MY R390X Predictions

Right so speak for yourself and not try to impose what you think is the priority of others when it comes to specific technologies and preferences.

I am not sure why anyone would think that I am trying to impose my point of view. What I am saying is to think realistically and be hopeful ;)
 
Again not sure why would anyone want to spent even 400$ on a 290X when you can get the GTX 970 for 70$ less and it performs fairly similarly.

You got to be smoking or something.
I am not sure why anyone would think that I am trying to impose my point of view. What I am saying is to think realistically and be hopeful ;)
Well the previous comment and the current is imposing your preference, because you are telling others what to think and what should be important to them, just one feature can be enough to push aside all other considerations and they both have there unique features and the ones that are similar maybe just different enough to also be a factor.

Some people just dont realize that they are dong it.
 
Last edited:
Well the previous comment and the current is imposing your preference, because you are telling others what to think and what should be important to them.

Same could be said about your comments.

What was originally implied was the apples-to-apples performance comparison - no mention of features. And given that, the 290X (currently around $500), in most games, is slower than the 970 (currently around $330) at 1080p and about on par with it at 1440p and higher, period. Is $170 more for a slower to similar performing GPU worth it? To some, yes, because of the preferred brand and/or features. But if someone is just wanting the best bang for the buck in terms of performance (features aside), then it would be a ridiculous choice.
 
Well the previous comment and the current is imposing your preference, because you are telling others what to think and what should be important to them.

Some people just dont realize that they are dong it.

Point noted!

I guess it's just my 290X Direct CUs have been sucking 850W without being overclocked too high and then hovering around 92C through the gaming session and in the process heating up my entire room - when it's already so hot in summer.

That's why I am a strong advocate of cooler cards and hence the point derives from that perspective. And I was one of the first ones to order the GTX 980s.
 
Point noted!

I guess it's just my 290X Direct CUs have been sucking 850W without being overclocked too high and then hovering around 92C through the gaming session and in the process heating up my entire room - when it's already so hot in summer.

That's why I am a strong advocate of cooler cards and hence the point derives from that perspective. And I was one of the first ones to order the GTX 980s.

Nothing wrong with what is a priority for yourself.
 
Same could be said about your comments.

What was originally implied was the apples-to-apples performance comparison - no mention of features. And given that, the 290X (currently around $500), in most games, is slower than the 970 (currently around $330) at 1080p and about on par with it at 1440p and higher, period. Is $170 more for a slower to similar performing GPU worth it? To some, yes, because of the preferred brand and/or features. But if someone is just wanting the best bang for the buck in terms of performance (features aside), then it would be a ridiculous choice.

Not really has that would be on the assumption that all other factors are equal, which the reality they are not, we are not going to start ignoring the facts.

Also the premiss of price being the most important factor between the brand at the enthusiast level at similar performance level also goes against the fact that NV nearly always has the higher price for similar performance and still outsells AMD, lets ignore that fact and pretend that its was all about price all along because NV has that advantage at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Kindly list your reasons and I will critique them one by one. No need to get upset or troll other people's post.

Not upset, just pointing out the obvious.

The two big ones, without getting into a feature set argument, is;

1. Availability

2. If someone already has a R9 290 and wants more performance on the cheap.
 
1. Not really as that would be on the assumption that all other factors are equal, which the reality they are not

2. Also the premise of price being the most important factor between the brand at the enthusiast level at similar performance level also goes against the fact that NV nearly always has the higher price for similar performance and still outsells AMD.

1. It's not an assumption when there are real-world apples-to-apples comparison results in reviews of the GTX 970 vs the 290X all across the web proving that the 970 is a superior performing product in most games at 1080p-1440p, and about equal in many 1440p+ resolutions with the exact same in-game settings applied to both, depending on the game.

2. Performance, supply, and demand between competitors product models almost always dictates prices. There are exceptions to this throughout computing history, but not many. Once brand new 290Xs drop to $300 and less, that will change which one gets to claim the advantage.
 
You can apply all the circular reasoning you want. It doesn't change facts.

1. It's not an assumption when there are real-world apples-to-apples comparison results in reviews of the GTX 970 vs the 290X all across the web proving that the 970 is a superior performing product in most games at 1080p-1440p, and about equal in many 1440p+ resolutions with the exact same in-game settings applied to both, depending on the game.

2. Performance, supply, and demand between competitors product models almost always dictates prices. There are exceptions to this throughout computing history, but not many.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041115004&postcount=86

Im not disagreeing with the results i never had and i never impelled that.

The facts are price and performs is not the only factor and that has been my point all a long that has gone right over your head even though Nvidas history has proven my point that price is not the only factor hence people bring up features because they cant be ignored, even the person i was having the original conversation with ended up acknowledging that fact, maybe stating features aside would of gone down better.
The fact you dont get that is whats making it circular because you are ignoring that fact so there is nowhere else to go except go around in circles which i will leave you to do.
 
