Why was the 390x so fast and the 480,580,590 so slow?

[ToneStar]

Its like it has taken AMD 4 years to increase performance by 25 percent.

[Jurrunio]

for the same power draw of an R9 390X you can run a pair of RX 480s

[THraShArD]

The naming scheme is all out of wack and designed to confuse you on purpose.   You basically have to do deep research and see the evolution path.

[ToneStar]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

for the same power draw of an R9 390X you can run a pair of RX 480s

Who cares about that, FPS and price are what matters most. I mean unless you are gaming 8 hours a day I doubt your electric bill would change much.

[Jurrunio]

Just now, ToneStar said:

Who cares about that, FPS and price are what matters most. I mean unless you are gaming 8 hours a day I doubt your electric bill would change much.

I care, because RX 480 2-way Crossfire is going to beat your R9 390X

[ToneStar]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

I care, because RX 480 2-way Crossfire is going to beat your R9 390X

That doesn't really make any sense in the context of the thread.

 

I am talking about why does a single 4 year old card perform close to as good as their latest card of the same number. I doubt the 590 is 25 percent faster than a 390x.  I don't even really count Vega because those are rebranded cards that were meant to be sold to data centers and miners pretty much.

[Fasauceome]

The 390X launched at like $400, the RX 480 was much less than that. Then Vega 56 came along, and Vega 64. The best AMD had was the R9 fury, and they knew it, sow when Polaris launched they priced accordingly. The 590 is just an overclocked 580 which is just an overclocked 480, so they don't meaningfully cross over into other product territory, like the 590 competing with a 1070. The 590 is still below a 1070.

[ToneStar]

BTW I have a 1080 ti not a 390x.  I did have a 270x a couple of years ago though, good card for its time.

[Firewrath9]

6 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

Who cares about that, FPS and price are what matters most. I mean unless you are gaming 8 hours a day I doubt your electric bill would change much.

the 390x costed 200$ more?, same perf for 2x price??

 

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

That doesn't really make any sense in the context of the thread.

 

I am talking about why does a single 4 year old card perform close to as good as their latest card of the same number. I doubt the 590 is 25 percent faster than a 390x.  I don't even really count Vega because those are rebranded cards that were meant to be sold to data centers and miners pretty much.

because whoever decided to name stuff don't really care about relative performance? Looking at the 390X itself, it's 2 years younger but hardly faster than the 290X....

[ToneStar]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

because whoever decided to name stuff don't really care about relative performance? Looking at the 390X itself, it's 2 years younger but hardly faster than the 290X....

Guess that is even a better point why was the 200 series cards so good and all of their cards since then have barely been better.

[flibberdipper]

Well the most obvious fact was that Hawaii was actually meant to try and compete in the high end, whereas Polaris was more aimed to increase efficiency and get a good hold on the budget market.

[THraShArD]

You are not going to find any Radeon performance boost with RX 580.  You have to upgrade to RX Vega or Radeon VII

[Jurrunio]

Just now, ToneStar said:

Guess that is even a better point why was the 200 series cards so good and all of their cards since then have barely been better.

not enough R&D money to improve GCN probably. IPC here didn't go up much even up till Vega (GCN 5th gen)

[xAcid9]

19 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

Its like it has taken AMD 4 years to increase performance by 25 percent.

Radeon VII is like 2x the performance of 390x. 

[ToneStar]

12 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Radeon VII is like 2x the performance of 390x. 

Rebranding workstation card and it cost $700 and only took 4 years.  Utterly insane, I remember the days when we got 50 percent performance increases every 6 months to a year for the same price.

 

12 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Radeon VII is like 2x the performance of 390x. 

Also I would love to see how a 390x with the same memory speed and clock speed of a Vega VII would perform, I bet it would be on par with it.  Really that is the only reason the vega is faster is because of clock speed and memory.

[ch3w2oy]

12 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Radeon VII is like 2x the performance of 390x. 

And the Vega 64 is just a little less than that.

 

Not sure what the issue with Vega is. Yea, they had a shitty launch and prices were through the roof. Today, you can get them for great prices and they're actually worth it.

 

Nividia obviously has WAY more monies to play with...

 

4 minutes ago, Finwillwin said:

What, it is still an AMD GPU.  Just because it is a gaming version of datacenter card doesn't mean they shouldn't count.

Exactly.

[Mister Woof]

How is the 580 slow?

It's better than the 1060, and about the same age.

 

4 minutes ago, Finwillwin said:

What, it is still an AMD GPU.  Just because it is a gaming version of datacenter card doesn't mean they shouldn't count.

That's what Turing is isn't it?

[Sakkura]

31 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

Its like it has taken AMD 4 years to increase performance by 25 percent.

No. The 390X was replaced by the Fury X, then the Vega 64, and most recently the Vega VII.

 

The Vega VII is over twice as fast as the 390X.

[Firewrath9]

the 290X was 600$. the 390x was 400$, now the RX 580 is 200$, I think thats a better improvement than a 1080 ti for 650$ going to a 1080 ti equivalent at 800$.

[Jurrunio]

15 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

That's what Turing is isn't it?

or pretty much any GPU from AMD and Nvidia. All of them have their corresponding workstation variants.

[xAcid9]

8 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

Rebranding workstation card and it cost $700 and only took 4 years.  Utterly insane, I remember the days when we got 50 percent performance increases every 6 months to a year for the same price.

 

Also I would love to see how a 390x with the same memory speed and clock speed of a Vega VII would perform, I bet it would be on par with it.  Really that is the only reason the vega is faster is because of clock speed and memory.

Rebrand workstation? 290x is a rebrand of workstation GPU. 

When was the last time we get 50% performance increase every 6 months?

That wouldn't be possible sir, even the best 290x barely reach 1.5Ghz and that card consumed almost 800w iinm. 

[Bananasplit_00]

26 minutes ago, ToneStar said:

 Utterly insane, I remember the days when we got 50 percent performance increases every 6 months to a year for the same price.

ah yes the time before the 2000th year, when shaders were new and we had more than two performance oriented GPU manufacturers. where the nodes were in the hundreds of nm and competition reigned

[ToneStar]

14 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

ah yes the time before the 2000th year, when shaders were new and we had more than two performance oriented GPU manufacturers. where the nodes were in the hundreds of nm and competition reigned

I miss Matrox, Rendition, Power VR and 3dfx to keep things moving along.  Hopefully intel can get into the game and be competitive, surprised Power VR has never came back.

 

The era with the TNT 2 to Geforce 1 was insanely competitive,  Matrox, ATI, 3dfx, Nvidia, Power VR, Rendition, S3 all had capable cards.

[aezakmi]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

I care, because RX 480 2-way Crossfire is going to beat your R9 390X

I have 2 way crossfire and performs the same as my old 290x 

 

AMD cards have always been a joke but the only good thing is the price, not gonna pay $700 ($2700 where I live) for a 2080Ti just because of ray tracing.