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

drunkenmaster · 12 Feb 2015 at 01:00

First, you don't have to do the same post twice with the same huge quote, there is an edit button for a reason. Secondly you can't just randomly compare one reviewers numbers to another. YOu have no idea of the ambient noise, the equipment used to measure the noise, the room temps at the time, the case, open air maybe, they aren't comparable in any way.

What you can do is say the Asus 970 listed at 37dba is only 3dba less than the Nvidia 780. In the review above that you quoted, twice, the Sapphire 290 tri-x is 6.4dba less than the Nvidia 780. That is the only comparison you could even possibly attempt to make.

Mal X · 12 Feb 2015 at 02:01

drunkenmaster said:
.

What you can do is say the Asus 970 listed at 37dba is only 3dba less than the Nvidia 780. In the review above that you quoted, twice the Sapphire Radeon is 6.4dba less than the Nvidia 780. That is the only comparison you could even possibly attempt to make.

no, that isn't the ASUS 970, but the EVGA, the ASUS STRIX is miles quieter

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/24.html
according to this it's 29.0 dba under load, now that's miles quieter than the Vapour X 8gb, in fact, the AMD card is louder at idle than the Asus Strix with full load.........i literally cant hear my cards at all, i can only hear the case fans right now.

as i said before, i'm really glad i've still got my 970s, because as you know this 3.5 RAM issue is no problem at all at 1080p..

but what is a problem, is that SLI isn't as good as a single card...... regardless of what card that is

finally temps.....the lower card is 65 degrees, the upper card is about 68 degrees !!!!!

who was it the other day that called me thick because it took me 6 months to build my first pc all those years ago, ``it only takes 5 minutes to choose a card, man you must be thick or something``................ yea right

J.D · 12 Feb 2015 at 02:21

thisiswar88 said:
My bad! here is frame times! amd have very poor frame times.

http://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/7

Do they?. Second place and fifth out of six cards and the other four are Nvidia. I'm only counting the comparable cards 780/Ti/290/X/970/980. 980 was the best and 290X second best, the older AMD card was ahead of the brand new 970 also?.

http://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/13

You've chopped and changed your mind constantly over the last week. The other day you were telling me how smooth your AMD card was compared to your GTX 780, an AMD card that is about 30-40% slower than your 780. Lots of others have said the same about the smoothness of AMD too. Now you're posting links saying AMD are terrible when the link doesn't show that at all?.

So, how can your experience be better with AMD (your words) and a few days later your posting this?. It's like reading an article wipes your mind of your own experiences :confused:

.

TNA · 12 Feb 2015 at 05:26

J.D said:
Do they?. Second place and fifth out of six cards and the other four are Nvidia. I'm only counting the comparable cards 780/Ti/290/X/970/980. 980 was the best and 290X second best, the older AMD card was ahead of the brand new 970 also?.

http://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/13

You've chopped and changed your mind constantly over the last week. The other day you were telling me how smooth your AMD card was compared to your GTX 780, an AMD card that is about 30-40% slower than your 780. Lots of others have said the same about the smoothness of AMD too. Now you're posting links saying AMD are terrible when the link doesn't show that at all?.

So, how can your experience be better with AMD (your words) and a few days later your posting this?. It's like reading an article wipes your mind of your own experiences .

You just described half the people posting in the graphics forum. They just go by what is most popular lol.

teth · 12 Feb 2015 at 22:35

Would just like to say.. I build my first Budget gaming pc last november. I used cheapest parts i could get, fx-4, msi mobo. When i came to get gfx card EVERYBODY was screaming gtx 970. Bearing in mind i'm only running games on 1080p tv 60hz i wondered if this was a bit overkill but really wanted to see Assetto corsa running nice, so i went with the msi gtx 970.
Although everything seemed fine, now and again, i'd get sort of rubber banding as i braked for corners ( not very often though ). Also running v-sync all was well, cpu 70%. Turn off v-sync and put frame limiter on say, 83 and cpu would max out.
Since to Nvidia scandal i've rma'd the 970 and thought i'd go for something a little more modest ( saved myself £133 ) and got a MSI R9 280 3Gb and well....
I'm amazed at the way assetto corsa can run SAME SETTINGS as 970 did ( Basically maxed out except reflection quality on low )! And guess what?...
No rubber banding and funnily enough 83fps and cpu still 70%..
Lovin it. And whats more my mate is gonna upgrade and pass on his 7970 to me, which i can crossfire with this... Get in AMD.

