WYP
News Guru
A listing for AMD's RX 490 has appeared online alongside alleged benchmarks for AMD's Pro 490 GPU, which will be a low power professional version of the GPU.
Read more on AMD's RX 490 GPU.
Read more on AMD's RX 490 GPU.
AMD RX 490 listed online alongside alleged benchmarks
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
What's most impressive here if this is true, is those scores. Seeing how 3Dmark always biased towards Nvidia, for it to be that far ahead a 1070 is very good. If it matches a 1080 then it will for sure be a potent card. However with Vega around the corner, I'd rather wait for the Fury X.2 card as it will probably be better
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I agree. DX11 games that support Crossfire scaling, there are a few (SoM, GTA V, Tomb Raider 2013), but they all still favour nVidia in general. DX12 and Mantle is where AMD beats nVidia, but there is almost no DX12/Mantle Crossfire scaling at this time.
AlienALX
Well-known member
It's just a stop gap until Vega IMO. I reckon normally they would not have released this at all but they need a product to plug the gap.
Hopefully I am completely wrong and it's actually Vega but I can't see it. No doubt this will be the benchmark king but games? forget it.
It is odd though. I mean, they launched the Fury Duo thing and made it very clear it was for professionals and not gamers, now they are going to release a dual GPU card that works just as badly?
Strange...
Hopefully I am completely wrong and it's actually Vega but I can't see it. No doubt this will be the benchmark king but games? forget it.
It is odd though. I mean, they launched the Fury Duo thing and made it very clear it was for professionals and not gamers, now they are going to release a dual GPU card that works just as badly?
Strange...
dwatterworth
New member
If this is indeed a dual GPU pro card, that would be an interesting move.
Seems like a large amount of professional applications don't take advantage of a second GPU right now.
I've had mixed luck with larger A&E models with multi-GPU, but usually the implementation is fairly frustrating.
Definitely waiting for the single large GPU solution from AMD or better support in DX12 throughout a majority of titles.
I haven't ever owned a dual GPU card, I wonder if you can select each core in an application vs the usual actual card.
Seems like a large amount of professional applications don't take advantage of a second GPU right now.
I've had mixed luck with larger A&E models with multi-GPU, but usually the implementation is fairly frustrating.
Definitely waiting for the single large GPU solution from AMD or better support in DX12 throughout a majority of titles.
I haven't ever owned a dual GPU card, I wonder if you can select each core in an application vs the usual actual card.
Last edited:
The_Governour
New member
I sure hope that its NOT a dual gpu card... if it was that then its a big FAIL...
I mean, it cant be 2 x 480s or??
I mean, it cant be 2 x 480s or??
Doomslayer
New member
Ah i can see people buying into in house testing like people did with earlier 400 series cards.
I agree with what Jayz said earlier on TechTalk today the AMD will get in front just for one Gen and Nvidia will just go bang and just blow AMD out of the water and AMD will be playing the catch up game yet again nvidia or intel or both are like 5 gems in front or something this also applies to CPU's if Zen somehow gets in front of intel they will just go bang and put AMD behind again.
I still can't really see AMD pulling a rabbit out of their hats with the this GPU and the upcoming Zen first Gen. As i have said i can see it happening with the second Gen but not the upcoming Gen.
I agree with what Jayz said earlier on TechTalk today the AMD will get in front just for one Gen and Nvidia will just go bang and just blow AMD out of the water and AMD will be playing the catch up game yet again nvidia or intel or both are like 5 gems in front or something this also applies to CPU's if Zen somehow gets in front of intel they will just go bang and put AMD behind again.
I still can't really see AMD pulling a rabbit out of their hats with the this GPU and the upcoming Zen first Gen. As i have said i can see it happening with the second Gen but not the upcoming Gen.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
This is the competition people have been asking for. If AMD can continue to grow in the way they are now, even if they're trumped within six months after a big launch, that will still encourage growth and advancement. Prices may still be high, but at least performance will increase. If AMD are indeed the underdogs, Intel and nVidia are the big dogs. If AMD can keep nipping at their heels, nVidia and Intel will keep testing their dominance. That will once again inspire AMD in turn, because maybe they'll strike gold and retake 50% of the market share and Intel and nVidia will suddenly be without a trick up its sleeve. Even if that doesn't happen, AMD will still continue to grow and mature and push their competitors, releasing excellent products as they go.
Doomslayer
New member
Sorry but i can't see AMD just going bang and taking 50% straight away, I think it's the other way around Intel & Nvidia still have plenty of tricks up there sleeves.
Remember it's AMD that has to come out with a game changing CPU & GPU, Intel & Nvidia doesn't well at least not at the moment anyway.
IMO Intel & Nvidia are just sitting back and waiting for AMD and then they will go from there. Which there allow to do.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think AMD's philosophy has changed tbh. I think they are doing the right things now. For example the 480. They knew they could never compete with Nvidia with Polaris but instead released it at a new price point for the performance offered which IMO has reshaped gaming. You can now get a card capapble of ultra settings for £200 or so.
Vega though will be expensive. HBM is expensive. I don't think it will topple the Titan XP either IMO. So no, I can't see AMD winning a round. Nvidia have the money, AMD don't. So I don't see Vega beating Pascal and I certainly don't see it beating Volta either. Maybe if Zen generates them more cash for R&D then at some point in the future a few years from now they may win a round but I doubt it. Not unless Nvidia go off the GPU market and work somewhere else. That is the only way I see AMD beating Nvidia with performance.
That's the problem with J and why I think he is a bellend because he puts across his opinions in his videos and stupid kids take it as facts. Poor show really. (and no, I wasn't talking about any members here)
Zen is important but mostly because AMD need it to get a claw hold back in the server market. It would also be good if companies like Dell and so on started using AMD CPUs again too, as AMD do well out of those and the boards (given they make all of the chipsets etc).
Vega though will be expensive. HBM is expensive. I don't think it will topple the Titan XP either IMO. So no, I can't see AMD winning a round. Nvidia have the money, AMD don't. So I don't see Vega beating Pascal and I certainly don't see it beating Volta either. Maybe if Zen generates them more cash for R&D then at some point in the future a few years from now they may win a round but I doubt it. Not unless Nvidia go off the GPU market and work somewhere else. That is the only way I see AMD beating Nvidia with performance.
That's the problem with J and why I think he is a bellend because he puts across his opinions in his videos and stupid kids take it as facts. Poor show really. (and no, I wasn't talking about any members here)
Zen is important but mostly because AMD need it to get a claw hold back in the server market. It would also be good if companies like Dell and so on started using AMD CPUs again too, as AMD do well out of those and the boards (given they make all of the chipsets etc).
Doomslayer
New member
TBH that is the way i feel about Linus.....Sorry.....Not Sorry.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Yup. As soon as they become opinionated they lose it.
That's the problem with power and society. You have nobodies gaining a voice and thinking it makes them something they are not.
I can't stand it when any one on Youtube becomes opinionated. Human beings are crappy creatures any way, with most of them wanting some sort of power over others. TV is just the worst man. You've got people like Simon Cowell being treated like some sort of a god. Just for mouthing off his opinion on the TV.
Personally I have never seen Linus give his opinion on anything but then I don't watch his vids (unless I want to see something being opened that I may want to buy and he happens to have opened it !) and I certainly don't watch these cast things that go on for hours. I just usually skip to the bit where he opens the box, look at the product then close lol.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
No, I mean a few years from now, maybe more. I don't think Vega will blow away the competition and retake 50% of the market. Even if Vega is miles ahead of nVidia, it's still considered out of the price range of most of the market so will only serve as filling a niche void (at least in gaming) and pushing the name of AMD further.
What I mean is this:
AMD releases an excellent platform like Zen; Intel responds with an equal (Kaby Lake).
AMD refreshes Zen; Intel responds with the superior Cannon Lake.
AMD introduces a new range that performs better than even they expected; Intel responds with an on par product.
AMD releases a dub; Intel refreshes their range.
AMD releases a brand-new architecture that completely blows even their own preconceptions out the water; Intel is left lagging.
AMD releases a refresh; Intel responds with a stronger new architecture and beats AMD again.
In that 2-6-year timeline, Intel is consistently one step ahead—except for that time when AMD fell onto something brilliant at the same time Intel fell onto an unpredictable hardship in their fabrication. That 1-2 year window, along with all the years prior to it, brings AMD back up to, at least temporarily, a 50% market share. It then drops back to 40-45% once Intel rearrange things and beats AMD again. And around the same time, nVidia only matches AMD in the GPU race.
Of course all this is conjecture and hypothetical, but you understand what I mean. It's a slow process, and a lot of it is purely good timing.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think with Zen AMD have been refreshing like crap for two years. I mean, it's been done for nearly two years now (well, Jim left two years ago) so I think they have just been binning and refining ever since. You never know though, they may pull a BD-PD 15% with it? no idea.
Vega should not have used HBM IMO. Still too early, not enough people can make use of it etc etc. Not worried about the amount (8gb IIRC) as the consoles do not have any more than that and AMD have full control over that side of things. I just think it's too early to be focusing so hard on 4k when hardly any one is using it. You are then making people pay for something they won't use like Fury X. I would have liked to have seen the Fury X on 8gb GDDR.
Servers and OEMs is where AMD need to hit back. As soon as you start doing big dollar contracts with Dell and HP etc you generate the cash to be more frivolous elsewhere.
Vega should not have used HBM IMO. Still too early, not enough people can make use of it etc etc. Not worried about the amount (8gb IIRC) as the consoles do not have any more than that and AMD have full control over that side of things. I just think it's too early to be focusing so hard on 4k when hardly any one is using it. You are then making people pay for something they won't use like Fury X. I would have liked to have seen the Fury X on 8gb GDDR.
Servers and OEMs is where AMD need to hit back. As soon as you start doing big dollar contracts with Dell and HP etc you generate the cash to be more frivolous elsewhere.
Doomslayer
New member
Maybe it can happen but the biggest problem AMD faces is that they need to make up 10-12 years of losses so you need to go back to anywhere between 2004-2006 when AMD was winning the CPU market war, so i just can't see them doing it in such a sort amount of time.
Intel & Nvidia have the money, AMD wishes they had that kind of money maybe they would have if they didn't screw up over the years and now most people would still be using AMD CPU's not Intel CPU's.
But i guess we will know in about 6-9 months time.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Surely AMD has invested too much in high-bandwidth memory to have skipped both Fiji and Vega.
The Fury X was a poor GPU. It was disappointing at launch, but worked well at higher resolutions and allowed for neat cards like the Fury Nano. But it's a crap GPU by today's standards. It was a folly to use HBM1 at the time they did. 8GB of GDDR5 would have made more sense for longevity, but then they would have missed out on the higher resolution advantages (the Fury was a better 1440p GPU than the 980, but the 980 would have been more sensible if you were gaming at 1080p) and the efficiency advantages of HBM. I don't know what AMD gained in that area specifically, but the Fury X drew a lot of power considering its performance. If they used 8GB of GDDR5, maybe it would have forced them to reduce the clock speeds even further to compensate for the unrealistic power consumption—though I imagine the Fiji core was designed principally around the HBM so if they weren't using HBM then they would have made a wholly different GPU.
Skipping HBM2 with Vega does not make sense to me, though. Skipping HBM would have, but not HBM2. People wanted to buy the Fury X two years ago because of the hype surrounding HBM. AMD seemed to use it as a marketing tactic, right? But it had limitations, namely VRAM capacity, something HBM2 does not have problems with. The price to manufacture it is still an issue, but if the performance of the core is good then I don't mind. If we get another Fury X where Vega 10 and 11 perform below a 1080 and 1080ti at the same price, that's gonna blow. But at least the VRAM won't be a limitation.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I don't think the Fury X is crap at all. It never was, it just did not have enough VRAM. I mean it still kicks it at 1440p, far more than any card at £250.
Kinda sucks it has an anchor on it though (the AIO). The hoses are stupendously long and I'm fluffed if I am going to spend £110 on a block for it. Maybe if a cheap one comes up I will add it to my loop
But yeah, let us pray that they don't release Vega with the same anchor attached. It's high time AMD got back on air with reasonable temps. That was the biggest mistake with Fury X. Had then released it on air with 8gb they could have whopped a massive chunk off of the price. It wouldn't have performed any worse but they could have done what they did with the 480 and competed on price.
I might even mod mine thinking about it. Take the pump apart and remove all of the motor parts and then convert it so that it has G 1/4 sticking out of the back.
Kinda sucks it has an anchor on it though (the AIO). The hoses are stupendously long and I'm fluffed if I am going to spend £110 on a block for it. Maybe if a cheap one comes up I will add it to my loop
But yeah, let us pray that they don't release Vega with the same anchor attached. It's high time AMD got back on air with reasonable temps. That was the biggest mistake with Fury X. Had then released it on air with 8gb they could have whopped a massive chunk off of the price. It wouldn't have performed any worse but they could have done what they did with the 480 and competed on price.
I might even mod mine thinking about it. Take the pump apart and remove all of the motor parts and then convert it so that it has G 1/4 sticking out of the back.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I don't think the Fury X is crap at all. It never was, it just did not have enough VRAM. I mean it still kicks it at 1440p, far more than any card at £250.
Kinda sucks it has an anchor on it though (the AIO). The hoses are stupendously long and I'm fluffed if I am going to spend £110 on a block for it. Maybe if a cheap one comes up I will add it to my loop
But yeah, let us pray that they don't release Vega with the same anchor attached. It's high time AMD got back on air with reasonable temps. That was the biggest mistake with Fury X. Had then released it on air with 8gb they could have whopped a massive chunk off of the price. It wouldn't have performed any worse but they could have done what they did with the 480 and competed on price.
£250 for a Fury X, where did you see that? Was it used? The 290X at £250 when the 980/970 came out was a good buy, but I haven't seen any Fury X's for £250. I've seen some Fury's for £280, but even that is not a great deal considering the VRAM demands of new titles.
If at launch the Fury X was $600 for the water cooled variant and $550 with a reference cooler, but was then allowed to be partnered with a Windforce cooler for $580, I think it would have been a great buy, at least at the time. But it wasn't. It was locked to an AIO for $650. So let me rephrase, the positioning of the Fury X was crap. The GPU itself was just a GPU. It served its purpose by rendering frames. My Fury has been a champ at 1440p. But I wouldn't dream of buying one now unless I saw one for £220. And I wouldn't touch a Fury X for the same reason I wouldn't touch one before—too expensive, too all-in-one-y, too little memory.
But I agree with you, they should have made the Fury X like they made the 480. Cornering the market with a 'posh' AIO for a GPU that underperforms against the competition was not an effective business strategy. I can't think of a good analogy, but it was essentially drawing attention to yourself when you can't bring the goods. Lying about the overclocking potential was not effective either.
Similar threads
