Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon R9 390X Could Cost $700+ USD

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

  • asdfblah
    replied
    Originally posted by sunweb View Post
    It would be nice to see video presentation but for now thats all:

    http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/...ressFX-3-0.pdf
    To add to the list of random, unrelated news in this thread:
    https://github.com/cheako/xf86-video-ati/tree/Present
    Add DRI3 support 4 days ago

    Leave a comment:


  • sunweb
    replied
    TressFX 3.0 is going opensource

    It would be nice to see video presentation but for now thats all:

    http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/...ressFX-3-0.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • MoonMoon
    replied
    Originally posted by dragorth View Post
    Go to this page.

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/benchmar...ace/88776.html

    On that page is a chart that claims to have power numbers for the Titan X and the AMD R9 390X. The Titan X uses 256 watts vs the R9 390X's 289 is a very close race in the performance per watt ratio.
    I looked at that page and am not quite sure how much I should trust those benchmarks, seeing that they are not able to list memory frequency for the AMD card and have an obscure GTX 9?? on the list. We will see when some official and reproducible benchmarks arrive.

    Leave a comment:


  • MoonMoon
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    I never said it was bad. Titan products are obviously top of the line high end. They target the highest performance segment that exists for single cards. It's clear thaty nvidia designs its products to get the best performance it can within that products intended pwer consumption. The highest end products have the highest power consumption. I had assumed that much should be obvious.
    You spoke about efficiency. Efficiency is not raw power consumption, but work that can be done per measurement unit of power, in this case GFLOPS/W.
    I had assumed that much should be obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • dragorth
    replied
    Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
    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.
    Go to this page.

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/benchmar...ace/88776.html

    On that page is a chart that claims to have power numbers for the Titan X and the AMD R9 390X. The Titan X uses 256 watts vs the R9 390X's 289 is a very close race in the performance per watt ratio.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
    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.
    I never said it was bad. Titan products are obviously top of the line high end. They target the highest performance segment that exists for single cards. It's clear thaty nvidia designs its products to get the best performance it can within that products intended pwer consumption. The highest end products have the highest power consumption. I had assumed that much should be obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • grndzro
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X