4GB HBM.

Claimed 275watt for Fury X. But They also claimed Half the power of 290X for the Fury Nano, means 150 watt.

150 watt for Fury Nano should be possible by reducing the clockspeeds. Just like Hawaii can be very efficient when lowering the core and memclocks.

This post has been edited by terradrive: Jun 17 2015, 01:26 AM

Cheers. Just need to see some benchies. The prices are great tho.

Interesting point brought up in Overclock.net forum, based on this claim on the presentation slides:



Meaning that the Dual Fiji + HBM card (coming in the fall 2015) is the world's fastest graphics card. Which means, it's a dual GPU card on a single PCB. Ala R9 295X2. Which means a single Fiji with HBM card is NOT the world's fastest graphics card?

Also they fail to mention VRAM size. HBM1 is limited to 4GB VRAM. And as much as anyone wanna spin that 4GB VRAM is good enough for 4K, it isnt. GTAV, which is one of the mentioned games on that presentation being claimed as the best 4K experience with the Fury cards, at Very High settings alone eats more than 4GB of memory. 4.5-5GB depending on which settings enabled. If they wanna claim "best 4K experience", running out of VRAM and stuttering all over shouldn't be one of those "experience". Count this rebuttal moot if Fury comes with 6 or 8GB VRAM.

I like the Project Quantum form factor though. Fits the living room aesthetics, very minimalistic. They mentioned it being equipped with dual Fiji. Should be ample performance to pair it with a 4K UHD living room TV with HDMI 2.0 running 60hz refresh rate.

The nano version consumed half of 290x power according to one of the presenter.

One of the slide mentioned 4x performance/watt (I believe this is for HBM compared to GDRR5)

290X (2816 cores) consumed 290watts (in general).

Fury X (4096 cores), let assume if this one still uses GDDR5 for some rough calculation

2816 = 290watts
4096 = 421watts

Under 28nm node, it is a suicide to use GDDR5 with 4096 GCN cores.

Now, let take a optimistic look on samsung GDDR5 power consuming in watts
http://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-sol...Green-GDDR5.pdf

-.- 290X has 512bit width and 16 chips of 256Mb of GDDR5.

Since Fury will use 4GB of HBM as well (4 HBMs stacked around the GPU core, simply takes the 4x performance/watt and divide it accordingly)

Rough calculation will indicate the Fury X power consumption to be around 300 watts plus/minus 10%.

As I said, this is just a rough estimate, AMD probably will overclock the GPU core at insane amount (reason for water cooling), so my estimated calculation is minimum possible value.

It was mentioned 275W for the Fury X during the banter between Koduri, that engineer, and the other guy.

I reckon the Fury X won't beat 980Ti/Titan-X, that's why they priced them pretty low despite come wc and HBM.

A stock 290x consumed around 250-260 watts on average.

Lisa Su mentioned Fury Nano card offer 2x performance/watts compare to 290x.
The power saving doesn't come from using HBM alone btw.

AMD really should've priced the 390 and 390X lower and put the Fury Nano somewhere at $430-$450. Make the Fury Nano compete with GTX 980.

They claimed Fury Nano is half the power usage of 290X and 2X performance/watt than 290X. So Fury Nano is the same performance as 290X? lol

Fury Nano might have 700-800Mhz core clock, that'll make it about the speed of 290X while dropping alot power consumption.

This post has been edited by terradrive: Jun 17 2015, 01:50 AM

We should just wait for benchmarks.

They really have to improve the power consumption aspect of the graphic card though.

its time for Fury X against 980ti.
titan x is out of question, that card was obsolete the day the 980ti launched. That's really what to look at especially at the price points.

980ti is about 40% faster than 290x. Fury X has 45% more SPs than 290x and greatly increased memory bandwidth.

i really missed the 290x vs 780ti times..

Also most probably a cut down of Fiji XT with fewer stream processors. With cooler that small, i guess the TDP is <150w? Or AMD is pulling 95c again?
I hope the performance is better than 290x though.

Fiji nano
I think its 28xx sp with hbm. Exact spec as 290x with 4gb hbm but gcn 1.2

bro u got already R9 290x is almost 390 x unless go for Fury X than another level.. x

wow AMD R9 Nano.. so beautiful eh can't wait see all this FURY/FURY X Benchmark against GTX 980 Ti/ Titan X and the price.. eh... so interesting $550-650 usd for AMD Fury

Can anyone answer me with simple layman terms ,will 4gb HBM will be enough for 4k gaming or game that uses a lot of vram like gta v without stuttering/performance hit ?

Quick and dirty answer, no idea. It depends on a lot of things, BUT more RAM is always nicer.

The most likely answer is that AMD have calculated that high performance nature of HBM and the higher bandwidth offered by processor mediated DMA and PCI-E 3.0 should be enough to cover for things.

Technical explanation.

The R9 Nano is small...



Guess this card will be featured in lots of mini-ITX builds...

BTW, why would the 390X to be priced that close to the R9 Fury? It doesn't make sense for me

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: Jun 17 2015, 09:07 AM

My wild guess is that HBM and new tech does cost them some money, but since 980TI capped the upper range of this price game, they can't price Furies more than that.

Therefore, they choose to let the oldies do some subsidizing jobs for newcomers until the price is stabilized.

you are too paranoid.

It's nature that FuryX alone can't claim the title of most powerful card since there is a card which features two of it, of course more/most powerful title go to the latter.