How popular are the 390X and 390P ?

[TonyTurbo78]

Yep, went from crossfire 7950's to crossfire 390's. Main reason was the price, and the fantastic performance you get with them. Obviously running them in crossfire, I'm more likely to have the power to make the most of the 8gb vram, it was just the better option for me than going for the overpriced Furyx. They are incredible cards, hitting 100fps+ on 90% of the games I play and that's maxed out at 1440p. very very pleased with the purchases.

 

[Davedree]

Both at max overclock 20 to 30% will still be the case so what's the point comparing a overclocked 7950 to a standards 7970.

Because 2 reasons a 7970 ghz is nigh on a 280x and secondly in my post I said ''Generally an 1100mhz 7950 would equate to the 280x in those guru3d results.'' Ok 50 mhz out hands up guilty on my part. To which your replied

Why are you trying to make the jump from the 2 cards seem less impressive than it is? Does a 390x not overclock too?

And I'm sorry but a 7950 cannot be compared with a 280x. Its not even close to 280x performance.

An overclocked 7950 at 1100mhz equals a 1000 mhz 280x.

No chance. Looking at just those 3 games posted above the difference is 30% between the 7950 and 280x on average. Good luck pulling that back.

In those 3 games there is no 280 just a 280x,
If you look at the scaling of the 7970 925mhz to 7970 1.05ghz
The overclock of 125 mhz = 7fps in gta5, 13fps in tomb raider, 6fps in bioshock, A 7950 scales too when clocked but it'll need to be clocked higher than a 7970 ghz/280x .


From memory the 7950 and 7970 were 10%-15% difference clock for clock.
Also looking at the 7950 925mhz boost and 7970 925mhz the difference can be shown in those 3 games at 10-15%.
So you'd need to overclock the 7950 around 1150-1175mhz and with a decent memory overclock 1400mhz + to match a stock 7970ghz or 280x.
Which is what I saw when I benched my 7950 vs my mates stock 280x

So that no chance is actually easily achievable.

So now we both know a 7950 when overclocked can be compared to the 280x in the guru3d that was my original point, Looking at the gta5 guru3d the 390x scores 61fps the 280x scores 47fps, in that game despite the headroom of the 390x I don't see much of an advantage but in other games the gap is larger. I used the scaling in those graphs to prove it. You seemed to think a 7950 had no chance of even getting close to 280x performance, so I proved you wrong.

 

[Davedree]

Yep, went from crossfire 7950's to crossfire 390's. Main reason was the price, and the fantastic performance you get with them. Obviously running them in crossfire, I'm more likely to have the power to make the most of the 8gb vram, it was just the better option for me than going for the overpriced Furyx. They are incredible cards, hitting 100fps+ on 90% of the games I play and that's maxed out at 1440p. very very pleased with the purchases.

You have done it right and can justify the 8gb of memory and glad you got the issues sorted with the blocks, whilst cf can be an issue, 2x 390's with 8gb of memory for the pricepoint is pretty powerful.

 

[Dave2150]

Let's step back and look at some facts the 7950/7970 is 4 year old tech.
4 year old tech vs 2 year old tech or the respun 300 series. Generally an 1100mhz 7950 would equate to the 280x in those guru3d results.
You are quoting 800mhz 7950 results, secondly the r9 290 drivers are older than the 390. Like I said I used a 1175/1600 7950 and I know how it compares to a 290 clocked or stock with the parity 390 wonder drivers, even a 1200 or 1300mhz 7950 will scale another 8 fps over the stock 280x results in the guru3d. I'm not saying the gains aren't there, in some games it's a good jump but most of that gain came from the recent drivers. I'm saying if you've left it to this late to only jump on a 390 then you are kidding yourself it's value for money, because essentially it's not if you look at the timeline of 4 years of progression.

The fact is in over a year you are still paying the same price as the 290's were when they bottomed out for a long time. You are only looking at fps you aren't comparing the whole features of the card to Maxwell.
The 8gb of memory is only viable if you are in cf and there was an r9 290x 8gb anyway. The uvd 4 engine is so outdated that it can't decode 4k video playback, Tonga can with uvd 5.2.

Like I said if all you care about is fps then fine, but don't refuse the facts I bring to the table just because they don't suit your agenda.
As I said in my first post,
They were good cards 2 years ago in the form of the 290's but they are showing their age if you look beyond the fps, they do an ok job but the 300 series needed the die shrink and they would have been amazing.

Err, I probably shouldn't reply as I now thing your probably trolling.

I'll take the bait.

Look at the bioshock benchmark graph that you quoted, there's a 7950 boost (925Mhz) there that gets 34FPS. Meanwhile the MSI 390X (stock 1100Mhz) gets 81FPS. That's over double, buddy.

Sure, if you overclocked the 7950 boost, you'd get more performance. But guess what? The 390X overclocks also, who'd have thought?

You are only looking at fps you aren't comparing the whole features of the card to Maxwell.

Yes, I'm looking at FPS, as that's the main reason I buy a GPU, to play games at as high FPS as I can for my budget.

Why even mention Maxwell when we're debating your absurd statement that a 390X isn't a huge upgrade over a 7950? You're moving goalposts as you now realize you were completely incorrect after I linked benchmarks, and others echoed my findings.

The more I think of it, you just sound like a 970 owner who wants to justify his purchase to himself, hence your attacks on the 390/390X. We know it's a Hawaii chip, we know it's power hungry - and we know it has the best price/performance ratio you can get, when buying new.

 

[Dave2150]

Yeah, damn thing is almost as fast as a GTX 980, looks like the 390X is around 80% faster than a 7950? +1 good luck overclocking the 7950 to 1.8Ghz just to make up half the performance difference

+1, exactly. Davedree is just trolling here I think.

 

[Davedree]

Err, I probably shouldn't reply as I now thing your probably trolling.

I'll take the bait.

Look at the bioshock benchmark graph that you quoted, there's a 7950 boost (925Mhz) there that gets 34FPS. Meanwhile the MSI 390X (stock 1100Mhz) gets 81FPS. That's over double, buddy.

Sure, if you overclocked the 7950 boost, you'd get more performance. But guess what? The 390X overclocks also, who'd have thought?



Yes, I'm looking at FPS, as that's the main reason I buy a GPU, to play games at as high FPS as I can for my budget.

Why even mention Maxwell when we're debating your absurd statement that a 390X isn't a huge upgrade over a 7950? You're moving goalposts as you now realize you were completely incorrect after I linked benchmarks, and others echoed my findings.

The more I think of it, you just sound like a 970 owner who wants to justify his purchase to himself, hence your attacks on the 390/390X. We know it's a Hawaii chip, we know it's power hungry - and we know it has the best price/performance ratio you can get, when buying new.

Lol you know I am amd biased, I wouldn"t buy a 390x at it's pricepoint, why do I need to justify my 970 it's a stopgap card that will do until I see a decent card to replace it, it's ok for what it is clocks well and scales to a stock 980.
I never denied the gains of the 390/390x is there but, my point still stands the 390/x is getting on, just like you state am3+ is getting on, so touche.

 

[humbug]

Lol you know I am amd biased, I wouldn"t buy a 390x at it's pricepoint, why do I need to justify my 970 it's a stopgap card that will do until I see a decent card to replace it, it's ok for what it is clocks well and scales to a stock 980.
I never denied the gains of the 390/390x is there but, my point still stands the 390/x is getting on, just like you state am3+ is getting on, so touche.

Just because its old doesn't mean its obsolete, its every bit if not even more so capable with the latest API's than Maxwell, if anything Nvidia are playing catchup.

 

[Davedree]

Just because its old doesn't mean its obsolete, its every bit if not even more so capable with the latest API's than Maxwell, if anything Nvidia are playing catchup.

If gaming fps then yes you are right.
But I have repeated time and time again you are paying more for the 290/x were when they bottomed out for their last year. The pricepoint is worse but the drivers gave grenada ground over gm204.
Looking at video decode grenada cannot decode 4k, gm204 can and supports h.264/265.
And thermal and power consumption of gm204 vs grenada allows gm204 to be offered in an itx format.

 

[Threepwood]

I'm still happy with my buy x2 290's and get one free from mining a year and three quarters ago.

Mainly because I have been enjoying excellent performance from them from then till now.

They were like £380 each back then.

So today's price of £275.99 for today's equivalent Sapphire 390 (none x) but with 8GB ram seems okay.

Still more happy with spending the single £380 back then price than the today's £551.98 for x2 380's and no mining needed.

(admittedly some of that was made with my previous 7950 also)

 

[Kaapstad]

Just because its old doesn't mean its obsolete, its every bit if not even more so capable with the latest API's than Maxwell, if anything Nvidia are playing catchup.

290Xs and 390Xs are still better than GTX 980s @2160p. For the higher resolutions it has alway been the GTX 980 playing catch up.

