R9 380x
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Well fucking finally.
I already gave up on an interesting card in the 250~280€ region.
Is it good?
>>51393807
No reviews yet. Should be in the next couple of days. It won't be a world-beater, but it should be nicely in-between the 380 and 390. First full Tonga chip.
>>51393870
Are any more new cards going to be released in the next couple months? I was going to build a PC soon but if there's new cards coming I might wait to check new options
I mean if they're in the €200-250 range, otherwise they won't be for me
>>51393870
Isnt the 380 full Tonga too?
>>51393870
Was planning on getting a 380 4GB on black friday, if the 380X turns out to be significantly better, should I just get that?
>>51393929
Pretty sure its going to be around $250 since theres 390 in the 299$ price range
>>51393930
No. The full fat tonga chip (well, minus the 384 bit bus) has existed in a few forms but not in a way most people can buy (fuck you apple).
Still Nvidia has no answer to the 380x right now as it will likely murder the 960 and lel the 960ti being a thing.
>>51393930
285 = 380 which is tonga pro
M395X and 380X are Tonga XT
380x is Fiji without HBM!
>>51393946
Well I was going to get either a 960 or a normal 380, guess I can add 50 more bucks to my budget if it turns out to be that good
Would an i3 4170 still be a good CPU for it? I'm mostly following logicalincrement's advice and the 960/380 are paired with the 4170 there
>>51394427
Depending on where you are the only other viable choice is an 8320e but you don't want to run an 8320e at stock.
Release date and reviews are confirmed incoming on 19th.
hoping that Battlefront is bundled with this card
>>51394160
>380x is Fiji without HBM!
So is that good or bad?
>>51394539
protip - the 8320E turbos up to 4ghz just like the 8320 (not that you'd want to run that at stock these days either lol), just FYI. Not sure if you knew that.
>>51395238
Oh but I do anon. 5ghz or bust is my plan and frankly bust is looking to be the most likely outcome.
>>51395218
thats good.
it will perform close to the 970 but it will be 70-90$ cheaper and have full 4GB memory, Async compute, and all the other bells and whistles.
>>51395334
And yet Nvidiots will still defend the 970 and 60.
nearly bought a 390 today for over my budget (and over the performance i need desu) because i heard this was going to be the 15th and get bored of waiting, so fucking glad i waited a bit more
>>51395538
So is the 380x actually looking to be better than the 390 or is it just a slighter lower budget version?
>>51395268
temps aren't a problem for you unless that's inverse measurement. Have you overvolted yet? How many RAM sticks are you running? How hot are your board components getting (especially important question to ask if you are using water).
>>51396158
>. Have you overvolted yet?
1.426v under torture loads with LLC set to ultra high (which is 75%).
> How many RAM sticks are you running?
3 sticks of 4gb. Two are a pair and one is a random stick I bought. Has made my attempt at overclocking the rame due to FO4 basically impossible but meh.
>How hot are your board components getting
I actually have the stock 8320e fan cable tied to the back of the mobo roughly where the vrms sit (the fan itself sits on a splitter with my cpu cooler) - this shaved a good 5-10c off motherboard temps under torture load. Under IBT torture loads (standard testing) my mobo sits at a touch over 60c at hottest - thermal shutdown happens at 65c (as I found out theh ard way trying to hit 5ghz).
CPU itself runs at 62c in IBT but FX chips are good for 70c until they throttle.
>especially important question to ask if you are using water)
Nyet - pic related.
Side note: remember my mobo is only rated for 140w and under IBT torture laods the cpu is drawing probably nearly 200w. For gaymen and typical shit my cpu barely breaks 50c and the mobo sits mid 40's.
>>51393044
FUCK I bought 380 literally 2 weeks ago. I want to fucking kill myself.
>>51396155
Technically the 380x has better support of secondary features than a 390 does (more VSR resolutions for example) but - unsurprisingly - it will be the slower card.
My gut is the 380x will be THE 1080p card and the 390 best reserved for stupid settings (like SSAA) and higher resolutions.
380x gonna do 1440p well?
Doesn't Tonga perform better than Hawaii in tessalation
?
>>51396447
It does, which is why relatively it takes less of a hit when cranking tessellation up. Flipside is hawaii cards have quite a bit more in the way of cores (and generally clockspeed) which means they can brute force it.
>>51396287
Take out one stick of RAM, disable two cores, go from there (for FO4 perf anyway).
>>51396832
>disable two cores
Why on earth would that help me? It would just reduce available cpu resources and certainly won't make much difference for clocking the cpu itself higher given i'm already close to the limit (I suspect my chip really wants 1.5v for 5ghz and I can't cool that).
I have a 285, and it's a surprisingly based card for only $150, the only drawback is that being only 2GB really hurt for some newer things, Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight especially, but it handled MGSV maxed perfectly. A full-blown Tonga with 4GB is probably going to be the semi-budget card to beat just based on how the cut-down-in-comparison 285 performs
>>51396473
Idk if this is a stupid question, but what exactly is Tonga in comparison to their current line up? I've heard that Tonga was an updated Tahti, but one guy in the thread said it was Fiji but without the HBM so I'm a little confused.
>>51397420
he's saying that's the gen of the tech; it was developed alongside Fiji or shortly beforehand. AFAIK they are both referred to as GCN 2.0 by AMD.
>>51396956
the idea is to eliminate some CPU cores that could be more unstable than the others. It's a known technique, look it up.
>>51397420
GCN is the fundamental architecture AMD uses today, the various codenames (tahiti, hawaii, tonga and fiji to name the most recent) are evolutions of that.
