• 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

OcUK Staff
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
38,281
Location
OcUK HQ
Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2011
Posts
3,598
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,799
Location
Surrey
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?

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
have really been debating trying this. got mine even running at 1100mhz / 1550mhz at the mo.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Nov 2010
Posts
2,314
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/6138/11/amd-radeon-r7-370-r9-380-en-r9-390x-review-nieuwe-line-up-met-bestaande-chips-benchmarks-alien-isolation -- 15.15 3xx launch drivers

Compare that with the ******** at Tom's, for example ... -- older 15.5 drivers
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,103
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).

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom