• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Rough price of the 390X

Im willing to bet it will be quite a bit faster than that. Its going to have a huge bandwidth advantage.
 
Well that depends if memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, 2900 had a 512bit bus back in the day, didn't make it any faster.

Hope it stomps the 980 though so Nvidia are forced to release the full fat maxwell at a reasonable price.
 
Damn, I cant keep up with the 3xx lies!

I thought people thought the 380x was going to be the flagship until the 390x came out on a die shrink?

I'm out. I've followed the lead up to this launch quite closely, and its all a waste of time lol.

OP, no one knows. It will be priced relative to its performance. I doubt AMD are going to release an amazing card at an amazing price, because it makes more sense to release an amazing card at a mediocre price.
 
MeFox said:
If 390X > £450 what's the point ? still weaker than 295x2 just got for it now :D
Click to expand...

you can not compare the two cards, they're not like for like.... you can only compare a 395X2 to a 295X2

the biggest difference is the most important of all, the 395X2 will have more RAM :cool:
 
Mal X said:
you can not compare the two cards, they're not like for like.... you can only compare a 395X2 to a 295X2

the biggest difference is the most important of all, the 395X2 will have more RAM :cool:
Click to expand...

No it wont. HBM is limited to 4gb, in the first incarnation anyway.
 
Rough guess is:
390X: £499 - to take on GM200
390: £449 - to beat 980

380X (rebadged 290X): £269 - to beat 970
380 (rebadged 290): £229 - to match 970

370X (tweaked 285): £179 - to beat the 960
370 (rebadged 285): £149 - to match the 960
 
Id really like to see it at 380 quid or so.

I remember the days of my old x850xt, was the best card on the planet at the time it cost like 220 quid and was state of the art, why doesn't **** cost that these days?

reason = NVidia and there stupid pricing, they've always pushed it up each refresh to a point where it costs half a grand for a single gpu card. stupid.

I mean yeah it costs money to make technology better, but there using less silicone every time with core shrinks, so why does it cost more your getting less :p

My old 4780x2 only cost like 370 quid and that was a dual gpu card and blew everything outta the water, amd need to remember they always undercut NVidia by a long way.

So the 390x should undercut or equal a 980, around 399 quid and it would be perfect. better performance and cheaper, win win. bye bye NVidia go cry me a river!
 
IceShock said:
Id really like to see it at 380 quid or so.

I remember the days of my old x850xt, was the best card on the planet at the time it cost like 220 quid and was state of the art, why doesn't **** cost that these days?

reason = NVidia and there stupid pricing, they've always pushed it up each refresh to a point where it costs half a grand for a single gpu card. stupid.

I mean yeah it costs money to make technology better, but there using less silicone every time with core shrinks, so why does it cost more your getting less :p

My old 4780x2 only cost like 370 quid and that was a dual gpu card and blew everything outta the water, amd need to remember they always undercut NVidia by a long way.

So the 390x should undercut or equal a 980, around 399 quid and it would be perfect. better performance and cheaper, win win. bye bye NVidia go cry me a river!
Click to expand...

The 7970 at launch was £430 pounds for the cheapo reference card, but obviously to you that was nvidias fault.
 
Ian Evey said:
The 7970 at launch was £430 pounds for the cheapo reference card, but obviously to you that was nvidias fault.
Click to expand...
If I remember right I payed £400 from OCuk for my AMD X1900 XTX on release..

X1900xt-x

This level of performance doesn?t come cheap at $649 MSRP and is available at the time of writing for $694 at MonarchPC.
Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/atis-radeon-x1900-video-card-series_293#MUuosmVD2KrmVJcL.99

http://www.legitreviews.com/atis-radeon-x1900-video-card-series_293
Click to expand...
Was $649 MSRP and that was 9 years ago :eek::eek::eek:
(Jan 24, 2006)


So am going blame AMD for the crazy high prices of GPU's :p
 
Last edited:
AMD have price jumped before. I remember when the 5870/5850 came out. Yes it performed better than the 4870/4890, and it supported DX11, but it also cost quite a lot more too. The 5830 was priced the same as the 4870 and roughly performed the same.

I think Anandtech commented on this in a review of the 5850 about that card marking the end of an era with new cards focusing on feature set more than performance with prices rising alongside that.

However when the 7870/50 cards came out they were a good jump up from the 6950/6970 cards and yet cost less.

Perhaps the real problem is simply poor competition also Nvidia do have the media advantage and closer links to the developers so they can claim a premium for that.
 
Jamielicious said:
AMD have price jumped before. I remember when the 5870/5850 came out. Yes it performed better than the 4870/4890, and it supported DX11, but it also cost quite a lot more too. The 5830 was priced the same as the 4870 and roughly performed the same.

I think Anandtech commented on this in a review of the 5850 about that card marking the end of an era with new cards focusing on feature set more than performance with prices rising alongside that.

However when the 7870/50 cards came out they were a good jump up from the 6950/6970 cards and yet cost less.

Perhaps the real problem is simply poor competition also Nvidia do have the media advantage and closer links to the developers so they can claim a premium for that.
Click to expand...

In the 4870 days when gpu's were all about performance and real competition existed, ATI had the die shrink advantage over Nvidia, Rv770 in June 2008 was on 55nm whilst it's competitor gt200 was still on 65nm and it took another 6 months until it could release their 55nm Gt200 cards.

The rv770 55nm had a die size of 260mm2,
The gt200 65nm was 576mm2, and then the gt200 55nm was 470mm2

ATI had great performance but not great power consumption. But with it's smaller die they could afford to cut prices and still make profit, even the x2 versions were cheap to produce. Now today Amd have the inefficient slightly bigger die at 438mm2 vs Gm204 398mm2 and Amd have been squashed to a low level price point with little room for much of a drop.

The problem is simply Amd and Nvidia didn't have a die shrink to jump to 2 years ago, in particular Amd as they engineer to the new process. Nvidia re-engineered their architecture to the long in the tooth 28nm process and outplayed Amd, but those who are half intelligent and not blind can see the truth behind Gm204.

I can't remember the prices of 6950 near the release date of pitcairn (7850/7870) even though I owned a 6950. But I think the 7850 was around £200 and the 7870 was around £250? People forget though that the 6950 was meant to have been on the 32nm node so the 6950 would have performed a little better, when it was then reworked back onto 40nm the 6950 was scaled down from it's original spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom