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

[Kobz360]

I mean if that's the way you want to look at it, that's perfectly valid. I would say that most things lower than a 270/consoles are in a completely different category (unplayable), because based on my own standards they are unable to meet the 'lowest common denominator' standard (btw my laptop 660m is currently in that range even after the insanely high overclock I have on it. The newest game I can play on it is DA:I and that's on min settings at 30ps). So in that way perhaps, I share a similar setup to you.

Yeah that's fair enough man, we just see things a bit differently

[Guest]

VOTE: http://strawpoll.me/4848758

You can't have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. Just because you and 5000 people believe the moon is green doesn't make the moon green.

[othertomperson]

 

Wow, you people just keep pouring in. This is my response to someone else who like you, who didn't seem to understand how retail works and keeps making ridiculous assertions.

 

It's not a "ridiculous assertion" it's a literal account of what happened. Intel did a refresh exactly the same as AMD did. They called it "Haswell Refresh", instead of pretending it's a whole new range of product, and they raised the price by a grand total of £18.34. They also went as far as to clearly outline what they had changed and didn't pretend it was anything but what it was. This is how you refresh a product without going out of your way to mislead your customers.

 

AMD, on the other hand, gave the cards a new generation number and at every stage denied these being rebrands. Yes they had more RAM and were binned better, but the Hawaii core remains untouched, just as the 4770k and the 4790k remain the same fundamental chip. The fact that these are the 390 and the 390X and not, say, 290e or something similar is the misleading part.

 

No shit products depreciate in value over time. I don't think anyone's really contradicting that. However, in lieu of releasing something new, printing a new number on the box of a pre-existing product just so it can be sold back at launch price again is a pretty dick move by AMD.

 

Let's remember that there isn't a reference PCB for the 390 so besides the RAM increase everything else that's better came from the board partners.

 

 

I really think people unfairly wrote off Broadwell as well. The 5775C was beating/matching the 5960x in most games with both overclocked to 4.2. That's been a major reason for me I haven't gone x99. Hell at stock the 5775C was competing with the 4790k while being massively lower clock speed. I am so excited for a significantly more powerful 14nm cpu. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a step-up in an absolute scale, but it is a major breakthrough from a future technology perspective.

 

As to AMD it is pretty impressive, but rather depressive as well that it has been relegated to that segment.

 

Uhh you're aware that the 4690k beat or matched the 5960X in most games, too? Because 8 cores + hyptherthreading does sweet fa in games. Occasionally you'll find a game benefits from six...

[Curufinwe_wins]

 

 

Uhh you're aware that the 4690k beat or matched the 5960X in most games, too? Because 8 cores + hyptherthreading does sweet fa in games. Occasionally you'll find a game benefits from six...

 

Not clock for clock obviously ( 4.6 4690k might very well beat a 4.2 or lower 5960x). That's what broadwell is capable of (in fact on some games stock broadwell beat 5960x at 4.2).

[MEC-777]

What Intel did with Devil's Canyon was a refresh.

 

What AMD have done here is the equivalent of changing the TIM, improving the power delivery, calling it Broadwell, renaming the resulting chip the 5770k, increasing the price by $150 and then consistently denying what they had done.

 

They did not "refresh" the 290 and 290X, they released what they claimed was an all new flagship. They did not call it "200 series refresh" in line with what Intel did last year, they released the 300 series, and bumped prices up significantly.

 

There are ways they could have done this honestly. They chose not to.

 

For the hundredth time, they did not raise prices. They are new products and the prices were set logically according to their competition.

 

You can't have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. Just because you and 5000 people believe the moon is green doesn't make the moon green.

 

I think part of the problem is people have different definitions of what a "rebrand" or "refresh" is. Also, a number of people don't seem to be acknowledging what the actual differences are between the 290 and 390 series.

