AMD R9 290 Specs Leaked

3613843026_633477288_interesting_answer_2_xlarge_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg


I look to see what price these release at..
 
Man, *IF* these specs are true, and AMD were to price this @ $449, it would crush the 770, the rumored 770TI (based on leaked specs) and maybe trade blows with a 780 with some O/C'ing..

(I'm off to dream about it)..:p
 
I assume this is going to be $100 cheaper than whatever the 290X price is, which is a pretty good deal since it doesn't seem like a major step down.
 
I still find odd they will be using such slow memory maybe this is why price is lower and they don't have to worry about building the memory controller more robust either?

I just want them to ship so NDA can drop and we can compare directly to that which they are replacing
 
That does look interesting, if they include BF4 with this then this could be quite a deal.
 
dragonstongue said:
I still find odd they will be using such slow memory maybe this is why price is lower and they don't have to worry about building the memory controller more robust either?

I just want them to ship so NDA can drop and we can compare directly to that which they are replacing
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is entirely true, but I saw some people on XS saying using the low clocked GDDR5 with the 512-bit memory controller was meant for power savings. I'm assuming that if this is the case it was meant to help offset the additional power usage from packing in everything else.

Maybe see some AIBs slap higher clocked memory chips in these? Will be quite nice if they do.
 
dragonstongue said:
I still find odd they will be using such slow memory maybe this is why price is lower and they don't have to worry about building the memory controller more robust either?

I just want them to ship so NDA can drop and we can compare directly to that which they are replacing
Click to expand...
I'd hardly call 5ghz 512 bit memory slow. Just because nvidia put 7ghz memory on the 770 to make up for the 256 bit crippled bus doesnt make 5ghz slow. Especially if it overclocks like the 79xx memory does. Memory can and likely will be over clocked. Bus width can't. We all know in our hearts that 780/titan should of been 670/680 and 670/680 should of been 660/660tiand nvidia just knew they could get away with it and make an extra gen out of it ($$$$$) :(
 
HOODedDutchman said:
I'd hardly call 5ghz 512 bit memory slow. Just because nvidia put 7ghz memory on the 770 to make up for the 256 bit crippled bus doesnt make 5ghz slow. Especially if it overclocks like the 79xx memory does. Memory can and likely will be over clocked. Bus width can't. We all know in our hearts that 780/titan should of been 670/680 and 670/680 should of been 660/660tiand nvidia just knew they could get away with it and make an extra gen out of it ($$$$$) :(
Click to expand...

Yes, that is all well and good but when you fit 512b bus into 66% of the area of Tahiti's 384b bus, you are going to be giving up some potential clockspeed.

I would be surprised if anyone hits +6ghz.
5.4-5.8ghz is probably where the MC will top out at.
 
If the leaked specs are right you may be as well. Leaked specs put both cards at 5ghz, so no increase for the 290x memory wise.
 
well there is the side as mentioned that it might be a wider bus but are using memory at a slower speed for power reasoning AND they may have opted to give the 290x faster memory but kept it running at a slower pace for the speed reason. I do not see them limiting the MC ability to handle the higher speeds though power/temps might be part of it, 512bit wide is wide, but slower memory is still slower memory, the throughput will be very high though especially if clocked up.

I just found it odd, I know the memory gives a fair amount of heat and takes a fair amount of juice as I have had many tests for myself doing BTC and LTC mining and seeing the different boosts, temperature, as well as power usage as they both require different clocking(one is more core aligned other is nearly all memory) so yeh might have been purely to keep power in check as that is a fair boost in much of the core(TMU/ROP/Buswidth and def shaders) or possibly for pricing as Nvidia is using the higher speed memory am sure there is lots of lower speed memory chips available or they are using a higher speed one and just declocking it so maybe there is a "dual bios" that allows the memory to clock up?

Interesting anyways.
 
Still, even at $100~150 cheaper... that's still around $550 ~ 600 (assuming the $699~730 price tag it true for 290x). It'd have to perform at 780 level for the card to be successful.
 
dragonstongue said:
I still find odd they will be using such slow memory maybe this is why price is lower and they don't have to worry about building the memory controller more robust either?

I just want them to ship so NDA can drop and we can compare directly to that which they are replacing
Click to expand...

5GHz x 512-bit = 320GB/sec bandwidth
7GHz x 256-bit = 224GB/sec bandwidth

so yeah, memory speed isn't everything

latency and timings are actually more important
 
Brent_Justice said:
5GHz x 512-bit = 320GB/sec bandwidth
7GHz x 256-bit = 224GB/sec bandwidth

so yeah, memory speed isn't everything

latency and timings are actually more important
Click to expand...

Doh, just scrolled down to post this and saw you beat me to it..But yes, ~96GB/sec of extra bandwidth is FAR from anything to sneeze at, especially if the latency/timings aren't insanely lax as Brent mentioned...Just think, with a ~18% O/C (1250 vs 1450), you end up with 371.2GB/sec, which is a LOT, it is 83GB/sec MORE then a stock 780..

So as long as you can get a mild O/C, which the 7XXX series could easily do, and the Shaders can deliver the fill rate needed to take advantage, then you have one beast of a card for hopefully a decent price (less then the 7970 MSRP @ launch)...:eek:!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top