AMD Announces R9 285 Graphics Card At Live Event

Status
Not open for further replies.

larkspur

Distinguished
"2gb GDDR5". The R9 280 comes with 3gb. I am also seeing the basic R9 280 going for $215 on Newegg (or $185 with a rebate). I'm eager to see the reviews, but this looks like a good time to pick up an R9 280 if you are looking in that price segment.
 

Zeroplanetz

Honorable
Jul 26, 2013
75
0
10,640
1
Just get a decent power supply, stop worrying about watt usage and enjoy the sale prices of the 280's. You'll probably save more getting great deals than being able to lower your power bill by that much. Just my opinion though.
 

blubbey

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2010
274
0
18,790
1
"On the other hand, the R9 285's 1375 MHz actual/5.5 GHz effective memory speed is notably faster than the 280's 1250 MHz/5.0 GHz specification, so net performance may be slightly faster."

Nope, not how memory bandwidth works. It's (bus width * "effective" ghz )/8 or (bus width * memory speed)/2 - in that case, it's usually 1000-1750MHz, effective's going to be 4-7GHz, unlikely you'll see lower/higher than that.. Doesn't matter if the memory's 1.1x faster if the bus width is 1.5x the size.

Hd 7970 190 watt version...
Sounds awesome...
Still need to wait review fo e this card to know its awesomenesa...
Nope, slightly slower 7950 if I'm not mistaken. 7970 is 2048:128:32@~925MHz iirc, this is 1792:112:32@918MHz. Not to mention the bandwidth difference, 2GB of 176GB/s v 3GB of 288GB/s.
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
Is this an improved architecture or just another variation of the GCN like what could be found on the HD 7790 thus having True Audio and (I assume) actual game Freesync capabilities? That's the real question. If it's the former, then it could very well be on par with the HD 7970 with fewer cores and power consumption.
 

PsychSC2

Honorable
Nov 19, 2013
212
0
10,760
43
With lower price and power consumption, this can be great for the Tonga GPU. It's the same architecture and slightly greater than the R9 280 in terms of net performance.

So presumably, getting an R9 280 or 285 will not have that big of a gap in terms of overall performance. :)
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator
Haha looks like they were poking at Nvidia who charged a huge extra charge for its first Maxwell card, while AMD is charging close to its actual performance replaced card.

As for those questioning the architecture, unless they did a die shrink to 20nm like they have been planning I don't think they would of managed that big of a power reduction without changing the architecture. Given the major focus on the mobile market now though, they seem to be following Nvidia's plan and working on reducing power consumption while maintaining performance. Chances are this is a GCN2.1, GCN3.0, or a die shrunk GCN 2.0 architecture. Since GCN2 didn't change anything really for the shaders just added some extra features like True Audio DSPs there is no telling how much they have changed.
 

semitope

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2006
25
0
18,530
0
only thing I see diff is the support of directx 12
and trueaudio and freesync full support. They seem to be refreshing their old cards with newer features. This also shows that the reason AMD cards have high TDP and heat is probably the wider bus. I guess higher speed VRAM is the better route.
 

james pinnix

Reputable
Jul 25, 2014
23
0
4,510
0
This gpu isn't impressive but the X versions now that I am interested in since I am currently building a new rig ...........very slowly. ...........

 

vaughn2k

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2008
758
1
19,015
18
"On the other hand, the R9 285's 1375 MHz actual/5.5 GHz effective memory speed is notably faster than the 280's 1250 MHz/5.0 GHz specification, so net performance may be slightly faster."

Nope, not how memory bandwidth works. It's (bus width * "effective" ghz )/8 or (bus width * memory speed)/2 - in that case, it's usually 1000-1750MHz, effective's going to be 4-7GHz, unlikely you'll see lower/higher than that.. Doesn't matter if the memory's 1.1x faster if the bus width is 1.5x the size.

Hd 7970 190 watt version...
Sounds awesome...
Still need to wait review fo e this card to know its awesomenesa...
Nope, slightly slower 7950 if I'm not mistaken. 7970 is 2048:128:32@~925MHz iirc, this is 1792:112:32@918MHz. Not to mention the bandwidth difference, 2GB of 176GB/s v 3GB of 288GB/s.
Now you have said it is slower than HD7950, could you please provide the number/s for comparison?
 
the model doesn't justifies the card r7 265 is stronger than r7 260x and r7 260x is stronger than r7 260 so i was hoping that r9 285 would be better than r9 280x and will sit in the middle of r9 290 and r9 280x and will give a direct competition to the gtx 770 with better performance at low price but sadly seems nothing like that :(
 

blubbey

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2010
274
0
18,790
1
Now you have said it is slower than HD7950, could you please provide the number/s for comparison?
Both have 1792:112:32 cores, 285 has 918MHz boost v 925MHz boost 7950 . 285 has 2GB 176GB/s bandwidth v 7950's 3GB w/ 240GB/s.

Same core config, slightly slower clock speed, less memory, less bandwidth.
 

KaiserPhantasma

Honorable
Nov 16, 2013
380
0
10,790
3
just as I thought AMD is trying to improve their power consumption on their graphic cards (which is good) and am now simply happy cause my AX 760 platinum wasn't a purchase in vain =D
 

anthony8989

Honorable
Feb 2, 2013
652
0
11,160
57
This is the sign of a broke company. They reused the same card in 3 generations with minor tweaks each time.

Full DX12 support is important, but when AMD says "full support" I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS