R9 285 ia finally out...........

[gilang01]

So yeah, the long awaited Tonga GPU is out, and the gaming performance is identical if not better (and worse, depends on the game) to the 280... The only thing it does significantly better is video encoding.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/02/amd-radeon-r9-285-review/1

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/asus-r9-285-strix-review/

[SkilledRebuilds]

PCPER

 

Sidenote - AMD also released their CPU's today as well as the GPU's - http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-2014-FX-Refresh-FX-9590-FX-8370-and-FX-8370e-Review/Conclusion

[BloodWithIce]

Wait, as long as I remember 285 is higher than 280x
wat r u doing amd

[LukaP]

Wait, as long as I remember 285 is higher than 280x

wat r u doing amd

its not. x denotes the highest in class GPU. 285 actually replaces the 280, with 280x still being the king of the hill in that class

[BloodWithIce]

its not. x denotes the highest in class GPU. 285 actually replaces the 280, with 280x still being the king of the hill in that class

Yeah true, I just watched the video and that's right

[LukaP]

Yeah true, I just watched the video and that's right

yeah. i mean the GPU itself is more like the 270x, but if they put it as the 275x, and it replaced the 280, they would only have one x80 class card

[Wauthar]

its not. x denotes the highest in class GPU. 285 actually replaces the 280, with 280x still being the king of the hill in that class

 

On topic: I don't understand why AMD releases all these different versions when they still are pretty much the same.

[SkilledRebuilds]

 

On topic: I don't understand why AMD releases all these different versions when they still are pretty much the same.

I agree, their "new" CPU's didn't make much difference to performance, just pricing.

[LukaP]

On topic: I don't understand why AMD releases all these different versions when they still are pretty much the same.

Because the enthusiasts get bored with old products fast and want new and improved. Now with 30% more efficient

[BloodWithIce]

I agree, their "new" CPU's didn't make much difference to performance, just pricing.

8320 is an underclocked 8350 which is slighly slower than a 9370 which is...

oh yes that's right..

An undervolted 9590!

8320 = 9590

[helping]

8320 is an underclocked 8350 which is slighly slower than a 9370 which is...

oh yes that's right..

An undervolted 9590!

8320 = 9590

you have it the other way around.

 

what you say implies an 8320 can be a 9590 unconditionally.

[Manny Calavera]

 

 

On topic: I don't understand why AMD releases all these different versions when they still are pretty much the same.

Yes, we are still stuck in 2012, actually 2009 if you take that those FX chips were designed for servers at the time.

[BloodWithIce]

you have it the other way around.

 

what you say implies an 8320 can be a 9590 unconditionally.

In theory is you managed to get the 8320 to 5 ghz it would bench exactly the same as a 9590.

The'd be the same only if running on the same frequency and voltage

[D3MON]

so the tonga gpu is the 7930 effectively, they couldnt call it a r9-275 in my mind because there could always be the 7970 tahiti LE version, (remember? the 1536 procesor tahiti that tiny tom logan loved to much).
considering the performance i guess amd took as risk by putting a 7950 core on a 7870 chassis and hoping the bandwidth wouldnt limit it.....it doesnt, now the gtx760 is due a price drop.
as for the other fx's its kinda what ive been thinking for ages, they're only 125w tdp because of the clocks and default voltage, all AMD had to do was declock them and run lower base multi's with higher turbos, boom-95w. there's no reason they couldnt hit 90w really, its been seen before (and myself personally) amds stock volts are higher than they need to be and can be reduced a bit, this is why you can overclock a fair bit without touching volts.
bring on the 4gb models and crossfire  . (i still want a 290...)

[D3MON]

In theory is you managed to get the 8320 to 5 ghz it would bench exactly the same as a 9590.

The'd be the same only if running on the same frequency and voltage

as somone who uses amd and some would argue is a fanyboy (hence ive had nvidia and intel till now) thats not quite true, the 8350 is the main part, the 8320 is declocked purely for market space (an extra cpu to sell), some are taken off and those that can overclock the best get badged as 9590's and those that overclock well but are too high on power become 9370's, the new "e" models are just slightly better yeilds which again are there to grab market space.

amd only has 3 main types of cpu (not apu), fx8, fx6, fx4.

the latter only have maybe 2 speed bins i.e 4350 and 4300.

the fx8's are thier premium line so can afford to have 1 or 2 halo parts the 9XXX series.

