wait for the benchmarks :)

J

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
I think people are going to be very surprised by the benchmarks on the 390/x and the 380.

Drivers: Once review sites stop using old 290x benchmarks taken in 2014, Hawaii will see a bump in performance on 'the charts' just from AMD driver improvements since Maxwell. Its been ugly watching review sites copy/paste old benchmarks because they cant be bothered to re-sample the cards they compare Maxwell to...

Effeciency: Beyond that, I think that like the FX-e chips that they have used better binned chips to get better efficiency and have achieved a slightly higher clock at a better power draw, in addition to better AIB cooling solutions... 200-series biggest 'complaint' was its power efficiency and heat, so improvements there are HUGE since the chips are already strong.

Memory: And the 8GB of memory with the memory clock bumps will end up making a much bigger improvement than people are expecting (I always thought memory bandwidth matters big at the high end), making this card FAR more future proof than a 970 or 980 if they match performance... From both a future SLI/crossfire standpoint AND even in single-card selection on truly demanding games/resolutions in the future...

People may have pre-conceived negatives based on recent blow-out pricing of 290/x and 285s, but they aren't realizing that the 300 series is starting at or below the price of the cards they are replacing when they were normally priced a few months ago... Good STARTING price, and price-per-performance of the 300 series will still STOMP NVidia regardless of AMDs recent fire-sales on the 200 series.

Just sayin ;)
 
Last edited:
clickbait title thread got my hopes up :/

-1/10 for disappointment LOL :p
 
jamesgalb said:
~~~Snip~~)
Click to expand...

What optimizations?? Its the same identical chip as 290X, as one poster who already has the 390x has pointed out. No new energy efficiency like Maxwell, still wattage eaters just like 290x and being sold at a higher price point for increasing memory. Sorry there is no magic sauce or rainbow dust to make these cards ALOT better than its 290 brethren. AMD only had enough R&D money for Fury and R400. Nothing left in the bank to make a better more efficient 290 and below.
 
I think where the big difference between 290X and 390X will show in benchmarks is the cooling. If 390X is able to keep its clock speeds at max (unlike 290X which throttled on the stock cooler) we will see a decent improvement in frame rate. I know Anandtech uses a reference cooled 290X in their reviews.
 
pandora's box said:
I think where the big difference between 290X and 390X will show in benchmarks is the cooling. If 390X is able to keep its clock speeds at max (unlike 290X which throttled on the stock cooler) we will see a decent improvement in frame rate. I know Anandtech uses a reference cooled 290X in their reviews.
Click to expand...

Performance will be in the same ballpark.
8gb ram edge out.
I have eyes set on Fiji as when I upgrade its for a couple of years at least
 
jamesgalb said:
I think people are going to be very surprised by the benchmarks on the 390/x and the 380.
Click to expand...
Whirring noises in your head dont equate to fact unfortunately.
The concept of proof has been around for some time.
Google it. Thats at www.google.com fyi

Drivers: Once review sites stop using old 290x benchmarks taken in 2014, Hawaii will see a bump in performance on 'the charts' just from AMD driver improvements since Maxwell. Its been ugly watching review sites copy/paste old benchmarks because they cant be bothered to re-sample the cards they compare Maxwell to...
Click to expand...
You did, yknow, read the latest reviews from [H], last week?
If they have held back any driver improvements from the 290 series and are only applying them to the 390s, that wont bode well at all for previous card owners considering they are the same under the hood.

Effeciency: Beyond that, I think that like the FX-e chips that they have used better binned chips to get better efficiency and have achieved a slightly higher clock at a better power draw, in addition to better AIB cooling solutions... 200-series biggest 'complaint' was its power efficiency and heat, so improvements there are HUGE since the chips are already strong.
Click to expand...
They wont use less power.
They have upped the clockspeed which will require the same voltage or higher.
The efficiency difference will be minute.

Memory: And the 8GB of memory with the memory clock bumps will end up making a much bigger improvement than people are expecting (I always thought memory bandwidth matters big at the high end), making this card FAR more future proof than a 970 or 980 if they match performance... From both a future SLI/crossfire standpoint AND even in single-card selection on truly demanding games/resolutions in the future...
