-
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.
380x - When?
- Thread starter mejinks
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Yea because the 280x will still have higher memory bandwidth thanks to the 384-bit bus, for games that have more detailed/higher res texture or when using higher level AA it will still have advantage...but the thing about 280x is that because they are older GCN architecture, they don't have support for newer features such as Freesync or TrueAudio, and also consume around 40-50% more power comparing to the 380x.
The 380x is a decent card "all-round", but I still think given its performance only being around 10% faster than the 380, with the 380 priced at £150, the 380x should really be price at around £165-£180 at most; if one have to spend £190-£210 on a 380x, they'd much better off spending around £50 more and go for a 390 instead, as it's faster by quite a bit, and the 8GB vram is even enough for Shadow of Mordor at Ultra at 1080p
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
Yeah rather just get a 390/970GTX given that they both have a decent performance lead for not too many pennies.
It's not too much more, but remember some people may also be pushing their budget simply to get to the £200 range. Another £50-70 on top of that for the 390, even though it's worth it if you can budget it, may simply be that bit too much. The lower price brackets are filled out as they are for a reason - to accomodate these different, more 'budget-minded' consumers.
280X definitely slots in quite nicely in that regard with price/performance. I would certainly recommend it over somebody looking at a GTX960 or something, ya know? Saying, "Just spend more!" isn't always useful advice.
The 380x is a decent card "all-round", but I still think given its performance only being around 10% faster than the 380, with the 380 priced at £150, the 380x should really be price at around £165-£180 at most; if one have to spend £190-£210 on a 380x, they'd much better off spending around £50 more and go for a 390 instead, as it's faster by quite a bit, and the 8GB vram is even enough for Shadow of Mordor at Ultra at 1080p
Agreed, had it been the £170 to £180 mark, I might have considered it but at £200 I don't think it's worth it, better of paying the extra £50 to get a 390 or 970.
Why would it be cheaper when the regular 380 at £160-£180 sell very well.
It is priced perfectly, smack bang between 380 and 390 and NVIDIA has no direct rival to it.
Good work AMD!
See your point on the budget front, personally I'd like to spend as little as possible, remember getting my current 7950 for a bargain price and that making me very happy.
For me it's the bang for buck, my quick back of a fag packet sums for Alien, GTA5 and Witcher 3 @ 1080p based on the review from Hexus make the 970 much better value for money, you get more FPS per pound spent.
Just to support my argument, if people think this is nonsence that's fine but I wanted to use this as a rough measure of value for money for gaming at 1080p, your needs may well be different.
These were the lowest prices I could find from reputable retailers for branded cards.
Obviously, lower is better.
These were the lowest prices I could find from reputable retailers for branded cards.
Obviously, lower is better.
Last edited:
I would say so ^^^^, its as quick as a GTX 980, thats a £400+ card. Even at £320 the 390X is great value.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
Last edited:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1093-amd-radeon-380x/
Performs the same (or worse) as a 280X in many of the games tested. Peforms significantly better in a couple, but this is the exception not the norm.
Also uses more power than the 280X, and is the same price the 280X was on release - two years ago.
What is the point of this card again? And why are people praising it so highly, when it does not improve mid-range performance beyond what we had in 2013?
Performs the same (or worse) as a 280X in many of the games tested. Peforms significantly better in a couple, but this is the exception not the norm.
Also uses more power than the 280X, and is the same price the 280X was on release - two years ago.
What is the point of this card again? And why are people praising it so highly, when it does not improve mid-range performance beyond what we had in 2013?
The point of this card is to fill a gap between the GTX 960 and GTX 970, which it does very well.
But you have to concede it doesn't give us any increase in performance in the mid-range. It doesn't even give us better price/perf than we had in 2013.
It's basically another 280X in terms of performance, yet priced like a "new" mid-range generation. What I'm saying is, there's no progress being made here.
e: Let me ask you a simple question. If the 480X performed the same as the 380X, for the same release price, would you call it a "job well done"?
This is not just a problem with AMD, the GTX 960 is only a little faster than the GTX 760, the GTX 970 is only around a GTX Titan with the old 390 faster.
Where would you have this card be for £190, GTX 970 performance? the 390 is in that slot and competes very well with it.
This is a problem with being stuck on 28nm, Nvidia have the same problem.
This is a good 1080P card for sub £200, the Nvidia alternative is much slower and it isn't even a 1080P card, really...
Just to be pedantic
, the point of this card is to fill a gap between the R9 380 and R9 390, which it does very well.The unlaunched 960ti will be the card to fill the gap between the GTX 960 and GTX 970, if, when and under what name it makes an appearance,
Just to be pedantic
The unlaunched 960ti will be the card to fill the gap between the GTX 960 and GTX 970, if, when and under what name it makes an appearance,
There is certainly a huge gap there. 73% between the 960 and 970, with Nvidia's SLI scaling you couldn't get GTX 970 performance from SLI'ing 2 960's
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
The 380X is 30% ahead of the 960, the 970 is 33% ahead of the 380X.
There maybe a slight problem for Nvidia in that if GM206 (GTX 960) is already a full fat chip there is nothing they can do to make it catch up with the 380 to make a GTX 960TI, what Nvidia would have to do is hack at GM205 (GTX 980 / 970) some more and sell that chip for sub £200.
Nvidia should also worry about Pitcairn, the 370 is a cut down Pitcairn, what was the 7850, the 270X is what was the full fat 7870 and it matches the GTX 960 in performance, there will no doubt be a full fat Pitcairn 370X before long and cheaper than the 960.