390X benchmarks from the guy that unboxed it

[Lays]

This is something I dont understand. a "normal" pc can agreed to be 500-1000$. a "normal" gpu is the 200-400$. give or take a few hundred, doesnt matter. yet people think 1000$ is overpriced. when in many industries that price gap is nothing. so at most, thats what, 5-10x more expensive for the top of line? 

 

lets compare that to cars. f150 is the best selling vehicle in the US, and has been. base model is 25k. yet people spend 1-2 million on high end cars. which is a 80x price premium. WAY more then pc hardware. 

 

basically, Im surprised there isnt even more expensive hardware. 15-20 years ago, you had to pay 3k for a computer. what you can do nowadays for 500-1000 is mind blowing. so even though i wouldnt ever buy one, anyone that complains about a 650$ gpu+ needs to look at the past. 

 

I just don't see why people can say something is overpriced when thousands are willing to buy it, ya know?

 

And yeah I agree, $1000 Titan X vs $350 GTX 970 when it has nearly double the performance, isn't really all that bad IMO, you get a single card with the capabilities of 2, for only a bit extra.

[arnavvr]

I just don't see why people can say something is overpriced when thousands are willing to buy it, ya know?

 

And yeah I agree, $1000 Titan X vs $350 GTX 970 when it has nearly double the performance, isn't really all that bad IMO, you get a single card with the capabilities of 2, for only a bit extra.

 

Not even Titan X vs 970. 980Ti vs 970. 

[Andrew Sh]

 

I didn't say raging, I said ragging, as in like continuing to put them down.  

 

 

raɡ

verb

gerund or present participle: ragging

1. 1.

   make fun of (someone) in a loud, boisterous manner.

 

Lol, visit LTT forums, learn new English words

Thought it was just misspelled raging nvm

[Lays]

Lol, visit LTT forums, learn new English words

Thought it was just misspelled raging nvm

 

 

yeah I could see why what I said could be taken the way you thought it was

[MEC-777]

So basically, my run-of-the-mill, non-binned 290 running a much lower core clock (1175) and almost the same memory clock (1575), scored almost the same in 3Dmark Firestrike (10028) as this "390X". http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5031373

 

I am truly disappointed. I really am. Was expecting maybe 10% better.

 

Will wait for more formal test results, but if this is representative of what we can expect from the 390/x, then this is not good at all. Would like to see in-game benchmarks as well. 3Dmark doesn't always tell the whole story... 

[Techhog]

No they were supposed to not put all their Rd into a $700-$900 card that 90% of people won't buy.

So, they shouldn't have released anything at all this year? 

[That Norwegian Guy]

Well, at least it'll be the most affordable GB/$ card on the block. So people will buy it just for that. Hell, the right aftermarket cooler could convince me to ditch my Fury plans. Because my expectation to Fury is that overclocked it will teabag an OC 980 Ti, if that doesn't happen it better be cheaper, or I'm going 2x 390x.

[GrimNeo]

where did that guy get a card from??  (saw the unboxing and he isnt a pro like linus or any other techtuber so how did he manage to grab an unreleased gpu?)

Best Buy

 

he went to BestBuy and bough it, then sold it on e-bay for like 150$ more

Wish I did that lol.

[Misanthrope]

So basically, my run-of-the-mill, non-binned 290 running a much lower core clock (1175) and almost the same memory clock (1575), scored almost the same in 3Dmark Firestrike (10028) as this "390X". http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5031373

 

I am truly disappointed. I really am. Was expecting maybe 10% better.

 

Will wait for more formal test results, but if this is representative of what we can expect from the 390/x, then this is not good at all. Would like to see in-game benchmarks as well. 3Dmark doesn't always tell the whole story... 

 

My 290x scores 9000 in firestrike so your 290 is most certainly not "run-off-the-mill"

[Lays]

My 290x scores 9000 in firestrike so your 290 is most certainly not "run-off-the-mill"

You should be comparing gpu score, nothing else.