Click to expand...
For the mostpart, the need for 8GB will be when using 2 of these cards or 2 8GB 290x which can be clocked to perform the same.
The bump in memory clock speed doesnt do very much.
I know, I've tried up to 1620MHz memory clock on my old 290x.

People may have pre-conceived negatives based on recent blow-out pricing of 290/x and 285s, but they aren't realizing that the 300 series is starting at or below the price of the cards they are replacing when they were normally priced a few months ago... Good STARTING price, and price-per-performance of the 300 series will still STOMP NVidia regardless of AMDs recent fire-sales on the 200 series.
Click to expand...
Putting prices higher than 290x cards wont win them sales.

Just sayin ;)
Click to expand...
Just sayin ;)
 
Some people need to realize when they need to stop defending AMD.
Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch... "Tis but a scratch!"

I'm not saying you need to grab a pitchfork like everybody else is doing but you have to at least acknowledge that the 300-series is a colossal failure and AMD is obviously putting their entire R&D budget (as small as it is) into Fury & Arctic Islands. Once we can establish that, we can move on... and pretend the 300-series never happened...

It's going to be a bad week for AMD's GPU division. Possibly the worst they've had in the last 10 years. Really hope Fury delivers.
 
pandora's box said:
I think where the big difference between 290X and 390X will show in benchmarks is the cooling. If 390X is able to keep its clock speeds at max (unlike 290X which throttled on the stock cooler) we will see a decent improvement in frame rate. I know Anandtech uses a reference cooled 290X in their reviews.
Click to expand...

Good hardware sites have replaced reference radeons with aftermarket 290X clocked at stock setting ages ago.

And as far as drivers - the really good ones are refreshing benchmarks of old cards with new drivers when new review is being done.

Mind you I said good sites so I'm not implying AT did it :D
 
Nenu said:
Whirring noises in your head dont equate to fact unfortunately.
The concept of proof has been around for some time.
Google it. Thats at www.google.com fyi
Click to expand...

I didn't say this was fact. I'm speculating... But thanks for clarifying that for those like yourself who couldn't tell...

Nenu said:
You did, yknow, read the latest reviews from [H], last week?
If they have held back any driver improvements from the 290 series and are only applying them to the 390s, that wont bode well at all for previous card owners considering they are the same under the hood.
Click to expand...

290 owners aren't without updated/improved drivers... Review Sites are without them on their reviews/charts, which is how people determine how cards perform without actually owning them all themselves... So the REVIEW SITES will be reviewing the updated drivers and gaming experiences that AMD users already experience, instead of copy/pasting their old statistics from reviews done on old drivers. This will give readers/gamers a better look at modern day performance vs NVidia, as opposed to 2014 AMD drivers vs 2015 NVidia cards...

Same applied for coolers, which have improved going into the 300 series. Better thermals from both better binning and better coolers will lessen the negatives from those that said "this thing is a space heater" before, allowing more focus on the card and not the heat...

Reviews will look much better comparing a 390x to a 980 instead of a hotter and slower 290x on old drivers. Don't let that rustle your jimmies.
Nenu said:
They wont use less power.
They have upped the clockspeed which will require the same voltage or higher.
The efficiency difference will be minute.
Click to expand...

FX-e series. What did they change for better efficiency there? Just better binning? Same concept.

Nenu said:
For the mostpart, the need for 8GB will be when using 2 of these cards or 2 8GB 290x which can be clocked to perform the same.
The bump in memory clock speed doesnt do very much.
I know, I've tried up to 1620MHz memory clock on my old 290x.
Click to expand...

On your 4GB right?

Nenu said:
Putting prices higher than 290x cards wont win them sales.
Click to expand...

These prices are lower than AMD was selling their 200 series before the recent fire-sale. Don't compare to fire sale prices, compare to NVidia and original AMD prices... Of coarse AMD isn't going to price below their recent fire sale prices, that shocks you? Seriously?

Nenu said:
Just sayin ;)
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Some people need to realize when they need to stop defending AMD.
Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch... "Tis but a scratch!"

I'm not saying you need to grab a pitchfork like everybody else is doing but you have to at least acknowledge that the 300-series is a colossal failure and AMD is obviously putting their entire R&D budget (as small as it is) into Fury & Arctic Islands. Once we can establish that, we can move on... and pretend the 300-series never happened...

It's going to be a bad week for AMD's GPU division. Possibly the worst they've had in the last 10 years. Really hope Fury delivers.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, AMD will have cards that compete with the 970 and 980 at lower prices... That is all that matters.

Yes, people are acting like they are on some clueless pitchfork hunt because of 'rebadging'... No one is waiting on performance results at all, and for a PC crowd to not be concerned about performance is just insane...

I will wait to see how the only sub-$650 4GB+ card on the market performs in benchmarking.
 
Last edited:
jamesgalb said:
I didn't say this was fact. I'm speculating... But thanks for clarifying that for those like yourself who couldn't tell...
Click to expand...
Some people actually believe the crap they post :p
You didnt say anything about speculation.

290 owners aren't without updated/improved drivers... Review Sites are without them on their reviews/charts, which is how people determine how cards perform without actually owning them all themselves... So the REVIEW SITES will be reviewing the updated drivers and gaming experiences that AMD users already experience, instead of copy/pasting their old statistics from reviews done on old drivers. This will give readers/gamers a better look at modern day performance vs NVidia, as opposed to 2014 AMD drivers vs 2015 NVidia cards...
Click to expand...
You didnt read my post.
We know the performance with latest drivers and overclocked cards already.

FX-e series. What did they change for better efficiency there? Just better binning? Same concept.
Click to expand...
If they were that much better, they would have a lot higher overclock than 5%.

On your 4GB right?
Click to expand...
Um, because 8GB would make a difference when overclocked?

These prices are lower than AMD was selling their 200 series before the recent fire-sale. Don't compare to fire sale prices, compare to NVidia and original AMD prices... Of coarse AMD isn't going to price below their recent fire sale prices, that shocks you? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Its you that will be shocked...
People compare prices with what they can buy.
Hopefully your whirrings have more clarity now.
 
jamesgalb said:
At the end of the day, AMD will have cards that compete with the 970 and 980 at lower prices... That is all that matters.

Yes, people are acting like they are on some clueless pitchfork hunt because of 'rebadging'... No one is waiting on performance results at all, and for a PC crowd to not be concerned about performance is just insane...

I will wait to see how the only sub-$650 4GB+ card on the market performs in benchmarking.
Click to expand...

You made me laugh, thanks :)

What matters is that the cards have driver issues and they dont give the performance many of us need.
Especially with games like GTAV and Witcher 3.
My overclocked 290x wasnt enough and caused me too many problems.
I would have put up with the performance a bit longer but the drivers drove me nuts so I bought a 980.

It is you that has the clueless pitchforks out for NVidia :p
Everyone is waiting on performance results lol.
But also consider that we know quite a lot about hardware so can see how this looks like it will pan out.
 
Nenu said:
Some people actually believe the crap they post :p
You didnt say anything about speculation.
Click to expand...

Sorry that "wait for the benchmarks" and "I think people are going to be surprised" isn't enough to convey that I am speculating... :\

Nenu said:
You didnt read my post.
We know the performance with latest drivers and overclocked cards already.
Click to expand...

MOST people know performance based on review sites... and MOST review sites copy/paste old results/stats instead of retesting a product lineup... So MOST information gathered by 'enthusiasts' from their variety of sources, show the 290x with lower results than it would have today.

Only those that own a 290, 290x, 970 AND 980 wouldn't need review sites charts and statistics to determine performance... So MOST people rely on review sites.

Yes, some people know better and figure out which sites use updated reviews, but MOST people do not.

Nenu said:
If they were that much better, they would have a lot higher overclock than 5%.
Click to expand...

