• 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.

Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dicehunter said:
If the leaked benchmarks are anything to go by then the Titan X's performance will be matched by AMD's 390X but we all know AMD charge less than Nvidia.

Going by the available information the 390X 8GB will be in the region of £600 while the Titan X 12GB is £900.

How will Nvidia justify charging £300 more than the 390X when all the Titan X has *Theoretically* is 4GB extra memory which isn't exactly expensive to implement ?
Click to expand...

The AMD drivers will auto downgrade any games to 320x240 15FPS,it will consume 1.21 jiggawatts,meaning you need to factor in the cost of leasing a portable nuclear power plant,plus you need to live with the fact that a Chernobyl might happen at any time,leaving your bedroom slightly glowing.

Plus the Nvidia solution is longer which means more manliness for your buck.




:p
 
Marine-RX179 said:
.

For me, I merely stated the Titan X is around 166% the speed of the 780 at 1920 res purely based on the performance summary of techpowerup. There's no right or wrong on "my part", as I was merely quoting the results of the review site. I didn't make up anything on that part.
Click to expand...

You stated 50% quicker and never mentioned a res, how could you forget. You posted it only a few seconds ago. You then retracted because a review site said 66% quicker.
 
triss said:
Not at all Flawed ;)
If the 2 years makes the logic flawed your whole post about the 780 performance and price which You compared to the titan X of today is flawed by the same logic,, you cant use one set of figures to say its overpriced then say those same figures are flawed when someone else uses them simply because they dont suit your argument :rolleyes:

Anyways hoping the 390x comes out at £700ish and is a good 10-15% faster then a titan X and is a raging success for AMD
Click to expand...
Of course it's flawed, do you not understand performance gains over time is the way computers work? This is like saying if they release a new console they can charge £600 for it because it has more performance, then the next one is £800, then £1000. It just doesn't work the way you are manipulating it :? We have to go by launch price as it is a justification of the natural prices but performance relative to release date is a factor as well. If a card is release 1 month after another, 10% more performance then I'd understand it being more expensive. If a card is released 3 years after with 10% more it would belong as a low end card just like the 750 series etc
 
Marine-RX179 said:
I meant at the end of the day, if you perceive and honestly believe the the Titan X is 200% the speed of the 780 for your gaming, that's all that matter. You don't really have to care about what I or anyone says about the performance of the Titan X, as it is just their opinions.

For me, I merely stated the Titan X is around 166% the speed of the 780 at 1920 res purely based on the performance summary of techpowerup. There's no right or wrong on "my part", as I was merely quoting the results of the review site. I didn't make up anything on that part. Though if those benchmark results are actually reflect accurately comparing to what the the owner Titan X owners perceive, it is not really my business.

That's why I said if you feel that way about your Titan X, then good for your. What it mean is that when are 980Ti and 390x, we have more to look forward to, as they can potentially to be felt to be 2 times the speed of 780/290 level cards, regardless of the benchmark results.
Click to expand...

Try not to use the performance summary from techpowerup, it is useless and will do the 390X no favours either. High end GPUs are now so fast that they are going to be bottlenecked @1080p in the techpowerup summary hiding the cards true performance.

To gauge a highend GPUs real performance it is best to use 2160p reviews even if you have no intention of using the resolution. The other thing that springs to mind is for benching purposes 2160p @60htz is very similar to 1440p @144htz for GPU grunt.
 
Tonester0011 said:
You stated 50% quicker and never mentioned a res, how could you forget. You posted it only a few seconds ago. You then retracted because a review site said 66% quicker.
Click to expand...
I admitted the performance I was thinking at the top of my head was wrong, after looking at techpowerup's performance summary.

Mind you it was myself that quoted that site.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The AMD drivers will auto downgrade any games to 320x240 15FPS,it will consume 1.21 jiggawatts,meaning you need to factor in the cost of leasing a portable nuclear power plant,plus you need to live with the fact that a Chernobyl might happen at any time,leaving your bedroom slightly glowing.

Plus the Nvidia solution is longer which means more manliness for your buck.




:p
Click to expand...

I have already got a leaky nuclear reactor and because of it I physically resemble some thing like Jabba the hut spewing toxic waste.

Just give me the 390Xs please.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
Try not to use the performance summary from techpowerup, it is useless and will do the 390X no favours either. High end GPUs are now so fast that they are going to be bottlenecked @1080p in the techpowerup summary hiding the cards true performance.

To gauge a highend GPUs real performance it is best to use 2160p reviews even if you have no intention of using the resolution. The other thing that springs to mind is for benching purposes 2160p @60htz is very similar to 1440p @144htz for GPU grunt.
Click to expand...
Point taken, will bear that in mind cheers.
 
chroniclard said:
How are people judging the Titan X as overpriced, because they cant afford it? Is there a cost to make breakdown anywhere?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly GPU's like the GTX295(fastest card back then) on release date cost around £400. This graphics card had two gpu's and two pcb's(hence more expensive to produce), Titan X only have one gpu and one pcb, see were I am going with this? In theory Titan X should have cost less than £400...

So why TItan X cost £900? probably because NVidia wants more money, heck that's why their color is green...
 
Last edited:
kylew_is_back said:
If I remember correctly GPU's like the GTX295(fastest card back then) on release date cost around £400. This graphics card had two gpu's and two pcb's(hence more expensive to produce), Titan X only have one gpu and one pcb, see were I am going with this? In theory Titan X should have cost less than £400...

So why TItan X cost £900? probably because NVidia wants more money, heck that's why their color is green...
Click to expand...

The best and most wrong logic I've ever seen, thanks for the friday laugh :D

AMD's 295x2 was over a grand on release btw, probably just wanted more money right? As you know at the end of the day they're a business...
 
Ayahuasca said:
The best and most wrong logic I've ever seen, thanks for the friday laugh :D

AMD's 295x2 was over a grand on release btw, probably just wanted more money right? As you know at the end of the day they're a business...
Click to expand...
but at least the R9 295x2 was more expensive to produce, way higher TDP, w/c, etc(still not justifiable). Titan X on the other hand cost less to produce compared to the GTX295.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom