more bad news for AMD, they'll cut 5% workforce

[GzeroD]

Lets all just hope that 5% includes the Guys&Gals that make the "The Fixer" videos.

[pixeldensity]

Look at the fool source and read the ones from Anandtech. 980 wins.

I looked at the fools source and the anand source and they don't compare 980 to 390x at all, granted they do show a 290x but multiple benchmarks have showed me that 290x and 390x have a performance difference.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-390x-review

[MageTank]

I looked at the fools source and the anand source and they don't compare 980 to 390x at all, granted they do show a 290x but multiple benchmarks have showed me that 290x and 390x have a performance difference.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-390x-review

The 390X looks to be 12-13% faster on average in those benches. That is actually a pretty good boost in performance. And here i thought people were complaining that the 300 series and 200 series are the exact same. Either way, the facts remain. The 390X is a better price:performance alternative when compared to the GTX 980. I always thought the GTX 980 was overpriced from the get go, when considering what it was. The 980 when compared to the 970 is not even worth the large price gap that it had (Back when the 970 was $330, and the 980 was $550). 

[captain cactus]

Part of it is their own fault. No competitive CPUs on the market, GPUs which are rebrands of older GPUs which already were rebrands of the ones before them, projects that have no real value other than show-off material, etc.

 

Once you go down that path it's almost impossible to dig yourself out of it since sales and thus money flow drops down which means you don't have the cash to develop new stuff. Their only saving grace right now is a money injection by either government or private business like Intel or a buy-out by someone like Apple, just to get the money flowing.

[pixeldensity]

Part of it is their own fault. No competitive CPUs on the market, GPUs which are rebrands of older GPUs which already were rebrands of the ones before them, projects that have no real value other than show-off material, etc.

 

Once you go down that path it's almost impossible to dig yourself out of it since sales and thus money flow drops down which means you don't have the cash to develop new stuff. Their only saving grace right now is a money injection by either government or private business like Intel or a buy-out by someone like Apple, just to get the money flowing.

for cpus, i agree they need to be more competitive, but of course they have zen in the works now. So we'll see how that turns out. In terms of GPU, that is where AMD is doing the best in right now, despite being their market share is 27%. Their 300 series, even it supposed to be a rebrand, is doing great against most of NV's 900 series gpus. When it comes down to GPU if amd is able to price their gpu competitively, be able to rival or beat NV equivalent and their own last gen gpu in terms of performance and support their latest technology; then the fact that it is a rebrand does not matter much to me.

 

For me my next build, I'm planning to replace both my gpu and cpu. So if zen is better than the intel chip I'm planning to get then I will buy amd, if not then my next cpu will be a intel one. if the amd's 400 series is better than the NV's 1000 series gpu then I will buy amd, if not NV it is.

[patrickjp93]

I looked at the fools source and the anand source and they don't compare 980 to 390x at all, granted they do show a 290x but multiple benchmarks have showed me that 290x and 390x have a performance difference.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-390x-review

That performance difference evaporates if you flash the 390X bios to 290X, which is easy to do.

[TorqueS]

Part of it is their own fault. No competitive CPUs on the market, GPUs which are rebrands of older GPUs which already were rebrands of the ones before them, projects that have no real value other than show-off material, etc.

 

No, it's mostly their marketing team/strategy's fault.

As I said previously, they focus on things that are not here(zen, HBM2, blah blah.)

Show me a colored slide that emphasizes the 300 series beating their price conunterparts, or offering better value. Mhm...there's none of that.

 

On the CPU front, yeah they're bad, compared to intel's current offers, but on GPUs, they're alive and kicking.

Hawaii is showing its teeth in DX12 and compute performance, Tonga Pro is ok and pretty efficient(by AMD standards), Tonga XT(in the works) looks good on paper, even the little old Pitcairn is an ok choice for casual AAA at 1080p.

 

 

That performance difference evaporates if you flash the 390X bios to 290X, which is easy to do.

 

Proof, proof, PROOF, my friend. Show us a forum post, or a modder who benched a flashed 290x -> 390X.

[Mr.Dingle]

Im confused ...

 

390X beating 980 but in the same time a 290x is catching up to a 980ti ??? 

 

But the Fury X is behind the 980ti ???? 

 

 

Im happy with my 390 , whatever boost i get , is a plus . 

[Notional]

Im confused ...

 

390X beating 980 but in the same time a 290x is catching up to a 980ti ??? 

 

But the Fury X is behind the 980ti ???? 

 

Im happy with my 390 , whatever boost i get , is a plus . 

 

That is why you cannot compare benchmarks across several sources.

[pixeldensity]

That performance difference evaporates if you flash the 390X bios to 290X, which is easy to do.

So are you saying that if someone flashes a 290x, it will have 390x performance. That mean that a 290x can even to beat a 980.

[HKZeroFive]

I did provide a source. Look at the anandtech benchmarks in the fool.com link, and then please go skulking back into obscurity where you belong.

This is hilarious. You claim that the 980 should beat the 390X with the latest drivers. In what way does the AnandTech benchmark show this?

Firstly, the 980 is not present on the graph. Neither is the 390X. Secondly, the original AnandTech article clearly states:

AMD sent us a note that there is a new driver available specifically for this benchmark which should improve the scores on the Fury X, although it arrived too late for this pre-release look at Fable Legends

They're not even using the latest drivers. That was your original claim, that these latest drivers supposedly push the 980 ahead of the 390X. And here you are, using a source that fails to fulfil two vital aspects of your argument. The cards in question aren't even present in the benchmarks and neither are the 'latest' drivers.

This is from YOUR source.

So please, actually learn to read before insulting someone. Your mathematical bullshit isn't helping you here. Also notice why everyone else is questioning what you're saying? You're in the wrong.

[patrickjp93]

No, it's mostly their marketing team/strategy's fault.

As I said previously, they focus on things that are not here(zen, HBM2, blah blah.)

Show me a colored slide that emphasizes the 300 series beating their price conunterparts, or offering better value. Mhm...there's none of that.

On the CPU front, yeah they're bad, compared to intel's current offers, but on GPUs, they're alive and kicking.

Hawaii is showing its teeth in DX12 and compute performance, Tonga Pro is ok and pretty efficient(by AMD standards), Tonga XT(in the works) looks good on paper, even the little old Pitcairn is an ok choice for casual AAA at 1080p.

Proof, proof, PROOF, my friend. Show us a forum post, or a modder who benched a flashed 290x -> 390X.

We have members here who've done it, and I believe that includes Notional.

[inactive account]

damn business ethics

[patrickjp93]

So are you saying that if someone flashes a 290x, it will have 390x performance. That mean that a 290x can even to beat a 980.

Which should come as no surprise since it's a 2816SP part against a 2048, having an obvious compute potential advantage. That said, looking at the 970 performance and knowing the gap between it and the 980, Nvidia comes out ahead.

[HKZeroFive]

Which should come as no surprise since it's a 2816SP part against a 2048, having an obvious compute potential advantage. That said, looking at the 970 performance and knowing the gap between it and the 980, Nvidia comes out ahead.

I'm gonna keep poking at you - where are these benchmarks that show the 390X getting beaten by 980?

[Syntaxvgm]

as usual with AMD this is a hot topic. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

That performance difference evaporates if you flash the 390X bios to 290X, which is easy to do.

 

Neh, ya don't need to flash the bios anymore.

[pixeldensity]

Which should come as no surprise since it's a 2816SP part against a 2048, having an obvious compute potential advantage. That said, looking at the 970 performance and knowing the gap between it and the 980, Nvidia comes out ahead.

well we can't be sure until we have an actual comparison. We cannot make an assumption about the 390x from the 290x on your source chart either since it is not a bios flashed card.

So until said chart comes out updating the info, I'm going have to say the 390x is the better card compared to the 980.

[bogus]

as usual with AMD this is a hot topic. 

Yeah and it usualy gravitates over the blind amd-hate ignorance of @zMeul and the delusional bullshit and lies of @patrickjp93 .

Now finally it's not just one or two members calling out this users, it's a big part of the active community that's just fed up with them and wont stand it anymore. Both of them ruin topics for no reason other then hate and ego masturbation - both clearly have issues, but we don't need to get with this shit.

[TorqueS]

We have members here who've done it, and I believe that includes Notional.

Well then, @Notional, if it's not too much of a problem, can you share with us? I believe you have a topic if such a thing works. I searched but haven't found it yet.

 

One topic mentions that it's risky and will most likely not work without a physical mod, since a 390X has better memory chips, running at higher freq and they also have tighter timings. Voltage is also a concern, stock being +50mV for a 390X compared to a 290X, so VRM has more to suffer as we already know it hits about 100 degrees..

 

Again Patrick, the eternal question, SOLID PROOF?

And don't send me searching, if you know it exists, you know where it is and it's not superhuman effort to paste a link.

[MoonSpot]

We have members here who've done it, and I believe that includes Notional.

If I recall @MEC-777 flashed a 290 with the respective 390 driver shortly after their release and posted their findings in the then Booerns-AMD-thread-of-the-day news thread. And found that the performance delta appeared to be driver related, though it was certainly short term testing.  Don't know if anyone has revisited that entire topic with anything other than extrapolated speculation since(I don't hang around the GPU section), and haven't seen 290x <-> 390x done.  Nor do I recall the testing suite(games) used, but am fairly sure nothing dx12/mantle-vulcan was done; which is becoming evermore relevant.

[patrickjp93]

If I recall @MEC-777 flashed a 290 with the respective 390 driver shortly after their release and posted their findings in the then Booerns-AMD-thread-of-the-day news thread. And found that the performance delta appeared to be driver related, though it was certainly short term testing.  Don't know if anyone has revisited that entire topic with anything other than extrapolated speculation since(I don't hang around the GPU section), and haven't seen 290x <-> 390x done.  Nor do I recall the testing suite(games) used, but am fairly sure nothing dx12/mantle-vulcan was done; which is becoming evermore relevant.

I know there's at least one on this forum who posted benches of a 290/x flashed as a 390/X and the delta evaporated. The only thing genuinely new about the 390X is a changed power delivery system and a lightly tweaked memory controller for the 6GHz GDDR5.