People need to lay off AMD and them needing a new architecture.

[Praesi]

Aehh...No.

As long NVidia has the better Enthusiast Cards, i stay Green.

[App4that]

TDP is NOT power draw

20% increase in power consumption in Metro. 25% increase based on the first graph.

 

For a card that trades blows in performance. And waits months for driver support. Don't see how you're supporting AMD with that post.

[don_svetlio]

20% increase in power consumption in Metro. 25% increase based on the first graph.

 

For a card that trades blows in performance. And waits months for driver support. Don't see how you're supporting AMD with that post.

That's total system, not just GPU.

A stock 390 draws 235W and 285W when OCed. Source: AMD's methods. Source for that: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-hd-7850-and-7870-review,6.html

970 is rated for 145W at 1000MHz core clock. With GPU Boost 2.0 it goes to 170W and with max OC it goes to 200W

[App4that]

That's total system, not just GPU.

A stock 390 draws 235W and 285W when OCed. Source: AMD's methods. Source for that: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-hd-7850-and-7870-review,6.html

970 is rated for 145W at 1000MHz core clock. With GPU Boost 2.0 it goes to 170W and with max OC it goes to 200W

Holy moving the goalpost Batman!!!

[don_svetlio]

Holy moving the goalpost Batman!!!

???

[ivan134]

I really think AMD needs to get their power draw under control on certain cards.

Just look at the difference between the GTX 970 and the R9 390 ... That's a huge difference

R9 290/390 originally came out in 2013 and was made to compete with a 780. They consumed the same amount of power. I don't know about the cost of electricity in Germany, but here in the States, a 390 will cost you about $5 over a 970, over a year. Aka, absolutely nothing. There's also this myth that you need more expensive power supplies. A 500W PSU can run a 4790k and 390k, both overclocked, very comfortably, and I don't know anyone who uses less than a 500 - 500W PSU with their 970, with the exception of SFF builds.

[App4that]

???

You posted graphs showing power usage. Are you retracting those graphs as evidence? If not, the point stand that the difference is greater than a few watts and should be considered in the purchase if power consumption is a concern.

[Nena Trinity]

My issue with AMD is their Linux drivers!

[don_svetlio]

You posted graphs showing power usage. Are you retracting those graphs as evidence? If not, the point stand that the difference is greater than a few watts and should be considered in the purchase if power consumption is a concern.

70W = 5$ yearly assuming maxed usage 4 hours a day. You get more VRAM and more performance. What exactly are you getting at?

A typical AC uses 2000W

A typical Fridge uses 1000W

A typical light bulb uses 60W

A typical Oven uses 1000W

[MadyTehWolfie]

ZEN can only be as good as it will be, if it succeeds i will be very happy about it, but AMD's GPU department are in a totally different state from the CPU side.

I still wouldnt buy a cpu but I hope it can at least keep up with skylake or the revision of skylake yet too come. Zen was made to compete with the 4th gen of cpu's so they better do something soon and release it before its too late for it to be worth it to get a zen cpu. My point is I guess why buy zen if intel already has a faster cpu by the time it comes out. Will wait and see what happens with it. As for the gpu's I don't want to buy a gpu thats pretty much the same as a older gpu with new thermal management or whatever. Same reason why I would go to pascal and waiting for volta. I view pascal as just a refresh even though its not.

[App4that]

70W = 5$ yearly assuming maxed usage 4 hours a day. You get more VRAM and more performance. What exactly are you getting at?

A typical AC uses 2000W

A typical Fridge uses 1000W

A typical light bulb uses 60W

A typical Oven uses 1000W

Red herring, we're not talking about kitchen appliances here.

 

If you want to use VRAM for Mordor, I'll counter that with Fallout 4. Very few cases where AMD or Nvidia are a clear winner. Only with the 380 and 980ti is that the case.

[don_svetlio]

Red herring, we're not talking about kitchen appliances here.

 

If you want to use VRAM for Mordor, I'll counter that with Fallout 4. Very few cases where AMD or Nvidia are a clear winner. Only with the 380 and 980ti is that the case.

I'll counter with Tomb Raider and Total War and Skyrim and GTA V and no "gimping" of older cards via bad drivers and no BSODs. Fucking shit Nvidia (laptop users cri everi time)

Still? Power difference is so small that it's negligible.

[MadyTehWolfie]

Red herring, we're not talking about kitchen appliances here.

 

If you want to use VRAM for Mordor, I'll counter that with Fallout 4. Very few cases where AMD or Nvidia are a clear winner. Only with the 380 and 980ti is that the case.

TitanX 12gb of not needed Vram for gaming. Except for some reason blackops 2 fills 10gb of ram in 4k maxed out, but that game has issues.

[App4that]

I'll counter with Tomb Raider and Total War and Skyrim and GTA V and no "gimping" of older cards via bad drivers and no BSODs. Fucking shit Nvidia (laptop users cri everi time)

Still? Power difference is so small that it's negligible.

You're own post proved otherwise :lol: , the power consumption difference is there. Now I think that's a non-issue but if someone has to worry about power consumption then the 970 has an advantage in that case.

 

You want the 390 to be better than the 970, that's not provable. They're too close so the difference it's subjective. All you can prove is that the 390 is better in your opinion.

[Vacras]

R9 290/390 originally came out in 2013 and was made to compete with a 780. They consumed the same amount of power. I don't know about the cost of electricity in Germany, but here in the States, a 390 will cost you about $5 over a 970, over a year. Aka, absolutely nothing. There's also this myth that you need more expensive power supplies. A 500W PSU can run a 4790k and 390k, both overclocked, very comfortably, and I don't know anyone who uses less than a 500 - 500W PSU with their 970, with the exception of SFF builds.

 

I am aware that the cost of the extra power consumed might not be that high, but I just wanted to point out that Nvida has a point in the power section, which makes me think that AMD can do something about this with the release of a new architecture. And the fact (you already pointed that out) that the R9 290 came out 2013 is another point supporting what I've just mentioned.

 

Not bashing on AMD or anything, just saying that the diffenrence in the power draw is too big for the performance gained, at least in my opinion.

 

[DrtyDiesel]

If you have the money to go from 390 to Fury X knowing that the release dates werent far from eachother... wouldn't it be better to just use 2x 390's in Crossfire? instead of getting a Fury X?

Knowing that the GTX980ti performs equal to Fury X this site is a good enough comparison http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/91/amd-radeon-r9-390x-crossfire-4k/index.html

I bought the Fury X due to wanting the top card AMD had to offer. I did think afterward that I should return my Fury X and just buy another 390, but doing so I would need something larger than the 550watt PSU I have, plus a new mobo. Another reason I upgraded is I am gifting my 390 to a friend who has a 270x, plus newegg will not refund a Fury X, I'm guessing due to it having an AIO cooler. So I decided to keep the Fury X and give my friend my 390. I plan on upgrading my mobo, CPU, ram, and PSU soon anyway, and when AMD releases their new stuff later this year, I will plan on upgrading and maybe doing two air cooled GPUs in crossfire. I just liked having the AIO on my Fury X, having it run at 45°C at max load is awesome.

Don't look at overclocking results then, instant buyers remorse. The Fury X can't keep up with a 980ti of the same price once the 980ti is Overclocked. I'm talking 20-30fps difference.

I have no interest in overclocking, that's why I have no problems with the Fury X. It does exactly what I wanted it to do, it gives me a steady 144fps in black ops 3. Plus I have a Freesync monitor, and buying an nVidia card would be kind of pointless with my monitor. Even though an overclocked 980ti will get better fps than the Fury X, happy with my Fury X as is. When it slows down and can't run the games I play at the frame rate I want, I'll give it away and buy whatever AMD has to offer for a top card then. I don't really overclock my GPUs or CPUs, so I just buy factory over clocked GPUs and run locked CPUs. Such as I have a core i5 4570 right now. It does the job I need it to.

My plans for the future are I'm waiting for 4K 120hz panels to come out. It may be quite some time on the future, but its something I'll be looking forward to. I know AMDs Polaris cards will have displayport 1.3, so that's a big step up. I'm looking forward to see what AMD and nVidia release.

[DrtyDiesel]

Although, I suppose I'll be contradicting myself as I do have only one regret with the Fury x. In black ops 3, if you have 4GB or less of VRAM, they hide the "extra" option in the graphics settings for the textures. So the game isn't running at the full maximum settings it was with my 390 since the 390 had double the vram of the Fury X. If I had known about that I would have bought a new mobo, CPU, and a second 390, Also a larger PSU. So I guess I did have one regret. Though now I'm fine with having just the one card and it may not be too long before we see the new stuff roll out, and I'll be upgrading then.

[don_svetlio]

I am aware that the cost of the extra power consumed might not be that high, but I just wanted to point out that Nvida has a point in the power section, which makes me think that AMD can do something about this with the release of a new architecture. And the fact (you already pointed that out) that the R9 290 came out 2013 is another point supporting what I've just mentioned.

 

Not bashing on AMD or anything, just saying that the diffenrence in the power draw is too big for the performance gained, at least in my opinion.

 

Polaris was shown to deliver 950-like performance while using half the power.

[ivan134]

I am aware that the cost of the extra power consumed might not be that high, but I just wanted to point out that Nvida has a point in the power section, which makes me think that AMD can do something about this with the release of a new architecture. And the fact (you already pointed that out) that the R9 290 came out 2013 is another point supporting what I've just mentioned.

 

Not bashing on AMD or anything, just saying that the diffenrence in the power draw is too big for the performance gained, at least in my opinion.

 

Never said you were bashing just dispelling myths. The 290(x) have comparable power consumption to the cards they were originally released to compete with, which are the 780(ti). They were refreshed as the 390(x) to compete with the 970 and 980, so power consumption was not going to change. These cards are GCN 1.1.

 

AMD already has a better handle on power consumption as is evidenced on the GCN 1.2 cards (285/380/380x/Fury/Fury Nano/Fury X). The reason they still consume more power is because AMD opted to keep GPGPU capabilities on them. This is advantageous for them in dx12 which has a feature called Async Compute. AMD supports this on a hardware level, while Nvidia has to support it on a software level. This is already causing problems for Nvidia is preliminary dx12 benchmarks. It took them months to get their performance up to par with AMD cards in Ashes of the Singularity, and a 390 was faster than a 980 in Fable Legends.

 

People tend to just talk about power consumption on a surface level, and don't ever get into the details of why it's even important or whether it's a even worthy point on contestation. 

[ivan134]

My issue with AMD is their Linux drivers!

Just dual boot.

[Nena Trinity]

Just dual boot.

But most of my games are played on Linux!

[Vacras]

Never said you were bashing just dispelling myths. The 290(x) have comparable power consumption to the cards they were originally released to compete with, which are the 780(ti). They were refreshed as the 390(x) to compete with the 970 and 980, so power consumption was not going to change. These cards are GCN 1.1.

AMD already has a better handle on power consumption as is evidenced on the GCN 1.2 cards (285/380/380x/Fury/Fury Nano/Fury X). The reason they still consume more power is because AMD opted to keep GPGPU capabilities on them. This is advantageous for them in dx12 which has a feature called Async Compute. AMD supports this on a hardware level, while Nvidia has to support it on a software level. This is already causing problems for Nvidia is preliminary dx12 benchmarks. It took them months to get their performance up to par with AMD cards in Ashes of the Singularity, and a 390 was faster than a 980 in Fable Legends.

People tend to just talk about power consumption on a surface level, and don't ever get into the details of why it's even important or whether it's a even worthy point on contestation.

Alright I totally get your point and I do agree that the R9 series is awesome and I would recommend the 390 over the 970 most of the times just threw in what I was thinking about the power, but you gave me a whole lot of insight to the matter which I did not have before.

I hope the new architectures will show nice results for both sides though.

Thanks for teaching me something today, I appreciate every little thing I can learn.

[Dabombinable]

None of this is relevant and just makes you look like a blabbering fool.

Knew why I kept you on the block list instead of removing you the way I did others. BTW-with CPU they do need a new architecture, GPU not so much as even their old GPU architecture are still quite competitive.

 

I'll counter with Tomb Raider and Total War and Skyrim and GTA V and no "gimping" of older cards via bad drivers and no BSODs. Fucking shit Nvidia (laptop users cri everi time)

Still? Power difference is so small that it's negligible.

Though to be fair from my understanding the difference between Maxwell 2.0 (aka GTX 9**) and Hawaii (R( 290/390/290X/390X) is greater. If a Tonga GPU was made to beat Hawaii at the same price point (Fiji is just the HBM version of Tonga-but its far above the same price point as Hawaii) then the power consumption between Nvidia's current cards and AMD's hypothetical Tong based R9 390/390X would be lower.

[Citadelen]

Never said you were bashing just dispelling myths. The 290(x) have comparable power consumption to the cards they were originally released to compete with, which are the 780(ti). They were refreshed as the 390(x) to compete with the 970 and 980, so power consumption was not going to change. These cards are GCN 1.1.

 

AMD already has a better handle on power consumption as is evidenced on the GCN 1.2 cards (285/380/380x/Fury/Fury Nano/Fury X). The reason they still consume more power is because AMD opted to keep GPGPU capabilities on them. This is advantageous for them in dx12 which has a feature called Async Compute. AMD supports this on a hardware level, while Nvidia has to support it on a software level. This is already causing problems for Nvidia is preliminary dx12 benchmarks. It took them months to get their performance up to par with AMD cards in Ashes of the Singularity, and a 390 was faster than a 980 in Fable Legends.

 

People tend to just talk about power consumption on a surface level, and don't ever get into the details of why it's even important or whether it's a even worthy point on contestation. 

I was on the verge of trying to explain that, but you saved me the trouble.  

[don_svetlio]

Knew why I kept you on the block list instead of removing you the way I did others. BTW-with CPU they do need a new architecture, GPU not so much as even their old GPU architecture are still quite competitive.

 

Though to be fair from my understanding the difference between Maxwell 2.0 (aka GTX 9**) and Hawaii (R( 290/390/290X/390X) is greater. If a Tonga GPU was made to beat Hawaii at the same price point (Fiji is just the HBM version of Tonga-but its far above the same price point as Hawaii) then the power consumption between Nvidia's current cards and AMD's hypothetical Tong based R9 390/390X would be lower.

Tonga uses a LOT less power. TinyTomLogan reviewed the 380 from XFX and claimed it uses 130W at stock IIRC