They have just extrapolated the rumored performance of being 54% faster than a R9 290X.
Look at the picture under the graph, they have the card.
They have just extrapolated the rumored performance of being 54% faster than a R9 290X.
They have just extrapolated the rumored performance of being 54% faster than a R9 290X.
I was expecting a lot (my expectations about AMD are pretty low these days), but I definitely expected at least 10-15% performance over a Titan X. The minimum performance improvement over Hawaii is 45% due to pure CU increase. Add 5% in clocks, and we're at 52%. And then the big one: this should hardly ever be constrained by memory BW. We don't know how often that really happens on a Titan X, but 30% is definitely a conservative estimate. So add another 15% with that bottleneck removed? Apparently not...Why exactly is that not promising? Were you expecting something else?
I was expecting a lot (my expectations about AMD are pretty low these days), but I definitely expected at least 10-15% performance over a Titan X. The minimum performance improvement over Hawaii is 45% due to pure CU increase. Add 5% in clocks, and we're at 52%. And then the big one: this should hardly ever be constrained by memory BW. We don't know how often that really happens on a Titan X, but 30% is definitely a conservative estimate. So add another 15% with that bottleneck removed? Apparently not...
It's not R600 territory, but it's close.
I was expecting a lot (my expectations about AMD are pretty low these days), but I definitely expected at least 10-15% performance over a Titan X. The minimum performance improvement over Hawaii is 45% due to pure CU increase. Add 5% in clocks, and we're at 52%. And then the big one: this should hardly ever be constrained by memory BW. We don't know how often that really happens on a Titan X, but 30% is definitely a conservative estimate. So add another 15% with that bottleneck removed? Apparently not...
It's not R600 territory, but it's close.
Edit: I meant to say "I wasn't expecting a lot..." Duh.
I definitely expected at least 10-15% performance over a Titan X
my expectations about AMD are pretty low these days
They need the most advanced and expensive memory in existence to match the performance of a mainstream solution? My standards for great success (tm) are higher than that...Realistically, if it is on par with the competition, this will already be a huge success.
I don't know: I'm looking at the VC link that shows Fiji and Titan X performing identically.Are we looking at the same thing? Fiji is 56% faster than 290X in that 3DMark bench. That surely puts it above TX at least 10%?
The 980Ti OC numbers look ominous for AMD, but this is nowhere close to being R600 territory.
Since the memory also comes with 4 GB limit, it would be too wasteful to design faster chip.They need the most advanced and expensive memory in existence to match the performance of a mainstream solution? My standards for great success (tm) are higher than that...
That's one pretty powerful fan there -- Scythe?
http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance
3D Mark performance. Head to head with Titan X. Not very promising. (From an engineering point of view!)
Hope there will be card reviews of apples to apples comparison, "air to air" or "hybrid to hybrid". Anything else is embarrassing ....
There are tons of games that work with 4GB just fine. The 4GB is more a marketing problem than a performance one.Since the memory also comes with 4 GB limit, it would be too wasteful to design faster chip.
They need the most advanced and expensive memory in existence to match the performance of a mainstream solution? My standards for great success (tm) are higher than that...
That's exactly my gripe: it looks like they wasted a fantastic piece of enabling technology on something that doesn't deserve it.The memory type itself is not the decisive factor...maybe the Fiji chip is slower overall and no matter what memory you throw at it, there will be no much if any gain.
Do you honestly believe that?And still, I wouldn't be so convinced that HBM is the most expensive solution.
Not and argument for this performance class - there are also tons of games that work with 4MB just fine.There are tons of games that work with 4GB just fine.
290X is slowest.What?