PowerColor shows off their Radeon R9 390X DEVIL GPU, but be warned, this is not AMD F

[AlienALX]

AMD (well, ATI) called their cards names back in the day. And they have used Fury before.

 

[mazty]

Ok.

Well, there has been articles on this but you've probably missed it or something.

Basically, the 390x is probably a slightly improved 290x (think 7970 to 280X, meaning better clockspeed and potentially lower power draw ), 390 is 290 but the important one is what we originally thought was the 390x, which now appears to probably be called fury. Could this be a Titan bother-er? maybe.

I highly doubt the 390X will be competition for even the 980. It'll be hot and power hungry so the OC headroom will be tiny on air, whereas Maxwell can allow OC's to almost the next card iteration (970 -> 980, 980 -> Titan X etc). Honestly if they are just rebranding the 290, then a serious question has to be asked - what the hell have AMD been doing since Oct 13?? If they can't match Maxwell, then they may not see it through to Christmas.

 

[barnsley]

I highly doubt the 390X will be competition for even the 980. It'll be hot and power hungry so the OC headroom will be tiny on air, whereas Maxwell can allow OC's to almost the next card iteration (970 -> 980, 980 -> Titan X etc). Honestly if they are just rebranding the 290, then a serious question has to be asked - what the hell have AMD been doing since Oct 13?? If they can't match Maxwell, then they may not see it through to Christmas.

Not really sure where you got all this info. For starters this new card (called fury or whatever) is an AIO cooled card or something, not on air. The 390X appears to be the second most powerful model they'll offer.

 

[mazty]

Not really sure where you got all this info. For starters this new card (called fury or whatever) is an AIO cooled card or something, not on air. The 390X appears to be the second most powerful model they'll offer.

From what I've read, Fury will come in two offerings - an AIO version (Fury X) and an air cooled version. As for Maxwell, benchmarks show how 30% OC's can be done on stock speeds and the best of the best cards end up biting at the feet of the next iteration(think the 8PACK cards and the like).

Also it is said that the price of Fury will be around $600, which means that AMD have been doing nothing for 18 months that appeals to any gamer other than the hardcore enthusiast - they have no competition for the 970 or 980 in terms of price range as the 290 is far too hot and power hungry to be seen as competition unless they massively cut the price down and the chip has significant improvements, which is highly unlikely with a rebrand.

 

[NeverBackDown]

From what I've read, Fury will come in two offerings - an AIO version (Fury X) and an air cooled version. As for Maxwell, benchmarks show how 30% OC's can be done on stock speeds and the best of the best cards end up biting at the feet of the next iteration(think the 8PACK cards and the like).

Also it is said that the price of Fury will be around $600, which means that AMD have been doing nothing for 18 months that appeals to any gamer other than the hardcore enthusiast - they have no competition for the 970 or 980 in terms of price range as the 290 is far too hot and power hungry to be seen as competition unless they massively cut the price down and the chip has significant improvements, which is highly unlikely with a rebrand.

I think the trolling should stop.. you can't make any argument with rumors as your support.

You should also learn to realize that just because it's "rebranded" doesn't make it the same. Look at the 7xxx to the 2xx.. the 2xx's were faster because of newer firmware and BIOS's. They tended to run cooler to. AMD have had a lot of time and have introduced Freesync/Mantle/etc. By not updating to GCN 1.3 they would lose FreeSync support across the range except for the 290 series rebrands. I'm pretty confident they would update to the newest GCN architecture to not just get Freesync across the lineup but to fully support DX12/12.1. Even if the cards consumed more than Nvidia cards.. who cares? Power consumption is worthless to compare. It hardly changes how much you pay per month. Heat can be dealt with.. hell most 290x's with the great air coolers on them run in the 70C range.. that's still cooler than Nvidia cards which will run at 82C or whatever target you run them at. It's honestly not a big deal unless you buy reference 290 cards. This argument of heat output between the two companies is rather childish. Buy a worthy 290/290x and you will be fine.

 

[mazty]

I think the trolling should stop.. you can't make any argument with rumors as your support.