compared to intel which has dual cores, unlocked dual cores, hyper threaded dual cores, quad cores, hyperthreaded quad cores, cut down dual cores (celerons), extreme editions and 3-4 speed bins for each, also you can often still buy ivy or even sandy cpu's still and their models. thats why they have such a market share, they cater to more of the market. its like HTC who only do phones vs samsung who do everything..

but out of all of amd's theres only really 2 chips that i'd reccommend the 8320 if you need power and the 6300 if your on a REALLY tight budget, more power get x99 (5820k ;p), if you need lower power or single threaded pentium-k thats 90% of the market of gamers and pc users.

for anyone that argues the point of the i5 and i7's...

i5 users-if you could have hyperthreading....but with only slight additional performance in multi threaded apps but with equally less performance in single threaded apps, would you? would you take a 4790k with the overall performance of your i5 but at £100/$150.

i7 users-if you needed more threads.....why not extreme platform?

[D3MON]

Wait, as long as I remember 285 is higher than 280x

wat r u doing amd

copying nvidia, i had a gtx260 sp216 (maxcore 55)....which should have been the gtx270 really (there was no gtx270), the "gtx275" was a full gtx285 but with 1 memory controller cut off so you "only" had a 448bit bus.....

the gtx750ti (or GTS as it should be) has 640 cores, the 760 has nearly double at 1152......nice gap there nvidia, good job fitting something between 750ti and 760...i look forward to the 755 and the 755ti, and the 755ti OC and the 755ti superclock and the 755ti superduperclock.

[Briggsy]

I see Elpida memory in some of the review close-ups. this concerns me, because a gtx 760 can easily hit 6800-7000 on the memory, which really helps with a 256 bit bus. I'm curious to see how well the 285 memory can overclock, because it will come down to that, especially with increased gpu power the 285 has over the 760. this is coming from someone who owns a 760 and a (dead) 7950, so I am genuinely curious about this.

[LukaP]

copying nvidia, i had a gtx260 sp216 (maxcore 55)....which should have been the gtx270 really (there was no gtx270), the "gtx275" was a full gtx285 but with 1 memory controller cut off so you "only" had a 448bit bus.....

the gtx750ti (or GTS as it should be) has 640 cores, the 760 has nearly double at 1152......nice gap there nvidia, good job fitting something between 750ti and 760...i look forward to the 755 and the 755ti, and the 755ti OC and the 755ti superclock and the 755ti superduperclock.

maxwell cores are a bit stronger than kepler, so in kepler terms it would be around 850 cores on the 750ti, so not that much of a gap, considering the 760 - 770 gap (1152 - 1536)

[helping]

In theory is you managed to get the 8320 to 5 ghz it would bench exactly the same as a 9590.

The'd be the same only if running on the same frequency and voltage

Thing is, an 8320 can't run at the same given frequency or voltage of a 9590 99% of the time, and practically every time the 9590 can run at speeds and voltage the 8320 can. The chips are the same, but the quality is vastly different.

 

What I was getting at is your order is backwards, an 8350 is an OC'd 8320, 9590 is a heavily OC/OV 8350 etc. This is completely ignoring heat output as well.

[I/O]

Thing is, an 8320 can't run at the same given frequency or voltage of a 9590 99% of the time, and practically every time the 9590 can run at speeds and voltage the 8320 can. The chips are the same, but the quality is vastly different.

 

What I was getting at is your order is backwards, an 8350 is an OC'd 8320, 9590 is a heavily OC/OV 8350 etc. This is completely ignoring heat output as well.

FX 8370 is coming out soon. Some guy got it up to 8.7Ghz so if this is true then we might see a decent chip that is essentially and 8350 with better efficiency 125watt TDP and the ability to clock up to 5Ghz and beyond stable like and FX 9590.

[helping]

FX 8370 is coming out soon. Some guy got it up to 8.7Ghz so if this is true then we might see a decent chip that is essentially and 8350 with better efficiency 125watt TDP and the ability to clock up to 5Ghz and beyond stable like and FX 9590.

Hopefully, these chips would be a lot better if they were more efficient, an mATX build might actually be possible if every single 8 core FX didn't abuse the fk out of every motherboard.

[I/O]

Hopefully, these chips would be a lot better if they were more efficient, an mATX build might actually be possible if every single 8 core FX didn't abuse the fk out of every motherboard.

FX 8350 and 8320 just dropped in price yesterday to $180/$160. That's a tons of performance for the money.