Last edited:
The biggest benefit to waiting for the 390X is so Nvidia can finish wrapping up their lame business tactics and release the 970/980 Ti. I hope everyone remembers how fast the "flagship" GTX Titan was obsoleted when the 780 Ti came out. Depending on the cost of the 390, I would not be surprised if they do the same reactionary price cuts like they did with the 770 & 780 after the 290 absolutely decimated in the price-performance ratio.

Here's what is going to pan out:
Casecutter said:
Nvidia is binning 14/15 SMX part for inventible 970Ti. I believe Nvidia already knows they didn't want to cannibalize the outgoing 780/780Ti, while as of now they can't flood the channel with 980’s (as of yet), so they’re in a great position. I see Nvidia biding their time moving all these 13 SMX parts fast, waiting to see what AMD does (I’m not holding my breath), then roll a 970Ti for $400... but even before that I reckon Nvidia will very quickly offer a dual GM204 with 14/15 SMX parts just to annihilate the 295X, low hang fruit at ($900). I don’t believe will see the big GM200 in a “gaming” card (I don’t think even as a Titan) all that soon, as they certainly have corporate/professional clients that they need to satisfy so the 980 will be the king of the hill for a while. A few months after the a dual-chip the 980Ti ($650) will show and, the 980 drops to ($500).

There is absolutely no reason to be buying the 980 at this point in time. If you're after 4k, 2x 970s have much more to offer.
 
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041115004&postcount=86

Im not disagreeing with the results i never had and i never impelled that.

The facts are price and performs is not the only factor and that has been my point all a long that has gone right over your head even though Nvidas history has proven my point that price is not the only factor hence people bring up features because they cant be ignored.
The fact you dont get that is whats making it circular because you are ignoring that fact so there is nowhere else to go except go around in circles which i will leave you to do.

Sure. OK. ;)
 
The biggest benefit to waiting for the 390X is so Nvidia can finish wrapping up their lame business tactics and release the 970/980 Ti. I hope everyone remembers how fast the "flagship" GTX Titan was obsoleted when the 780 Ti came out. Depending on the cost of the 390, I would not be surprised if they do the same reactionary price cuts like they did with the 770 & 780 after the 290 absolutely decimated in the price-performance ratio.

Here's what is going to pan out:

There is absolutely no reason to be buying the 980 at this point in time. If you're after 4k, 2x 970s have much more to offer.

I was hoping that the 980 had more Vram but alas.
 
The biggest benefit to waiting for the 390X is so Nvidia can finish wrapping up their lame business tactics and release the 970/980 Ti.



I was hoping that the 980 had more Vram but alas.

I was really hoping that NVidia wouldn't screw around with their usual antics and release an 8GB 980 right off the bat, but I'm guessing they are going to stay the course and release an 8GB 980 Ti for $750+ before the 8GB 980 vanilla for $600-650.
 
True Audio --> No adoption yet and by the time there is, faster GPUs will come out

FreeSync --> It's now an open format, nVidia is supporting it too

Mantle --> DirectX 12.0 will be the end all be all

Eyefinity --> Matter of preference

Crossfire --> An advantage but Sli is not far behind.

On Nvidia's side to name a few:

1) Shadow play
2) Dynamic Super Resolution
3) MFAA
4) Substantial new rendering capabilities for DX12
5) Accelerated voxel-based global illumination
6) VR Direct

So again, newer architecture and newer tech. It's your choice which way to sway.
umm you do know raptor has gvr right so shadowplay is a wash
 
I'm hoping they put a mini George Foreman grill on top of the new R9-390x so we can cook up burgers and knock out the FPS :D
 
I'm hoping they put a mini George Foreman grill on top of the new R9-390x so we can cook up burgers and knock out the FPS :D

You can do that on the top of your case with a single 290X equipped with a reference cooler if you turn off all your case fans. :p
 
This card will be coming in 4 days.

Source: latest Twitter Post https://twitter.com/amd_roy/status/513467158316077057

I believe this card will be a Tonga Replacement for the R290X

At first I was thinking it may be a card to compete the with GTX970 in price/performance but who am I kidding. The GTX 970 is so close to the 980 a slight overclock would net them the highest performing GPU on the market.

I 100% believe they will have the fastest card but I have a gut feeling of the following.

Their card will have a high TDP 250 Watt -300 Watt, It will not bring anything really innovative to the table e.g. DSR, MFAA type of feature. Not to say that AMD doesn't have some innovative stuff already. :)

This card will be a bare muscle flex to take the crown from Nvidia and hurt their sales as close to their launch as possible. I do not believe Nvidia will have an answer to this shy of doing a quick overclock version of the same cards.

I also predict a price war and that I will either be getting a price match from Newegg or Exchanging my cards :D


Who cares about TDP. We're enthusiasts. AMD has a golden opportunity to blow Nvidia out of the water and it looks like they will do just that with a monster water cooled beast (Fiji) if rumors are true. I applaud this.