 

[Meladath]

Looking at video decode grenada cannot decode 4k, gm204 can and supports h.264/265.

Do you have any sources for this? Because according to every source I can see, hawaii (and grenada as of it) support full H264 decoding.

Also GM204 does NOT fully support H.265
A quote from the anadtech review

When it comes to HEVC (H.265) decoding, GM204, GM1xx, and GK1xx GPUs all offer limited HEVC decoding via a hybrid process.

Limited decoding hardly sounds like full support does it? It uses the same decoding as most other maxwell cards. GM204 has 4K decoding and limited h265 decoding over hawaii. thats it.

 

[nashathedog]

Wow, It's as if all the Nvidia guy's are on vacation so you lot go hammer an tongs at each other. What happened?

 

[davida76]

This thread makes my mind hurt

 

[KelDG]

I reckon this thread is just misunderstanding. I hope Davedrees argument is that the 390 and 970 are both slower than they should be in the grand progression of graphics cards, as he has said his 970 would not be worth the price point if be had bought it new now, and said the same about the 390 as we have been similar performance since the 290 was released a long while back now.

In that respect I completely agree as I bought a 290 back in the day (returned cos of the faulty memory), and would feel the pinch a couple of years later paying the same money for similar performance in either AMD or nvidia camp.

These threads degenerate so quickly lol.

Anyway way, that is what I hope has happened.

 

[pandem0nium]

I have both Hawaii and Tonga at the moment.

Tonga for me has barely any overclock potential. It starts to throttle down after giving it any more than +0.2v in my case. A 7950/7970 would probably be a better choice if overclocking and you don't have freesync.

It does very well in my second pc though gaming at 1080p and 1440 dsr.

 

[Dave2150]

Lol you know I am amd biased, I wouldn"t buy a 390x at it's pricepoint, why do I need to justify my 970 it's a stopgap card that will do until I see a decent card to replace it, it's ok for what it is clocks well and scales to a stock 980.
I never denied the gains of the 390/390x is there but, my point still stands the 390/x is getting on, just like you state am3+ is getting on, so touche.

Now you're comparing the 390/390X with AMD's FX CPU's?

The problem with AMD FX CPU's is that they are pathetic performance wise compared to Intel Skylake/Haswell-E. Plus they lack many chipset technologies such as PCI-E v3, USB3.1/3.0, M.2, UEFI, native SATA3, Sata Express, to name a few.

Whereas the 390/390X have very good performance when comparing to the NVIDIA cards at that budget. There's nothing a 390/390X cannot do that a 970 or 980 can - they both play DX12, 11 etc games, both can playback video at 4k, both can record gameplay via OBS, both can stream using OBS.

I cannot wait to see your next new point.

 

[whyscotty]

There's nothing a 390/390X cannot do that a 970 or 980 can - they both play DX12, 11 etc games, both can playback video at 4k, both can record gameplay via OBS, both can stream using OBS.

I cannot wait to see your next new point.

Gameworks
Run Gsync to name but 2

 

[Dave2150]

Gameworks
Run Gsync to name but 2

AMD GPU's can render gameworks effects, albeit at a lower fps than nvidia cards.

AMD GPU's have freesync.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Oh my we are still debating this lol,
This was debunked by myself and others a long time ago. Amd nerfed the drivers to make it appear the 390 was better/new silicon.
The drivers had a bios string to prevent the 15.15 drivers working on hawaii.
The fact you flashed the 290 with a 390 bios issues were due to the memory capacity timings and voltages which are different on the 390s than the 290's.

Was no need to flash, once the drivers were modded to work on the 290s, they got the same performance boost from them.

 

[humbug]

Now you're comparing the 390/390X with AMD's FX CPU's?

The problem with AMD FX CPU's is that they are pathetic performance wise compared to Intel Skylake/Haswell-E. Plus they lack many chipset technologies such as PCI-E v3, USB3.1/3.0, M.2, UEFI, native SATA3, Sata Express, to name a few.

Whereas the 390/390X have very good performance when comparing to the NVIDIA cards at that budget. There's nothing a 390/390X cannot do that a 970 or 980 can - they both play DX12, 11 etc games, both can playback video at 4k, both can record gameplay via OBS, both can stream using OBS.

I cannot wait to see your next new point.

Actually the 990FX chips have UEFI, Native USB3, M2, Native SATA3 and SATA Express..... sorry i just had to put that right

Oh and performance is subjective, depends on what you do with it and what you want it for, also cost, not everyone is comfortable paying £300 for an i7.

At their price point they are excellent.