FoxEye · 12 Feb 2015 at 22:56

teth said:
Would just like to say.. I build my first Budget gaming pc last november. I used cheapest parts i could get, fx-4, msi mobo. When i came to get gfx card EVERYBODY was screaming gtx 970.

People went crazy with hype for that card.

There were threads like "Is the 970 the best graphics card ever made?" and "The 970 is the 8800gt of this generation," etc, etc.

It's funny now how much things have turned around.

bru · 12 Feb 2015 at 23:47

It's really daft because the 970 is still an amazing card. Very fast and quite capable for the money.
It's just that point about not being told its true nature right from the start.

I'm still not sure if I will be returning mine, fortunately due to OCUK's great customer service, I've got until the end of the month to decide. I just don't know what to change it for, not wanting to pay extra for a 980, and getting a 290/x that is just about to be replaced seems a bit daft. Now if only I hand just recently sold my 670 I'd go back to that for a few months.

teth · 13 Feb 2015 at 00:08

bru said:
It's really daft because the 970 is still an amazing card. Very fast and quite capable for the money.
It's just that point about not being told its true nature right from the start.

I'm still not sure if I will be returning mine, fortunately due to OCUK's great customer service, I've got until the end of the month to decide. I just don't know what to change it for, not wanting to pay extra for a 980, and getting a 290/x that is just about to be replaced seems a bit daft. Now if only I hand just recently sold my 670 I'd go back to that for a few months.

Well.. I don't know what ur running but like i said, I'm amazed at this r9 280 and its only 150 quid. Something like that might see you through till 380x or better.

Darujhistan · 13 Feb 2015 at 00:10

FoxEye said:
People went crazy with hype for that card.

There were threads like "Is the 970 the best graphics card ever made?" and "The 970 is the 8800gt of this generation," etc, etc.

It's funny now how much things have turned around.

This.

Turns out it's a miss-sold card.

Legend · 13 Feb 2015 at 00:40

bru said:
It's really daft because the 970 is still an amazing card. Very fast and quite capable for the money.
It's just that point about not being told its true nature right from the start.

I'm still not sure if I will be returning mine, fortunately due to OCUK's great customer service, I've got until the end of the month to decide. I just don't know what to change it for, not wanting to pay extra for a 980, and getting a 290/x that is just about to be replaced seems a bit daft. Now if only I hand just recently sold my 670 I'd go back to that for a few months.

That's only half true. The fact is that the 970, as a single card @ 1080p, is still the best choice. I would comfortably recommend it to anyone if there weren't planning on upgrading to 1440p or higher. The problem comes at 1440p+ when you start considering SLI... because once you add another card in to the mix, all that GPU grunt means you will be more likely to bump into that 3.5-4GB VRAM zone in a handful of games, and once that happens you will encounter the dreaded stutters. Admittedly, there are only a few games at present that will demand this much VRAM, but that list will grow over the next year or so.

This was always a problem with the 970, we just never knew it because it wasn't adequately tested due to the fact the true specs of the card were withheld upon release. And even if a reviewer HAD noticed some stuttering within a game, they wouldn't have said "oh it must be because there's 500mb of VRAM here that's not being accessed properly due to a hardware implementation that I wasn't told about!" Nvidia pulled a fast one, end of, and the card is compromised in certain situations precisely because they designed it to be and never told anyone.

teth · 13 Feb 2015 at 08:11

Legend said:
That's only half true. The fact is that the 970, as a single card @ 1080p, is still the best choice. I would comfortably recommend it to anyone if there weren't planning on upgrading to 1440p or higher. The problem comes at 1440p+ when you start considering SLI... because once you add another card in to the mix, all that GPU grunt means you will be more likely to bump into that 3.5-4GB VRAM zone in a handful of games, and once that happens you will encounter the dreaded stutters. Admittedly, there are only a few games at present that will demand this much VRAM, but that list will grow over the next year or so.

This was always a problem with the 970, we just never knew it because it wasn't adequately tested due to the fact the true specs of the card were withheld upon release. And even if a reviewer HAD noticed some stuttering within a game, they wouldn't have said "oh it must be because there's 500mb of VRAM here that's not being accessed properly due to a hardware implementation that I wasn't told about!" Nvidia pulled a fast one, end of, and the card is compromised in certain situations precisely because they designed it to be and never told anyone.

I'd disagree that 970 is a great 1080p card. I've swapped for r9 280 (£150) and performance at 1080p 60fps is comparable with 970.
So if you say its not good enough @ 1440p then what is is good for? Cuz for 1080p there's a lot cheaper alternatives... :eek:

ICDP · 13 Feb 2015 at 08:28

Legend said:
That's only half true. The fact is that the 970, as a single card @ 1080p, is still the best choice. I would comfortably recommend it to anyone if there weren't planning on upgrading to 1440p or higher. The problem comes at 1440p+ when you start considering SLI... because once you add another card in to the mix, all that GPU grunt means you will be more likely to bump into that 3.5-4GB VRAM zone in a handful of games, and once that happens you will encounter the dreaded stutters. Admittedly, there are only a few games at present that will demand this much VRAM, but that list will grow over the next year or so.

A friend recently told me he was thinking of purchasing a GTX970 but wanted my advice about he problems highlighted here. I told him if he had no plans to ever go over his current 27" 1080p monitor then it would be excellent. His GPU life cycle is around 3-4 years, so I did qualify it with the fact he would likely encounter some future games that would push the VRAM limits even at 1080p.

He bought the card and is delighted with it so far. If Nvidia had not mis-sold the card in the first place, none of this negativity would exist.

Amatsubu · 13 Feb 2015 at 08:59

teth said:
I'd disagree that 970 is a great 1080p card. I've swapped for r9 280 (£150) and performance at 1080p 60fps is comparable with 970.
So if you say its not good enough @ 1440p then what is is good for? Cuz for 1080p there's a lot cheaper alternatives...

Don't want to rain on your parade but in what way is the 280 comparable with the 970 performance-wise (unless you mean the 280x but even that'd still be quite off)? Sorry, but this is just getting plain ridiculous... I mean, I'm extremely miffed over the 970 shenanigans as I happen to own one but seriously... Saying that a given card is tied in performance with another based on a single game is not exactly a valid statement. Try testing across different games and then tell me the 280's grunt is "comparable" with the 970.

I can run Crysis 3 maxed (without more taxing types of AA, obviously) and get 55-60fps most of the time. I doubt you'd get that with a 280. The same goes for Dragon Age but this one is virtually locked at 60fps (bar the broken 30fps cutscenes).

I'm not entirely happy with the card, which is only natural since I bought it on the premise that I'd get 4gb ram and will be forced to swap it sooner than I intended but the whole situation is rather laughable.

Not that long ago, people were drooling over the 970 saying how it's the best thing since sliced bread and now everybody is jumping ship and going for less cabaple cards to "tide them over" until something better arrives. Not only that, the 970 was the performance king in the entire segment but now blokes are getting similar performance from signifcantly older cards?;p At 1080p? Seriously? Isn't it more sensible to keep the 970 and when it starts to struggle just swap it for something with more grunt? Surely you won't lose significantly more money doing that?

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to offend you or anything. I'm not defending Nvidia/the 970, just common sense. What they've done is clearly wrong and enough to put me off their products for quite some time. They've swept everything under the rug and moved on without offering any sort of compensation, but still: is it worth swapping for worse cards or stuffing their pockets with immoral amounts of undeserved money by getting a 980?

teth · 13 Feb 2015 at 09:33

Amatsubu said:
Don't want to rain on your parade but in what way is the 280 comparable with the 970 performance-wise (unless you mean the 280x but even that'd still be quite off)? Sorry, but this is just getting plain ridiculous... I mean, I'm extremely miffed over the 970 shenanigans as I happen to own one but seriously... Saying that a given card is tied in performance with another based on a single game is not exactly a valid statement. Try testing across different games and then tell me the 280's grunt is "comparable" with the 970.

I can run Crysis 3 maxed (without more taxing types of AA, obviously) and get 55-60fps most of the time. I doubt you'd get that with a 280. The same goes for Dragon Age but this one is virtually locked at 60fps (bar the broken 30fps cutscenes).

I'm not entirely happy with the card, which is only natural since I bought it on the premise that I'd get 4gb ram and will be forced to swap it sooner than I intended but the whole situation is rather laughable.

Not that long ago, people were drooling over the 970 saying how it's the best thing since sliced bread and now everybody is jumping ship and going for less cabaple cards to "tide them over" until something better arrives. Not only that, the 970 was the performance king in the entire segment but now blokes are getting similar performance from signifcantly older cards?;p At 1080p? Seriously? Isn't it more sensible to keep the 970 and when it starts to struggle just swap it for something with more grunt? Surely you won't lose significantly more money doing that?

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to offend you or anything. I'm not defending Nvidia/the 970, just common sense. What they've done is clearly wrong and enough to put me off their products for quite some time. They've swept everything under the rug and moved on without offering any sort of compensation, but still: is it worth swapping for worse cards or stuffing their pockets with immoral amounts of undeserved money by getting a 980?

I know it sound ridiculous!? But all i can go off is my limited experience. My CPU is weak FX-4. I only really play driving games and assetto corsa is same graphics settings on r9 280 as gtx 970!? Same frame rate except smoother... I know it sound like BS but i'm really surprised myself as heaven scores gtx 970 oc'd = 1560 and r9 280 oc'd = 990. In the game i'm currently playing though, that seems to make no difference. :cool:

As i couldn't find any benchmarks for assetto corsa i thought i'd try myself and turns out, i'm glad i did. Saved me £133 on graphics.

Baboonanza · 13 Feb 2015 at 09:51

teth said:
I know it sound ridiculous!? But all i can go off is my limited experience. My CPU is weak FX-4. I only really play driving games and assetto corsa is same graphics settings on r9 280 as gtx 970!? Same frame rate except smoother... I know it sound like BS but i'm really surprised myself as heaven scores gtx 970 oc'd = 1560 and r9 280 oc'd = 990. In the game i'm currently playing though, that seems to make no difference.
As i couldn't find any benchmarks for assetto corsa i thought i'd try myself and turns out, i'm glad i did. Saved me £133 on graphics.

It's plausible I guess. Either you were CPU limited with the 970 or Assetto Corsa is much better optimised for AMD, though that seems unlikely.

I still have no idea what 'rubber banding' in this context means though.

Orangey · 13 Feb 2015 at 09:52

Try and keep this thread to discussion of AMD spec rumours please.

teth · 13 Feb 2015 at 11:34

Swapped for 280x. Sorry this is the last on the non 380x subject, but by gfx rubber banding i mean.. As i approach a corner the frames freeze then 1/2 sec later i'm back but further into the braking zone. The game carries on and i'm just thinking... What was that? Dunno my mate said it sounded like rubber banding i don't really know though.

old gamer · 13 Feb 2015 at 11:38

teth said:
Swapped for 280x. Sorry this is the last on the non 380x subject, but by gfx rubber banding i mean.. As i approach a corner the frames freeze then 1/2 sec later i'm back but further into the braking zone. The game carries on and i'm just thinking... What was that? Dunno my mate said it sounded like rubber banding i don't really know though.

i had this with 7970 crossfire on the bf3 beta but got sorted with game patches

arc@css · 13 Feb 2015 at 12:10

teth said:
Swapped for 280x. Sorry this is the last on the non 380x subject, but by gfx rubber banding i mean.. As i approach a corner the frames freeze then 1/2 sec later i'm back but further into the braking zone. The game carries on and i'm just thinking... What was that? Dunno my mate said it sounded like rubber banding i don't really know though.

Stuttering / hitching / rubber banding : pretty much the same thing.

Amatsubu · 13 Feb 2015 at 13:25

teth said:
I know it sound ridiculous!? But all i can go off is my limited experience. My CPU is weak FX-4. I only really play driving games and assetto corsa is same graphics settings on r9 280 as gtx 970!? Same frame rate except smoother... I know it sound like BS but i'm really surprised myself as heaven scores gtx 970 oc'd = 1560 and r9 280 oc'd = 990. In the game i'm currently playing though, that seems to make no difference.
As i couldn't find any benchmarks for assetto corsa i thought i'd try myself and turns out, i'm glad i did. Saved me £133 on graphics.

Well, I guess it makes sense with this sort of CPU and the games games you play. Regarding Assetto Corsa, I tried it and there was no noticeable rubber banding. I'm on an i7 and the difference between the 970 and my last card was really noticeable.

Anyways, sorry for derailing the thread. I'm quite interested in the new AMD cards, might ditch the 970 for the 390 or 390x if they offer more than 4gb ram.