Originally posted by blackout23
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Radeon R9 390X Could Cost $700+ USD
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by eydee View PostWhy don't they just release GPUs that are 10000 times faster than the current ones, run at 20?C, don't consume but produce power and only cost 5?? They could monopolize the whole GPU market.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eydee View PostWhy don't they just release GPUs that are 10000 times faster than the current ones, run at 20?C, don't consume but produce power and only cost 5?? They could monopolize the whole GPU market.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sarmad View PostMost gamers won't need 8 TFLOPS right now since almost all games for the next few years will be designed to run on a 1.8 TFLOPS machine (PS4). The ones who need 8 TFLOPS are those who want to run dual screen (VR headsets) at full HD or more running at 60+ fps. So this card isn't for the average PC gamer, it's for the enthusiasts who most probably won't mind paying 700$ for this.Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostYeah, I tend to agree. Titan draws a lot of power. I don't think power efficiency was it's design goal at all.
Funnily, looking at these numbers the Titan is, when you look at GFLOPS/W as a measurement of power efficiency, a very good contender compared to the rest of the 700 series line up, being only beaten by the Titan Black and Titan Z in double precision calculations, and the Titan Black, Titan Z, 780 Ti and (unsurprisingly) the Maxwell products 750 and 750 Ti in single precision. All the others, including the low-range cards, have much worse power efficiency.
In comparison, the R9 290 X, listed with a TDP of 290W, comes down to 19.4 GFLOPS/W (single precision) and about 2.4 GFLOPS/W (double precision).
Of course, once the Maxwell based Titan X arrives this will be a very serious contender for the GFLOPS/W crown and AMD will have a very hard time to compete with that if the rumors are true and the 380 X aims at 300W TDP.
Comment
-
That reminds me of Carmack's 1080p monitor back in 1995. - twenty years later, it is *still* a standard
John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor in 1995
45 kilos, 180 watts - that was a monitor
Comment
-
Originally posted by dungeon View PostThat reminds me of Carmack's 1080p monitor back in 1995. - twenty years later, it is *still* a standard
John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor in 1995
45 kilos, 180 watts - that was a monitor
That is pretty light for a screen that size. My last CRT, an only 24" monitor weighted 50kg, though it did 1920x1440 (@72Hz) which was a more standard resolution (seriously 16:9 before 2004 seems anachronistic). Funny thing was that I preferred to run it at 1600x1200@100Hz. Sharper faster images..Last edited by carewolf; 16 March 2015, 07:29 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dungeon View PostThat reminds me of Carmack's 1080p monitor back in 1995. - twenty years later, it is *still* a standard
John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor in 1995
45 kilos, 180 watts - that was a monitor
This is a monitor 24 inch 2304 x 1440 @ 80Hz, 16:10 format, Flatscreen, .23mm aperture grille, 92.6 friggin pounds of 0ms, perfect color CRT goodness. Sony GDM-FW-900
Last edited by grndzro; 16 March 2015, 07:42 PM.
Comment
Comment