[JayzTwoCents] R9 390 vs GTX970 - Claims 300 series is NOT a rebrand - R9 390 new mid tier king?

[Misanthrope]

It's a good thing this video is about the 390...

 

Remove the x from the 290 and it still applies: The 290 was always able to get to 290x levels anyway with some overclock.

[Misanthrope]

And? The 8gb 290x also costs more... Like more than 100 bucks...

 

Check the links the 290x 8gb from sapphire costs 329 after mail in rebate the 390x is 429, its a 100 bucks more expensive and its virtually the same performance, well within margin of error and intentionally poor optimization on the 290x

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Check the links the 290x 8gb from sapphire costs 329 after mail in rebate the 390x is 429, its a 100 bucks more expensive and its virtually the same performance, well within margin of error and intentionally poor optimization on the 290x

Eh... You linked a 4gb 290x sapphire tri-x...

[ivan134]

There are a lot of cards getting not only a rebadge... but also a refresh.  This has already been discussed before though.

 

The 7850 for example still exists years later in the 300 series. I believe it's the 370. I could be wrong as I have not remembered the exact trickle down effect of all the 7000 to 200 to 300 lineup.

That's exactly what I just said. The only doubled rebadged/refreshed card is the r7 370 aka r7 265 aka hd 7850. Everything else is a 1st time rebadge/refresh. 380 = 285 and 360 = 260. The 285 and 260 were both brand new cards when they came out, not rebadges/refreshes of anything.

 

Most likely, we're going to get fully unlocked tonga as a 380x later on down the line and a further cutdown tonga as a 370x. I'm surprised they didn't have a 380x ready at the 300 series launch seeing as the card actually exists in another form and they would have made a lot of money with that card since Nvidia has no answer yet to the huge performance gap between the 960 and 970.

[Misanthrope]

Eh... You linked a 4gb 290x sapphire tri-x...

 

My bad then yes it is a bit more 375 bucks

[ivan134]

Remove the x from the 290 and it still applies: The 290 was always able to get to 290x levels anyway with some overclock.

Except the 390 also has a larger overclock headroom than the original 290 due to refinement in manufacturing and comes with a bonus 4GB of VRAM. Whether that extra 4GB of VRAM is necessary is debatable, but the fact remains that the 390 and 390x are priced appropriately for what they are. I would still advice anyone who asks to get a 290 instead until they run out of stock.

[Misanthrope]

Except the 390 also has a larger overclock headroom than the original 290 due to refinement in manufacturing and comes with a bonus 4GB of VRAM. Whether that extra 4GB of VRAM is necessary is debatable, but the fact remains that the 390 and 390x are priced appropriately for what they are. I would still advice anyone who asks to get a 290 instead until they run out of stock.

 

No they're not: disagreed. The performance should be the main driver for the price, not slightly improved vram. The fact that you concede on recommending a 290 it's even more curious for me: why would you say it's priced right yet don't recommend it? AMD is free to rebrand or reintroduce or refresh their chips but there's no reason for this massive price increase.

 

Though I must partially blame Nvidia for basically living huge gaps between the 970 and 980 they should have introduced a 970ti a long ago, not even on Kepler did they addressed this there needs to be a 400ish price point not just 350 then 500.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

My bad then yes it is a bit more 375 bucks

So... amd didn't just jack the prices by 100 bucks?

[MEC-777]

@Misanthrope - I don't get why you're so pissed off and angry about the 390 series. They are priced according to their performance competition price point (970 and 980) and they perform at those levels. They are "new cards" (meaning not the same through and through as the 290's), regardless if the GPU die is the same. Those are facts. 

 

If you really don't like em so much, then just don't buy them. Nobody's forcing you to. Seriously, calm down. The pricing makes sense, whether you agree or not.

[Misanthrope]

So... amd didn't just jack the prices by 100 bucks?

 

Yes and no. It's over 100 bucks if you do a straight apple to apples comparison because I maintain the 8gb of ram was not really necessary (290x non reference cards can overclock to 5500mhz speeds for example so it's not always 1000mhz extra speed). From that point of view and for the virtually 0 fucking cases where you actually need over 4gb of vram on a GPU that's too weak to handle it without crossfire, I stand by what I said: unnecessary price increase. 

 

 

@Misanthrope - I don't get why you're so pissed off and angry about the 390 series. They are priced according to their performance competition price point (970 and 980) and they perform at those levels. They are "new cards" (meaning not the same through and through as the 290's), regardless if the GPU die is the same. Those are facts. 

 

If you really don't like em so much, then just don't buy them. Nobody's forcing you to. Seriously, calm down. The pricing makes sense, whether you agree or not.

 

I think I've explained this enough: there is no justification for this much of a price increase for virtually no performance gains. Again I concede that Nvidia is partially to blame for abandoning the mid range segment but people still shouldn't support AMD with this ridiculous price increase. 20 to 40 bucks would have been reasonable, 60 or even 80 if we honestly had enough games that could potentially use over 4gb vram, but over 100 bucks it's ridiculous. On other areas of the market like CPUs AMD basically got destroyed with criticism for their over priced, under performing chips until they revised pricing but here everyone seems to think "oh it's ok no big deal!" just because Nvidia has no answer. This is as stupid as the Titan x being 1000 bucks when we knew it was basically no better than the 980ti at 650. People should not recommend, forgive or justify such bullshit pricing from either vendor.

[gilang01]

Jay's 970 Clockspeeds is quite low actually for a 970. 1200 on a 390 is massive, but 1447 on a 970? That's a bit low for an overclock.

I want to see how the 390 gaming performs against the 970 gaming (both are from MSI and the 970 gaming boosts much higher than EVGA's SSC)

[MEC-777]

Though I must partially blame Nvidia for basically living huge gaps between the 970 and 980 they should have introduced a 970ti a long ago, not even on Kepler did they addressed this there needs to be a 400ish price point not just 350 then 500.

 

There's actually not that much of a gap between the 970 and 980. High overclocking 970's can surpass stock 980's. The big gap is between the 980 and 980Ti.

 

The issue between the 970 and 980 is the price gap. You're paying over $150 more for not a whole lot more performance. The choice is for the individual to decide if that much more performance is worth it and suits their budget. 

 

One thing AMD does well is in exploiting gaps left by others. The 390 goes head to head directly with the 970 and is priced accordingly. The 390x, on the other hand, trades blows with and overall slightly trails the 980. AMD was clever here to price the 390x at $429, undercutting the $499 GTX 980 while delivering nearly the same performance. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Yes and no. It's over 100 bucks if you do a straight apple to apples comparison because I maintain the 8gb of ram was not really necessary (290x non reference cards can overclock to 5500mhz speeds for example so it's not always 1000mhz extra speed). From that point of view and for the virtually 0 fucking cases where you actually need over 4gb of vram on a GPU that's too weak to handle it without crossfire, I stand by what I said: unnecessary price increase.

I think I've explained this enough: there is no justification for this much of a price increase for virtually no performance gains. Again I concede that Nvidia is partially to blame for abandoning the mid range segment but people still shouldn't support AMD with this ridiculous price increase. 20 to 40 bucks would have been reasonable, 60 or even 80 if we honestly had enough games that could potentially use over 4gb vram, but over 100 bucks it's ridiculous. On other areas of the market like CPUs AMD basically got destroyed with criticism for their over priced, under performing chips until they revised pricing but here everyone seems to think "oh it's ok no big deal!" just because Nvidia has no answer. This is as stupid as the Titan x being 1000 bucks when we knew it was basically no better than the 980ti at 650. People should not recommend, forgive or justify such bullshit pricing from either vendor.

So you wanted amd to charge a refreshed 8gb 290x for the same price as the 4gb 290x?

[Misanthrope]

So you wanted amd to charge a refreshed 8gb 290x for the same price as the 4gb 290x?

