Jump to content

AMD acknowledges 390 series crashes, looking into it

zMeul

Nah you just need to check some forums and see alot of people posting their results in the 1400 range.

 

So, just show us the numbers, if you claim that MOST of the 970 float around 1500... just show us.

 

Don't put this on me, I'm not trying to shame any reviewer here - I just pointed the obvious bullcrap and disinformation.

 

You want me to collect every 970 and tell you what they overclock to? I have been checking forums, and most people I've seen talking about overclocking the 970 have been targeting 1500 MHz. 1440 is low.

 

Far from pointing out bullcrap, you've been spewing most of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want me to collect every 970 and tell you what they overclock to? I have been checking forums, and most people I've seen talking about overclocking the 970 have been targeting 1500 MHz. 1440 is low.

 

Far from pointing out bullcrap, you've been spewing most of it.

With the same validity as your statement I said : I've checking forums and most of the people I've seen talking about overclocking the 970 floated between 1400-1500 . So 1442, seems to be within that interval.

 

If you claim it's the worst result he could get from a 970, I'm just saying that you should back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah you just need to check some forums and see alot of people posting their results in the 1400 range.

So, just show us the numbers, if you claim that MOST of the 970 float around 1500... just show us the facts.

Don't put this on me, I'm not trying to shame any reviewer here - I just pointed the obvious bullcrap and disinformation.

Not everyone overclocks their 970 ball to the walls btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone overclocks their 970 ball to the walls btw.

Oh, and I'm not even considering that fact just for the sake of not creating other arguments.

 

But you are 100% right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

And just think how stupid you would feel if the 290x tri-x (8gb relatively strong overclocker) from sapphire was at the time of the 300 series release 240 dollars.... O wait... It was...That's it. It had no issue being flashed to 390x bios and taking advantage of the improved tesselation.

Unlike the 680/770 event (at which the price of a 770 when it launched was cheaper than a 680 was at THE SAME TIME) here you got rebranded products that's only improvements are through OEMs having two more years to refine their components/coolers and software that amd could have easily given the 200 series but chose not to because then their wouldn't have been a point.... For a price premium over their contemporaries...

Indeed the closest thing to this is what Intel did with haswell refresh (well and amd cpus lol) but they didn't try to call devils canyon broadwell did they? (And amd even tried to hide it with "Grenada")

It is 100% relevant what contemporary pricing was and this is what rightly should piss people off over what amd did.

Also the Fiji chip is a piece of shit compared to even the most underwhelming hype that was given to it (likely because the 980ti forced them to oc the shit out of it before sale). Unless going for extreme sff pc in which case its king.

Just saying...

Nvidia has fucked up a shit load of times as well. But right here, right now, amd's fiasco is theirs to deal with.

And btw I still recommend Tahiti gpus to people constantly for the budget range, but that isn't an endorsement of AMD's general policy.

I would not feel stupid because even if they were selling them for $5 when the 390x launched, sale prices are irrelevant to what your price your current products. It's pretty apparent that not many people on this forum have any experience with retail. Do you also have evidence that to support that claim? The cheapest I've ever seen the 200s go down was a 290 for about $220 and it was only after rebate iirc. I find it very hard to believe an 8GB 290x was ever $240 on sale, but the plebs who upvoted you never bothered to question that.

CPU i7 6700 Cooling Cryorig H7 Motherboard MSI H110i Pro AC RAM Kingston HyperX Fury 16GB DDR4 2133 GPU Pulse RX 5700 XT Case Fractal Design Define Mini C Storage Trascend SSD370S 256GB + WD Black 320GB + Sandisk Ultra II 480GB + WD Blue 1TB PSU EVGA GS 550 Display Nixeus Vue24B FreeSync 144 Hz Monitor (VESA mounted) Keyboard Aorus K3 Mechanical Keyboard Mouse Logitech G402 OS Windows 10 Home 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not feel stupid because even if they were selling them for $5 when the 390x launched, sale prices are irrelevant to what your price your current products. It's pretty apparent that not many people on this forum have any experience with retail. Do you also have evidence that to support that claim? The cheapest I've ever seen the 200s go down was a 290 for about $220 and it was only after rebate iirc. I find it very hard to believe an 8GB 290x was ever $240 on sale, but the plebs who upvoted you never bothered to question that.

You can search through my own post comments from around release date if you actually want to check that out, because THEY WERE THAT LOW. If you check I was recommending that tri-x over 970s left and right (and over 960s) because of the price at that moment.

The stock vanished extremely quickly once everyone else realised that they would be bios-flashed for a "ultra-cheap" 390x.

Literally, the ideology that launch prices are what matters is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Suppose you release a product (A1) for 100 dollars. X amount of time later you are selling it for 20 dollars (and yet still making it). You decide that you can capitalize on hype for upcoming replacement for that product by renaming it (A2) and selling it for 80 dollars... You did not add 60 dollars of value to the product.

You may say well the market decides price. No it doesn't. The market decides price at a specific demand and supply amount. In this case the original named products (A1) are no longer sold (as they have now lower profit margins even if they are the same.) So supply shrivels. Price increases until A1 is no longer available except through premium pathways. Indeed you can continue selling A2 at that 80 dollars (and to drop the price early on even if to restore the same level of value A1 had would be catastrophic for your business's image) but your volume of sales is likely to stagnate once the flashpan boom of A2s release dies down. (Although you are lucky because the uniformed populous doesn't realize that A1 and A2 were actual the same value for them at the time of release and so when A2 is available by itself it appears only competing with B1 and thus will drive sales more than if otherwise.)

The value to the consumer never increased.

In fact it only decreased.

I understand very well that retail often works that way. I understand quite well, however as a consumer I can still very well be upset that while on an absolute scale the value stayed constant, the relative value decreased purely as to manipulate the uniformed populous.

LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Note 10+ - Surface Book 2 15"

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the same validity as your statement I said : I've checking forums and most of the people I've seen talking about overclocking the 970 floated between 1400-1500 . So 1442, seems to be within that interval.

If you claim it's the worst result he could get from a 970, I'm just saying that you should back it up.

This forum is not a great way to get samples to judge the 970s as a whole for over clocking and if my 980 classified can barley reach 1475 core over clocked with a 61.3 asic I would not be surprised if some 970s would be worse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can search through my own post comments from around release date if you actually want to check that out, because THEY WERE THAT LOW. If you check I was recommending that tri-x over 970s left and right (and over 960s) because of the price at that moment.

The stock vanished extremely quickly once everyone else realised that they would be bios-flashed for a "ultra-cheap" 390x.

Literally, the ideology that launch prices are what matters is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Suppose you release a product (A1) for 100 dollars. X amount of time later you are selling it for 20 dollars (and yet still making it). You decide that you can capitalize on hype for upcoming replacement for that product by renaming it (A2) and selling it for 80 dollars... You did not add 60 dollars of value to the product.

You may say well the market decides price. No it doesn't. The market decides price at a specific demand and supply amount. In this case the original named products (A1) are no longer sold (as they have now lower profit margins even if they are the same.) So supply shrivels. Price increases until A1 is no longer available except through premium pathways. Indeed you can continue selling A2 at that 80 dollars (and to drop the price early on even if to restore the same level of value A1 had would be catastrophic for your business's image) but your volume of sales is likely to stagnate once the flashpan boom of A2s release dies down. (Although you are lucky because the uniformed populous doesn't realize that A1 and A2 were actual the same value for them at the time of release and so when A2 is available by itself it appears only competing with B1 and thus will drive sales more than if otherwise.)

The value to the consumer never increased.

In fact it only decreased.

I understand very well that retail often works that way. I understand quite well, however as a consumer I can still very well be upset that while on an absolute scale the value stayed constant, the relative value decreased purely as to manipulate the uniformed populous.

LMAO. What a bunch of nonsense. In what universe is the price not set by the market? Let me guess: You're one of the people who thinks the high price of the 200 series during the mining craze was set by AMD? Also why would AMD set the price of their own 8 GB 290x as low as $240 when they're about to release a 390x for $429?

 

Let me give you a more accurate (but not exact) comparison. Nike releases a pair of white sneaker this month for $100. Eventually they go on sale for $60. The next month they release the same sneakers in red. You're saying they should sell the red ones for $60 because that's much they sold the white ones for last month? You definitely have no idea how retail works.

 

Let's take the 290 vs 390. You get 4 more GB of VRAM and you get a higher base clock. The higher base clock is important because contrary to popular belief on tech forums, your average consumer does not overclock, make custom fan profiles and any other tinkering with their hardware you might think of (which is why I have a hard time recommending the pentium G3258 to people who are new building a PC and want to build on a budget no matter how great the value of the G3258 is).

 

No one is getting ripped off by the 300 series, and AMD has literally no say in what retailers eventually sell the cards for. Unless you actually believe someone at AMD was stupid enough to suggest (amazing how you think AMD can set the price for a board partner and their cooler) the Tri-X 290x 8GB should be sold for $240. Stop spouting your uninformed nonsense.

CPU i7 6700 Cooling Cryorig H7 Motherboard MSI H110i Pro AC RAM Kingston HyperX Fury 16GB DDR4 2133 GPU Pulse RX 5700 XT Case Fractal Design Define Mini C Storage Trascend SSD370S 256GB + WD Black 320GB + Sandisk Ultra II 480GB + WD Blue 1TB PSU EVGA GS 550 Display Nixeus Vue24B FreeSync 144 Hz Monitor (VESA mounted) Keyboard Aorus K3 Mechanical Keyboard Mouse Logitech G402 OS Windows 10 Home 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×