And I'm unsure why he's comparing an overclocked 290 to a 390x, when the 390x can be overclocked as well.

[MEC-777]

My 290x scores 9000 in firestrike so your 290 is most certainly not "run-off-the-mill"

 

This is what I'm running: http://www.hisdigital.com/un/product2-790.shtml

 

It's now water cooled, but I ran that 10k score when it was on air. It's just their "regular" 290.

 

You should be comparing gpu score, nothing else.

And I'm unsure why he's comparing an overclocked 290 to a 390x, when the 390x can be overclocked as well.

 

The guy with the 390X was running a faster CPU than me, so I would expect the final score to be even higher. Looking at just the graphic score, like you suggest, my 290 actually out performed this 390X. Scores as follows:

 

390X =11636

My OC'd 290 = 12749

 

Interesting.

 

I was looking at the GPUz screen shots posted on page 2 of this thread. Shows core clock 1050 and memory clock 1500 for the 390X. I was running a core clock of 1175 and slightly higher memory clock of 1575, so it's still a somewhat fair comparison, IMO because I would expect an "improved" Hawaii XT chip to still out perform even a highly OC'd non-binned Hawaii pro chip.  At this point I'm very skeptical of these results and I would urge everyone else to wait until proper testing is done by more reputable people (LTT, Jayztwocents, Anandtech, Toms etc.) before drawing any official conclusions.  

[Lays]

This is what I'm running: http://www.hisdigital.com/un/product2-790.shtml

 

It's now water cooled, but I ran that 10k score when it was on air. It's just their "regular" 290.

 

 

The guy with the 390X was running a faster CPU than me, so I would expect the final score to be even higher. Looking at just the graphic score, like you suggest, my 290 actually out performed this 390X. Scores as follows:

 

390X =11636

My OC'd 290 = 12749

 

Interesting.

 

I was looking at the GPUz screen shots posted on page 2 of this thread. Shows core clock 1050 and memory clock 1500 for the 390X. I was running a core clock of 1175 and slightly higher memory clock of 1575, so it's still a somewhat fair comparison, IMO because I would expect an "improved" Hawaii XT chip to still out perform even a highly OC'd non-binned Hawaii pro chip.  At this point I'm very skeptical of these results and I would urge everyone else to wait until proper testing is done by more reputable people (LTT, Jayztwocents, Anandtech, Toms etc.) before drawing any official conclusions.

You also have to remember it's not even officially released, meaning it's using drivers that don't officially support it.

It may essentially be a 290x still, but it will have a different bios among other things.

Wait til the card is actually out to compare scores.

[MEC-777]

You also have to remember it's not even officially released, meaning it's using drivers that don't officially support it.

It may essentially be a 290x still, but it will have a different bios among other things.

Wait til the card is actually out to compare scores.

 

If it's still a Hawaii GPU, same die as used in the 290X, then drivers are already well-optimized.

 

But yeah, I agree. Let's wait and see how this plays out.  

[patrickjp93]

You also have to remember it's not even officially released, meaning it's using drivers that don't officially support it.

It may essentially be a 290x still, but it will have a different bios among other things.

Wait til the card is actually out to compare scores.

Oh FFS, we've already had professional overclockers prove the BIOS is IDENTICAL to the 290X in everything but the GPUID, revision number and clocks. I generally don't follow the LN2 nutcases like 8Pack and K|NGP|N, but they and several others have already called AMD out on this. The drivers for the 290X are the same as best for the 390X at this point in time.

[Lays]

Oh FFS, we've already had professional overclockers prove the BIOS is IDENTICAL to the 290X in everything but the GPUID, revision number and clocks. I generally don't follow the LN2 nutcases like 8Pack and K|NGP|N, but they and several others have already called AMD out on this. The drivers for the 290X are the same as best for the 390X at this point in time.

Even still, until it's officially released, I don't see why everyone is jumping to conclusions to flame amd over this.

