• 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.
It's funny how [H] is regularly criticised when it portrays AMD cards in a bad light but as soon as it shows figures that agree with their side of the argument it gets linked.
 
africanos23 said:
MAX OC PCS+ vs Stock GTX980 ok very fair comparison thanks for that :)

That FC4 FPS is not representative of the actual experience. I know first hand from both AMD and Nvidia hardware.
Click to expand...

From the review test setup:

Max OC PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X - 1170 MHz Core / 6.3 GHz memory
Stock PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X - 1050 MHz Core / 5.4 GHz memory.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 - 1126 MHz Base / 1216 MHz Boost / 7 GHz memory.
OC MSI GeForce GTX 970 4G - 1246 MHz Base / 1403 MHz Boost / 8 GHz memory.


You fail to notice that there is an OC Maxwell card there which is still slower than the 290X OC even when its clocked over 250MHz faster.

At stock the 980 is boosting to 1216Mhz compared to the 1050MHz of the 290X PCS+. Even the OC PCS+ is 46MHz slower than the 980.
This shows that clock for clock the 290X architecture appears to be faster than the Maxwell architecture.

The fact of the matter is that the 290X is not even supposed to compete with the 980 but is keeping up with it at half the price point.

Another point is that the link points to a full review so there are other games tested aside from FC4 if you had bothered to look.
 
fs123 said:
From the review test setup:

Max OC PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X - 1170 MHz Core / 6.3 GHz memory
Stock PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X - 1050 MHz Core / 5.4 GHz memory.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 - 1126 MHz Base / 1216 MHz Boost / 7 GHz memory.
OC MSI GeForce GTX 970 4G - 1246 MHz Base / 1403 MHz Boost / 8 GHz memory.


You fail to notice that there is an OC Maxwell card there which is still slower than the 290X OC even when its clocked over 250MHz faster.

At stock the 980 is boosting to 1216Mhz compared to the 1050MHz of the 290X PCS+. Even the OC PCS+ is 46MHz slower than the 980.
This shows that clock for clock the 290X architecture appears to be faster than the Maxwell architecture.

The fact of the matter is that the 290X is not even supposed to compete with the 980 but is keeping up with it at half the price point.

Another point is that the link points to a full review so there are other games tested aside from FC4 if you had bothered to look.
Click to expand...

+1 however prepare for an Nvidia fanboy bombardment from the usual suspects denying any truth in your logic and findings
 
The stock R9-290X I missed (thought that was a R9-290)

I went through the other games aswell. The only one that catched my eye was Tomb Raider with a OCed GTX970 and the R9-290X giving very high max FPS. Other results are normal and within margin of error.

From their list I would have only tested Crysis 3 and maybe BF4 as the rest are either turd or lean towards a brand more.

I wouldn't really put the GTX970 with these cards to be honest even OCed. At higher resolutions that card is not good (personal experience)

I would really like to link a benchmark I wrote on the Best GPU for Gaming (very long and detailed) but sadly I can't (not allowed to) albeit for 1080p it has some gems in there.

Price/Performance or sheer performance to each his own.
 
Last edited:
This thread is descending rapidly.

KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

AMD/ATi are using HBM as they must know it's of benefit to them, it might be as quick as a 7970! or it could be faster than a Titan X. Nobody knows until the damn things are released!
 
TaKeN said:
This thread is descending rapidly.

KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

AMD/ATi are using HBM as they must know it's of benefit to them, it might be as quick as a 7970! or it could be faster than a Titan X. Nobody knows until the damn things are released!
Click to expand...

True, so do we have any news (from Wccftech)?

They're the only site churning out random salt.
 
TaKeN said:
This thread is descending rapidly.

KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

AMD/ATi are using HBM as they must know it's of benefit to them, it might be as quick as a 7970! or it could be faster than a Titan X. Nobody knows until the damn things are released!
Click to expand...

That happens when there is no info and rumours are all there is. People want new stuff, be it from AMD or nVidia and frustrations kick in when there is no news.
 
I think people misunderstood what Kaapstad was getting out.

AMD are first past the post with HBM and it must've cost them quite a lot of money at this stage to utilise it.

Nvidia can come in when HBM prices have dropped down (As happens with all new things) and reap the benefits of cheaper manufacturing costs.

Good on AMD for thinking ahead though, you have to speculate to accumulate.
 
edscdk said:
You mean to say on a video card, general purpose CPU does not usually matter so much, if you reduce the speed of the RAM in your PC by 50% i bet you would struggle to see any performance difference.
Click to expand...

You missed a later post of mine that explained the misconceptions about ram frequency and timings. Essentially the read latency from the memory cell to the memory controller is the same, regardless of the frequency, so the same stick at 1600mhz still has the same read latency as 3200mhz, all increasing the frequency does is increase the available bandwith, which is independent of latency. The timings increase with frequency because they are measured in clock cycles and are not measured in time.

Some memory sticks may have slightly lower latencies, but they are far more expensive and the decrease tends to be nearly negligable.
 
Last edited:
So, what good is all this HBM hype if the GPU core that AMD release is slower than Nvidia's 980 Ti/Titan X with the card ultimately slower than the Nvidia offerings?

Surely it just looks bad? This awesome new bandwidth rich memory solution but worse end performance than competitors?

Really, AMD should be aiming at a king of the hill GPU, but people know at best it's just going to be a 290X/Titan situation, where the 290X was no titan killer. That is no problem by itself, it's because of this hype with the HBM that to me, it becomes a marketing nightmare.
 
Martini1991 said:
So, what good is all this HBM hype if the GPU core that AMD release is slower than Nvidia's 980 Ti/Titan X with the card ultimately slower than the Nvidia offerings?

Surely it just looks bad? This awesome new bandwidth rich memory solution but worse end performance than competitors?

Really, AMD should be aiming at a king of the hill GPU, but people know at best it's just going to be a 290X/Titan situation, where the 290X was no titan killer. That is no problem by itself, it's because of this hype with the HBM that to me, it becomes a marketing nightmare.
Click to expand...

A marketing nightmare if it fails in the benches for some reason, or if the 390X is much less than a TX.....none of this matters to us though, because if so; you just get a TX instead

AMD are in serious trouble here, because the TX has no faults at all, because it only really needs Water cooling and we already have 2 or 3 different TXs on Water already

forget this silly HBM arguement, because we always need new tech and this is not what's the problem.........it's this dead silence, it is not normal and it tells you something odd is going on.
 
Last edited:
Mal X said:
A marketing nightmare if it fails in the benches for some reason, or if the 390X is much less than a TX.....none of this matters to us though, because if so; you just get a TX instead

AMD are in serious trouble here, because the TX has no faults at all, because it only really needs Water cooling and we already have 2 or 3 different TXs on Water already

forget this silly HBM arguement, because we always need new tech and this is not what's the problem.........it's this dead silence, it is not normal and it tells you something odd is going on.
Click to expand...
thing is the HBM could be the problem :) or since this is all speculation maybe not.
 
Mal X said:
AMD are in serious trouble here, because the TX has no faults at all, because it only really needs Water cooling and we already have 2 or 3 different TXs on Water already
Click to expand...

So the TX has no fault's but needs water cooling. If you ask me needing water cooling is a major minus. This would mean the cooler is not up to the job on a card that cost's £900. Some would see the price as a fault as not everyone want's to shell out that much. If AMD can come close to the Titan X performance +/- and come in at normal prices they will have no problem selling the 390x. If i was AMD i would be more worried about a possible 980ti which should come priced much more aggressive.
 
Martini1991 said:
So, what good is all this HBM hype if the GPU core that AMD release is slower than Nvidia's 980 Ti/Titan X with the card ultimately slower than the Nvidia offerings?

Surely it just looks bad? This awesome new bandwidth rich memory solution but worse end performance than competitors?

Really, AMD should be aiming at a king of the hill GPU, but people know at best it's just going to be a 290X/Titan situation, where the 290X was no titan killer. That is no problem by itself, it's because of this hype with the HBM that to me, it becomes a marketing nightmare.
Click to expand...

It was a Titan killer.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...9-290x-vs-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-4k/?page=4

Also AMD is not hyping HBM, it's the fans. They're using it because they need it and not just in desktop. It has to be developed and better to do it on a mature node. Simple as that really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom