Sweet. So the average and minimum for the Titan are the same 15.1 fps. That is one hell of a consistent (if low) benchmark run!
Quite a neat trick getting the maximum that high also. I was figuring on....maybe 15.1 fps ?
AMD: Volcanic Islands R1100/1200 (8***/9*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
Quite a neat trick getting the maximum that high also. I was figuring on....maybe 15.1 fps ?Sweet. So the average and minimum for the Titan are the same 15.1 fps. That is one hell of a consistent (if low) benchmark run!
And under FXAA the average frame rate is lower than the minimum.
I think we can conclude it is faked then.
I was do the same comment on an other forum about this.. Thoses information are completely contradict the AMD presentation..
The memory bandwith: 288GB/s is the same of the 7970 (ghz), what interest to pull a 512bit MC for get the same bandwith and it dont match the 300GB/s of their slide.
No "turbo" or higher turbo clock: if it can only lower clock, its more like the 6000 series era..
Core clock speed, dont match the presentation slide " > of 5Tflops", triangle rates.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1255142
fake or not?
fake or not?
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Graphics score: 10882, almost 1000 more than titan. 9238 total score.
If this was true, why in AMD slide it only showed near 8000 for R9-290X?.
Clocks are lower than expected... maybe they will be higher with retail drivers?
I dont know if it is true or not.. ( i mostly think it is a fake, could be overclocked etc ).. But i will not too much base myself on what we have seen on the presentation about performance.. They was really not give any real precise numbers.. only some hint ( higher of, more of ... )
Memory reported = 3.072 MB. Doesn't R9 290X ship with 4 GB?
GTX Titan show 3gb in 3dmark too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Corrected the GPU clock to 1050 MHz. The ES card the benches were run on has two BIOSes, one with 800/1125 and the other with 1050/1125. The benches were run at 1050/1125
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2989138&postcount=16
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2989138&postcount=16
Or the R9-290 has 40 CUs at slightly below 1 GHz and the 290X has the rumored 44 CUs@1050Mhz resulting in 5.91 TFlop/s. Would still be above 5 TFlop/s. They had to use the 6.2 billion transistors for something.
They had to use the 6.2 billion transistors for something.
Moar L2 cache!
p.s.:
Or better -- gigantic GDS !
Last edited by a moderator:
TRUE AUDIO!?!?
aaronspink
Veteran
Um, sideport != CF bridge. I would be very surprised if the CF bridge interface was even 2x PCI-e. Its been a while since I've looked at it, but I not sure it has enough traces to do anything above 1x PCI-e which would put it the bridge at 1GB/s.