards were noisy as hell, and idle power draw was terrible too; 40W-ish at windows desktop, doing nothing...
You give some, you get some, heh!)its not low its just that the margins that AMD would have gotten if the ti wasn't there would be higher. Instead of getting 50% margins its down to 30%.....
I don't know how people started think that anybody said that they wouldn't make a profit. I also don't know what Titan X marketing has to do with it. Is it really that hard to have a discussion without throwing in that kind of BS?
Last edited:
You know, I just can't work up much sympathy at all about AMDs supposedly lower than expected margins, not when the card costs 650 fucking dollars as it is.
heh, yeah true, still pretty expensive, even at 30% margins (this is a number I pulled out of thin air), is still good in the pc market,
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
well, with the Fury nano being 2xperf/watt to Hawaii are we talking here about an Arctic Island test chip or what.
Arctic island is supposed to be a new architecture, so no,
Fury Nano probably has much better thermals and performance per watt because of using lower watts to begin with cause lower clocks or parts disabled etc.
Power usage won't go up linearly as frequency goes up.......
Jawed
Legend
Are these uber ROPs?
Like ReallyOppulentPerformers?
They could have enough bandwidth to burst out RGBA32F more gracefully. 32 pixel of 128 bits make up 4k bus width. Or RGBA16F, 64 pixel (one tile) of 64 bit.
No, or you'd see that for Fury X as well. This just sounds like low clocks and binning—basically the same kind of thing that IHVs do for laptop parts.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Rumored benchmarks:
Well.. those 4GB really do become useless at 8K (or anything over 4K really)..
OTOH, at up to 4K resolutions, the Fury X actually beats the $1000 Titan X and the $550 aircooled Fury is the one competing with the 980 Ti.
Well.. those 4GB really do become useless at 8K (or anything over 4K really)..
OTOH, at up to 4K resolutions, the Fury X actually beats the $1000 Titan X and the $550 aircooled Fury is the one competing with the 980 Ti.
Sweet. Maxximum Fury.
Cookie Monster
Newcomer
Looks very interesting and definitely not an off the shelf AIO CLC.
More pictures here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/06/amd-unveils-r9-fury-x-fury-and-nano-graphics-cards-2/
More pictures here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/06/amd-unveils-r9-fury-x-fury-and-nano-graphics-cards-2/
Well, at least he is not pre-maturely jumping to conclusions like this