 

No I actually said on that post that 20 to 40 bucks price increase would have been ok and even as far as 60 to 80 if we eventually get more vram intensive games (which we might, sadly devs suck at porting games they will get lazy and not properly handle textures and such) But the price increase was way too much for what we're getting here: barely any better performance. 

[ivan134]

No they're not: disagreed. The performance should be the main driver for the price, not slightly improved vram. The fact that you concede on recommending a 290 it's even more curious for me: why would you say it's priced right yet don't recommend it? AMD is free to rebrand or reintroduce or refresh their chips but there's no reason for this massive price increase.

 

Though I must partially blame Nvidia for basically living huge gaps between the 970 and 980 they should have introduced a 970ti a long ago, not even on Kepler did they addressed this there needs to be a 400ish price point not just 350 then 500.

I feel like you're just tunnel visioning in on your preconceived opinion and not actually listening to any facts being presented.

 

The price is justified because the manufacturing process was refined which led to better thermals, the card overclocks better and it has an extra 4GB of VRAM. There is no price hike. The 290 launched at $399. The 390 launched at $329. The 290 went on sale for as low as $220 sometimes, because it's been on the market for a while. I don't how much experience you have with retail of ANY product, but that's what happens. You don't price your new (or in this case refreshed) product based on the sale price of your older product that has been on the market for a while.

 

I think your confusion is who actually sets the price, and for the most part it's retailers. AMD just sets the MSRP, but it's up to the retailers to price a product according to what they think the market will bear. You would think people would understand this by now, especially after the mining craze that plagued the r9 200 series in the beginning and everyone blaming AMD for the high prices when they had nothing to do with it. That was just supply and demand doing what it does. AMD isn't duping anyone with the 300 series.

[Misanthrope]

There's actually not that much of a gap between the 970 and 980. High overclocking 970's can surpass stock 980's. The big gap is between the 980 and 980Ti.

 

The issue between the 970 and 980 is the price gap. You're paying over $150 more for not a whole lot more performance. The choice is for the individual to decide if that much more performance is worth it and suits their budget. 

 

One thing AMD does well is in exploiting gaps left by others. The 390 goes head to head directly with the 970 and is priced accordingly. The 390x, on the other hand, trades blows with and overall slightly trails the 980. AMD was clever here to price the 390x at $429, undercutting the $499 GTX 980 while delivering nearly the same performance. 

 

Precisely: they never even considered introducing a 400 bucks card which is rather greedy on their part: they just wanna push people to just spend more on the 980 instead of giving decent price options.

[Dietrichw]

No I actually said on that post that 20 to 40 bucks price increase would have been ok and even as far as 60 to 80 if we eventually get more vram intensive games (which we might, sadly devs suck at porting games they will get lazy and not properly handle textures and such) But the price increase was way too much for what we're getting here: barely any better performance. 

AMD probably went higher expecting Nvidia to drop prices after a bit as they beat out the 970. With the higher price they can make more money (they need it) and they can cut prices later. They said that they don't want to be seen as the low cost solution and the prices reflect that.

[Clyne]

Remember how Haswell and Haswell refresh was a refresh, it was some tweaks under the hood.

Same case as the 300 series is more of a refresh more than rebrand......

[Misanthrope]

I feel like you're just tunnel visioning in on your preconceived opinion and not actually listening to any facts being presented.

 

The price is justified because the manufacturing process was refined which led to better thermals, the card overclocks better and it has an extra 4GB of VRAM. There is no price hike.

 

1) It did not lead to better thermals: The thermals on the 390x are the same as the thermals on non reference 290x cards since well, it skipped the stupid reference cooler this time around

 

2) The gains are marginal and not reflected in performance. 

 

3) Useless 4gb of extra ram no game can use since it would run into performance problem before it runs out of vram. I already gave you a significant better argument: better vram speeds.