Simply put hawaii is a supercharged tahiti aimed at massive amounts of compute and a few other gubbins (like better freesync support).
Fiji is essentially what happens what you slam tonga and hawaii together (fiji has the same front end as hawaii, but underneath is much, much closer to tonga). Saying tonga is fiji without the HBM isn't a bad guideline but tonga came first so fiji evolved from tonga and not the other way around.
tl;dr performance tiers its (best to worst) fiji > hawaii > tonga > tahiti.
>>51397525
Then enlighten me anon - if my cpu is passing torture stability tests (such as IBT and prime95) at my current clockspeeds losing an entire module just for a mere 300mhz in clockspeed sounds like a great way to actually lose performance, given the disparity between higher clocked 6xxx chips and something lower clocked like the 8320/e.
>>51397568
That is actually ENTIRELY possible. What I am envisioning is that FO4 doesn't fully use all your threads, and is asking too much of the ones it is using - hence we don't lose by dropping a few threads in order to boost performance on the ones we keep.
Yes, it is very probably an overall reduction in compute, but essentially what we are doing is optimizing your CPU for the game.
>>51397609
I find that a possible, but unlikely scenario.
>>51397512
>>51397529
Thanks
>>51397646
are you kidding? that is EXACTLY what that chart suggests. How else do you think the fucking i3 4330 fuckboi is beating out that FX-6300? It's literally down by 2 threads! Or how about that 4670K edging out the FX-8350, which has it beat in raw compute?
I'm not sure what's going on at the top of the scale, but it looks like heat issues and turbo variance to me. I say give it a shot and disable two of your cores, then clock up the rest as you can. Worst that can happen is it doesn't work.
How much more expensive than the R9 380 can we expect this to be? GPUs and computer parts in general are quite expensive here so 250-280€ doesn't say much to me.
>>51397880
Launch price will most likely be $250 USD
>>51397827
>. How else do you think the fucking i3 4330 fuckboi is beating out that FX-6300? It's literally down by 2 threads! Or how about that 4670K edging out the FX-8350
I would hazard a guess at each of those intel chips having best part of twice the raw IPC in general and the game not working to the fx's strengths (not that many consumer workloads do).
You simply cannot compare architectures like that - having less available threads on the fx chips is suicide in modern games.
>>51395517
Uh, 970 would be stupid to defend due to 3.5keks but the 960 is a solid card. Maybe a little overpriced, but the efficiency and the fact it's available as SFF make it worth it.
>>51396435
No single card does 1440p well if you go by /g/'s "120fps constant on ultra across all titles or it's shit" metric. Not even the 980Ti or the Fury X.
That being said, not really. Have an OC'd 390x dCU2 (1200/1700 @ +63mv) and can't get steady 60fps at 1440p high/ultra in BF4, FO4, Ark (server-side throttle, can do 75+fps in single-player local), or a few other 2015 titles. FO4 I'm averaging about 48fps on ultra/8x tessellation/FXAA and about 40fps on ultra/full tess/TAA.
>>51398123
FO4 won't run well on any hardware. That said i'm a firm believer that 1200 core hawaii will do 4k at high settings - at least the perfect range for a freesync screen.
My own 290x (1220/1500) testing at 3200x1800 pushes the same fps in FO4 as I get at 1080p with the same settings. Hint: its shadows that are murdering cpus in fallout (even intel ones).
>>51393807
It's amd so no..
>>51397942
Yes, but this is very general stuff here. The argument goes, as I understand, that because the FX-6300 enjoys overall greater compute power, that FO4 will use all of that. My intuition is that it actually won't, and that will be largely due to a few threads being much more demanding than most of them. In such a scenario, configuring a 6C/5ghz CPU would be better than an 8C/4.7ghz CPU, potentially. Looking at the graph in >>51397646
you could expect higher average FPS but slightly lower minimum FPS.
>>51398278
that image doesn't show the $50 AMD motherboard and $120 intel mobo
>>51398278
>you could expect higher average FPS but slightly lower minimum FPS.
Which defeats the whole point - it is the minimums that matter.
As for the rest of the post? Sorry m8 pure gibberish given you can actively see core scaling on the intel side - the 4330 is slaughtered by the 4670k despite the i3 being higher clocked because hyperthreading isn't a replacement for an actual cpu core.
If we were talking ARMA you'd have a point, but FO4 is fairly aware of 8 threads (but no more as you can see the i7's clustering at the top).
>>51398420
doesn't need to, look at the damn aggregate scores you mongoloid. in pure instructions per cycle the FX-6300 brute forces its way ahead even before OCing.
>>51398485
If you want to get technical for certain workloads AMD's FX chips are monsters.
>>51398538
They're even decent for gaming when the game uses more cores.
>bethesda a shit
>>51398474
I shoot for averages more than minimums, because minimums quite often occur only rarely. Sometimes minimums (or more accurately, sudden extreme drops in performance) are more common while still being outliers that belie the average; in those cases what you say holds true.
As for your BS about HT, get a load of mr. it's 2015 and I still don't understand how HT works over here.
The HT isn't a replacement because it causes a hit on the actual core's single thread perf, which is why disabling it used to be a good idea almost always for gaming.
The i7s are clustering near the top because they have some of the highest frequencies COMBINED with the highest core counts. I'm not saying the game can't use those threads; I'm saying that it doesn't need them as much as it needs a few (looks like about 4) really fast threads.
>>51393044
>Super over clock
More like Super oven clock
>>51397982
>the 960 is a solid card.
128bit memory bus.
