1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD announces R9 300, R9 Fury and R9 Nano cards

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 16 Jun 2015.

Page 2 of 5
  1. enbydee

    enbydee Minimodder

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2014
    Posts:
    509
    Likes Received:
    200
    The itx 970 is a 145W card and comparable performance to the 290X, will be interesting to see how much differs in price/performance of the nano.
     
    enbydee, 17 Jun 2015
    #21
  2. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    2x G-Sync monitors as well ... :waah:

    Are AMD cards able to make use of G-Sync?
    And if not will they in the future?
    Also I heard that FreeSync was not as good as G-Sync, is that still the case? Or ever was?
     
    forum_user, 17 Jun 2015
    #22
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    No.
    Very unlikely.
    Yes and yes, although if you have the GPU grunt to stay above 35FPS then it's less likely to be noticeable.
     
    Corky42, 17 Jun 2015
    #23
  4. j_jay4

    j_jay4 Minimodder

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    518
    Likes Received:
    14
    They've done a roundup of freesync and g-sync monitors in the latest CustomPC magazine and explained the differences between the two and the future direction of synchronised monitors. You might find it interesting, I did.
     
    j_jay4, 17 Jun 2015
    #24
  5. Harlequin

    Harlequin Modder

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    194

    apparently its a 275w card - we might even see a locked down furyx with 1 power connector oO
     
    Harlequin, 17 Jun 2015
    #25
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    They have changed the wording then? At the reveal they said it "typically" consumes 275W.

    It also seems odd that they say the power design can deliver 400W as the maximum you can get from the PCI-E lane combined with two 8pin connectors is 375W (afaik).
     
    Corky42, 17 Jun 2015
    #26
  7. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thats good news because i bought the latest copy but not found time to read it yet. Thanks for heads-up.
     
    forum_user, 17 Jun 2015
    #27
  8. Impatience

    Impatience Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2014
    Posts:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    38
    It means you can be running max power through the PCIe and 8-pins, without having the cards power circuitry at max capacity, no? Just means there'll always be an overhead so you can max it out with no worries about the card being damaged.. That's what I got from that anyways!
     
    Impatience, 17 Jun 2015
    #28
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    If that was the reason they said it has a 400W power design then I would agree, but what Harlequin quoted mentions it in reference to its overclocking potential.

    It's like saying my car has tires on it with a speed rating of 150Mph when it only does 100Mph, seems a little misleading to me.
     
    Corky42, 17 Jun 2015
    #29
  10. rollo

    rollo Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,887
    Likes Received:
    131
    Be for people who mess around with extreme overclocking. Those sorts of people will add on extra power cables. Knowing the card can take 400 watts saves them a step.
     
    rollo, 17 Jun 2015
    #30
  11. loftie

    loftie Multimodder

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    262
    They break the PCIe spec, look at the 295.
     
    loftie, 17 Jun 2015
    #31
  12. Harlequin

    Harlequin Modder

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    194
    IF

    AMD have gone for the single GPU crown , then I could see somelike like sapphire putting out a bleeding edge max edition with 50% increase in clocks- possibly on a stock card.
     
    Harlequin, 17 Jun 2015
    #32
  13. Dogbert666

    Dogbert666 *Fewer Lover of bit-tech Administrator

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    181
    Aw, thanks :D

    Also, I did some Fury X testing today, and [REDACTED]
     
    Dogbert666, 17 Jun 2015
    #33
    David likes this.
  14. Impatience

    Impatience Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2014
    Posts:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    38
    Dogbert, you tease!

    But I'm really interested in the possibility of the FuryX: MAX Edition with the big OC! Also, really wanna know the pricing of the Nano! Seems like the perfect ITX card, plus EK is making a waterblock for it apparently..
     
    Impatience, 18 Jun 2015
    #34
  15. Fizzl

    Fizzl What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    4
    Any word on dimensions yet? (Both of the card and the cooler).

    Even the Fury X looks shorter than a 290 or 980.
     
    Fizzl, 18 Jun 2015
    #35
  16. loftie

    loftie Multimodder

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    262
    [​IMG]
     
    loftie, 18 Jun 2015
    #36
  17. Pookie

    Pookie Illegitimi non carborundum

    Joined:
    4 May 2010
    Posts:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    176
    These cards look awesome. I just hope they perform aswell as they look.
     
    Pookie, 18 Jun 2015
    #37
  18. Impatience

    Impatience Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2014
    Posts:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    38
    AMD Fury range doesn't support HDMI 2.0?
    A snip from a Hexit article i've read.. Seems like this new flagship card isn't that up to date already!


    No HDMI 2.0, and also no DP 1.3 (Which can output HDMI 2.0 in dual-mode) present on the card.. Is they something a 3rd-party could implement if they wanted? Or is it limited by the other hardware? (Not too sure on this..)
     
    Impatience, 18 Jun 2015
    #38
  19. rollo

    rollo Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,887
    Likes Received:
    131
    No 3rd party could add in hdmi 2.0 or dp 1.3 as there is more hardware to it than simply changing the ports. It would be alot of work for no benefit to most.

    Id also think there duel gpu card will ship with DP 1.3 included for the true high end. Fury x will not need DP 1.3 simply because it will not be powerful enough to run anything that would require dp 1.3. DP 1.3 is effectively 8k resolution or 5k uhd, No GPU will get anywhere near playable fps in most titles at that point.

    It would also need to be 2.0a for HDR. ( HDMI)

    1.2a natively supports freesync which is what AMD wants you to be using id imagine is there main recommendation for 1.2a.

    1.3 would be mostly irelivent due to the lack of 1.3 compatible displays. ( Is there any at this point that is native 1.3? )
     
    rollo, 18 Jun 2015
    #39
  20. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    7,553
    Likes Received:
    1,796
    After seeing performance of the recycled 3xx series I really hope for AMD to pull a rabbit out of their hat with the Fury cards. Especially in the power consumption department I was disappointed by the 3xx.

    But, to be honest, what else would you expect from re-branded old chips? It's not like they magically need less power for the same performance just because you stick a new name on them. Fury cards should make some (massive?) power savings given their architecture. Fingers crossed.
     
    perplekks45, 19 Jun 2015
    #40
Page 2 of 5
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page