{"id":77028,"date":"2015-06-11T03:00:58","date_gmt":"2015-06-11T01:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/?p=77028"},"modified":"2015-06-11T03:02:12","modified_gmt":"2015-06-11T01:02:12","slug":"radeon-fury-x-benchmarked-amds-r300-series-roadmap-leaked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/hardware\/77028-radeon-fury-x-benchmarked-amds-r300-series-roadmap-leaked","title":{"rendered":"Radeon Fury X benchmarked: AMD’s R300 series roadmap leaked"},"content":{"rendered":"

As the AMD Radeon R300 series launch approaches, come E3’s PC press conference, we learn more and more about the upcoming cards.<\/p>\n

There’s quite a bit to unpack, and some of the leaks aren’t 100% reliable, but it’s still exciting news for AMD fans in spite.<\/p>\n

AMD Radeon R300 Series Roadmap<\/h3>\n

Keep in mind that this roadmap may not be official, but for now we’re going to go along with VideoCardz and assume its legitimacy.<\/p>\n

What the roadmap demonstrates is the names of a good portion of the R300 series, which are essentially rebranded versions of the R200 series.<\/p>\n

\"AMD<\/a>

AMD Radeon Roadmap 2015<\/p><\/div>\n

And for the most part, AMD has crossed out the “2” in the names of many of their cards and written in “3”, so don’t expect much more than increases in clock and memory speed, perhaps a little more VRAM.<\/p>\n

Weirdly, AMD’s Radeon Fury cards, powered by the Fiji XT and Fiji Pro, seemed to be delayed. At least that’s what we’re assuming the slight indent to the right indicates.<\/p>\n

It’s curious because both NVIDIA as well as AMD usually lead with their flagship cards, rather than leave them for last.<\/p>\n

As the only new cards in the series, and the only ones to sport HBM, they’re also key to AMD’s marketing campaign as far as we’re concerned, so you’d assume AMD would opt to start off with their best foot first.<\/p>\n

Could reports be true that NVIDIA’s GTX 980 Ti<\/a> has, in fact, forced AMD to delay their Radeon Fury cards<\/a> in order to tweak and improve their performance, and perhaps perfect their drivers?<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
GPU<\/th>\nCard<\/th>\n200 Series Counterpart<\/th>\nGCN Iteration<\/th>\nMem.<\/th>\nGPU\/Memory Frequency<\/th>\nMemory Bandwidth<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
FIJI XT<\/td>\nAMD Radeon<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2013<\/td>\n1.2<\/td>\n4GB HBM<\/td>\n\u00a01050\/500Mhz<\/td>\n512GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FIJI Pro<\/td>\nAMD Radeon<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2013<\/td>\n1.2<\/td>\n4GB HBM<\/td>\n1000\/500Mhz<\/td>\n512GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Grenada XT<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R9 390X
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		Radeon R9 290X<\/td>\n1.1<\/td>\n8GB<\/td>\n1050\/1500 MHz?<\/td>\n384 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Grenada Pro<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R9 390
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		Radeon R9 290<\/td>\n1.1<\/td>\n8GB<\/td>\n1010\/1500 MHz?<\/td>\n384 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Antigua XT<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R9 380X<\/strong><\/td>\nRadeon R9 M295X<\/td>\n1.2<\/td>\n6GB\/4GB<\/td>\nTBD<\/td>\nTBD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Antigua Pro<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R9 380<\/strong><\/td>\nRadeon R9 285<\/td>\n1.2<\/td>\n4GB\/2GB<\/td>\n970\/1425 MHz<\/td>\n182 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Trinidad XT<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R7 370<\/strong><\/td>\nRadeon R9 265<\/td>\n1.0<\/td>\n4GB\/2GB<\/td>\n975\/1400 MHz<\/td>\n179 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tobago XT<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R7 360X<\/strong><\/td>\nAMD Radeon R7 260X<\/td>\n1.1<\/td>\n4GB\/2GB<\/td>\n1050\/1750 MHz<\/td>\n112 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tobago Pro<\/td>\nAMD Radeon R7 360<\/strong><\/td>\nAMD Radeon R7 260<\/td>\n1.1<\/td>\n2 GB<\/td>\n1000\/1750 MHz<\/td>\n112 GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n

*Table courtesy of WCCF Tech<\/a>. Prices have been removed and detailed below.
\n<\/em>
\nAt the very least, we have more details regarding the Radeon Fury X and Fury’s specs. Sadly, no prices have been included.<\/p>\n

We’re going to assume that the water cooled Fury X is the Fury Nano<\/a> we’ve heard rumours about.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nFury X (Water Cooled)<\/th>\nFury X (Air Cooled)<\/th>\nFury (Air Cooled)<\/th>\nR9 290X<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
GPU<\/td>\nFiji XT<\/td>\nFiji XT<\/td>\nFiji Pro<\/td>\nHawaii XT<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Stream Processors<\/td>\n4096<\/td>\n4096<\/td>\n3584<\/td>\n2816<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GCN Compute Units<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Render Output Units<\/td>\n128<\/td>\n128<\/td>\n128<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Texture Mapping Units<\/td>\n256<\/td>\n256<\/td>\n224<\/td>\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GPU Frequency<\/td>\n\u2265 1050Mhz<\/td>\n1050Mhz<\/td>\n1000Mhz<\/td>\n1000Mhz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Memory<\/td>\n4GB HBM<\/td>\n4GB HBM<\/td>\n4GB HBM<\/td>\n4GB GDDR5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Memory Interface<\/td>\n4096bit<\/td>\n4096bit<\/td>\n4096bit<\/td>\n512bit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Memory Frequency<\/td>\n500Mhz<\/td>\n500Mhz<\/td>\n500Mhz<\/td>\n1250Mhz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Effective Memory Speed<\/td>\n1Gbps<\/td>\n1Gbps<\/td>\n1Gbps<\/td>\n5Gbps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Memory Bandwidth<\/td>\n512GB\/s<\/td>\n512GB\/s<\/td>\n512GB\/s<\/td>\n320GB\/s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cooling<\/td>\nLiquid, 120mm Radiator<\/td>\nAir, 3 Axial Fans<\/td>\nAir, 3 Axial Fans<\/td>\nAir, Single Blower Fan<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Performance (SPFP)<\/td>\n\u2265 8.6 TFLOPS<\/td>\n8.6 TFLOPS<\/td>\n7.2 TFLOPS<\/td>\n5.6 TFLOPS<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TDP<\/td>\n300W<\/td>\n300W<\/td>\n275W<\/td>\n290W<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GFLOPS\/Watt<\/td>\n\u2265 28.7<\/td>\n28.7<\/td>\n26.2<\/td>\n19.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Launch Price<\/td>\nTBA<\/td>\nTBA<\/td>\nTBA<\/td>\n$549<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n

\u00a0*Table courtesy of WCCF Tech<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

And just by the way, according to one of WCCF Tech’s sources<\/a>, Star Wars: Battlefront<\/a> <\/em>will be packed in with some of the Radeon cards.<\/p>\n

If true, that’s $60 (or around R700) extra thrown in for free.<\/p>\n

Benchmarks<\/h3>\n

Now for the truly juicy details.<\/p>\n

Thanks to some super spy work by VideoCardz<\/a>, we have 3DMark FireStrike benchmarks for the Radeon Fury X.<\/p>\n

Granted, 3DMark’s FireStrike benchmark is a synthetic test and not directly proportional to real world results, but it’s nevertheless a good indicator of expected performance.<\/p>\n

And would you look at that, at 4K resolution (FireStrike Ultra), the Fury X edges ahead of the GTX Titan X, although only marginally.<\/p>\n

It’s undoubtedly as a result of Fiji’s use of high bandwidth memory<\/a> and its absurd bandwidth as a result.<\/p>\n

Once we drop below 4K resolution (FireStrike Extreme), the GTX Titan X takes the lead once more, but it’s worth mentioning that the Fury X does beat out the GTX 980 Ti.<\/p>\n

\"AMD<\/a>

AMD Radeon Fury X – 3DMark FireStrike Scores. Image courtesy of VideoCardz<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

We expect the Radeon Fury X, especially locally, to cost quite a bit more than the GTX 980 Ti<\/a>, so NVIDIA’s latest card will likely be the best option for high-end performance relative to cost.<\/p>\n

It’s also interesting to note that the Hawaii Pro (R9 390) and Hawaii XT (R9 390X) cards comfortably beat out the GTX 970. At $329 and $389 respectively<\/a>, they may well beat out the GTX 970 (also around $329) for the best performance\/price value crown.<\/p>\n

Should you need a little more in terms of benchmarking, CompuBench OpenCL benchmarks of the Fiji GPUs demonstrate a pretty serious advantage for AMD.<\/p>\n\n\t\t