FX-e series was actually down-clocked despite being more efficient at higher clocks... Don't judge better efficiency from a 5% overclock with ZERO information on thermals or performance...

If they accomplish an overclock with lower power draw and thermals, then the story is the lower power draw and thermals, not the 5% overclock...

"Extra performance at lower power" - isn't that what everyone always wants? Or is this "meh, not enough" on a card that was already top-tier? lol...

Nenu said:
Um, because 8GB would make a difference when overclocked?
Click to expand...

Yup, I am saying that a memory overclock would make better use of 8gb compared to 4gb.

Nenu said:
Its you that will be shocked...
People compare prices with what they can buy.
Hopefully your whirrings have more clarity now.
Click to expand...

Yup. So if a $330 390 smashes a 970 and a $390 390x compares with a 980... then "What they can buy" becomes either AMD or a lower performance card...

Like I said, compare to NVidia prices and performance when released... If someone wants to pick up a 200 series firesale card now, more power to them because they are steals... When those are gone, 300 series vs 900 series and their pricing can finally take the spotlight instead of "omg rebrands above firesale prices, lame"
 
Last edited:
Nenu said:
You made me laugh, thanks :)

What matters is that the cards have driver issues and they dont give the performance many of us need.
Especially with games like GTAV and Witcher 3.
My overclocked 290x wasnt enough and caused me too many problems.
I would have put up with the performance a bit longer but the drivers drove me nuts so I bought a 980.

It is you that has the clueless pitchforks out for NVidia :p
Everyone is waiting on performance results lol.
But also consider that we know quite a lot about hardware so can see how this looks like it will pan out.
Click to expand...

I own a 970 and before that a 660, I'm hardly pitchforking after NVidia...

If it makes you laugh that I think its absurd that real enthusiasts wouldn't wait for results and instead will run off with speculation on a smear campaign.... Well, then you have a sense of humor I find odd.
 
Downlocked energy "efficient" FX cpus take 200+ Watts when overclocked exactly like their higher rated brethen.
 
Michaelius said:
Downlocked energy "efficient" FX cpus take 200+ Watts when overclocked exactly like their higher rated brethen.
Click to expand...

All reviews I have seen on them show them at lower power usage and heat output when clocked at 4ghz next to a 8350 or at 4.7ghz next to a 9590.
 
Just wait for the reviews guys!!! Fury 2x8 pin power draw, needs water cooling, only 4GB memory!!! Recycling chipsets. It'll be a new day for AMD LOLOL
 
jamesgalb said:
Sorry that "wait for the benchmarks" and "I think people are going to be surprised" isn't enough to convey that I am speculating... :\
Click to expand...
Most of what you said isnt speculation, you are stating most things as fact.
And much of your "speculation" has no basis in reality which it needs to have.
That thing called proof again. Check it out on google www.google.com

MOST people know performance based on review sites... and MOST review sites copy/paste old results/stats instead of retesting a product lineup... So MOST information gathered by 'enthusiasts' from their variety of sources, show the 290x with lower results than it would have today.

Only those that own a 290, 290x, 970 AND 980 wouldn't need review sites charts and statistics to determine performance... So MOST people rely on review sites.

Yes, some people know better and figure out which sites use updated reviews, but MOST people do not.
Click to expand...
Go and ball ache at those sites, nothing needs doing here.
You are preaching to the wrong crowd.

FX-e series was actually down-clocked despite being more efficient at higher clocks... Don't judge better efficiency from a 5% overclock with ZERO information on thermals or performance...
Click to expand...
This isnt a speculative comment, it requires that proof thing.

If they accomplish an overclock with lower power draw and thermals, then the story is the lower power draw and thermals, not the 5% overclock...
Click to expand...
Um no, until we know the power used to achieve the overclock and the temps, we only know what the overclock is.
So the story is the 5% overclock.
And even if they can reduce the voltage by a few %, it wont make a dent in the amount of power the 290x uses, nor the temps.
The only thing that will substantially help the temps is the cooler.

"Extra performance at power power" - isn't that what everyone always wants? Or is this "meh, not enough" on a card that was already top-tier? lol...
Click to expand...
You think strangely.

Yup, I am saying that a memory overclock would make better use of 8gb compared to 4gb.
Click to expand...
You need to provide proof of this.
Speculating doesnt mean you can make anything up.
There needs to be a basis in fact, provide it, otherwise its only something random in your head.

Yup. So if a $330 390 smashes a 970 and a $390 390x compares with a 980... then "What they can buy" becomes either AMD or a lower performance card...
Click to expand...
Your imagination is running quite wild now :p

Like I said, compare to NVidia prices and performance when released... If someone wants to pick up a 200 series firesale card now, more power to them because they are steals... When those are gone, 300 series vs 900 series and their pricing can finally take the spotlight instead of "omg rebrands above firesale prices, lame"
Click to expand...
You dont seem to know when what you are saying is irrelevant.
When do you anticipate all the 290 series cards will be gone?
Use a basis in fact.
 
jamesgalb said:
I own a 970 and before that a 660, I'm hardly pitchforking after NVidia...
Click to expand...
Not from your previous posts.
At least your attempts to big up the 390s are amusing.

If it makes you laugh that I think its absurd that real enthusiasts wouldn't wait for results and instead will run off with speculation on a smear campaign.... Well, then you have a sense of humor I find odd.
Click to expand...

I could explain again why it made me laugh but it would be lost on you.
You dont see reality clearly, this isnt the best website for you.
 
Nigel Tufnel was quoted as saying, "These go to 390. It's one hundred higher."
 
There are a lot of pre-overclocked 290x/290s out there that have a similar default clockspeed to the 390x/390s. So it could just be the exact same Hawaii chip, but with a different bios flashed to the card. This was the case with the 7970->280x/7950->280 rebrand.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8062
But what is different is that the memory is clocked much faster on the 390x/390 series. This is similar to the GTX680->GTX770 rebrand, as well as the Radeon 7870->R9-270x/270 rebrands.
The stock memory clock of the 390x/390 cards are well above what I can overclock to with my XFX R9-290x DD. I don't know if the memory-clock will be enough for the 390x to beat the GTX980, but I'm reasonably sure that the 1050mhz core and 6000mhz memory clock of both the 390 and 390x will be enough to squeeze out the GTX970.
I'm surprised by the price of the 390 being reported. The $380 of the 390x kinda makes sense. You get 8GB of RAM, on top of better than GTX970 performance for only $50.
The R9-390 becomes a hard sell at $330 because, yeah it has 8GB of RAM, but it either just keeps up with or is a bit beaten by the GTX970 depending on the game. $300 even would be an enticing enough price to lure away potential GTX970 purchasers, and provide a reasonable price/performance jump for upgrading the the 390x.
If the GPUs in these cards prove to be overclockable well beyond the 290x/290 (say 1300mhz average) and the memory can reach beyond 6000mhz (say 6400mhz), you'll have a card capable of knocking on the GTX980's doors.
It's actually not that bad that AMD is getting some extra life out of these old Hawaii GPU's. At launch the 7970 ran about equal to the GTX670, then the 280x came out and was pretty on par with the GTX770. Mind that the GTX770 was itself a rebranded GTX680. So here we have a card that at one point in it's life ran neck and neck with the #2 nvidia card, now going to toe-to-toe with the big brother of it's old nemesis on steriods, and keeping up and beating it in most games. I guess the mild-overclock AMD gave to Tahiti (7970=925mhz/5500mhz vs 280x=1000mhz/6000mhz) and driver improvements were enough for it to accomplish this feat.
Why not Hawaii?
:edit:
Holy crap...I was looking at some of the old reviews of the 280x, and is some cases the card ran right up with the GTX780, which was a detuned Titan. Similarly the 390x could come close to the GTX980, which would make it's $380 price tag very attractive vs the GTX980's $500.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/14
 
The [H] reviews should allow you to extrapolate what any extra clocks will achieve, but its very much wishful thinking that they will achieve 1300MHz overclock.
