Don't think I've ever heard about " HBM " before, how is it different from GDDR5?

Graphics memory 	4 GB HBM

Welcome back to life lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

Welcome back to life lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

hehe, yeah. I should probably have just googled it before asking if I gotta be honest. Did do it though 🤓

Btw have u read the post on wccftech, go to the site and read the latest news there it shows benchmarks, go here and read throughly.. then post anything ok? btw from that post if u use simple mathematics ull see that Fury X is actually approx 43-44% faster than a R9 290x..

I mean, I guess, if you're going to start pulling numbers from different sites and comparing them. 780Ti isn't even on that slide. The 970 is, which is roughly the same performance, and also ~45% which still makes your post wrong.

Don't think I've ever heard about " HBM " before, how is it different from GDDR5?

Graphics memory 	4 GB HBM

It's twice as fast @ half the power. It's like the main selling point behind Fiji.

Interesting - Fury X with 4GB HBM (just) beats Titan X with its 12GB GDDR5 @ 4k res Ultra detail in those leaked Firestrike benchies 🙂 Point being it seems AMD is correct in claiming it has made massive improvements in the efficiency of its use of available video memory. So 4GB HBM could well be fine for one card 4K use. Feeling better about this card already!

doubt Figi's better for 4k in modern games that will certanly eat that 4GB up like butter. However, I agree that Figi will likely have more raw processing power.

There will be that improved memory compression thing that could make it act more like a 5GB card? But come on AMD and just release already. The wait.. my god, the wait. I can't take much more now!

Zz.. hope it has an ok price. 600€ MAX. Not paying a cent more than that.

I recon it's going to be mixed blows between Titan and Fury, application dependent. Games that adore memory bandwidth will mostly be where it excels, provided the 4GB is sufficient.

Zz.. hope it has an ok price. 600€ MAX. Not paying a cent more than that.

Yes, It's either that or I will have to look at other alternatives. Hope they make the right respectful move and offer more performance for less price as they have done in the past.

Agreed, as they did with the 7950, amazing product, best ocability, best performance, best value.

Agreed, as they did with the 7950, amazing product, best ocability, best performance, best value.

Remember unlocking those Sapphire 6950's for the same price of a single GTX 580 configuring them in to crossfire , whilst seeing the same numbers in crysis as two 580 or very close. That made me feel good about that buy 😀

Not believing anything until next week. The most reasonable conclusion is a slight performance edge for Fury X, until the 4GB of RAM is allocated, in which case the Titan will rape it, so the Fury X will be sold at a lower MSRP then the Titan I'm more interested in the Fury, since its competition has 6GB of RAM, so it's only -2GB to get a Fury instead of a 980ti. I'm sure dat 4096 bit memory bus will result in better performance (10% or so...I'm sure the GPU core clock bottlenecks it) then the 512 bit 980ti, and if it's a lower MSRP too...

Man... Epic clueless comment LOL! GDDR5 and what amd calls HBM store data differently, or rather address memory differently. AMD claims that HBM, this new memory technology that they mostly developed by themselves, is more efficient space-wise than GDDR5, which was also developed by AMD. The impact HBM is gonna have on performance is going to be mostly due to its lower access latencies compared to GDDR5. While I don't want to make any performance estimates like you seem to be doing, I think Fury will beat the Titan X by a bit. It will probably beat it in Tessellation too (polygon count generated per second benchmark) and that is impressive for a chip that is around 66mm^2 smaller. Now...if AMD acts smart and prices Fury cards properly, then they win this round, big time!

I mean, I guess, if you're going to start pulling numbers from different sites and comparing them. 780Ti isn't even on that slide. The 970 is, which is roughly the same performance, and also ~45% which still makes your post wrong. It's twice as fast @ half the power. It's like the main selling point behind Fiji.

Dude im talking about the generational leap here by comparing the flagship Gpu of both the companies over the two generations not that how was the performance over a single generation. 🙂

You really don't know if they are comparing air-to-air or hybrid-to-hybrid so doesn't mean much right now. If this is a Fury X hybrid then comparison should be done against a card like the Evga Titan X hybrid if trying to determine performance differences.

May not be in full use yet or not at all, but has not the current buzz been about streaming textures instead of storing it in the buffer? Would this not be a reasonable assumption as to why 4GB HBM is all that is needed? They are just too far ahead of the curve again. Timing is off as usual.

Dude im talking about the generational leap here by comparing the flagship Gpu of both the companies over the two generations not that how was the performance over a single generation. 🙂

You said a Fury X is ~45% faster then a 290x and that a 980Ti is only ~30% faster then a 780Ti. You said this as if generational gaps in performance is some kind of indicator of the final worth of a card(?). Anyway, you then told me to go to WCCFTech and look at the benchmark there. I did. Fury X - 7873/3960 290 X - 5091/2617 42.9% Difference @ Extreme, 40.83% at Ultra The 780Ti is not on the picture, but looking at other benchmarks show it's roughly the same as a 970, so I'm going to use those numbers... (http://i.imgur.com/de8zTvf.jpg) 6.7% difference so I'll just subtract that from final result, despite the fact that newest drivers actually put the 970 slightly ahead. 980 Ti - 7781/3867 970 - 4928/2058 38.1% difference @ Extreme, 54.3% @ Ultra (6.7% removed from each) So essentially the gap between generations is roughly the same between both companies, which again, is not what you said.

May not be in full use yet or not at all, but has not the current buzz been about streaming textures instead of storing it in the buffer? Would this not be a reasonable assumption as to why 4GB HBM is all that is needed? They are just too far ahead of the curve again. Timing is off as usual.

One of the companies, i think it was PC Perspective, interviewed AMD about the 4GB issue. Basically they said they threw a few engineers at the problem and found that video memory is stored incredibly inefficiently at both the OS and the driver level. That no one really looked at it before because it was easy to just throw more ram at the problem instead of fixing it. So I'm assuming they are going to have driver level fixes for ram management in order to combat the 4GB problem. Honestly the number of games that exceed 4GB of ram, even at 4K is overstated on this forum. It's not many at all. I doubt Fiji is going to run into issues with that with the current generation of games.

You said a Fury X is ~45% faster then a 290x and that a 980Ti is only ~30% faster then a 780Ti. You said this as if generational gaps in performance is some kind of indicator of the final worth of a card(?). Anyway, you then told me to go to WCCFTech and look at the benchmark there. I did. Fury X - 7873/3960 290 X - 5091/2617 42.9% Difference @ Extreme, 40.83% at Ultra The 780Ti is not on the picture, but looking at other benchmarks show it's roughly the same as a 970, so I'm going to use those numbers... (http://i.imgur.com/de8zTvf.jpg) 6.7% difference so I'll just subtract that from final result, despite the fact that newest drivers actually put the 970 slightly ahead. 980 Ti - 7781/3867 970 - 4928/2058 38.1% difference @ Extreme, 54.3% @ Ultra (6.7% removed from each) So essentially the gap between generations is roughly the same between both companies, which again, is not what you said. One of the companies, i think it was PC Perspective, interviewed AMD about the 4GB issue. Basically they said they threw a few engineers at the problem and found that video memory is stored incredibly inefficiently at both the OS and the driver level. That no one really looked at it before because it was easy to just throw more ram at the problem instead of fixing it. So I'm assuming they are going to have driver level fixes for ram management in order to combat the 4GB problem. Honestly the number of games that exceed 4GB of ram, even at 4K is overstated on this forum. It's not many at all. I doubt Fiji is going to run into issues with that with the current generation of games.

ok so u actually admitt that amd is now on par with nvidia?? 🙂

You said a Fury X is ~45% faster then a 290x and that a 980Ti is only ~30% faster then a 780Ti. You said this as if generational gaps in performance is some kind of indicator of the final worth of a card(?). Anyway, you then told me to go to WCCFTech and look at the benchmark there. I did. Fury X - 7873/3960 290 X - 5091/2617 42.9% Difference @ Extreme, 40.83% at Ultra The 780Ti is not on the picture, but looking at other benchmarks show it's roughly the same as a 970, so I'm going to use those numbers... (http://i.imgur.com/de8zTvf.jpg) 6.7% difference so I'll just subtract that from final result, despite the fact that newest drivers actually put the 970 slightly ahead. 980 Ti - 7781/3867 970 - 4928/2058 38.1% difference @ Extreme, 54.3% @ Ultra (6.7% removed from each) So essentially the gap between generations is roughly the same between both companies, which again, is not what you said. One of the companies, i think it was PC Perspective, interviewed AMD about the 4GB issue. Basically they said they threw a few engineers at the problem and found that video memory is stored incredibly inefficiently at both the OS and the driver level. That no one really looked at it before because it was easy to just throw more ram at the problem instead of fixing it. So I'm assuming they are going to have driver level fixes for ram management in order to combat the 4GB problem. Honestly the number of games that exceed 4GB of ram, even at 4K is overstated on this forum. It's not many at all. I doubt Fiji is going to run into issues with that with the current generation of games.

Its not really compressing textures any more to get more in memory, its compressing how they access and stream the texture information, to and from the GPU/Memory. There is also some extra compression possible for memory based non-texture data, which i suppose would free up some more space for textures. All of the compressed data can be accessed and processed without being decompressed also.

Its not really compressing textures any more to get more in memory, its compressing how they access and stream the texture information, to and from the GPU/Memory. There is also some extra compression possible for memory based non-texture data, which i suppose would free up some more space for textures. All of the compressed data can be accessed and processed without being decompressed also.

When I asked Macri about this issue, he expressed confidence in AMD's ability to work around this capacity constraint. In fact, he said that current GPUs aren't terribly efficient with their memory capacity simply because GDDR5's architecture required ever-larger memory capacities in order to extract more bandwidth. As a result, AMD "never bothered to put a single engineer on using frame buffer memory better," because memory capacities kept growing. Essentially, that capacity was free, while engineers were not. Macri classified the utilization of memory capacity in current Radeon operation as "exceedingly poor" and said the "amount of data that gets touched sitting in there is embarrassing." Strong words, indeed. With HBM, he said, "we threw a couple of engineers at that problem," which will be addressed solely via the operating system and Radeon driver software. "We're not asking anybody to change their games."

http://techreport.com/review/28294/amd-high-bandwidth-memory-explained/2 Sounds like what they are planning to do is definitely going to help improve capacity problems.

ok so u actually admitt that amd is now on par with nvidia?? 🙂

I never said that they weren't.

That sound very promising 🙂

ok so u actually admitt that amd is now on par with nvidia?? 🙂

Man, you are hanging yourself. While posted information indicate a lot about AMD closing gap, those cards are not in stores, not even number of ROPs is known officially. Just let it go for one week, then come back and tell to all those people throwing mud on AMD with rebrands from top to bottom + weak Fiji, how much they were wrong. Or don't, it is your choice. But arguing about some fabricated information from least reliable sources around + performance and properties? Just don't.