Nvidia just came out with a card that's just as big (Maxwell die size=398mm^2, R 290 X die size=438mm^2) and performs about the same (a few percent faster in a maxed version aka the 980). The main advantage is just lower power use. So all AMD has to do is drop the price on the 290 X and they're already competitive. This is ignoring the fact AMD has a new cards coming soon.

Only question is if Nvidia has a bigger die 600 mm^2 monster to counterattack, like what GK110 was last time. They are running out of room though, 600mm^2 is the biggest you can possibly get. Once AMD chases them up there with bigger and bigger dies they will have nothing left, because it seems AMD is faster/has more brute power at any given die size/architecture.
 
Who cares about TDP. We're enthusiasts. AMD has a golden opportunity to blow Nvidia out of the water and it looks like they will do just that with a monster water cooled beast (Fiji) if rumors are true. I applaud this.

Many people do since most of us don't have/don't want to spend an insane amount of money on a massive output PSU.


Nvidia just came out with a card that's just as big (Maxwell die size=398mm^2, R 290 X die size=438mm^2) and performs about the same (a few percent faster in a maxed version aka the 980). The main advantage is just lower power use. So all AMD has to do is drop the price on the 290 X and they're already competitive. This is ignoring the fact AMD has a new cards coming soon.

Maxwell 980 die is 10% smaller than R9 290X and has half the memory bus, same number of ROPs, 1 billion less transistors, and 768 less shaders units...yet, the 980 performs, on average, about 14% faster (per the [H] review).


Only question is if Nvidia has a bigger die 600 mm^2 monster to counterattack, like what GK110 was last time. They are running out of room though, 600mm^2 is the biggest you can possibly get. Once AMD chases them up there with bigger and bigger dies they will have nothing left, because it seems AMD is faster/has more brute power at any given die size/architecture.

NVidia is not likely going to need some 600 sq-mm behemoth in order to increase any combination of the memory bus, shader units, and/or ROPs for 28nm Maxwell. But I'm willing to bet their Titan-esque rendition will be on the upcoming shrunken 20 or 16 nm refresh, which means even more oomph from a smaller die with an even lower TDP.

I hope and pray that AMD releases an absolute monster at an awesomely competitive price, because I'm sick and tired of seeing the top 3-4 GPUs from either company being priced at $550-3000.
 
The 295X was never a dual card but more of AMD's (Ti) .. It will be Hawaii 2.0 reboot as Tonga shows us just what the 7950 can do on a reboot with less memory because of color compression which I would guess 290x > 295x (10 to 20%)
 
The 295X was never a dual card but more of AMD's (Ti) .. It will be Hawaii 2.0 reboot as Tonga shows us just what the 7950 can do on a reboot with less memory because of color compression which I would guess 290x > 295x (10 to 20%)

I'm thinking more like 15-25% (hopeful, perhaps)
 
original.jpg
 
What am I looking at and why?

speculation, bro. it's fun! also, a stamp. here's some more.

1966-01-24-winston-churchill-omnibus-h-fdc.jpg


there's a shitload of stamps with the dude on them, however quite a few of the british territories in particular have him on them, the same islands amd appear to be naming their new chips after. i'm no stamp collector, mind you. hah. that's the only hidden meaning i can see in a random mention of churchill and any products from amd. bit of a stretch, but whatever.

i would like to see some new cards on thursday, at any rate. i was about to pull the trigger on a couple 980's, but i figure a few days probably wouldn't kill me.
 
1. It's not an assumption when there are real-world apples-to-apples comparison results in reviews of the GTX 970 vs the 290X all across the web proving that the 970 is a superior performing product in most games at 1080p-1440p, and about equal in many 1440p+ resolutions with the exact same in-game settings applied to both, depending on the game.

2. Performance, supply, and demand between competitors product models almost always dictates prices. There are exceptions to this throughout computing history, but not many. Once brand new 290Xs drop to $300 and less, that will change which one gets to claim the advantage.

290's have been beating 780's and offered more VRAM since they came out. People still paid more for 780's because they prefer nVidia features, support, or whatever else. Same with 770 vs. 280X and just about every other performance level. Also in most compute functions (excluding CUDA) GCN has slaughtered Kepler for years. Maxwell has closed the gap, but still doesn't beat it in raw compute performance. Now, nVidia has a new card that offers markedly better gaming efficiency and slightly better perf/$ and people have "to be smoking something" to buy AMD. This is why people get called fanboys.

290X doesn't have to drop to $300 or less. The 290 does. Perf/$ the 980 needs to drop to $400 or less compared with the 970. That's not going to happen. Fully functioning chips command a premium over harvested ones though. If you don't think it's worth it (which I would agree) then don't pay it. It's not a fair comparison though to compare full chips with cut ones.
 
Fact is nVidia had majority market share even when they had terrible price/performance. Now they are forefront in price/performance. Logic says they should increase market share even further. I really hope this motivates AMD greatly.

Anyone know when AMD NDAs usually lift?
 
Last edited:
got two 970s in my basket to order, just need a green light to push the button tomorrow
 
Back
Top