It would be nice for NVidia to have some serious competition at the high end, but I dont think this card is it.

I got my 290x memory to 1620MHz (6480MHz quad pumped) and it didnt do a lot for performance.
fyi
 
Michaelius said:
Good hardware sites have replaced reference radeons with aftermarket 290X clocked at stock setting ages ago.

And as far as drivers - the really good ones are refreshing benchmarks of old cards with new drivers when new review is being done.

Mind you I said good sites so I'm not implying AT did it :D
Click to expand...

Not really. Sites have been reusing the benches for years. This is TPU's latest 980 ti review.
fannoise_load.gif
 
Nenu said:
Even [H] re-use noise tests.
Click to expand...

We don't do dB testing of cards, thus, it's not possible to reuse it. We also do not reuse data from review to review given things will change with game patches and driver revisions.

That being said, I just finished a 290 card review that should be published at some point soon that should provide a nice update to its performance with today's games.
 
Got to work on my brother's truck. Can someone post what is happening on the livestreams?
 
David_Schroth said:
We don't do dB testing of cards, thus, it's not possible to reuse it. We also do not reuse data from review to review given things will change with game patches and driver revisions.

That being said, I just finished a 290 card review that should be published at some point soon that should provide a nice update to its performance with today's games.
Click to expand...

My bad, it must have been a temperature result that was re-used.
It was a few months ago I queried a result and was told a figure was from previous testing.
Cant for the life of me remember what though.

edit:
Its coming back to me a bit...
There were temperature results for cards that werent tested in the particular review.
I asked if it was accidental that a cards other results werent included and was informed the temp result was from a previous test.
 
Last edited:
jamesgalb said:
I think people are going to be very surprised by the benchmarks on the 390/x and the 380.

Drivers: Once review sites stop using old 290x benchmarks taken in 2014, Hawaii will see a bump in performance on 'the charts' just from AMD driver improvements since Maxwell. Its been ugly watching review sites copy/paste old benchmarks because they cant be bothered to re-sample the cards they compare Maxwell to...

...

Just sayin ;)
Click to expand...
All this talk about drivers makes one think back to the ATi Radeon HD 2900 XT debacle.

Good times.
 
David_Schroth said:
We don't do dB testing of cards, thus, it's not possible to reuse it. We also do not reuse data from review to review given things will change with game patches and driver revisions.

That being said, I just finished a 290 card review that should be published at some point soon that should provide a nice update to its performance with today's games.
Click to expand...

We should get our answer on the 390/x benchmarks soon.... But when is this 290 review being published? Did recent 290/x performance significantly beat out old driver/reference 290 charts from before?
 
jamesgalb said:
We should get our answer on the 390/x benchmarks soon.... But when is this 290 review being published? Did recent 290/x performance significantly beat out old driver/reference 290 charts from before?
Click to expand...

I only write the reviews, not schedule them. So that's up to the boss around here as to when you'll see it. We typically do not do driver vs driver testing in our card reviews, but use current drivers and game patches to evaluate the best gameplay experience. So, if you see the best gameplay settings drift up over the years a card is out, that's an indication that the driver is improving.

Grady did a 290X card review that was published recently that should have the updated data in it that you're looking for.

At this point, the R9 290/290X is more of a value play against the GTX 9xx series with how things are getting positioned...
 
AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-3DMark-11.png


AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-3DMark-Firestrike.png


Interesting 290x to 390x bump... ;) Closer to 980 than 290x?

We will see some real stuff soon.
 
Last edited:
How legit is that? Looks like Fury has the same specs as Fury X, which is just higher clocked (?).
 
seanclayton said:
How legit is that? Looks like Fury has the same specs as Fury X, which is just higher clocked (?).
Click to expand...

From what I have seen, the "Fury" is the "Fiji Pro"...

Fury X: 4096 stream process, 64 ROPs, clock speeds of 1050+ MHz core

Fury: 3584 stream process, 56 ROPs, clock speeds of 1000 MHz core

Similar to Titan X vs 980ti. Would explain the Fury-FuryX performance difference.

