MSI R9 390X GAMING 8G Video Card Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
MSI R9 390X GAMING 8G Video Card Review - We've got an MSI R9 390X GAMING video card with 8GB of VRAM to put up against a Radeon R9 290X and GeForce GTX 980. Find out what the new AMD Radeon R9 390X is made of, and if the MSI R9 390X GAMING 8G video card can compete with GeForce GTX 980 performance, you might be surprised.
 
Rebrand and double the VRAM, yay....good review though.
 
Hah! Second first poster!

Thanks for the fast [H] review...


Edited to add: I just finished reading the review. Thanks, again. In the apples-to-apples sections, in the games in which the 980 beat the 390, your conclusion (and in the body) states that the 980 "blows it out of the water." I'm sure I'm missing it, but I saw fps of 60 (980) vs 50 (390). That's hardly (IMO) "blowing it out of the water". Again, perhaps I missed something.

Of more interest to me was the IDLE temps. near 50C is quite high for a system at idle.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see it using more power than a 290X. I guess all the talk about the new fab was false.

I also like the Clock-vs-clock section. Shows that the 390X really is just a 290X rebrand using more power.

Fixed - Kyle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you guys think that once the drivers mature a bit this will help the 390x separate itself a little more? Hell the 290x was as fast and sometimes faster than a 970 and came within spitting distance of the 980 when I bought mine about 8 months ago. As drivers matured both the 970 and 980 have run off and left the 290x. My guess is probably not since the only thing that's really different here is the VRAM. Guess there's not much more tweaking they can do.
 
Can I be impressed and still disappointed?
Impressed that a 290X was able to be upgraded such that it could compete with a 980.
Disappointed that it is still a power-hungry beast (likely what was required to match the 980), and that AMD is still a generation behind.

THe lack of competition is driving up prices too, it seams, so here's hoping Fury is inexpensive and a beast, for the sake of all gamers, not just AMD users.
 
MacLeod said:
Do you guys think that once the drivers mature a bit this will help the 390x separate itself a little more?
Click to expand...

The drivers are already "mature" for Hawaii. This is nothing but the same card with a higher clock and more VRAM. Going to perform exactly the same as an R9 290X at the same clock as witnessed by the review.
 
Armenius said:
I also like the Clock-vs-clock section. Shows that the 390X really is just a 290X rebrand using more power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we thought the clock to clock section was very important to you guys....if not the most important thing to verify.
 
To Brent and Kyle:
Genius inclusion of the clock vs clock apples v apples. Much appreciated. This is exactly what I was looking for in a review from this rebranding exercise and tbh I didn't think I would get it anywhere. I will now look for good deals on 290 series cards and snap them up.

Best value cards atm IMO (new or used):
290/290x/970 > 980ti >>> 980 (ie. 390/390x probably irrelevant until 290 stock disappears and don't buy a 980 unless you can't afford a 980ti and don't like the number 970 or AMD)
I'm assuming the Fury will fit in with the 980ti but we will have to wait a bit longer to judge that.
Cheers.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Only thing missing is the power consumption at the same clocks. I'm assuming the ones for the 390x are at full speed and not the 1000mhz as used in the clock to clock comparison.
Click to expand...

You would be correct, temps and power were taken at stock clocks. Honestly, I don't really think we need to show watts clock-to-clock after very much testing performance. We showed you what we think is important. At some point, we have to stop and try to get the damn review written.
 
Modred189 said:
Can I be impressed and still disappointed?
Impressed that a 290X was able to be upgraded such that it could compete with a 980.
Disappointed that it is still a power-hungry beast (likely what was required to match the 980), and that AMD is still a generation behind.

THe lack of competition is driving up prices too, it seams, so here's hoping Fury is inexpensive and a beast, for the sake of all gamers, not just AMD users.
Click to expand...
Did you read the same review I did? The 390X had to turn settings down in most of the games compared to the 980 to get framerates within 5-10% at 1440p.

I can already feel the usual shitstorm coming down on [H] when their reviews differ from everyone else. Most other sites I have read shows the 390X sometimes as much as 15% faster than the GTX 980. Makes me excited for the Fury X review saga coming next week :D.
 
