1500$ AMD Radeon Pro Duo Launches - But Without Media Reviews

Published by

Click here to post a comment for 1500$ AMD Radeon Pro Duo Launches - But Without Media Reviews on our message forum
#5263639
data/avatar/default/avatar22.webp
This Product was delayed for the VR market as some speculate but what i think is that: It's late for the gamers market. It's late for the VR development market. It's late for the VR consumer market. It's priced out of most peoples market. Unless you are making VR Arcade franchise this year or have money to spend this product is not for you.
#5263648
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/169/169957.jpg
It's dual 4GB HBM, best VR single card right now, will have 8GB memory in games that support multi-adapter in DX12, it can do all these things but I want us all to take a step back and ask the eternal question. Can it run CRYSIS?
#5263650
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/93/93080.jpg
No thanks on this one. Seriously if my 980's had more Vram I'd not even think about an upgrade to the GTX 1080. Even at 4 GB's, I'm running low on Vram in some newer titles...otherwise GTX 980 SLI is fast enough for me. IF this dual board can barely match GTX 970 performance...I don't see the point. VR development or not.
#5263666
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/262/262197.jpg
Seems legit. Over 100% scaling, in a 2013 game.
lol now i see it. maybe OC, but then they should indicate it in the results.
#5263677
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/262/262197.jpg
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=12873 980, 980 2-way, 980 3-way
yes i am fully aware that more than 100% increase is technically impossible. (apart from 100% or lets say 99% being a very very rare value we see only in simple engines and very optimized ones) so the only thing that is left would be 1) its full fake 2) its a 3x/4x sli and they forgot to label it (yes i am aware even 3x/4x will have hard times scaling. but tessellation is off and we dont know how they tested.)
#5263678
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
It's also possible that it's just margin of error in the benchmark. There are a number of xfire 3dmark GPU scores that are over 100%. I doubt many sites run the benchmarks multiple times and average the score. That being said, when the site saw that result, they should have reran it or tried to explain it. But lazy journalism for pageviews is ez. Especially when there are only like 2 sites with a pro duo to review in the first place. Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480-3-way-sli-crossfire,2622-12.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-18.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-14.html http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/6525252/fs/6525156/fs/6525107/fs/6524667/fs/6525203 Few examples where you see 100%+ scaling on both SLI and Xfire. That's not to say that the 970 results here aren't BS, but it does happen.
#5263681
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/262/262197.jpg
It's also possible that it's just margin of error in the benchmark. There are a number of xfire 3dmark GPU scores that are over 100%. I doubt many sites run the benchmarks multiple times and average the score. That being said, when the site saw that result, they should have reran it or tried to explain it. But lazy journalism for pageviews is ez. Especially when there are only like 2 sites with a pro duo to review in the first place. Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480-3-way-sli-crossfire,2622-12.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-18.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-14.html http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/6525252/fs/6525156/fs/6525107/fs/6524667/fs/6525203 Few examples where you see 100%+ scaling on both SLI and Xfire. That's not to say that the 970 results here aren't BS, but it does happen.
Yeah let's put it at that. I was looking at that isolated Metro 2033 result. There's obviously a reason for the 2x and single solution not to get properly utilized. So it is over 100% scaling. Based on pure FPS measurement. But definitely not on GPU%utilization measurement. What I am saying is, those 2 anomalies / low FPS results can't have a utilization higher than 50%. Whereas the 3x result looks healthy compared to the Crysis and Stalker resuts which basically seem to be just as taxing. Or simple: If one 970 with 99% GPU util in a game can make 50 FPS Then adding another one to the same setup in the same game wont go over 100 FPS. In another game If one 970 has 30% GPU load and maybe can realize 30 FPS with that. Then adding another card to the same setup in the same game could technically go up to ~200FPS (if both cards reach 99% load because the SLI profile is superoptimized but single card has a bug or sth.)
#5263684
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
Yeah let's put it at that. I was looking at that isolated Metro 2033 result. There's obviously a reason for the 2x and single solution not to get properly utilized. So it is over 100% scaling. Based on pure FPS measurement. But definitely not on GPU%utilization measurement. What I am saying is, those 2 anomalies / low FPS results can't have a utilization higher than 50%. Whereas the 3x result looks healthy compared to the Crysis and Stalker resuts which basically seem to be just as taxing. Or simple: If one 970 with 99% GPU util in a game can make 50 FPS Then adding another one to the same setup in the same game wont go over 100 FPS. In another game If one 970 has 30% GPU load and maybe can realize 30 FPS with that. Then adding another card to the same setup in the same game could technically go up to ~200FPS (if both cards reach 99% load because the SLI profile is superoptimized but single card has a bug or sth.)
I mean I agree, but isn't that just another explanation as to how the 970 SLI result is possible? Also another interesting thing here: http://developer.download.nvidia.com/presentations/2008/NVISION/NVISION08_MGPU.pdf Page 14 and page 44. Page 44 shows an example where 4 GPU's are 11x faster then 1 GPU. Granted, it's a specific scenario, but yeah, it clearly happens in various different instances.
#5263750
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/85/85047.jpg
It has 4 Display Ports that do the same at 60Hz, problem solved.
Why HDMI 2.0 is cool? Because it allows to have an insane 3840×2160 resolution at 60Hz on a 4K TV. For me is pass!However, an adapter was good at this price!:bang:
#5263787
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/252/252888.jpg
Why HDMI 2.0 is cool? Because it allows to have an insane 3840×2160 resolution at 60Hz on a 4K TV. For me is pass!However, an adapter was good at this price!:bang:
Wake up. DP does the same and adapters aren't that expensive. OT: I wonder what we'll find when we review this little beast. The original cards seemed to throttle a bit under load so I wonder how the single rad (!) will hold up.
#5263815
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/85/85047.jpg
Wake up. DP does the same and adapters aren't that expensive. OT: I wonder what we'll find when we review this little beast. The original cards seemed to throttle a bit under load so I wonder how the single rad (!) will hold up.
Ya! Wake up for what? 😕
#5276799
data/avatar/default/avatar19.webp
Tombraider framerates to the Tomb Raider... well yea. in 4k DX11: MP: 51.18 (min 1.77, max:131.25) Syria: 46.37 (min 6.66, max 102.73) GV: 35.35 (min 3.82, max 92.18) Overall: 44.19 FPS The game is shuttered, dont know how to describe it better 🙂 its not running smooth (i think those are the peaks with minimum values). 4k DX12 MP: 28.10 (min 17.26, max: 48.75) Syria: 24.67 (min 10.34, max:44.34) GV: 24.20 (min 20.91, max:36.51) Overall 25.71 FPS But, the game runs smoothly (yes, with some slower parts with 10FPS) So from my point of view, its not game where i would like to show the power of dualCore card :bang:

Previous Page