Slashdot Mirror
AMD Radeon Fury and Fury X Specs Leaked, HBM-Powered Graphics On the Way
MojoKid writes: A fresh alleged leak of next AMD Fiji graphics info has just hit the web and there's an abundance of supposedly confirmed specifications for what will be AMD's most powerful graphics card to date. Fiji will initially be available in both Pro and XT variants with the Fiji Pro dubbed "Fury" and Fiji XT being dubbed "Fury X." The garden variety Fury touts single-precision floating point (SPFP) performance of 7.2 TFLOPS compared to 5.6 TFLOPS for a bone stock Radeon R9 290X. That's a roughly 29-percent performance improvement. The Fury X with its 4096 stream processors, 64 compute units, and 256 texture mapping units manages to deliver 8.6 TFLOPS, or a 54-percent increase over a Radeon R9 290X. The star of the show, however, will be AMD's High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) interface. Unlike traditional GDDR5 memory, HBM is stacked vertically, decreasing the PCB footprint required. It's also integrated directly into the same package as the GPU/SoC, leading to further efficiencies, reduced latency and a blistering 100GB/sec of bandwidth per stack (4 stacks per card). On average HBM is said to deliver three times the performance-per-watt of GDDR5 memory. With that being said, the specs listed are by no means confirmed by AMD, yet. We shall find out soon enough during AMD's E3 press conference scheduled for June 16.
This card has 400GB/sec throughput on memory. Not that far away, and that's just the first model limited to 4 stacks.
No idea where that imaginary goal of yours came from though. They always marked this as around 100TB/stack. And of course like all such memory, it's going to run in parallel, so the more stacks on die, the more bandwidth.
YAY for the new chip and memory. I just hope the TDP isn't so power sucking as the R9 series.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
In November 2001, one of the Fury X cards would beat the worlds top supercomputer on raw FLOPS.
"performance of 7.2 FLOPS compared to 5.6 TFLOPS"
I think I would stick with the faster card...
Why not XT and XTR?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
HBM1 gives 1GB and 128GB/s per stack, so 4GB and 512GB/s in this model with 4 stacks.
HBM2 will double both performance and capacity, and is expected some time next year.
The specs are "leaked".
AMD has been hyping the card for weeks already.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Isn't this general of all things in life?
When you can get your hands on it, it's worth researching if you want to buy it, not before.
When you research it, you need to find someone who's used it under a similar benchmark to your intended use (and, here, I do NOT mean benchmarks themselves - you need to test under similar usage, e.g. a particular game with certain settings, etc.).
When you go to buy it, you need to test it before your right to return it runs out.
Believing anything on a spec-sheet, on a review, advert, promotion, hype, rumour or anything else is just silly until you have it in your hands doing what you want.
They aren't stacked directly on top they are stacked to the side of the GPU .... sort of like how intel puts a GPU on the same processor package beside it's CPU ... just in this case there is an interposer that allows a much more massive number of interconnects than previously practical.
It probably makes things easier to cool than before since the memory now gets cooling it would not have previously gotten... and Memory is really the most important part of the GPU.
There's some screenshots sitting around on /r/pcmasterrace showing the 980ti, the ram chips are hitting 100C, so yeah using HBM to deal with not only heat but transfer speed is going to make a huge difference.
Om, nomnomnom...
As part of AMD's QA process they first submit their driver and sample hardware to the FSF and debian for rigorous testing.
Once approved it will be submitted to Linus for inclusion in the official kernel.
Only when all parties are satisfied the product is stable and efficient and all 3 major OSS's will QA sign off on release of the product.
Oh wait, no, that isnt the plan at all.
Made up specs posted days ago and rehashed without even attributing the original made up source. News?
If you only need 7 operations per second, a discrete board seem overkill. Most CPUs can handle that easily.
I just ordered a nVidia 980 Ti for my man dev box. While I would love to root for the underdog we need to be realistic and compare _actual_ silicon as opposed to theoretical paper specs of AMD hardware.
How many MH/s will this new card mine for Script and other hash currencies?
The HBM memories run at a much lower clockspeed than the GDDR5, but compensate it by using a very, VERY wide bus, so they're probably a lot colder.
Hey, get a clue, don't start your comment in the subject line. That's not what it's for. If you're going to do that just asdfjkl;.
Wait & see .. compared to 980 Ti ?
I just ordered a nVidia 980 Ti for my man dev box. While I would love to root for the underdog we need to be realistic and compare _actual_ silicon as opposed to theoretical paper specs of AMD hardware.
If you were as clever as you think you are, you would have waited for the next AMD card to hit the streets... and the price of the nVidia cards to drop, let alone for benchmarks to happen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This sounds like a great competitor to nVidia's Maxwell architecture, but is there an estimate about when AMD is going to release low-end/low-cost Fury-based cards to compete with the GTX 750, which AFAIK is the best power/watt card at the moment. I haven't followed GPU news for over a year though, so maybe there's already something better in the 100-150$ range?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So, it's slightly slower than the Titan X in games, but the Maxwell architecture suffers poor double precision performance and that could be where AMD make their money. The Firepro version of this card would smoke anything Nvidia has to offer.
The limitation of the consumer nVidia cards is double precision floating point. He may not need that. There are plenty of problems that need only single precision math, the extra precision is wasted. In that case, you don't see much benefit going to the pro cards, certainly not enough to justify the price.
Cool, finally a card that can run practically all entries in ShaderToy in real-time :-)
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
And the reason why GDDR5 runs at a much higher clock rate is? You should know the answer, it's because of the distance from the GPU to the chips themselves. HBM is stacked at the GPU, in turn speed isn't as much of an issue.
Om, nomnomnom...
I think the key feature wasn't so much the reduction in heat, but the reduction of the amount of power required to run them, which of course has the positive side effect of a reduction of heat...