MSI Radeon R9 390X GAMING 8G Overclocking Review @ [H]

I would hope it would be able to deliver competitive performance (for AMD) with out needing to be plugged directly into the wall :p I'm used to their products drawing a bit more power but that seems ridiculous.

I like that AMD is pushing some new stuff but they need to do more to entice the buyers back. For now I'll keep my current card and see what next year brings, if its like this year I'll go back to NVidia.

Great review, thanks!
 
CPO_Sharky said:
Here is yet another poster that loses credibility with over-the-top rhetoric, just like the other guy that claims the Fury X is a huge disappointment. I just don't get it, dozens of great reviews out there and not a single one even remotely suggests the Fury X is a huge disappointment that doesn't really perform.

Moving on, the best bang-for-the-buck for 1440p seems to be with the R9 390, or a 290x. If the 970 were cheaper and didn't suffer the future-limiting vram fiasco, it would probably be the best bet.
Click to expand...

My comment informed by several reviews indicating that it doesn't outperform the competition at the same price point, and personal experience with AMD's previous generation flagship (290X CF) is "over the top rhetoric"? Please. If anyone in this thread lost any credibility, its you. With Fury X's transistor budget (8.9B vs 980 Ti's 8B) and a brand new memory technology, is it really a stretch to call the fact that it can only just compete a big disappointment? I'm happy you can be satisfied so easily, but I was really hoping for more.
 
Activate: AMD said:
My comment informed by several reviews indicating that it doesn't outperform the competition at the same price point, and personal experience with AMD's previous generation flagship (290X CF) is "over the top rhetoric"? Please. If anyone in this thread lost any credibility, its you. With Fury X's transistor budget (8.9B vs 980 Ti's 8B) and a brand new memory technology, is it really a stretch to call the fact that it can only just compete a big disappointment? I'm happy you can be satisfied so easily, but I was really hoping for more.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. Each person has what they believe as criteria for what is is or does does. In the case of the fury, whether it is satisfactory or disappointing. Or here with the 300 series, whether rebranding has merit.

Me? I am of the mindset of looking at positives, don't much care for negativity, or condescendence rather. It's why I don't watch reality shows, the epitome of the ugly side of human nature.

Having your own criteria and context is what makes it your own. Also why so many others will object and debate it. But the problem most have is the word usage and context. For example: Saying the fury is a huge disappointment when put into anothers criteria/context sounds more like it performs at 960 levels. This is what I think the crux of the debate is rather than actual performance.
 
Activate: AMD said:
is it really a stretch to call the fact that it can only just compete a big disappointment?
Click to expand...

Actually, you said it "doesn't really perform," which is ridiculous. Now if you really meant to say it is a disappointment, then sure that would be hard to argue with......:)
 
I mentioned that a couple pages back, its scales way better than the Nvidia offerings do. But the hate is strong for some reason against AMD because they didnt blow Nvidias doors off @1080P. Looks like @ 4K scaling is amazing up to 4 cards, maybe [H] can test this and see if this is indeed true. 4x4GB HBM AMD cards beating out 4x12GB GDDR5 Nvidia cards @ 4K? hmmm

Id love to see some testing to add credence or dispel this, because ive seen this outcome in two places now...
 
psyclist said:
I mentioned that a couple pages back, its scales way better than the Nvidia offerings do. But the hate is strong for some reason against AMD because they didnt blow Nvidias doors off @1080P. Looks like @ 4K scaling is amazing up to 4 cards, maybe [H] can test this and see if this is indeed true. 4x4GB HBM AMD cards beating out 4x12GB GDDR5 Nvidia cards @ 4K? hmmm

Id love to see some testing to add credence or dispel this, because ive seen this outcome in two places now...
Click to expand...

Average framerates don't count much in SLi or crossfire.

Frametimes do! Even if you were getting a 100 fps but there are constant frame drops, you would notice an annoying hissing / stuttering.

If you're not sensitive to micro-stuttering then crossfire and Sli are for you. I for one abandoned my R9 290 TriXs and went with a single 290X last year to get rid of micro stuttering.
 
madgun said:
Average framerates don't count much in SLi or crossfire.

Frametimes do! Even if you were getting a 100 fps but there are constant frame drops, you would notice an annoying hissing / stuttering.

If you're not sensitive to micro-stuttering then crossfire and Sli are for you. I for one abandoned my R9 290 TriXs and went with a single 290X last year to get rid of micro stuttering.
Click to expand...

Dude, that was a Quad Crossfire R9 Fury X vs 4 Way SLI GTX Titan X & 4 Way SLI GTX 980 Ti test.
The Fury X clearly scales better than the other two, no other way to spin it. The playing field was exactly the same, "micro-stuttering" or not.
Do us all a favor and Google 'Baghdad Bob,' because that is exactly who you sound like.
 
CPO_Sharky said:
Dude, that was a Quad Crossfire R9 Fury X vs 4 Way SLI GTX Titan X & 4 Way SLI GTX 980 Ti test.
The Fury X clearly scales better than the other two, no other way to spin it. The playing field was exactly the same, "micro-stuttering" or not.
Do us all a favor and Google 'Baghdad Bob,' because that is exactly who you sound like.
Click to expand...

He is partially right in getting frametime analysis. But you are right as well in regard to the negativity to what looks like usual CF scaling efficiency. It is amazing how well AMD scales with CF.

Actually with AMDs recent innovation with CF, no fingers, I wonder if there is any issue with CF frametimes ( hasn't really had any). I am sure there are other factors like Vram and PCI limitations but assuming those are within tolerances then AMD frametimes should still be pretty on point.
 
durquavian said:
He is partially right in getting frametime analysis. But you are right as well in regard to the negativity to what looks like usual CF scaling efficiency. It is amazing how well AMD scales with CF.

Actually with AMDs recent innovation with CF, no fingers, I wonder if there is any issue with CF frametimes ( hasn't really had any). I am sure there are other factors like Vram and PCI limitations but assuming those are within tolerances then AMD frametimes should still be pretty on point.
Click to expand...

Either the lack of needing an extra connector or something else done to Hawaii really got rid of the frametime issues AMD had with previous cards in crossfire. The scaling got really nice too. Be interesting to see if the same is true for the Fury X. Hopefully AMB or their AIBs can get more cards out to reviewers so they can test crossfire.
 
AMD's scaling improved with Hawaii because previously, the CrossFire bridge had less bandwidth than NVIDIA's SLI bridge, and it became a bottleneck. The XDMA engine used for CrossFire across the PCI-E bus with Hawaii and Fiji has way more bandwidth and that contributed to excellent frame times and scaling.
 
CPO_Sharky said:
Dude, that was a Quad Crossfire R9 Fury X vs 4 Way SLI GTX Titan X & 4 Way SLI GTX 980 Ti test.
The Fury X clearly scales better than the other two, no other way to spin it. The playing field was exactly the same, "micro-stuttering" or not.
Do us all a favor and Google 'Baghdad Bob,' because that is exactly who you sound like.
Click to expand...

Please do me a favor and look at tech report and PCPer's frame time articles. I gave up on my crossfire setup and later in a 970 GTX sli because of micro-stuttering.

Dont go and sound like a 2 year old when you clearly donot know what micro stuttering is.
 
madgun said:
Please do me a favor and look at tech report and PCPer's frame time articles. I gave up on my crossfire setup and later in a 970 GTX sli because of micro-stuttering.

Dont go and sound like a 2 year old when you clearly donot know what micro stuttering is.
Click to expand...
I didn't have any noticeable microstutter on 290X CF, except in a handful of games that had poor CrossFire profiles. Playing BF4 at 120hz on my ROG Swift was incredibly smooth. And I am pretty sensitive to microstutter, it bothered the hell out of me on my 5870 CF setup. I didn't have any issues with 580 or 680 SLI either, for what it's worth.
 
madgun said:
Please do me a favor and look at tech report and PCPer's frame time articles. I gave up on my crossfire setup and later in a 970 GTX sli because of micro-stuttering.

Dont go and sound like a 2 year old when you clearly donot know what micro stuttering is.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the ones from 2013? Even though there have been tons of drivers since then including ones based around fixing issues with frame times in CF?
 
DracoNB said:
Are you talking about the ones from 2013? Even though there have been tons of drivers since then including ones based around fixing issues with frame times in CF?
Click to expand...

It was as recent as late last year with horrible Far Cry 4 scaling and BF4 Mantle issues. I think a single lightning 290X outperformed the crossfire rig in terms of frame times several times. Therefore the lightening was a more compelling option for me.

Later on I experienced almost the same set of issues with the 970 GTX Sli where micro-stuttering was horrible in BF4. Hence I don't really trust multi GPUs at all. Performance is too varied and depends on constant driver releases from both the camps.
 
I'm pretty sure there were never any Frametime issues in BF4. That game has consistently performed well for me, except for the issues with memory leaks they experienced for a while, but that's not microstutter.
 
I just bought this card. I can only say that. This is one great card!!. I'm very happy.

Solid drivers too, very surprising that AMD has such great drivers at release. Using 15.15.

I have it OC'd to 1171/1680, and under load temps are decent at 72*.

Didn't like the red on this. My case theme is an MSI X99 is yellow and black. So I painted the MSI 390x fan shrouds yellow.

Here:

P1010077.jpg


P1010078.jpg


P1010086.jpg
 
Last edited:
Very nice. Bet it is just as fast as an overclocked 980, has 4gb extra vram, and costs about $50-70 less.
 
Motley said:
I just bought this card. I can only say that. This is one great card!!. I'm very happy.

Solid drivers too, very surprising that AMD has such great drivers at release. Using 15.15.

I have it OC'd to 1171/1680, and under load temps are decent at 72*.

Didn't like the red on this. My case theme is an MSI X99 is yellow and black. So I painted the MSI 390x fan shrouds yellow.
Click to expand...

Btw there are new drivers - 15.7 (yes they are newer than .15) that you should grab :)
 
Thanks guys I appreciate that.

Yep I'll be installing the new 15.7 drivers tonight. Wow AMD is kickin ass on drivers now, who knew!
 
I wouldnt say kickin ass, but doing what they should be doing. Lots of new features and crossfire profiles. Glad they released it finally, can CF 290X and 390X now too if you want.
 
Motley said:
I just bought this card. I can only say that. This is one great card!!. I'm very happy.

Solid drivers too, very surprising that AMD has such great drivers at release. Using 15.15.

I have it OC'd to 1171/1680, and under load temps are decent at 72*.

Didn't like the red on this. My case theme is an MSI X99 is yellow and black. So I painted the MSI 390x fan shrouds yellow.

Here:

[pictures]
Click to expand...

Wow the card looks great like that. I actually think the Gaming cooler looks better in yellow than it does red or green. The entire system looks really nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top