![]() ![]() AMD has not announced specifications or pricing for the card, but they have shown off the naked board, confirming the presence of two Fiji GPUs, along with a pair of 8-pin PCIe power sockets. #Fury x fp64 PcLisa Su at the PC Gaming Show, the dual-GPU card is already up and running for AMD with an expected launch date of the fall. Last but not least in the Fiji lineup will be the company’s unnamed dual GPU card. If R9 Nano does end up taking AMD’s best Fiji chips, and given the lack of competition in the small form factor space, it may end up being more expensive than R9 Fury X due to rarity and the performance advantage we’re expecting such a card to have. With the R9 Nano launching at some point this summer, the big unknown here, if anything, will be price. ![]() AMD is touting that R9 Nano should offer twice the performance per watt of R9 290X, and while R9 290X is not exactly a high point for AMD, this would still be a substaintial improvement for AMD. Meanwhile, since R9 Nano’s lower clockspeeds put it closer to the clockspeed/voltage sweet spot than R9 Fury X does, overall power efficiency should be even better than Fury X. AMD is not giving us any expectations for clockspeeds at this time, though on a personal note based on the kind of clockspeed scaling we see on other 28nm GPUs, I would be surprised if a 175W Fiji could not sustain 800MHz or better in games at 175W, assuming the cooler is capable of dissipating that much heat. However with that said, because clockspeeds, voltages, and power consumption have a non-linear effect, at this point in time it is reasonable to assume that AMD is going to be able to hit and sustain relatively high clockspeeds even at 175W just by backing off on load voltage. The R9 Nano will be a 175W card, 100W less than the R9 Fury X, and even with heavy binning it’s a safe bet that it will not be able to hit/sustain R9 Fury X’s 1050MHz clockspeed. What separates R9 Nano from R9 Fury X is the power target, and as a result the expected sustained clockspeeds and performance. This card will feature a fully enabled Fiji GPU, and given AMD’s goals I suspect this is where we’re going to see the lowest leakage bins end up. Unlike the R9 Fury, AMD has announced the bulk of the specs for the R9 Nano. The R9 Nano would be substantially more powerful by comparison, but no larger. The R9 Nano turned a lot of heads when it was first introduced and for good reason while cards optimized for small form factors are not a new thing, they tend to top out at mid-to-high end GPUs, such as Tonga and GM204. Taking advantage of the highly integrated nature of the Fiji GPU and the resulting small boards that can be built with it, AMD will be producing a card similar in size to the R9 Fury X, except with air cooling rather than liquid cooling. Finally, it will be launching at $549.įor AMD’s third Fiji card, they are going small form factor, and this is the card that will be called the R9 Nano (the lack of Fury in the name is intentional). It will be based on a cut down version of the Fiji GPU – so you won’t be seeing any air cooled full-performance Fiji cards – though it, like all Fiji cards, will come with all 4GB of VRAM. Unlike the R9 Fury X, the R9 Fury will be an air cooled card, with AMD’s partners putting together their own designs for the card. AMD has not announced the specifications for this card – presumably to avoid taking any attention away from the R9 Fury X and from any risk of Osborning it in the process – but we do know a few things about the card. ![]() The second Fiji card to be launched will be the R9 Fury (vanilla) later this month. Today’s launch is for their single-GPU flagship, the R9 Fury X, but that card will soon be joined by single-GPU and multi-GPU siblings. So you can go with the short version.All told, AMD has announced that they will be launching 4 different video cards based on the Fiji GPU in the coming months. So basically the following two lines are identical: float64_t x = fp64_int32_to_float64( 17 ) įloat64_t x = fp64_int32_to_float64( (long) 17 ) *For these data types, no special routine was needed to implement, as the compiler automatically extends (“coerces”) the smaller data type into a signed/unsigned long. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |