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

[MEC-777]

like i said it doesn't really undercut it as the performance is worse. and also that market is pretty small now too cuz like i said most people will skip that price bracket for the next level or go 1 level under. 

 

The performance is worse but only by a small percentage. At 1440 and 4k they trade blows, stock for stock. If it performs nearly the same yet costs less, then it's an undercut. This is why Nvidia dropped the price of the 980 from $549 to $499.

 

I agree with you this price point is not a popular one, but it doesn't negate the point I was trying to make. 

 

I just want to get some clarification here: Your argument is that it doesn't matter if it's a rebrand or a refresh, since AMD is attempting to deceive customers, correct?

 

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly his argument is as well. I don't see how AMD has deceived anyone. They are technically and physically "new" cards, except for the GPU die itself which is a binned Hawaii. I don't see how that's a bad thing either, because they certainly still perform well, regardless.  

[DarkSmith2]

->GTX970's capable of doing an OC to 1500MHz on the core are very common

->GTX970's capable of doing an OC to 8000Memory are less common (Samsung RAM can usually OC to 8000MHz+, Hynix RAM can usually OC to 7400-7600MHz)

->GTX970's capable of doing an OC above 1500MHz on the core are common with the usage of an OC favored Card Design (G1,FTW,4G) in combination with a custom Bios

->GTX970's capable of doing an OC to 1600MHz+ are rare.

 

-> we dont know yet how common a R9 390 can overclock to 1200mhz we will see if more people bought them

From reviews and Videos ive rarely seen a R9 390 hit the 1200MHz mark. But not every Review provides an overclock.

 

Jayz Overclock on the EVGA SCC 970 is probably only a 50MHz overclock to the core boostclock since a 1392MHz boostclock out of the box is pretty common. Which stands in no relation to a 1200MHz overclock of a R9 390. As i said in another thread might be that he just overclocked without any voltage increasements. 

 

However if you dont mind power consumption and maximum OC capability you should buy the r9 390 for the higher performance out of the box.

[othertomperson]

I just want to get some clarification here: Your argument is that it doesn't matter if it's a rebrand or a refresh, since AMD is attempting to deceive customers, correct?

 

While I would rather new products rather than rebrands, first and foremost I am not angry at Intel for doing the same thing because they were completely open about Devils Canyon being a refresh, they didn't change the generation number. People who bothered upgrading from a 4770k to a 4790k knew exactly why they were doing it, and they were completely correct that the main difference for them was just the TIM and their own lack of confidence delidding.

 

As for people having qualms with my objection to how expensive these are, if you could buy a 390X for the same price as you could buy a 290X as of a month ago and not priced back like the 290X was a year and a half ago I would also be less bothered by the new number on the box. This card is a card that is nearly two years old now on a better PCB. It should not cost its launch price.

 

In the past this has always been mitigated a little (not enough imo) by the fact that the product has gone down a product level. The 680 became a 770, the 7970 became a 280X... I think there's a difference between rebranding a top tier card as the next tier down, compared with what's happened this time in which the top tier card is rebranded as... oh it's another top tier card. Naturally a 770 would be cheaper than a 680, so while I'd prefer it to be the new architecture at least the price does naturally drop, which didn't happen this time.

 

And guys, you don't need to tell me that the Sapphire 290X 8GB is and always has been overpriced garbage. I know, I've been saying that for months.

 

 

That's a very skewed perspective.

 

 

They're all very solid 1440p cards too.  They may have to dial down the settings in extreme games, but most games will run very well on them at that res even on ultra.

 

I agree with this. If you consider the 290X/390X and 970/980 low end products then literally you have low end and Titan. The 980 Ti is basically a Titan, and the Fury X is basically a Titan in terms of performance. This is ridiculous to consider anything but a Titan (or equivalent) "low end".

[Techhog]

The same people that want amd to not keep shitting the bed.

Anyways yes the 390 and lower are imho low end cards. As is the 970. They really shouldn't be used for anything higher than 1080p on their own, which for cp gaming is now the generally the lowest acceptable resolution. Hence low end card. Hell broadwell igpu is basically as good as a 260 so their isn't much room in between.

You know that you have more money than sense when...

[Dabombinable]

Just to be clear everyone, since there are no reference boards AMD is only responsible for the 'Grenada' GPU, which is the same damn thing as the 'Hawaii' GPU-so that's a rebadge. As for the PCB with 8GB of vRAM, they are identical to the original non-reference PCB made by the respective companies, with better components that could have been used originally, and vRAM chips (that were more expensive when the 290X 8GB came out) which have have twice the capacity and are binned higher-so again, that's a rebrand. As mentioned before, a refresh would be something like 'the R9 290XR', not the fucking 390X. Nvidia at least bumped the slightly improved GTX 680 down to a GTX 770, and Intel were honest about the Haswell Refresh by actually calling them that.

[Curufinwe_wins]

You know that you have more money than sense when...

If you read the rest of my conversation, then it should actually make sense.

1080p IS THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR RESOLUTION FOR 2015 GAMING. Current AAA titles on even high at 1440p do not manage even 45 fps with the 390/970 and lower. That basically by definition makes them low end. It has nothing to do with price.

It's funny that people cry when I say this yet no one bats an eye when tv's less than 1080p are basically unacceptable in today's market. It's kinda the way things are right now. Due to the combination of lazy developers and hardware we have, current cards are generally underpowered comparative to the standards game makers (and hardware makers) are trying to push.

Also I noted that my own daily driver (I am temporarily out of a real computer until skylake) does not even make the lowest common denominator standard, so it can't even reach "low-end performance".

Seriously people need to step back and look less at what something costs, but rather what performance barriers does it operate.

[Techhog]

If you read the rest of my conversation, then it should actually make sense.

1080p IS THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR RESOLUTION FOR 2015 GAMING. Current AAA titles on even high at 1440p do not manage even 45 fps with the 390/970 and lower. That basically by definition makes them low end. It has nothing to do with price.

It's funny that people cry when I say this yet no one bats an eye when tv's less than 1080p are basically unacceptable in today's market. It's kinda the way things are right now. Due to the combination of lazy developers and hardware we have, current cards are generally underpowered comparative to the standards game makers (and hardware makers) are trying to push.

Also I noted that my own daily driver (I am temporarily out of a real computer until skylake) does not even make the lowest common denominator standard, so it can't even reach "low-end performance".

Seriously people need to step back and look less at what something costs, but rather what performance barriers does it operate.

No, that's just your definition, and it's a stupid one at that. According to you, high-end no longer exists; it stops at midrange with the Titan X. You're being completely ridiculous. 

[Prysin]

If you read the rest of my conversation, then it should actually make sense.

1080p IS THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR RESOLUTION FOR 2015 GAMING. Current AAA titles on even high at 1440p do not manage even 45 fps with the 390/970 and lower. That basically by definition makes them low end. It has nothing to do with price.

It's funny that people cry when I say this yet no one bats an eye when tv's less than 1080p are basically unacceptable in today's market. It's kinda the way things are right now. Due to the combination of lazy developers and hardware we have, current cards are generally underpowered comparative to the standards game makers (and hardware makers) are trying to push.

Also I noted that my own daily driver (I am temporarily out of a real computer until skylake) does not even make the lowest common denominator standard, so it can't even reach "low-end performance".

Seriously people need to step back and look less at what something costs, but rather what performance barriers does it operate.

Thank god youre not working in marketing for any big online retailer, or we would just see two options. GTX Titan X or "scrub card ololol at 350 USD"

[zappian]

Does it matter that its a refresh with tweaked bios , drivers and power consumption?

 

Its arguably better value than the 970 which is nvidias product at the same price.

 

Slightly better performance even when overclocked ( to be fair if you can do 1500 mhz instead of the 1420 or 1440 mhz on the video you can match them).

 

Same price , and you get a bigger bus ( 512 bit) and double the VRAM which is always never bad and will be useful even now at 1440p+ , not to mention VRAM requirements

 

increase year after year so having a  8 GB safe zone is pretty good.

 

We know from 290x 8 GB reviews that the card can actually fully use the 8 GB of VRAM . Linus used a 8 GB 290x on one of his videos ( I think it was the 12 k setup).

 

I think its just great value for the price , 330 dollars on newegg.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202144&cm_re=290x_8_gb-_-14-202-144-_-Product

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874&cm_re=r9_390-_-14-127-874-_-Product

 

The 290x 8 GB is MORE expensive.

 

Its hard to argue its very good value for a GPU.

 

Now if i could say the same about that damn Fury X.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Thank god youre not working in marketing for any big online retailer, or we would just see two options. GTX Titan X or "scrub card ololol at 350 USD"

Sigh... You really don't get it...

[rentaspoon]

Does it matter that its a refresh with tweaked bios , drivers and power consumption?

If there is one thing AMD are good at it's refining their tech, people keep complaining that the tech is old but I don't think that's a bad thing if it can compare to a 970.

[Catman007]

What I hate when it comes to Radeon cards is "scam" deals. They sell you some future proof GPU with new flashing technology for new era of gaming that hasn't came out yet but when it does only they will have it and it will work best with their cards. Usually the claim is then followed by some crazy performance chart from out of space. (Their presentations are like watching Star Trek tech dialogue. We cant explain what it is but it will make ship run faster. How faster? Something like warp 9.9 from warp 9.89) By the time that technology come their cards are obsolete or weak for present gaming needs. I remember their cards with dx 11 support from few years ago. Now they came with dx 12 support. In both cases Nvidia kept silent and stomped them like bugs. You just cant stuff new features on old chips and hope its gonna beat competition. That's the thing I don't like when it comes to AMD. They make a big fuss about things that competition already has and make it sound they are field leaders. I remember the mess that 300 series made on forums and IT news blogs. "OMG a 300 is coming. OMG!!!! Should I buy 9xx or wait for 300? Wait for 300. Should I buy Titan or 300? Get 300. And when it came out ppl were like : Meh, just stick to that good old 970."  Yes, they are cheap and performance is close. But cmon don't think for a second most of gamers are bunch of brainless zombies. 300 is just what 200 should have been from start. Lower temperatures, more vram, and lower power consumption. Their strategy is actually like some weird harvesting method. First come with original product that's medium in all performance. Then, suddenly they enhance it to show how great they are. Remember the APU series 5000 and 6000 as perfect example of marketing strategy. All ppl had to do is just run some benchmarks. And with series 300 was different. A lot of fake benchmarks were getting online. Later, when some trusted sites did those it turned out we got "scammed". I am telling this as student of economy and from objective point of view on the market no wonder they get beaten every time by Nvidia. Gaming world is heavily oriented to price/performance charts and by data Steam collects 970 is winning by far. To me a 300 series is more of a desperate move to catch up then something new, as they want to present it. Cause in the end it all comes to market share and nothing else. Sadly, AMD looks like dog that barks but never bites.

[mr moose]

I have only just started looking at the benchmarks for the 300 Series, so far in Australia they are not very compelling.  The 390 trades blows with the 970 yet is $100 more.  The  380 seems to be edging out the 960 by a meager 4 FPS average yet costs the same.  I was seriously hoping they would be at least a little better or a cheaper than their Nvidia counterparts.

[DarkSmith2]

I have only just started looking at the benchmarks for the 300 Series, so far in Australia they are not very compelling.  The 390 trades blows with the 970 yet is $100 more.  The  380 seems to be edging out the 960 by a meager 4 FPS average yet costs the same.  I was seriously hoping they would be at least a little better or a cheaper than their Nvidia counterparts.

In most cases they are cheaper or cost about the same. Just not were you live ;(

[mr moose]

In most cases they are cheaper or cost about the same. Just not were you live ;(

 

Well, it's a good thing I specified Australia and that it was here that I was talking about and didn't just generalise like the rest of LTT likes to do at times.   

[RagnarokDel]

There are actually. Cuda for Cad acceleration, physx, gameworks (hate it or love it, it's a thing now), lower power consumption, which means cheaper psu)

really? 275w(r9 fury x watercooled) vs 250w (980 TI). Physx yes, gameworks no

 

Honestly dont know what cad acceleration is so I wont argue against it

[RyGuy99]

i agree with jay , its not a re-brand, its a refresh and seems to be a good one too

the 390 is killing the 290x and 970 , and we have yet to see the numbers the 390x will throw down. so far its looking good for amd.

His comparison was lack luster at best. He used one of the weakest overclocking 970's versus one of the best overclocking 390s. A G1 or Strix would have been a more fair comparison.

[Briggsy]

I noticed Jay mentioning that GCN cores in Fiji are still the same as in Tahihi. To be fair the last time Nvidia changed the actual Cuda Core (not the shader module) was when? True, Nvidia have changed discrete GPU architectures 4-5 times in the past decade, and shrunk process node 3-4 times, but the Cuda core itself is pretty old. GCN cores on the other hand were born with the HD 7000 series (referencing tahiti), and have only seen 3 different discrete GPU architectures so far. Jay may be a GPU snob, but he says some odd stuff at times. 

[Prysin]

I noticed Jay mentioning that GCN cores in Fiji are still the same as in Tahihi. To be fair the last time Nvidia changed the actual Cuda Core (not the shader module) was when? True, Nvidia have changed discrete GPU architectures 4-5 times in the past decade, and shrunk process node 3-4 times, but the Cuda core itself is pretty old. GCN cores on the other hand were born with the HD 7000 series (referencing tahiti), and have only seen 3 different discrete GPU architectures so far. Jay may be a GPU snob, but he says some odd stuff at times. 

i think CUDA is at its 7th iteration now. Theyve done very minor tweaks over time. But they do not announce it openly like AMD does with their GCN 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2

[-iSynthesis]

I do agree, also i hate the fact that amd gets all the shit although Nvidia is doing the same thing. Theres a new audi a4 every year, nothing hugely changes, engine mostly stays the same. Just the same with that and they did change a few things i do like.