 

Let's get something clear here: I disagree with your views and reasoning cause I believe that for barely improved products, the performance should be the big indicator of the price. All of this additional points are null and void if it doesn't actually means that the card performs significantly better to justify the 40% price increase. 

[TrigrH]

Why is this even a question? It's pretty clear the 390 and 390x are refreshes. A rebrand = AMD didn't do jack shit to the card itself and just stamped a new name, but as Jay says, AMD has made changes to it and made it more efficient.

 

Anyway. Great video from Jay. Should change the opinions of those that think that he's super biased for Nvidia

I agree however ~ 20% of people think otherwise

http://strawpoll.me/4848758/r

[MEC-777]

I think I've explained this enough: there is no justification for this much of a price increase for virtually no performance gains. Again I concede that Nvidia is partially to blame for abandoning the mid range segment but people still shouldn't support AMD with this ridiculous price increase. 20 to 40 bucks would have been reasonable, 60 or even 80 if we honestly had enough games that could potentially use over 4gb vram, but over 100 bucks it's ridiculous. On other areas of the market like CPUs AMD basically got destroyed with criticism for their over priced, under performing chips until they revised pricing but here everyone seems to think "oh it's ok no big deal!" just because Nvidia has no answer. This is as stupid as the Titan x being 1000 bucks when we knew it was basically no better than the 980ti at 650. People should not recommend, forgive or justify such bullshit pricing from either vendor.

 

There is justification. It's not necessarily about the performance gains from the previous generation, but their performance relative to the cards they compete with (970, 980). Plain and simple. That and the fact they the majority of them are technically "new cards".  

 

The reason you and some other people are having a hard time accepting the pricing is because you're comparing the price of almost 2 year-old cards that happen to still be on sale - while supplies last. Comparing relative "new products", the pricing is logical and justified.  

[Misanthrope]

AMD probably went higher expecting Nvidia to drop prices after a bit as they beat out the 970. With the higher price they can make more money (they need it) and they can cut prices later. They said that they don't want to be seen as the low cost solution and the prices reflect that.

 

I'd like AMD to recover financially, truly do. But not at the expense of consumers: that's just not a justification to take advantage of people like this. I see threads on this forums constantly considering the 390x and most reviewers just do not mention the extremely unfair price increase and just repeat the fucking AMD PR statements of how it competes vs this and that Nvidia card meanwhile we constantly have to tell newbies "You might not know this but AMD is fucking ripping you off the 290x will be virtually as fast and waaay cheaper"

 

I'm sorry but that's no way to do business.

[Misanthrope]

There is justification. It's not necessarily about the performance gains from the previous generation, but their performance relative to the cards they compete with (970, 980). Plain and simple. That and the fact they the majority of them are technically "new cards".  

 

The reason you and some other people are having a hard time accepting the pricing is because you're comparing the price of almost 2 year-old cards that happen to still be on sale - while supplies last. Comparing relative "new products", the pricing is logical and justified.  

 

Asked and answer please move on to someone else's comments.

[ivan134]

1) It did not lead to better thermals: The thermals on the 390x are the same as the thermals on non reference 290x cards since well, it skipped the stupid reference cooler this time around

 

2) The gains are marginal and not reflected in performance. 

 

3) Useless 4gb of extra ram no game can use since it would run into performance problem before it runs out of vram. I already gave you a significant better argument: better vram speeds.

 

Let's get something clear here: I disagree with your views and reasoning cause I believe that for barely improved products, the performance should be the big indicator of the price. All of this additional points are null and void if it doesn't actually means that the card performs significantly better to justify the 40% price increase. 

You can believe whatever you want, but it's still not going to make it true. There is no price hike, period. 390 launched at $329 while the 290 launched at $399. 390x launched at $429 while 290x launched at $549. I've already explained to you the way retail products are priced and you're choosing to ignore because you prefer your tantrum induced reasoning.

 

Were you this angry when Haswell was refreshed for exactly the same price?

[Misanthrope]

You can believe whatever you want, but it's still not going to make it true. 

 

Sure thing, good night to you.