390X coming soon few weeks

Rizen said:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that, for most of the 4K TV market, HDMI 2.0 is your only option. Since Fiji doesn't support DP 1.3 anyways, the superiority of DisplayPort - which I'm not denying, I'm using DP now for my 144hz 2560 monitor - is mostly irrelevant.

I don't believe DisplayPort 1.3 is finalized yet, though I may be wrong, but there's nothing that supports it yet so HDMI 2.0 is the only option.
Click to expand...

You should go peak your head in @ the thread in the main video card forum about no DVI and only HDMI 1.4. Its pretty hilarious that people are defending AMD about only giving 1.4 as they also provide displayport.
 
One of the leaked slides about Fury says "Content under embargo until June 18 8AM ET", so... maybe it's then.
 
Yeah, I read that. My second PC has a 2560 Korean monitor that only has DVI. I think not including a DVI port is a mistake. Yes, you can get an adapter, but active adapters are $100+ and they tend to come with a lot of issues. Not worth it.
 
doz said:
You should go peak your head in @ the thread in the main video card forum about no DVI and only HDMI 1.4. Its pretty hilarious that people are defending AMD about only giving 1.4 as they also provide displayport.
Click to expand...

LOL 1 post from 1 guy on overclockers UK and the internet goes nuts.AMDMatt got the power.

So AMD promoting 4k gaming,the engineers said the hell with people who want to run HTPC/small form factor you no play 4k@60Hz with AMD cards.
Sounds a bit out there to me,but then again I am not interest in 4K native resolution.
Can always downsample 4k on TV.
 
So explain to me what your point is? Clearly you should understand that when an AMD employee posts about that, the internet will take them at their word.

Hopefully he is wrong. I agree it would be silly for them to not include HDMI 2.0. But we shall see.
 
Rizen said:
So explain to me what your point is? Clearly you should understand that when an AMD employee posts about that, the internet will take them at their word.

Hopefully he is wrong. I agree it would be silly for them to not include HDMI 2.0. But we shall see.
Click to expand...

Hope it was just miss communication between AMDMatt and someone at AMD.

AMD making smaller video cards, promoting 4k everything with these smaller form factors.Expecting people to put these in HTPC ETC.
Then they just forgot about anyone wanting to play 4k Native resolution on TV's.
It just not make any sense at all to me that's all.

EDIT:EDIT:I understand no DVI,but board partners will take care of that.
 
Last edited:
gerardfraser said:
R9 390x/390/380/370/360 Reviews.
R9 390x =980 for less nice.May pick one up for fun.
Click to expand...

gerardfraser said:
No links just saying,hell 290x is as fast in a few games.Why not 390X
Click to expand...

You do realize it also = 290x for much more (40%+ more) money?

Other than extreme AMD bias I don't see why anyone is excited with AMDs new line at all aside from Fiji cards (tbd).
 
tybert7 said:
I apologize for leaving out joker tears. Will you forgive me? And you may be right, we'll see how the 4GB HBM card handles those games that say they need 6GB or more vram.
Click to expand...

I did feel left out that you didn't mention my tears but I feel better now.
 
limitedaccess said:
You do realize it also = 290x for much more (40%+ more) money?

Other than extreme AMD bias I don't see why anyone is excited with AMDs new line at all aside from Fiji cards (tbd).
Click to expand...

More than the price blow-out sales going on with old models? No way! you dont say?!

You do realize the 390x is priced below both the 290x and 290x8gb original starting prices right? STARTING below where they started, and will likely be below current prices pretty quickly...

Yeah... keep gettin upset about blowout 290/x prices by bashing the 390/x. Damn you AMD for lowering those 290/x prices to insane price points!
 
The prices have been in effect for 6months+.

Also the reasoning behind the prices is irrelevant. That is the reality of what consumers currently pay, and have been paying, for the 290x. Why should they be excited at the prospect of paying more?

We aren't AMD stakeholders who care that AMD gets to make higher margins.
 
I want add this isn't an AMD vs Nvidia issue either before people once again start comparing especially against the GTX 980 (which isn't exactly well priced even with that $50 cut).

Presumably if you feel the 390x offers better value, guess what AMD has offered (and will be until supplies last) other products with an even better value propitiation! So even if you have a preference or bias product wise towards AMD you have a better choice from AMD themselves.

So I don't see why a consumer, like the one I quoted above, should be excited buy the 390x. He has an alternative better offer from the same company which has been available for quite awhile now. Well other than you want to help champion AMDs bottom line.
 
No, the current prices havent been in effect for 6 months. AMD had an initial price drop after 970/980, but the recent fire sale prices have only been going for the last 2 months... At the end of the day, the new products are starting below where the old products started.

As a consumer, people now have the choice of a 290x 4GB at cheap or a 390x 8GB for a little more...

As a consumer, what is there to complain about that?

Your gripe is over perceived value of something you have no interest in? As opposed to actual value compared to the market? Really? Thats your gripe? How you perceive a value you have no interest in?

EDIT: You beat me to the punch... The 290x, being a 'closeout' product does indeed offer a better value for the value seeker, as 'closeout' products tend to always offer over their more modern counterpart, no matter the changes...

Ultimately... to complain about the 390x's value (which is solid) because AMD offers and even better value from a closeout product, is really going out of your way to complain.
 
limitedaccess said:
The prices have been in effect for 6months+.

Also the reasoning behind the prices is irrelevant. That is the reality of what consumers currently pay, and have been paying, for the 290x. Why should they be excited at the prospect of paying more?

We aren't AMD stakeholders who care that AMD gets to make higher margins.
Click to expand...

I'm going to bite at Newegg's 4th of July sale fuck it, hopefully by then people aren't smart enough to fall for it lol.
 
jamesgalb said:
No, the current prices havent been in effect for 6 months. AMD had an initial price drop after 970/980, but the recent fire sale prices have only been going for the last 2 months... At the end of the day, the new products are starting below where the old products started.

As a consumer, people now have the choice of a 290x 4GB at cheap or a 390x 8GB for a little more...

As a consumer, what is there to complain about that?

Your gripe is over perceived value of something you have no interest in? As opposed to actual value compared to the market? Really? Thats your gripe? How you perceive a value you have no interest in?

EDIT: You beat me to the punch... The 290x, being a 'closeout' product does indeed offer a better value for the value seeker, as 'closeout' products tend to always offer over their more modern counterpart, no matter the changes...

Ultimately... to complain about the 390x's value (which is solid) because AMD offers and even better value from a closeout product, is really going out of your way to complain.
Click to expand...

The $300 effective street price for the R9 290x has been at roughly $300 for over 6 months plus now (with a better bundle before Christmas as well). The actual current clearence prices are even lower than that.

A "little more" is rather stretching the term don't you think when the MSRP (referring to reference models, so the actual customs would be likely higher) is $430. Yes only a little more indeed. Might as well just spend a little more for the Fury, or just a little more for the Fury X.

Which goes to another issue. Fury only needs a 28% performance advantage to be a linear performance/price increase. This is a product with much newer technology, likely more expansive feature set, and corresponding appeal. Unless Fury comes in well under expectations performance wise it will be a much better deal than 390x. Not mention whatever Fury Nano brings later this summer.

Sorry I find it very hard to believe someone really supports the 390x as being a good value other than wanting to help prop AMDs margins.

Edit:

Also you are missing the other part of this. People should be looking forward to new product launches. You tell anyone 6 months ago that this what the 390x would be, which consumers would have been excited and looking forward to buying it instead of the products offered at the time?
 
limitedaccess said:
Also the reasoning behind the prices is irrelevant. That is the reality of what consumers currently pay, and have been paying, for the 290x. Why should they be excited at the prospect of paying more?
Click to expand...
I dunno, go ask Nvidia fans. They've been excited at the prospect of paying more for their video cards for years now.
 
oc3d liked it. guru3d not impressed

so to summarize: "Grenada" is simply higher binned Hawaii chips that clock slightly higher. lol what a joke.

no gcn 1.2 either
 
I like the work done on 390x. We all know it is the same Hawaii. yet it was 8% (approx) faster than 290x and consumed 10% less power..
 
Props to MSI, their 390X gaming is a beast, and it's selling for MSRP.
Hope we get some closer looks at the new tri-x.
 
Reality said:
oc3d liked it. guru3d not impressed

so to summarize: "Grenada" is simply higher binned Hawaii chips that clock slightly higher. lol what a joke.

no gcn 1.2 either
Click to expand...

That joke as funny as the 980 joke while costing 100 bucks less.
 
supeg said:
No it is not, not even close. A 290x is about the same as a 970, a 780ti beats it.

Nvidia has 6 cards that beat a 290x. 780ti, Titan Black, 970,980,980ti and Titan X
Click to expand...

Well I owned all the cards in your list(Except 980ti).I know the truth.

Anyway in Canada you can buy a
R9 390x 8GB for 100-200 dollars less than 980 GTX 4GB for equal performance .I say that is a very good deal.
 
gerardfraser said:
R9 390x/390/380/370/360 Reviews.
R9 390x =980 for less nice.May pick one up for fun.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The 390x is like a 290x 8GB OC model. Essentially higher binned parts and more ram, but otherwise exactly like a 290x.

You can cherry pick some benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but for every one of those, there is another benchmark in which the 980 blows away the 290x.

Every single GPU out there performs better in some titles and worse in others, that is why looking at single title benchmarks is not a very holistic way to evaluate which GPU is "better".

In general there is no "best" gpu for all cases. There might be a best GPU for a given title at a given resolution, but that's about as good as we are going to get in declaring dominance.

For review purposes it makes sense to take the holistic approach, round up all the benchmarks, and crown a winner based on which card comes ontop the most. When it comes to a 290x vs 980 comparison, this is the 980. Out of 10, you might find 2 benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but in the remaining 8 the 980 performs much better than the 290x.

What really makes more sense though - rather than trying to pick the "best" overall GPU, is pick the one that best meets your needs, at your budget, depending on which titles you play. Very few of us play ALL titles on the market.

For me, my titles tend to be:
- Civilization 5
- Red Orchestra 2

I have several hundred hours in each since launch in 2010 and 2011 respectively, and they continue to be the games that interest me the most, so when I go GPU hunting, I am most interested in products that perform well in these titles (unfortunately, they aren't that widely benchmarked in reviews anymore).

Civilization 5, I am not worried about. It is an older title now, and being a turn based strategy game, it is very playable even at what would be considered terrible frame rates for anything else.

Red Orchestra 2 is more complicated. It is an older as well, using the Unreal 3 engine, but unlike most FPS titles its maps are vast outdoor maps with very long lines of sight, and lots of semi-realistic bullet physics (bullet drop, leading targets at a distance, etc. etc.) s such it is much harder on the GPU and CPU than one would expect a 2011 UE3 title to be.

I had been expecting to use a Fury X with a 4k Samsung TV as a monitor, but this requires HDMI 2.0 for 4:4:4 chroma, and it has been semi-confirmed that Fury will be 1.4a, so I went with a 980 ti instead (which makes me sad, I want to support the under-dog)

I am uncertain if a single 980 ti will be sufficient for RO2 at 4k without turning down quality too much. I hate SLI/Crossfire, but depending on my experience when I get everything, I may need to order another :(
 
Zarathustra[H];1041674145 said:
Nope.

The 390x is like a 290x 8GB OC model. Essentially higher binned parts and more ram, but otherwise exactly like a 290x.

You can cherry pick some benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but for every one of those, there is another benchmark in which the 980 blows away the 290x.

Every single GPU out there performs better in some titles and worse in others, that is why looking at single title benchmarks is not a very holistic way to evaluate which GPU is "better".

In general there is no "best" gpu for all cases. There might be a best GPU for a given title at a given resolution, but that's about as good as we are going to get in declaring dominance.

For review purposes it makes sense to take the holistic approach, round up all the benchmarks, and crown a winner based on which card comes ontop the most. When it comes to a 290x vs 980 comparison, this is the 980. Out of 10, you might find 2 benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but in the remaining 8 the 980 performs much better than the 290x.
(
Click to expand...

Yeah but forgetting old reviews of a different card (290x.) Have a look at the benchmarks in the current reviews of the 390x, you might be a little bit surprised. I was. Not saying the 390x is outright faster over all (it's not.) But it is genuinely a close contest and not a case of "equal in some but losing in most" as you suggested. The 390x takes some titles, equals in others then loses out by a pretty small margin in some. This is going off reviews using a holistic approach, and better yet a number of different reviews using such an approach.

Of course neither of the sites I value most has posted a review yet so I'm not buying into what I read quite yet. I also imagine the 980 will keep it's superior o/c headroom along with some of the other non fps related advantages it has.
 
looks like the 390x OC headroom and gains from OCing are a little closer to the 980 than the 290x as well...

Slightly smaller OC headroom, but similar gains to the 980 at the slightly smaller OC... Much better than the 290x, which had a more limited OC and negligible gains from it.
 
[H] review out now. 390x slower than 980 by a bit. More importantly, buy a 290x over either card at current prices. Clock vs clock it performs the same as a 390x (to be expected, but now confirmed.) Small amount of extra O/C headroom probably on the 390x but not worth ~30% extra coin.
 
as soon as stock dries up on the 290/x, they will go back up to MSRP and wont be a good value any more.
 
Kaori said:
tfw this forum thread has 328 pages to talk about a rebranded 290x..
Click to expand...

To be fair, when this thread started, everyone was expecting the Fury X to be named the 390x, so most of these 300+ pages are discussions about the Fury X, it's AIO cooler and HBM.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041674145 said:
Nope.

The 390x is like a 290x 8GB OC model. Essentially higher binned parts and more ram, but otherwise exactly like a 290x.

You can cherry pick some benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but for every one of those, there is another benchmark in which the 980 blows away the 290x.

Every single GPU out there performs better in some titles and worse in others, that is why looking at single title benchmarks is not a very holistic way to evaluate which GPU is "better".

In general there is no "best" gpu for all cases. There might be a best GPU for a given title at a given resolution, but that's about as good as we are going to get in declaring dominance.

For review purposes it makes sense to take the holistic approach, round up all the benchmarks, and crown a winner based on which card comes ontop the most. When it comes to a 290x vs 980 comparison, this is the 980. Out of 10, you might find 2 benchmarks in which the 290x ties the 980, but in the remaining 8 the 980 performs much better than the 290x.

What really makes more sense though - rather than trying to pick the "best" overall GPU, is pick the one that best meets your needs, at your budget, depending on which titles you play. Very few of us play ALL titles on the market.

For me, my titles tend to be:
- Civilization 5
- Red Orchestra 2

I have several hundred hours in each since launch in 2010 and 2011 respectively, and they continue to be the games that interest me the most, so when I go GPU hunting, I am most interested in products that perform well in these titles (unfortunately, they aren't that widely benchmarked in reviews anymore).

Civilization 5, I am not worried about. It is an older title now, and being a turn based strategy game, it is very playable even at what would be considered terrible frame rates for anything else.

Red Orchestra 2 is more complicated. It is an older as well, using the Unreal 3 engine, but unlike most FPS titles its maps are vast outdoor maps with very long lines of sight, and lots of semi-realistic bullet physics (bullet drop, leading targets at a distance, etc. etc.) s such it is much harder on the GPU and CPU than one would expect a 2011 UE3 title to be.

I had been expecting to use a Fury X with a 4k Samsung TV as a monitor, but this requires HDMI 2.0 for 4:4:4 chroma, and it has been semi-confirmed that Fury will be 1.4a, so I went with a 980 ti instead (which makes me sad, I want to support the under-dog)

I am uncertain if a single 980 ti will be sufficient for RO2 at 4k without turning down quality too much. I hate SLI/Crossfire, but depending on my experience when I get everything, I may need to order another :(
Click to expand...

That is a lot of writing trying to prove something.

This still stands for me.Price check I just did.I would pick 390X 8GB over any card list here..
Especially over the Nvidia equivalent

SAPPHIRE 8GB 290X 8GB-549 Canadian
XFX 290X 8GB-529 Canadian
MSI 390X 8GB Gaming-529 Canadian
MSI 980 GTX 4GB Gaming-679 Canadian


R9 390x 8GB for 100-200 dollars less than 980 GTX 4GB for equal performance .I say that is a very good deal.
Click to expand...

I am in no way interested in R9 390x.I am going Fury X all the way.
I still may pick up a 390x for fun
 
gerardfraser said:
That is a lot of writing trying to prove something.

This still stands for me.Price check I just did.I would pick 390X 8GB over any card list here..
Especially over the Nvidia equivalent

SAPPHIRE 8GB 290X 8GB-549 Canadian
XFX 290X 8GB-529 Canadian
MSI 390X 8GB Gaming-529 Canadian
MSI 980 GTX 4GB Gaming-679 Canadian
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that the performance isn't equal.

It's closer than I thought it would be, but its still not equal. It still sits between a 970 and a 980, just like the 290x
 
Well I like the price also on the AMD Fury X.Water cooled card for the same price of a reference 980 Ti.They will be equal also and a much better deal than a hybird 980 Ti or a Titan X.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041674598 said:
To be fair, when this thread started, everyone was expecting the Fury X to be named the 390x, so most of these 300+ pages are discussions about the Fury X, it's AIO cooler and HBM.
Click to expand...

And hot dogs. Don't forget the hot dogs!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top