• 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.

AMD 390X Review

Gibbo said:
Fury, yes prices will be gouged heavily, I can assure of this throughout whole of Europe those who have stock as there is so little and its a very good card.
Click to expand...
LOL, gouging and proud.

Props for the honesty and clarity on alternative options.
 
Worst priced card ever. Big fail 290x are going for £220. £140ish more for essentially the same card... yes it has more ram. But when you can buy a second 290x for £70 more you can stack on dx12. i know what i would rather have... You would have to be crazy to buy this.
 
Orangey said:
OK so in some games it seems drivers clearly need work?

http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-tri-x-r9-390x-8gb-graphics-card-review/4/

It seems to be ahead of the 980 comfortably but there are points where even 290X 4GB beats it, must be drivers or bad reviewer?
Click to expand...

Does it? Look again. The only thing the 390x beats it on in those slides is 1440p average fps. The minimums are bad compared with the 980. At 1080p the 980 beats it and at 4k both the 970 and the 980 beat it. :confused:

In fact the minimums look woeful on a lot of the 390x benches on that review. Metro Last light for example.
 
passey89 said:
have really been debating trying this. got mine even running at 1100mhz / 1550mhz at the mo.
Click to expand...

The only reason it would make a difference is if AMD is sneaky and put in driver optimization for the 300 series that they purposely leave out of the 200 series.

Someone on beyond3d or guru3d claimed that was the case but I don't think there is any evidence.
 
Having looked at a bunch of reviews now, there is a clear trend.

Sites with a dodgy reputation that have been shown to distort tests in the past in NVIDIA's favour are using the older Catalyst 15.5Beta drivers rather than the new Catalyst 15.15Beta drivers (3xx launch drivers).

There's a large disparity in performance.

15.5 shows the 390X (and 3xx series generally) as being slower than the 970 most of the time below 4K, and still slower than the 980 at 4K.

15.15 shows the 390X smashing the 970 at 1080p in most titles, and beating the 980 badly at 1440p and above.

The editorial spin on the cards, using these obviously distorted results as justification, is equally disparate.

Best exhaustive test I've seen so far is at Hardaware Info NL - http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/613...et-bestaande-chips-benchmarks-alien-isolation -- 15.15 3xx launch drivers

Compare that with the ******** at Tom's, for example ... -- older 15.5 drivers
 
pmc25 said:
Sites with a dodgy reputation that have been shown to distort tests in the past in NVIDIA's favour are using the older Catalyst 15.5Beta drivers rather than the new Catalyst 15.15Beta drivers (3xx launch drivers).
Click to expand...

I believe you, but why are the 15.15 drivers newer than the 15.5 drivers :confused:

Maybe the sites are using 15.5 because they sound newer /shrug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom