Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon R9 390X Could Cost $700+ USD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
    It will probably also suck 700 Watts out of your PSU.
    When you power it up all the lights in your street go out for one second.
    Welp it looks like I'm the only one who can google. The 390x has a tdp of 300W the 980 has a tdp of 165W the titan x has a 250W tdp, given the fact that the 390x narrowly beats a titan x that was almost 20% overclocked the tdp seems more than reasonable.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by eydee View Post
      Why 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.
      Hush, hush, my top secret company is already working on this briliant idea. I cant tell more. Everything will be announced in due time through a leak on a korean drama website.

      Comment


      • #23
        R9 390X might arrive in three months or so, while GTX Titan X might arrive next week. Titan X will be more of a semi-pro card, so it would be interesting if Nvidia releases a consumer card based on GM200 to counter R9 390X.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by eydee View Post
          Why 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.
          5? is way too much for that... If it produce power second copy will be pirated one - free

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by sarmad View Post
            Most 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.
            Probably fair to say "designed to run at 1080p or lower on a 1.8 TFLOPS machine", but the need for processing power goes up almost linearly with screen resolution (vertex shader load doesn't go up much but everything else does) so if you go from 1080p to 4K resolution and extrapolate from 1.8 TFLOPS you're in the 6-7 TFLOPS range already.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              Yeah, I tend to agree. Titan draws a lot of power. I don't think power efficiency was it's design goal at all.
              How would you define power efficiency? Compare the Titan to the GTX 780 Ti, both are rated with 250W TDP, but while the 780 Ti is a bit faster in single precision calculations (780 Ti: 20.2 GFlops/W, Titan 18 GFLOPS/W) it is blown out of the water by the Titan when it comes to double precision calculations (780 Ti: 0.86 GFLOPS/W, Titan: 5.2-6 GFLOPS/W).
              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


              • #27
                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


                • #28
                  Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                  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

                  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 [email protected] Sharper faster images..
                  Last edited by carewolf; 16 March 2015, 07:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Hm, looking at Wikipedia data, the 200 series M chips lagged behind the desktop ones by more than half a year. That's pretty bad...

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                      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
                      no no no no no....that isn't 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

                      Working...
                      X