I've seen reviews of other brands 390X and they show much smaller power consumption increase. It's possible that MSI had to increase voltage badly to reach 1100 core reliably.
 
Armenius said:
Did you read the same review I did? The 390X had to turn settings down in most of the games compared to the 980 to get framerates within 5-10% at 1440p.

I can already feel the usual shitstorm coming down on [H] when their reviews differ from everyone else. Most other sites I have read shows the 390X sometimes as much as 15% faster than the GTX 980. Makes me excited for the Fury X review saga coming next week :D.
Click to expand...

Did YOU read the same review I did? [H] used 5 games in their 390X review: Witcher 3, GTA 5, Dying Light, Far Cry 4, and Battlefield 4. This is the comparison of game settings between the 390X and 980 from what I read:

Witcher 3 - same settings for both cards
GTA 5 - 390X had higher grass setting, 980 had higher shadow setting, and enabled Advanced settings
Dying Light - same settings for both cards
Far Cry 4 - 390X used higher settings(better AO and fur)
Battlefield 4 - same settings for both cards

So please explain to me with specifics how the 390X had to turn DOWN settings in "most" games, when 3 of the 5 used identical settings, and in 1 of the 5 the 390X was the one with higher settings.
 
I'm surprised that AMD was able to get this close to the 980 with just a refresh. After it was confirmed not to have Tonga features, I thought it was just another footnote in history. Pretty impressive to be able to boost the speed like that as the R9 200 series wasn't the greatest of overclockers. I can't wait to see the overclocking potential.

Awesome article as always. Thx for the review!
 
@Dewbak75. Well it is $70 cheaper so if it is slightly slower some of the time it doesn't really matter. For all intensive purposes for playing games you won't be able to tell the difference in the cards unless it is GTA V. Seems that the 980 had some extra secret sauce for that title.
 
Kyle,

Do you think it would be a better deal to just pick up a 290x over the 390x because of the pricing? I know the 290x has half the VRAM but most games do not use over 4GB. Curious on your thoughts.
 
cageymaru said:
I'm surprised that AMD was able to get this close to the 980 with just a refresh. After it was confirmed not to have Tonga features, I thought it was just another footnote in history. Pretty impressive to be able to boost the speed like that as the R9 200 series wasn't the greatest of overclockers. I can't wait to see the overclocking potential.

Awesome article as always. Thx for the review!
Click to expand...

That was actually the biggest thing that surprised me about this product line. I would've thought a better choice would've been to go for a beefier Tonga-based chip instead of the same one used in the 290/290x. If Tonga's architectural improvements could be married with the stronger specs of Hawaii, that would've made for a VERY interesting card. Of course, it sounds like Fiji is precisely that, and then some. :)
 
zerodamage said:
Kyle,

Do you think it would be a better deal to just pick up a 290x over the 390x because of the pricing? I know the 290x has half the VRAM but most games do not use over 4GB. Curious on your thoughts.
Click to expand...

The review mentions that even though the 390x has twice the VRAM, it simply doesn't have the horsepower to push settings to the point where you would even break the 4GB envelope, let alone 8GB.
 
cageymaru said:
@Dewbak75. Well it is $70 cheaper so if it is slightly slower some of the time it doesn't really matter. For all intensive purposes for playing games you won't be able to tell the difference in the cards unless it is GTA V. Seems that the 980 had some extra secret sauce for that title.
Click to expand...

And also consider that Nvidia may have dropped the "official" price, but that doesn't mean you'll actually be able to find any at that price. I'm also going to be very interested in seeing how the 390 stacks up against the 970, since they appear to be going after the exact same price point. I'm also hoping at some point [H] will so some Crossfire/SLI testing to see how the 390X and 980 compare, and whether the 8GB really does get put to good use at high resolutions like 4K.
 
Great review.
Kyle, would it be possible to use settings that are playable for at least one of the cards, in all the apples-to-apples tests?
 
Last edited:
It's a complete mystery why AMD claimed this card was good for 4K. Like all single card solutions, it's just nowhere near good enough.

But then to recommend crossfire as the solution.. All I can say is been there, tried that, and it sucked. 280X crossfire resulted in flashing textures in bf4 (1440p) which was crazy annoying. I will never go crossfire again.
 
zerodamage said:
Kyle,

Do you think it would be a better deal to just pick up a 290x over the 390x because of the pricing? I know the 290x has half the VRAM but most games do not use over 4GB. Curious on your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Depends....and we do not have the data on CrossFire yet....but if you are going to run single card at 1440p or lower, considering the massive price delta the 290X still looks like a good value especially if you grab one that is cooled well to OC. Lots of custom card options out there with great coolers now for "cheap."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cription=290x&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=60
 
maboblivion said:
You guyz have any plans to test Windows10 when it comes out Brent ? or w7 for life ?
Click to expand...

W7 for life? When was the last time you read a Test Setup page? We moved to W8 for DX11. When we have reason to move for DX12, we will do that. We have not been testing on outdated DX for years as you seem to think.
 
Jeffredo said:
The drivers are already "mature" for Hawaii. This is nothing but the same card with a higher clock and more VRAM. Going to perform exactly the same as an R9 290X at the same clock as witnessed by the review.
Click to expand...

At launch the Radeon 7970 barely competed with the GTX670, by the time the R9-280x came out, the driver improvements with the faster core and ram speeds helped it compete with the GTX770, itself an overclocked GTX680, and at times keep up with the GTX780.

Today we have a situation where the R9-290x just barely competed with the GTX970, maybe driver improvements and the faster core and memory clocks will similarly see the 2 year old Hawaii-Core keep up with the GTX980 and come close to the GTX980Ti.

Still, I can't help but shake the feeling that instead of using the money to make a cut-down Fiji as the 390x (Like they cut down Cypress to make Juniper and Cayman to Make Barts, and Tahitti to make Pitcairin), AMD spent that money on marketing and that PCGamer show at E3, and those "Fixer" videos.
 
great review, as others have said i appreciate the clock vs clock comparison. to me giving it a silver award is a bit of a stretch. it seems like an OK value compared to the 980, and a terrible value compared to the 290X. since the 290X is soon to be EOL i suppose it's a moot point but today here and now i personally don't think it warrants the silver award.

Thanks for the review Brent and Kyle.
 
Rauelius said:
At launch the Radeon 7970 barely competed with the GTX670, by the time the R9-280x came out, the driver improvements with the faster core and ram speeds helped it compete with the GTX770, itself an overclocked GTX680, and at times keep up with the GTX780.

Today we have a situation where the R9-290x just barely competed with the GTX970, maybe driver improvements and the faster core and memory clocks will similarly see the 2 year old Hawaii-Core keep up with the GTX980 and come close to the GTX980Ti.

Still, I can't help but shake the feeling that instead of using the money to make a cut-down Fiji as the 390x (Like they cut down Cypress to make Juniper and Cayman to Make Barts, and Tahitti to make Pitcairin), AMD spent that money on marketing and that PCGamer show at E3, and those "Fixer" videos.
Click to expand...

and then will happen the same as the 280X.. once launched.. no more driver improvement, no new driver features, nothing.. in the meantime nvidia drivers will improve performance with each launch.. (yes, until their next gen of cards..)
 
Porter_ said:
great review, as others have said i appreciate the clock vs clock comparison. to me giving it a silver award is a bit of a stretch. it seems like an OK value compared to the 980, and a terrible value compared to the 290X. since the 290X is soon to be EOL i suppose it's a moot point but today here and now i personally don't think it warrants the silver award.

Thanks for the review Brent and Kyle.
Click to expand...

It is one of those on-the-fence for sure. But the award is towards what MSI did with the card, not what AMD did with GPU. MSI built a great product, with a rebrand GPU. I think MSI has earned some kudos for this.

But anyway, this is why we share all the data, then you can surely make your own call. If we wanted you to take our opinion as gospel, we would not share the data, and just give you a one page subjective opinion "review." At the end of the day we do not expect everyone to have the same exact opinion as us. Even to think that might ever happen would be foolish.
 
not sure if I missed it but would have liked to have seen OC #s

unless they have the most golden of chips, 1 reviewer says they OCed to 1.2Ghz core with their R9 390X. with R9 290X, 1.2Ghz overclocks is left to users who don't mind having nuclear reactors in their PC and quickly decreasing the lifespan of their VRMs.
 
I am really on the fence, seems like they really squeezed some horse power out of the 200 series, but touting 4k like that? I'm not sure how they are going to keep that up.
Has anyone tried flashing bios on 290x 8gb to a 390x yet?
Great review by the way, looking forward to your Fury review.
 
dewbak75 said:
Did YOU read the same review I did? [H] used 5 games in their 390X review: Witcher 3, GTA 5, Dying Light, Far Cry 4, and Battlefield 4. This is the comparison of game settings between the 390X and 980 from what I read:

Witcher 3 - same settings for both cards
GTA 5 - 390X had higher grass setting, 980 had higher shadow setting, and enabled Advanced settings
Dying Light - same settings for both cards
Far Cry 4 - 390X used higher settings(better AO and fur)
Battlefield 4 - same settings for both cards

So please explain to me with specifics how the 390X had to turn DOWN settings in "most" games, when 3 of the 5 used identical settings, and in 1 of the 5 the 390X was the one with higher settings.
Click to expand...
Rekt ;).
 
I know you guys are overworked and looking for a GPU editor, so allow me to do some proof reading.

I would recommend doing a "search and replace" and replacing every instance of the word Radon, with the word Radeon.

Unless it contains a hazardous radioactive gas :p

Hehe, all fixed. I think we had a little "auto-correct" sneaking in there. Thanks for the heads up. - Kyle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great review as always!

I'm a shameless nGreedia fanboi and reading this article I hope Fury X will beat the crap out of 980Ti/TitanX, thus drive down those MSRPs. Prices are way up at the best, and only competition can take care of that. Win/win for team green/red/agnostic! :D
 
cageymaru said:
For all intensive purposes
Click to expand...

For the sake of huge manatee, it is for all intents and purposes. :p

As for the review, all I saw on the 390x was mediocrity; as indicated a rebadge. Did the card deserve an award...yeah, but sliver was too high IMO.
 
Great review as always guys. Its pretty much what I thought it would be. I feel like Porter does. Its nice that it compares so well to a 980 but when comparing it to the 290x the price doesn't really make sense. I'm sure the xfire reviews will put it in a better light but like Mordred said I feel disappointed and impressed at the same time. I think that is going to be how a lot of us feel.

Once again great review and I can't wait for the Fury reviews. I have feeling the nano is gonna be the price/performance card to get.
 
Rebrand and not a refresh......very sad to hear it.

I guess Fiji is the only Video card to look forward too. Specially that Nano!
 
dewbak75 said:
Did YOU read the same review I did? [H] used 5 games in their 390X review: Witcher 3, GTA 5, Dying Light, Far Cry 4, and Battlefield 4. This is the comparison of game settings between the 390X and 980 from what I read:

Witcher 3 - same settings for both cards
GTA 5 - 390X had higher grass setting, 980 had higher shadow setting, and enabled Advanced settings
Dying Light - same settings for both cards
Far Cry 4 - 390X used higher settings(better AO and fur)
Battlefield 4 - same settings for both cards

So please explain to me with specifics how the 390X had to turn DOWN settings in "most" games, when 3 of the 5 used identical settings, and in 1 of the 5 the 390X was the one with higher settings.
Click to expand...

Playable settings are very important, I agree.

At the same time in 100% of the titles, from an Apples-to-Apples perspective, the GTX980 beat the 390x in both average and minimum fps.

Based on that, I would consider it more accurate to say that the 390x performs very close to, but slightly behind a 980.
 
Trepidati0n said:
For the sake of huge manatee, it is for all intents and purposes. :p

As for the review, all I saw on the 390x was mediocrity; as indicated a rebadge. Did the card deserve an award...yeah, but sliver was too high IMO.
Click to expand...

I was talking on Skype to a group of 4 people when I typed that. :)
 
Good job once again.

The fact that you made a review of a rebranded GPU interesting is pretty amazing.

What I don't understand, is why AMD would base the 390X on the 290X instead of the 285.

Would have been nice to get the performance of the 290X with the features of the 285, like PLP support.
 
Im disappointed, can't understand why AMD didn't use a cut down version of the Fury GPU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top