[patrickjp93]

Even still, until it's officially released, I don't see why everyone is jumping to conclusions to flame amd over this.

No one's jumping to any unreasonable conclusions! It's a pathetic revision that no driver is going to magically make better than the 290X by any significant margin without gimping the 290X or locking it from the same optimization level.

[Lays]

No one's jumping to any unreasonable conclusions! It's a pathetic revision that no driver is going to magically make better than the 290X by any significant margin without gimping the 290X or locking it from the same optimization level.

What I meant was, I don't see why everyone is upset about them rebranding a 290x. (in the other threads that is) Personally I don't think it's a bad thing. The 290x is a solid card, adding a 1000 mhz memory overclock with 4gb more of vram is a nice touch.

I do think it should be slightly cheaper than $450 though if that's actually what it's going to cost.

[MEC-777]

What I meant was, I don't see why everyone is upset about them rebranding a 290x. (in the other threads that is) Personally I don't think it's a bad thing. The 290x is a solid card, adding a 1000 mhz memory overclock with 4gb more of vram is a nice touch.

I do think it should be slightly cheaper than $450 though if that's actually what it's going to cost.

 

It's not a bad thing IF they made some worthwhile improvements or changes (equating to maybe a 5-10% performance increase vs 290/X) and price them accordingly. I was and am one of those advocating that if AMD did just that, then there's nothing "wrong" with said rebrands.

 

However, from everything we've seen thus far, there is very strong evidence to suggest they haven't really done much to them aside from making 8GB of memory standard. It's looking more and more like these will be nearly 1:1 rebrands with partially revised coolers. So if this is the case, then their pricing will be on the high side, considering you can go buy pretty much the exact same card for $50-$150+ less in the form of a 290/X.

 

I'm totally with you, that we should wait and see some official results. But the evidence thus far, is looking like it's mounting up against them in this case, unfortunately.  

[MrDynamicMan]

So, they shouldn't have released anything at all this year?

No, they should have not rebranded their entire series.

[fringie]

I think AMD are doing what Nvidia did with the GTX 980 (imo the 980 ti is what the 980 should of been). This is probably gonna be what the 280x was compared to the 290x when the naming suggest it should be a lot better than it is. I think/hope a lot of the gains will come from driver optimizations. 

 

+ Take this video with a grain of salt obviously.

[gilang01]

What I meant was, I don't see why everyone is upset about them rebranding a 290x. (in the other threads that is) Personally I don't think it's a bad thing. The 290x is a solid card, adding a 1000 mhz memory overclock with 4gb more of vram is a nice touch.

I do think it should be slightly cheaper than $450 though if that's actually what it's going to cost.

it is a bad thing, especially if they want to compete with the likes of 970 and 980. Here in my country electricity matters, a lot. people are already shying away from AMD here, and  I don't think another 250 watt card will save them.

[Lays]

it is a bad thing, especially if they want to compete with the likes of 970 and 980. Here in my country electricity matters, a lot. people are already shying away from AMD here, and  I don't think another 250 watt card will save them.

The difference is literally 14$ extra a month at 0.20 kw/h if you were to run the card at 100% load 24/7 for the entire month, which in gaming and general use terms is like 4$ extra a month.

[gilang01]

The difference is literally 14$ extra a month at 0.20 kw/h if you were to run the card at 100% load 24/7 for the entire month, which in gaming and general use terms is like 4$ extra a month.

different countries, different rates mate. the more your gpu consume, the more expensive your PSU will get. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

I do think it should be slightly cheaper than $450 though if that's actually what it's going to cost.

$399 MSRP of an imaginary "reference card" (though we don't know if there is going to be a reference card, probably not)

So whatever above $399 on a 390x is what the partner charges for their cooler.

[Lays]

different countries, different rates mate. the more your gpu consume, the more expensive your PSU will get.

I added more onto the rate than the standard in the USA. I assume Indonesian power is roughly twice as expensive, so I doubled the standard rate.