R9 390 or 390X

[arcanesama]

Is there any point of buying 390X instead of normal 390?

[Gruenbaum]

The 390x is clocked slightly higher. I was wondering how much better it actually was also, and the benchmarks I could find show that the 390x gets an average 3-5FPS advantage over the 390. If 3-5FPS justifies 100 dollars for you. Get the 390x, otherwise. It is a waste of money.

[arcanesama]

2 minutes ago, Gruenbaum said:

The 390x is clocked slightly higher. I was wondering how much better it actually was also, and the benchmarks I could find show that the 390x gets an average 3-5FPS advantage over the 390. If 3-5FPS justifies 100 dollars for you. Get the 390x, otherwise. It is a waste of money.

yea, i probably get 390, being on budget anyways, thanks

[Gruenbaum]

yep!

[Morgan MLGman]

390X is around 6% faster, but it also gets bigger boosts in DX12 cause of a more powerful chip inside.

 

If you're to get R9 390, just get the RX 480 instead. 390 is slower than all of those: R9 290X, R9 390X, RX 480

[Hero7750]

12 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

390X is around 6% faster, but it also gets bigger boosts in DX12 cause of a more powerful chip inside.

 

If you're to get R9 390, just get the RX 480 instead. 390 is slower than all of those: R9 290X, R9 390X, RX 480

The r9 390 performs better than the r9 290x, and rx 480. Benchmarks prove this. And the extra $100 does not justify a couple FPS difference OP

[Morgan MLGman]

1 hour ago, Hero7750 said:

The r9 390 performs better than the r9 290x, and rx 480. Benchmarks prove this. And the extra $100 does not justify a couple FPS difference OP

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-290X-vs-AMD-R9-390/2166vs3481

290X is a tiny bit faster. It has the same chip as a 390X which we all know is faster, just lower stock memory clocks. Set the same clocks as a stock 390X has and boom - your 290X performs basically exactly the same.

 

And RX 480 does perform better on average due to better drivers and architectural advantages of Polaris.

[SubLimation7]

1 hour ago, arcanesama said:

Is there any point of buying 390X instead of normal 390?

I'd recommend just grabbing sapphire nitro+ rx 480, you can find them around $280, and its gonna do a lot better in DX12.  Dropped one in my friends 8350 build and he can almost always take advantage of his 144hz refresh rate at max settings 1080p.  I was running crossfire 390s (same cpu at the time) and since half the games I played didn't work with crossfire he got higher fps then my r9 390 almost always, and just seemed to maintain higher average fps.  With battlefield one the 480 is coming along more and more. 

[Hero7750]

11 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-290X-vs-AMD-R9-390/2166vs3481

290X is a tiny bit faster. It has the same chip as a 390X which we all know is faster, just lower stock memory clocks. Set the same clocks as a stock 390X has and boom - your 290X performs basically exactly the same.

 

And RX 480 does perform better on average due to better drivers and architectural advantages of Polaris.

You're also relying on userbenchmark...

[othertomperson]

13 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

390X is around 6% faster, but it also gets bigger boosts in DX12 cause of a more powerful chip inside.

Whaut it's the same chip. The 390X is full Hawaii, the 390 is ever so slightly cut down Hawaii. An overclocked 390 could make up the difference.

 

Since either of these is about equivalent with a 480 I'd only bother if they are cheap.

 

11 hours ago, SubLimation7 said:

I'd recommend just grabbing sapphire nitro+ rx 480, you can find them around $280, and its gonna do a lot better in DX12. 

 

We don't have nearly enough Dx 12 games to make that assessment. Hawaii is a beast of a GPU that has always been hampered by shite dx 11 drivers. Expect Hawaii and Fiji to gain a lot of performance once we have some real Dx12 games out, rather than the Dx11 ports we have at the moment.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

21 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Whaut it's the same chip. The 390X is full Hawaii, the 390 is ever so slightly cut down Hawaii.

It's either the same chip or a cut-down version. You have to pick one  OCing can reduce the gap, except you can also OC the X version, and that's when the "cut down" part becomes relevant, because if it was just clock speeds then you could truly erase the difference with OC (as in, let's say, an FX 8320 and an 8350), but if there is missing hardware you may not necessarily reach the same performance with both cards (and especially not with the same "OC effort").

