Why is everyone upset that AMD only launched 4 new cards?

[stconquest]

Re-brands. Plain and simple. 

Every company does this, it's not new. But their direct competitor brought some real new tech with a 2X multiplier within a few mouths. So people got over-hyped and this release did not fulfill their wishes. 

 

If makes sense or not... entirely different topic.

 

Also for another topic: This kind of notices (AMD launching a "new" name tech) based on some claims like 4096 VRam bit bus or 3D piled modules, etc. scares the shit out of us, because if they don't work means AMD has nothing to compare with Nvidia, and we know what happens when a company has time to relax in their direct competence. WE owners, buyers, fans, enthusiast get Fk'd hard... if that isn't something "upsetting" then what.

 

...then those people are entitled little shits who are not worth listening to.

 

 

...benchmarks are pretty universal in GPU comparisons.

[anthonyc813]

I"m waiting to see what Linus and Luke say on the AMD cards

[Hunter7263]

Because 90% of the lineup are the same cards as the 200 series, but some have so much VRAM it doesn't even make sense *cough* 390x *cough*?

It makes sense if you are going to crossfire them with out support to stack memory!

[Hieb]

AMD releasing rebrands that appears to have some efficiency bumps isn't a bad thing. I honestly don't care at all because as long as it performs well in games and what not I'm fine with whatever. However I wish there was more of a significant performance boost overall (nVidia and AMD) have been releasing cards almost on a yearly basis that makes no sense to upgrade to. I'm using my 780 ti until a major performance improvement occurs. I'll probably get a Pascal card when that comes out. Also, who really gives a shit? nVidia releases a few "new GPU's" same goes with AMD, they are both releasing rebrands. 770 is a 680 with a minor improvement (clock speeds). Who cares?!?

 

Nvidia releases a new generation GPUs and then usually the next generation is just a rebrand/refresh. So yeah the GTX 700 series were rebrands of the GTX 600 series, but the 600 series was brand new with Kepler. Just like the GTX 500 used the same Fermi architecture of the GTX 400 series, while the GTX 400 series was completely new from the Tesla architecture before it.

 

AMD's strategy over the past few years seems to be to release a few GPUs at the top and then rebrand the lower end ones. I'm okay with this as long as they are priced at a good spot and the product lineup reflects that they are now lower tiered cards... but this isn't happening with the R9 300 series since the only new GPUs are being positioned as a completely separate lineup than the 300 series.

[MMKing]

I personally don't see the big issue. While the 390x uses the same chip, and probably the same memory as the 290x. Some improvements have been made, most likely due to higher production quality. The 390x has stock settings, 1050MHZ core clock, 6GHZ memory clock and has 8GB memory as standard. The 290x has 1000MHZ core clock, 5000MHZ memory clock and only 4GB memory as standard, although some manufacturers offer 8GB versions. On top of this, the 290x launched as a 549USD card, while the 390x is set to launch at 429USD.

 

It's not exactly major stuff, but it's well within acceptable performance gain and price cuts for a re branded card. And according to AMD benchmarks, yeah i know it's biased, and you should wait for benchmarks from independent sources. It seems that all re branded cards perform marginally better than their 200 series counterparts.

 

The only valid complain i agree with is the spike in the mid range segment, 380 being 200USD and the 390 coming in at 329USD.

[NumLock21]

Both AMD and Nvidia does rebrands on their cards. Have a 290x, your wasting money by going for a 390x or 980Ti. Run the card for a few generations and then grab a brand new card. Unless you have money to burn, then stop whining about rebrands and just grab the one with the newest architecture.