Nvidia's Domination of the Market - This is Bad

[Dabombinable]

Most of the time you cant because the 290x 99% of the time cant handle the higher clocks. And its the same chip, just refined, what you're saying is the 4790k is a rebrand of a 4770k .

No I'm not saying the i7 4790K is a rebrand of the 4770K. That is an actual refresh and called that by Intel. They did not take the 4770K or 4790K and sell it as a 6700K

[App4that]

No I'm not saying the i7 4790K is a rebrand of the 4770K. That is an actual refresh and called that by Intel. They did not take the 4770K or 4790K and sell it as a 6700K

Um, ja. Actually they did just that. Thanks for shopping :lol:

[maizenblue]

The Federal Trade Commission exists, so we're fine. If Nvidia gains a monopoly on the x86 graphics market, then the FTC will fix that. However, splitting up Nvidia is a potential mess due to intellectual property and how that will be split up.

The FTC hasn't done anything to break up Microsofts monopoly on operating systems, so I'm not sure why you think they'd break up Nvidia. Microsoft can get away with crap products like windows 8 because they have no real competition. This is where were headed with Nvidia.

[NuclearPeace]

To finally put this to rest:

 

The 390x is just a refresh, no ifs or buts about it.

 

Nothing has changed with the actual core design between the Hawaii GPUs in the R9 290 series and the "Grenada" R9 390 series. Its the exact same core design and layout. I'm sure you will be quick to cite that the 390 series clocked higher, and that shoudn't come as a shock. The first initial runs of production on any given silicon microprocessor are generally going to be of lesser quality than the late tier runs. This is why it takes a long time for specially binned parts like Lightning and Classified graphics cards. Intel and AMD both have done refreshes of their CPU lineups with slighltly higher clock rates and around the same price.

 

The reason why AMD got so much stick for the 390 rebrands because it actually is a poor refresh. From an attempt to sqeeze the last drops out of the Hawaii GPUs, they boosted the stock clocks even more (290/290x already shipped with some pretty high clock rates for GCN). Then, they slapped on an additional 4GB of RAM thats completely unecessary, and proceeded to raise the price of the GPUs. At least when NVIDIA rebranded the hell out of the 700 series, the newer cards were a better value than the older series.

 

This is where the often repeated power consumption argument actually becomes legitimate. When you get a card that ships at a TDP of 290w, you are already bringing most air coolers to their knees. That, along with the fact that they are already pretty much heavily overclocked, leaves you next to no real overclocking headroom. That's in stark contrast to the 980 which might be a bit worse value and more expensive but can overclock to be around as fast as a Fury stock. Then, you just have the fact that it can be difficult to dissipate 290w+ reasonably. My case has the PSU actually mounted at the top of the case with the motherboard flipped 180 degrees, in such that the GPU heatsink is actually pointing upward towards the sky. With such a warming card next to a PSU like that, dumping all of that heat on the PSU has the potential to reduce the lifespan of it. I stick by my principles; I also know that a 980 Ti can easily pull as much as a 390x so unless I seriously revamp the cases' cooling I won't get even that.

[EpicAdom]

The FTC hasn't done anything to break up Microsofts monopoly on operating systems, so I'm not sure why you think they'd break up Nvidia. Microsoft can get away with crap products like windows 8 because they have no real competition. This is where were headed with Nvidia.

Microsoft has massive marketshare for client operating systems. Servers are now going with Linux instead of Windows Server for the majority of implementations.

[Dabombinable]

To finally put this to rest:

 

The 390x is just a refresh, no ifs or buts about it.

 

Nothing has changed with the actual core design between the Hawaii GPUs in the R9 290 series and the "Grenada" R9 390 series. Its the exact same core design and layout. I'm sure you will be quick to cite that the 390 series clocked higher, and that shoudn't come as a shock. The first initial runs of production on any given silicon microprocessor are generally going to be of lesser quality than the late tier runs. This is why it takes a long time for specially binned parts like Lightning and Classified graphics cards. Intel and AMD both have done refreshes of their CPU lineups with slighltly higher clock rates and around the same price.

 

The reason why AMD got so much stick for the 390 rebrands because it actually is a poor refresh. From an attempt to sqeeze the last drops out of the Hawaii GPUs, they boosted the stock clocks even more (290/290x already shipped with some pretty high clock rates for GCN). Then, they slapped on an additional 4GB of RAM thats completely unecessary, and proceeded to raise the price of the GPUs. At least when NVIDIA rebranded the hell out of the 700 series, the newer cards were a better value than the older series.

 

This is where the often repeated power consumption argument actually becomes legitimate. When you get a card that ships at a TDP of 290w, you are already bringing most air coolers to their knees. That, along with the fact that they are already pretty much heavily overclocked, leaves you next to no real overclocking headroom. That's in stark contrast to the 980 which might be a bit worse value and more expensive but can overclock to be around as fast as a Fury stock. Then, you just have the fact that it can be difficult to dissipate 290w+ reasonably. My case has the PSU actually mounted at the top of the case with the motherboard flipped 180 degrees, in such that the GPU heatsink is actually pointing upward towards the sky. With such a warming card next to a PSU like that, dumping all of that heat on the PSU has the potential to reduce the lifespan of it. I stick by my principles; I also know that a 980 Ti can easily pull as much as a 390x so unless I seriously revamp the cases' cooling I won't get even that.

If it was a refresh they wouldn't have sold it as a new GPU.....

[NuclearPeace]

So giving it a new SKU makes a whole new GPU? I would disagree. I am using a Haswell "Refresh" SKU that has the exact same uarch design as the older Haswell chips with just a sligthly higher quality of the silicon and in turn a slightly higher clock rate.

[App4that]

So giving it a new SKU makes a whole new GPU? I would disagree. I am using a Haswell "Refresh" SKU that has the exact same uarch design as the older Haswell chips with just a sligthly higher quality of the silicon and in turn a slightly higher clock rate.

Honestly what isn't a refresh these days. Why create when you can sell the same thing with new decals placed on it.

[Dabombinable]

So giving it a new SKU makes a whole new GPU? I would disagree. I am using a Haswell "Refresh" SKU that has the exact same uarch design as the older Haswell chips with just a sligthly higher quality of the silicon and in turn a slightly higher clock rate.

The main difference is added capacitors and a better TIM. Intel at least has the decency to call a refresh a refresh-not a new product. Just look at the Haswell Refresh line-which is a refresh named as one. Eg. An R9 290XR would have been a refresh. R9 390X with a price bump is a rebadge.

[NuclearPeace]

I'd rather not argue sematics, so I can settle with a "rebadge" if that's what you feel it is. It's not a big deal anyway, the labelling of the card has 0 impact on how good it actually is.

 

The R9 390 would have been a decent piece of hardware a really stand out GPU if it wasn't for the fact that if you look hard enough you can get a R9 290(X) used/refurb (sometimes even new) which has like 90% of the performance for almost 66% of the price.

[App4that]

Preaching to the choir Nuke. I could have picked up a 390 but I'm not swayed by new paint. Well I am swayed by coolers that work and blue paint. On hindsight I may have an issue xfiring if I can't find another Vapor so my judgment has not been fully judged as of yet.

[Dabombinable]

I'd rather not argue sematics, so I can settle with a "rebadge" if that's what you feel it is. It's not a big deal anyway, the labelling of the card has 0 impact on how good it actually is.

 

The R9 390 would have been a decent piece of hardware a really stand out GPU if it wasn't for the fact that if you look hard enough you can get a R9 290(X) used/refurb (sometimes even new) which has like 90% of the performance for almost 66% of the price.

Yes the cards are good, but just think for a second of those who would buy an R9 390X as an "upgrade" from a 290X. They would get utterly screwed over by AMD. Like my friend when buying a certain "high end" AMD "8 core" to replace his Phenom II X4-everything was slower (and since the motherboard was AM3+ only the CPU was upgraded-so there was only 1 culprit for the poor performance).

[ConnorDahne]

They're doing worse on gpu's?
I see atleast ten posts a day telling people to buy a 390 over a 970 lol

[App4that]

They're doing worse on gpu's?

I see atleast ten posts a day telling people to buy a 390 over a 970 lol

that's here, on campus NO one would be caught dead with a AMD GPU. Fanboys lol

[hk29]

I didn't know that you could still get 290's new. Maybe that's just retailers trying to get rid of old stock? Even so, its only a $50 difference between a 290x and 390x and with the 390 you get double the memory and more efficient energy usage (even if it is just slightly better). Seems worth it to me.

 

Regardless, the current lineup of AMD cards is very competitive and it boggles my mind why so many people still flock to Nvidia... unless you own a laptop, then there's not really a choice.

thats the power of brand marketing. for some companies their brand is worth more than the buisness.

[Dabombinable]

They're doing worse on gpu's?

I see atleast ten posts a day telling people to buy a 390 over a 970 lol

Think of it this way, the GTX 970 has been out for quite a long time now, giving people plenty of opportunity to upgrade their older graphics cards to it. The R9 290/290X were rebadged way too late to actually give AMD a chance to save their market share. Also the R9 FuryX/Nano should have been the 390X, the Fury the 390, the 290X the 280X, the R9 290 the 380 and so on. If that had happened people would have been a lot less pissed at AMD as they would have done the right thing.

[ConnorDahne]

Think of it this way, the GTX 970 has been out for quite a long time now, giving people plenty of opportunity to upgrade their older graphics cards to it. The R9 290/290X were rebadged way too late to actually give AMD a chance to save their market share. Also the R9 FuryX/Nano should have been the 390X, the Fury the 390, the 290X the 280X, the R9 290 the 380 and so on. If that had happened people would have been a lot less pissed at AMD as they would have done the right thing.

I was joking.

I don't think anyone was happy about the "rebrand"

[Lawliet93]

This is old news... very old news from Q2 2015... since then amd has relesed their new GPU line up and apparently it´s been quite the success since then, the majority of AMD GPU sales since then were in the range of 200-400 dollar (r9 380-R9 390) and they are getting their market share back: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/22/can-amd-sustain-its-share-gain-in-discrete-gpus/ . So please, it´s not that bad an seriously , I don´t get it... they are making cards that are more versatile than nvidias (amds cards are also compute cards with DP, the only acception beeing the Tonga and FIJI cars that don´t have DP), perform better than nvidias cars in 4 out of 5 cases and are cheaper... the only drawback beeing they power consumption mostly thanks to the hawaii GPU (FIJI improved a lot of things).

 

Don´t get me wrong I own a shitload of nvidia GPUs currently using my two gtx 860ms and a gtx 460SE...and also an AMD r9  280... in my experience, drivers are about equal with a slight edge for amd (I did not have any issues since I bought my radeon back in semptember last year), because, my gtx 680ms are behaving strange since I got them... fps fluctuations, game crashes, etc...

[App4that]

I was joking.

I don't think anyone was happy about the "rebrand"

If you're not happy with rebrands how do you buy anything new? LOL

[ConnorDahne]

If you're not happy with rebrands how do you buy anything new? LOL

I don't... I'm still rocking a crt monitor, a card from BFG, and a razer boomslang=P

[Elapo]

So you've ruled out a 980 ti, because that's a power hog as well?

Also overclocking can greatly increase power consumption. The 780 ti was a power hog too.

The problem with nvidia fans using this argument is the inconsistency.

 

How am I being inconsistent? All I said is that small differences matter when performance is this close.

 

you need to see for yourself what you value after performance. For me it's power & heat. Does that mean I use an IGP? No, but it does mean I also look at power/heat after I've decided on a performance bracket.

 

If I decided to go top of the line, and the fury X used less power, I'd choose that.

[maizenblue]

How am I being inconsistent? All I said is that small differences matter when performance is this close.

you need to see for yourself what you value after performance. For me it's power & heat. Does that mean I use an IGP? No, but it does mean I also look at power/heat after I've decided on a performance bracket.

If I decided to go top of the line, and the fury X used less power, I'd choose that.

I agree, which is partly why I chose a 980. It does what I want for less power consumption and Heat than a 980ti. Not to mention I got it for 250 dollars less.

[Khajiit Dealer]

Honestly what isn't a refresh these days. Why create when you can sell the same thing with new decals placed on it.

[chamath]

AMD has to focus on building more energy efficient GPUs or drop their prices more. When the competition was between Kepler and Hawaii, 290 consumed roughly 30W than 780. Now there is more than 100W difference between 390 and competing 970. 

[Masada02]

I fully don't understand the obsession with energy efficiency that people have these days. In my mind, as long as the card doesn't use an excessive amount of power (idk, like >350W) the energy consumption doesn't matter. The video card will still always be the largest consumer of energy within the system and will release more energy in the form of heat than anything else. I guess one could argue that if you already have a fixed low-wattage power supply that you would want the more efficient card, but when building a system from scratch the PSU is secondary to the actual components that you choose to get the desired performance. Trying to build a computer under a certain energy usage severely limits the possible outcomes.

 

I'm not saying that reducing energy usage shouldn't be a goal for companies, but it should be to make components more efficient allowing for more performance to be crammed into the same footprint and usage parameters. Laptops are another story, I know.

 

Its also not like an extra 100W of usage is expensive. I think @Prysin layed out the cost and I don't want to do the calculations myself, but it isn't much at all.