 

28 minutes ago, Hero7750 said:

You're also relying on userbenchmark...

Quite naturally. An actual database is far more reliable that one person making a post/video, however knowledgeable said person may be.

 

I'd say that as long as performance is within a few percentage points distance, heat and power consumption tilt the scales towards the 480, so the 390s should be cheaper to remain a valid option.

Of course, if someone has reasons to believe the performance of the 390 to be substantially better, then it would make sense for that person to consider buying it even at the same price as a 480.

 

Also, I have no clue what retailers may be doing in terms of pricing all these cards, plus there is a second hand market...

[Morgan MLGman]

6 hours ago, Hero7750 said:

You're also relying on userbenchmark...

It's the most reliable site that compares hardware out there.

 

6 hours ago, othertomperson said:

Whaut it's the same chip. The 390X is full Hawaii, the 390 is ever so slightly cut down Hawaii. An overclocked 390 could make up the difference.

 

Since either of these is about equivalent with a 480 I'd only bother if they are cheap.

390X is Hawaii XT, while the 390 is its cut-down version. 290X has the same GPU chip as the 390X, just has a bit lower stock clocks, making it a bit faster than the 390 thus proving my point. Remember that you also can overclock the 390X.

 

390X is a bit faster than the 480 while the 390 is around the same atm. Considering 480's newer architecture, lower power consumption, drivers that are about to mature in the near future making it perform better and making it easier to crossfire (due to lower power consumption and heat generation) make it a better choice.

[othertomperson]

21 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's either the same chip or a cut-down version. You have to pick one  OCing can reduce the gap, except you can also OC the X version, and that's when the "cut down" part becomes relevant, because if it was just clock speeds then you could truly erase the difference with OC (as in, let's say, an FX 8320 and an 8350), but if there is missing hardware you may not necessarily reach the same performance with both cards (and especially not with the same "OC effort").

 

15 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

390X is Hawaii XT, while the 390 is its cut-down version. 290X has the same GPU chip as the 390X, just has a bit lower stock clocks, making it a bit faster than the 390 thus proving my point. Remember that you also can overclock the 390X.

 

Thank you for graciously repeating what I just said almost word for word in the tone of someone who thinks they're correcting somebody, while somehow simultaneously managing to miss the point.

 

In order for one GPU to be a cut-down version of another GPU they by definition need to be variants of the same chip. In this case they are both Hawaii, and for example the Fury and Fury X are both Fiji, and the Titan X and 1080 Ti are both GP 102, etc.

 

I always think it's funny when people point out that you can overclock the X version of the chip! As if you alone, a genius among plebs, had thought of this possibility. You can indeed, but then you are paying around £100 more at times for that overclocking difference (depending on the SKU. That overclocking advantage cost you £300 extra in moving from the 980 Ti to the Titan X). Hardly value for money. That's before worrying about the heat and power bottlenecks that limit overclocking the 390X -- that card was approaching 300W as it was.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, othertomperson said:

 

 

Thank you for graciously repeating what I just said almost word for word in the tone of someone who thinks they're correcting somebody, while somehow simultaneously managing to miss the point.

 

In order for one GPU to be a cut-down version of another GPU they by definition need to be variants of the same chip. In this case they are both Hawaii, and for example the Fury and Fury X are both Fiji, and the Titan X and 1080 Ti are both GP 102, etc.

 

I always think it's funny when people point out that you can overclock the X version of the chip! As if you alone, a genius among plebs, had thought of this possibility. You can indeed, but then you are paying around £100 more at times for that overclocking difference (depending on the SKU. That overclocking advantage cost you £300 extra in moving from the 980 Ti to the Titan X). Hardly value for money. That's before worrying about the heat and power bottlenecks that limit overclocking the 390X -- that card was approaching 300W as it was.

I sincerely don't know where you are taking all that garbage from nor what gets you all edgy, but you may need to practice some reading comprehension.

I can't really answer for your strawman, so you may have to continue the conversation with him.

[arcanesama]

UPDATE: got r9 390x cause its the only one to get here and i'm too lazy to wait for importer to spit out more.

lol