I think I'm only Interested in the Fury line, everything else seems like a letdown. Ill probably consider getting one towards the end of the year, I love the Nanos formfactor

HBM? Hmm...

Would someone be so kind as to what the acronym stands for and what its differences are in comparison to DDR4? Thanks in advance!

OnlyForDisplay said: HBM? Hmm... Would someone be so kind as to what the acronym stands for and what its differences are in comparison to DDR4? Thanks in advance!

It's the acronym of High Bandwidth Memory.

And to learn the why's of HBM, I'll ink you to some articles that discussed about it and its advantages over GDDR5:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9266/amd-hbm-deep-dive

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-high-bandwidth-memory,29116.html

http://techreport.com/review/28294/amd-high-bandwidth-memory-explained

Long story short, HBM trades the high clock rates of GDDR5 for a super wide bandwith. Most graphic cards have a 256 bit connection, HBM has 4096, allowing to clock the VRAM much slower than in GDDR5. This simplifies the chips and helps them consume much less energy.

The tradeoffs are that both the HBM and the Graphics Chip must be posed together on an "connection chip" for all those lines to be connected with as PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards) can't achieve this density, increasing costs. Also, first generation HBM can only adress up to 4GiB of Memory, which is why Fury is lacking in that department. Second Generation will be able to go up to 16 GiB, which will be more approbpriate for high-end cards in the future.

The Nano does intrigue me, seems like a perfect card for most gamers: compact, yet powerful with low energy consumption and thus low TDP, and here the smaller VRAM shouldn't be as much of a concern compared to the bigger Fury cards. Now if we had a pricetag for that one...

JEMC said: OnlyForDisplay said: HBM? Hmm... Would someone be so kind as to what the acronym stands for and what its differences are in comparison to DDR4? Thanks in advance! It's the acronym of High Bandwidth Memory. And to learn the why's of HBM, I'll ink you to some articles that discussed about it and its advantages over GDDR5: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9266/amd-hbm-deep-dive http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-high-bandwidth-memory,29116.html http://techreport.com/review/28294/amd-high-bandwidth-memory-explained

Wow! Thank you! Much appreciated!

HDMI 2.0 confirmed yet?

If what AMD said is true, the Nano will be slower than a 290X.

The Nano uses 175W and Fiji offers "50% higher performance per Watt" compared to 290X. Given that the 290X uses 290W, the maths say that

Nano uses 60% of the 290X total power (175/290 = 0.6) plus 50% more performance per Watt = 0.6 x 1.5 = 0.90

So Nano gives about 90% of the performance of a 290X.

No. But it won't take long to find out.

For the Fury cards, I'd guess that HDMI 2.0 is a given because they are new hardware. The 3xx series is the huge unknown as we still don't know the improvements (if any) they have over the 2xx series.

Luckily, the 3xx cards launch tomorrow and some sites have hinted that the NDA also end tomorrow, so we'll have reviews in a few hours.

But the slide says "up to 2X higher performance per watt". Shouldnt it be more powerful than the 290x

The exact quote seems to vary from site to site. So, depends on the exact quote, Nano will be either 10% slower than a 290X or 20% faster.

Edit: Also, the 290X is officially a 275W card. Taking that number, the Fury Nano could be between 5% slower than a 290X or 27% faster.