Still waiting to see the 390/x and 380 reviews :D

Drivers + ram + higher clocks + non-2014-benchmarks = r9 beats GTX on Price-per-performance
 
First review in!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,21.html

On average, 5-10% faster than a 290x...

Right on par with a 980, losing at some, winning at others, but neck and neck most of the time... All at ~$100 less, and a more future-proof SLI/crossfire benefiting 8GB or ram.

Market has no place for a $400 980-like performer! right?! :p

(Special Note: Games not tested in SLI/crossfire, so the true 8GB benefits arent even explored yet)

(Special Note #2: The real boost is still yet to come, when DX12/Vulkan uses the 290/390s larger compute unit sized than most GPUs (44 for 290x, 16 for 980, for example)
 
Rather than spend $430-$450 on a massively OC'd Hawaii core, I'd rather just spring for the 980. Which I assume will pay for itself in overclocking.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Rather than spend $430-$450 on a massively OC'd Hawaii core, I'd rather just spring for the 980. Which I assume will pay for itself in overclocking.
Click to expand...

They are saying the MSI model will be $399 ?

Ill have to go look at the gains on the 980 from overclocking and compare them to the 390xs...

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,26.html

That said, if I were being a $400+ GPU I would want something I could add another to later... I think the 980s 4gb of ddr5 will be limiting for anything that would need SLI/crossfire beef.
 
jamesgalb said:
First review in!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,21.html

On average, 5-10% faster than a 290x...

Right on par with a 980, losing at some, winning at others, but neck and neck most of the time... All at ~$100 less, and a more future-proof SLI/crossfire benefiting 8GB or ram.

Market has no place for a $400 980-like performer! right?! :p

(Special Note: Games not tested in SLI/crossfire, so the true 8GB benefits arent even explored yet)

(Special Note #2: The real boost is still yet to come, when DX12/Vulkan uses the 290/390s larger compute unit sized than most GPUs (44 for 290x, 16 for 980, for example)
Click to expand...

It needs comparing with a similarly overclocked 980 to be fair.
Its running 10% faster core and 20% faster memory than the stock 290x.
It looks like the faster memory doesnt do much, I would have expected higher than 10% performance over the 290x overall.

CF is of limited use because it lacks HDMI 2.0.
Sad because CF of these would probably have been the best value large screen 4K experience, they are a little better than the 8GB 290x when both clocked to max but both have HDMI 1.4.
(putting driver issues aside)
Foot shot.

True gameplay results from [H] will give us a clearer picture too.
 
jamesgalb said:
Maximum PC got some interesting benchmarks...

http://www.maximumpc.com/sapphire-amd-tri-x-r9-390x-review/

Looks a fair amount stronger than the 290x, and stronger than the 980 in many cases.
Click to expand...

You have a strange take on things.
Anything to try and make the 390 look better it seems.

Direct quotes from that review
The big problem here is that focusing purely on performance is missing the forest for the trees. Yes, AMD’s 18 month old design can still compete with Nvidia’s newer GTX 980, but even after overclocking, the GTX 980 is still going to use far less power than the stock R9 390X. And just to be clear, the GTX 980 can typically hit 15–20 percent overclocks, which puts it firmly ahead of the R9 390X.
Click to expand...

As for the Tri-X, Sapphire’s inclusion of two 8-pin connectors is probably more than is strictly necessary, and we only managed 120/100MHz overclocks. Even with only a moderate overclock, we had to boost the fan speeds to keep the card stable, which made the Tri-X pretty loud. It behaves a lot better at stock settings, where it’s much quieter than our old R9 290X blowers. In other words, while the sheer power of a muscle car can really sound impressive, when it gets beat regularly by a smaller car with better handling it loses some of its glamor.
Click to expand...

I got a higher overclock with my old 290x + AC Extreme III and it was silent.
390x isnt such good value unless you use 2 of them for 4K on a monitor, not TV.
But even then, 2 well clocked 290x cards might be faster!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top