[ivan134]

 

 

 

It's not a "ridiculous assertion" it's a literal account of what happened. Intel did a refresh exactly the same as AMD did. They called it "Haswell Refresh", instead of pretending it's a whole new range of product, and they raised the price by a grand total of £18.34. They also went as far as to clearly outline what they had changed and didn't pretend it was anything but what it was. This is how you refresh a product without going out of your way to mislead your customers.

 

AMD, on the other hand, gave the cards a new generation number and at every stage denied these being rebrands. Yes they had more RAM and were binned better, but the Hawaii core remains untouched, just as the 4770k and the 4790k remain the same fundamental chip. The fact that these are the 390 and the 390X and not, say, 290e or something similar is the misleading part.

 

No shit products depreciate in value over time. I don't think anyone's really contradicting that. However, in lieu of releasing something new, printing a new number on the box of a pre-existing product just so it can be sold back at launch price again is a pretty dick move by AMD.

 

Let's remember that there isn't a reference PCB for the 390 so besides the RAM increase everything else that's better came from the board partners.

 

 

 

Uhh you're aware that the 4690k beat or matched the 5960X in most games, too? Because 8 cores + hyptherthreading does sweet fa in games. Occasionally you'll find a game benefits from six...

 

I'm done.

[gilang01]

there's arguably no advantage to nvidia unless you have a gsync monitor.

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)

[Curufinwe_wins]

 

For the hundredth time, they did not raise prices. They are new products and the prices were set logically according to their competition.

 

 

I think part of the problem is people have different definitions of what a "rebrand" or "refresh" is. Also, a number of people don't seem to be acknowledging what the actual differences are between the 290 and 390 series.

So this is an aside... But uhh you must have had me quoted on that post originally cause I got a notification about it lol. Just thought it was funny.

[Suika]

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)

You're correct, but for a typical gamer who doesn't care enough, the R9 390 is an excellent choice, especially for people who mod games like Skyrim and could utilize the extra frame buffer from huge texture sizes.

[samuel]

I stopped watching at 

0 where he mentions "heat" instead of "temperature". Heat=power consumption transformed. Temperature is related but it is not the whole story, not even close! 

[MEC-777]

So this is an aside... But uhh you must have had me quoted on that post originally cause I got a notification about it lol. Just thought it was funny.

 

I did quote you originally, but I think I misunderstood what you had said, so I just removed the quote and my comment.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I did quote you originally, but I think I misunderstood what you had said, so I just removed the quote and my comment.

Haha, it's all good, I was just very confused for about 5 min.

[Daegun]

You know, I would love to know where this mysterious 290 8gb that people keep comparing to the 390 is sold. Because, at least in my part of the world, that card doesn't exist.

[Curufinwe_wins]

You know, I would love to know where this mysterious 290 8gb that people keep comparing to the 390 is sold. Because, at least in my part of the world, that card doesn't exist.

I don't remember if Sapphire did one, but for most people who basically used the 290/290x interchangeably (because small differences in overclock made them on par), of which the Tri-x and Vapor-x 8gb are the most well known.

[Daegun]

I don't remember if Sapphire did one, but for most people who basically used the 290/290x interchangeably (because small differences in overclock made them on par), of which the Tri-x and Vapor-x 8gb are the most well known.

Now theres no difference between the 290 and 290x? Damn, I've just been living a lie haven't I.

Point is, that card doesn't exist and the cheapest 290x 8gb I've found was about $380 while the 390 comes in at $330. There is a good reason to get that card (though I'll be the first to admit that it's a very small group that will need more than 4gb vram).

My skyrim stutters will be gone eventually and I'll have a smooth, great looking game!

[Curufinwe_wins]

Now theres no difference between the 290 and 290x? Damn, I've just been living a lie haven't I.

Point is, that card doesn't exist and the cheapest 290x 8gb I've found was about $380 while the 390 comes in at $330. There is a good reason to get that card (though I'll be the first to admit that it's a very small group that will need more than 4gb vram).

My skyrim stutters will be gone eventually and I'll have a smooth, great looking game!

Now you are just being pedantic. Yes there is a difference, but just like the titan x and 980 ti, overclocking can more than make up for it, and in many cases (for overclockers), the difference was marginal. It appears the 300 series tesselation and driver refresh better utilizes the additional cores etc. I'm sorry that the cheapest 290x where you are is now 380 dollars. Right when the 300 series came out the tri-x/vapor x was attainable for 240 dollars, and dropped a little bit before people realized that 290x could be bios flashed to a 390x with basically no issues to get the 'refresh' benefits, and as such extremely quickly bought up the remaining old 290x stock of those models.

 

Not really surprising considering the 390x is 429?

 

 

EDIT: Part of the reason the difference was so small was the 200 series had some seriously underwhelming cooling for their high end cards and they were generally highly thermal limited (in overclocking). Since the 290 was a cut-down, you could in theory provide more power per core at the same temperature with the same cooling, with in theory would allow for more overclocking. Ofc that's a lot of ifs, but it worked very well for the 290/290x at the time.

[Daegun]

Now you are just being pedantic. Yes there is a difference, but just like the titan x and 980 ti, overclocking can more than make up for it, and in many cases (for overclockers), the difference was marginal. It appears the 300 series tesselation and driver refresh better utilizes the additional cores etc. I'm sorry that the cheapest 290x where you are is now 380 dollars. Right when the 300 series came out the tri-x/vapor x was attainable for 240 dollars, and dropped a little bit before people realized that 290x could be bios flashed to a 390x with basically no issues to get the 'refresh' benefits, and as such extremely quickly bought up the remaining old 290x stock of those models.

 

Not really surprising considering the 390x is 429?

Why yes, yes I am.

 

The difference is a little bit bigger than that, which is why if you told someone your 290x was on par with their 970, they would talk about the difference in power consumption and performance in gameworks titles, etc. but if you told someone that your 290 was on par with their 970, they would call you an idiot or crazy. Or if you mean a 290 can be overclocked to match a 290x, then sure, but the 290x can be overclocked as well.

 

Cheapest 290x 8gb. Big difference in price between it and the 4gb one.

 

I can't really say anthing about the whole driver thing. I've heard things both ways and haven't actually dug into it to try to find out anything.

 

Never said the 390x was a good deal, just the 390 if you needed that extra vram.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Why yes, yes I am.

 

The difference is a little bit bigger than that, which is why if you told someone your 290x was on par with their 970, they would talk about the difference in power consumption and performance in gameworks titles, etc. but if you told someone that your 290 was on par with their 970, they would call you an idiot or crazy. Or if you mean a 290 can be overclocked to match a 290x, then sure, but the 290x can be overclocked as well.

 

Cheapest 290x 8gb. Big difference in price between it and the 4gb one.

 

I can't really say anthing about the whole driver thing. I've heard things both ways and haven't actually dug into it to try to find out anything.

 

Never said the 390x was a good deal, just the 390 if you needed that extra vram.

Haha, you liked that opening statement aye?

 

All I am saying is that at one point the 290x 8gb was by far the most sensical option (say when it was 240 USD), now not so much, but that is to be expected now that supply as basically shriveled up.

 

My edit talks about the the reason why the 290 and 290x were rather unusually close when both were overclocked. The 300 series does definitively come with better coolers (as companies have had 2 years to work out kinks etc) so that is a straight up plus, and that combined with power delivery and a more efficient tesselation update seems to have allowed the larger hawaii xt perform a nice bit better than its smaller brethren.

 

As to the 290/290x/970 debate, it varied so much in the early life of the 900 series because a number of games came out that straight up were shit on amd cards for a few weeks before drivers were updated. Personally I would (and did say) that if a 290/290x was 50 or more dollars less than the 970 then go with it, not necessarily because the performance on most games wouldn't eventually be that much different, but because for the first 6 months of 2015, Day 1 amd was a fiasco (kinda funny that 353 nvidia drivers recently had similar issues).

Well that and the 970 is cooler, which lets be honest most people when they build pc's don't give optimal air flow so temps are already not kind and the 970 is noticeably more power efficient.

 

Indeed, perhaps not where you were looking, but after the bitcoin boom/bust many reviewers and people basically just told people to get the cheaper 290 as it was almost the same performance once overclocked. (You can for example see this in Jayztwocents reviews a long time back.) I freely admit to being one of those people.

[Samfisher]

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.

 

Everything in your first paragraph has nothing to do with AMD.  They don't fab their GPU cores, they don't fab their VRAM chips, they just order them and stick them on a PCB.  Most of the "advancements" of the 390x had 0 things to do with AMD's tech being better over the past 1-2 years.

[TrigrH]

You can't have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. Just because you and 5000 people believe the moon is green doesn't make the moon green.

I CAN have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. ~20% people believe its a rebrand and that's exactly what the poll shows.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I CAN have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. ~20% people believe its a rebrand and that's exactly what the poll shows.

All that this poll argues is the semantics of the connotations and denotations of the words rebrand and refresh in the context of whether or not amd did enough to constitute being one or the other.

[TrigrH]

All that this poll argues is the semantics of the connotations and denotations of the words rebrand and refresh in the context of whether or not amd did enough to constitute being one or the other.

Yup

[Dabombinable]

Haha, you liked that opening statement aye?

 

All I am saying is that at one point the 290x 8gb was by far the most sensical option (say when it was 240 USD), now not so much, but that is to be expected now that supply as basically shriveled up.

 

My edit talks about the the reason why the 290 and 290x were rather unusually close when both were overclocked. The 300 series does definitively come with better coolers (as companies have had 2 years to work out kinks etc) so that is a straight up plus, and that combined with power delivery and a more efficient tesselation update seems to have allowed the larger hawaii xt perform a nice bit better than its smaller brethren.

 

As to the 290/290x/970 debate, it varied so much in the early life of the 900 series because a number of games came out that straight up were shit on amd cards for a few weeks before drivers were updated. Personally I would (and did say) that if a 290/290x was 50 or more dollars less than the 970 then go with it, not necessarily because the performance on most games wouldn't eventually be that much different, but because for the first 6 months of 2015, Day 1 amd was a fiasco (kinda funny that 353 nvidia drivers recently had similar issues).

Well that and the 970 is cooler, which lets be honest most people when they build pc's don't give optimal air flow so temps are already not kind and the 970 is noticeably more power efficient.

 

Indeed, perhaps not where you were looking, but after the bitcoin boom/bust many reviewers and people basically just told people to get the cheaper 290 as it was almost the same performance once overclocked. (You can for example see this in Jayztwocents reviews a long time back.) I freely admit to being one of those people.

The games running shit mainly on AMD cards is why I say that the drivers themselves aren't particularly bad, its a combination of devs who can't code properly combined with architectures that aren't as good as Nvidia's equivalent.

[david cassar]

No, they haven't been reusing all those cards. 7850 is the only to make it into the 300 series.

They have been reusing them (it's a fact) also I didn't say they are in the 300 series. These are the cards which they have reused.

Hd 7790 - r7 260x

hd 7850 -  r7 265 - r7 370

hd 7870 - r9 270/x

hd 7950 - r9 280

hd 7970 - r9 280x

Not to mention that the other cards in the 300 series (380 and 390/x) are also refreshes/rebrands.

 

[Guest]

I CAN have a poll on that topic; it either is or isn't a rebrand based on fact. ~20% people believe its a rebrand and that's exactly what the poll shows.

 

 

All that this poll argues is the semantics of the connotations and denotations of the words rebrand and refresh in the context of whether or not amd did enough to constitute being one or the other.

 

 

Yup

The fact remains though that they're rebrands; the poll doesn't mean anything in that regard.