You should also learn to realize that just because it's "rebranded" doesn't make it the same. Look at the 7xxx to the 2xx.. the 2xx's were faster because of newer firmware and BIOS's. They tended to run cooler to. AMD have had a lot of time and have introduced Freesync/Mantle/etc. By not updating to GCN 1.3 they would lose FreeSync support across the range except for the 290 series rebrands. I'm pretty confident they would update to the newest GCN architecture to not just get Freesync across the lineup but to fully support DX12/12.1. Even if the cards consumed more than Nvidia cards.. who cares? Power consumption is worthless to compare. It hardly changes how much you pay per month. Heat can be dealt with.. hell most 290x's with the great air coolers on them run in the 70C range.. that's still cooler than Nvidia cards which will run at 82C or whatever target you run them at. It's honestly not a big deal unless you buy reference 290 cards. This argument of heat output between the two companies is rather childish. Buy a worthy 290/290x and you will be fine.

Going on what has been said, even if rumors, is not trolling, so don't try to belittle my points and lets be mature about this okay?

If you look at benchmarks and RRP, the 290 isn't even in the same ballpark as the 970, and the 290X doesn't come close to the 980. There would have to be some major changes to the cards on a hardware level to bring them to a competitive level, and I really doubt that AMD are going to be able to do that. AMD may have introduce Freesync etc, but Nvidia introduce G-Sync, etc - different departments at any rate so hardly relevant...If the cards consume more, they will tend to run hotter, and therefore less OC potential. Heat can be "dealt with" but the cooler it runs, as a rule of thumb you can tend to squeeze more out; as you said no one cares about elec bills, but we are talking about OC'ing and therefore frame rate, which everyone does care about...

You can drop comments like "childish" - it only makes your argument seem aggressive and sadly ignorant of how GPU's work. I'm actually looking to buy a GPU and for the life of me I cannot see why I would go for a 290/X over a 970.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Going on what has been said, even if rumors, is not trolling, so don't try to belittle my points and lets be mature about this okay?

If you look at benchmarks and RRP, the 290 isn't even in the same ballpark as the 970, and the 290X doesn't come close to the 980. There would have to be some major changes to the cards on a hardware level to bring them to a competitive level, and I really doubt that AMD are going to be able to do that. AMD may have introduce Freesync etc, but Nvidia introduce G-Sync, etc - different departments at any rate so hardly relevant...If the cards consume more, they will tend to run hotter, and therefore less OC potential. Heat can be "dealt with" but the cooler it runs, as a rule of thumb you can tend to squeeze more out; as you said no one cares about elec bills, but we are talking about OC'ing and therefore frame rate, which everyone does care about...

You can drop comments like "childish" - it only makes your argument seem aggressive and sadly ignorant of how GPU's work. I'm actually looking to buy a GPU and for the life of me I cannot see why I would go for a 290/X over a 970.

You make me laugh with this trolling!^_^
So I can't "belittle" your points, but you can "belittle" mine? Interesting.. That's real mature I suppose as you so call it.

I wasn't arguing btw.. your making it into one, for no reason I should add. I stated facts. Only opinion in there besides my take on power consumption, was why they should update to GCN 1.3. That's it. You on the other hand are bringing up GTX 970s/980s when I never even mentioned them comparing to 290/290x's. Only thing I compared between AMD and Nvidia was heat output and how both are very similar provided you have one of the better air coolers for AMD.

It's rather ironic you question my knowledge of how GPUs work.. that's ignorant to assume I know nothing which makes you the aggressor here... On the other hand it's also ironic that you question my knowledge when you clearly are lacking it. I mentioned Freesync because in order for AMD to use it, they need at least GCN 1.2. Only 3 cards support it, the rest of them don't. You fail to realize that and mention it as irrelevant...Which it is not if you knew better. Why would they not implement these features? That's utterly pointless of them. Currently Fiji/Fury whatever they call it will be on GCN 1.3. So it wouldn't be so difficult for them to update their "rebrands" to the newer GCN. I mentioned this because they have had the time. You cannot argue with that, it's literally just a fact. Don't know why you changed the topic into AMD vs Nvidia, I was only talking about AMD excluding heat/power consumption examples with Nvidia.

I should also mention as a FYI that a 290x competes with a 970. A 980 is faster than a 290x though more than 95% of the time.

You haven't really made any logical sense here in regards to what you are trying to argue with me about.. then again I don't know why you are trying to argue in the first place. Your the new guy around here so I'll fill you in.. Very rarely does anyone actually try to argue with anyone. We all just present a counter point and then discuss it and try to educate or correct others so we can all learn together. We are a small community and that just means we all understand others and are for what it's worth as an online community, a small family. It's just respect all around, if you feel like i'm trying to pick on you, sorry you feel that way. I'm not at all.

 

[mazty]

You make me laugh with this trolling!^_^
So I can't "belittle" your points, but you can "belittle" mine? Interesting.. That's real mature I suppose as you so call it.

I wasn't arguing btw.. your making it into one, for no reason I should add. I stated facts. Only opinion in there besides my take on power consumption, was why they should update to GCN 1.3. That's it. You on the other hand are bringing up GTX 970s/980s when I never even mentioned them comparing to 290/290x's. Only thing I compared between AMD and Nvidia was heat output and how both are very similar provided you have one of the better air coolers for AMD.

It's rather ironic you question my knowledge of how GPUs work.. that's ignorant to assume I know nothing which makes you the aggressor here... On the other hand it's also ironic that you question my knowledge when you clearly are lacking it. I mentioned Freesync because in order for AMD to use it, they need at least GCN 1.2. Only 3 cards support it, the rest of them don't. You fail to realize that and mention it as irrelevant...Which it is not if you knew better. Why would they not implement these features? That's utterly pointless of them. Currently Fiji/Fury whatever they call it will be on GCN 1.3. So it wouldn't be so difficult for them to update their "rebrands" to the newer GCN. I mentioned this because they have had the time. You cannot argue with that, it's literally just a fact. Don't know why you changed the topic into AMD vs Nvidia, I was only talking about AMD excluding heat/power consumption examples with Nvidia.

I should also mention as a FYI that a 290x competes with a 970. A 980 is faster than a 290x though more than 95% of the time.

You haven't really made any logical sense here in regards to what you are trying to argue with me about.. then again I don't know why you are trying to argue in the first place. Your the new guy around here so I'll fill you in.. Very rarely does anyone actually try to argue with anyone. We all just present a counter point and then discuss it and try to educate or correct others so we can all learn together. We are a small community and that just means we all understand others and are for what it's worth as an online community, a small family. It's just respect all around, if you feel like i'm trying to pick on you, sorry you feel that way. I'm not at all.

If you think stating what other sites have been saying about the 300 series is trolling, you need to reassess your biases and why you don't want to have a constructive chat about AMD's GPU plan.

The heat output of Maxwell and Hawaii are in no way comparible:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...-gtx-970-oc-silent-infinity-black-edition/18/
The AMD R9 290/X runs hotter, louder and is significantly hungrier with far less OC headroom. This really shouldnt be news to you...

Fiji is the chip, Fury is the card, the X moniker is the AIO version of Fury. I don't know why you aren't mentioning Nvidia who are obviously AMD's competition, and therefore any GPU plans they have must be contrasted against Nvidia's current and future offerings...
The worry is that if the 390X competes against the 970, then what do they have that competes against the 980 as the Fury (so I have heard) will be priced more towards the Titan X pricing rather than the 980, or even the 980 Ti. This will lead Nvidia with a clear lead in the market.

I may be the new guy (not really), but you're the one who started the conversation with accusations of trolling. Not the best welcome I've had before Either way, all my point is that with AMD doing mainly rebrands, I think they are going to struggle over the next 12 months as they are putting a hot and hungry architecture against a very, very efficient one which has also been marketted at a very reasonable price.

 

[barnsley]

I may be the new guy (not really), but you're the one who started the conversation with accusations of trolling. Not the best welcome I've had before Either way, all my point is that with AMD doing mainly rebrands, I think they are going to struggle over the next 12 months as they are putting a hot and hungry architecture against a very, very efficient one which has also been marketted at a very reasonable price.

I wouldn't call it a reasonable price. Better than Nvidia of past but still.

 

[mazty]

I wouldn't call it a reasonable price. Better than Nvidia of past but still.

True, I should have said the 970 is a good price, the 980 is getting there (before it made no sense) and the Ti is pretty good considering it's power.

 

[barnsley]

True, I should have said the 970 is a good price, the 980 is getting there (before it made no sense) and the Ti is pretty good considering it's power.

The TI only seems good value because of the Titan. £600 is stupid otherwise.

 

[Exar]

If you look at benchmarks and RRP, the 290 isn't even in the same ballpark as the 970, and the 290X doesn't come close to the 980 .

Actually, going by the benchmarks between MSI GTX970 and MSI 290

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_gtx970_gaming_review/15

the performance is pretty much the same. The only difference seems to be that the 290 is about 10 degrees hotter(73 for 290, 63 for 970). Right now, where i live, Sapphire 290 tri-x(which seems to be having a better cooling) is about 40 euro cheaper than the cheapest GTX 970(zotac). Mantle is also a plus, might be providing a bit more performance in some games.

Edit : they even overclock about the same at about 14%

R9 390x will also be at 8gb, which seems a bit more futureproof, even when not considering other improvements that AMD might do.

Right now, i think that a good r9 290 is the best deal to be had performance wise, but it might be worthed to wait and see what AMD will launch and what's the price/perf.

 

[Kushiro]

That 8+6 pin..

 

[mazty]

Actually, going by the benchmarks between MSI GTX970 and MSI 290

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_gtx970_gaming_review/15

the performance is pretty much the same. The only difference seems to be that the 290 is about 10 degrees hotter(73 for 290, 63 for 970). Right now, where i live, Sapphire 290 tri-x(which seems to be having a better cooling) is about 40 euro cheaper than the cheapest GTX 970(zotac). Mantle is also a plus, might be providing a bit more performance in some games.

Edit : they even overclock about the same at about 14%

R9 390x will also be at 8gb, which seems a bit more futureproof, even when not considering other improvements that AMD might do.

Right now, i think that a good r9 290 is the best deal to be had performance wise, but it might be worthed to wait and see what AMD will launch and what's the price/perf.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_gtx970_gaming_review/5

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_r9_290_gaming_review/3

I think that gives a good demonstration of the difference between the chips. Hawaii is far hotter and much more power hungry. Now if they get similar performance, okay, but my question is why is it that Nvidia are managing to get far more frames per watt than AMD? It does make you wonder what they are doing, and why a simple rebadge won't work because the GTX 970 is between £250 - £300, therefore a rebadged 290 will come out at a similar price but for the life of me I can't see why anyone would logically pick the 290 over the 970 if they are the same price.

 

[NeverBackDown]

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_gtx970_gaming_review/5

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_r9_290_gaming_review/3

I think that gives a good demonstration of the difference between the chips. Hawaii is far hotter and much more power hungry. Now if they get similar performance, okay, but my question is why is it that Nvidia are managing to get far more frames per watt than AMD? It does make you wonder what they are doing, and why a simple rebadge won't work because the GTX 970 is between £250 - £300, therefore a rebadged 290 will come out at a similar price but for the life of me I can't see why anyone would logically pick the 290 over the 970 if they are the same price.

Because it's cheaper. It still performs great and easily OC'able. I don't see why you would buy a 970. Your getting 3.5GB of vram, while it's hardly an issue now, in the future it will just become more apparent with games consuming more.

 

[Kushiro]

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_gtx970_gaming_review/5

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/msi_r9_290_gaming_review/3

I think that gives a good demonstration of the difference between the chips. Hawaii is far hotter and much more power hungry. Now if they get similar performance, okay, but my question is why is it that Nvidia are managing to get far more frames per watt than AMD? It does make you wonder what they are doing, and why a simple rebadge won't work because the GTX 970 is between £250 - £300, therefore a rebadged 290 will come out at a similar price but for the life of me I can't see why anyone would logically pick the 290 over the 970 if they are the same price.

Mazty, have a look at this before you decide to back up a fraudulent company and unjustly stabbing another, might might answer one of the question you have been searching for your in your life.
Link

One thing though, please don't go bashing AMDs team after reading the entire review about why they don't do the same. They have upped their game more than you could ask for already in regards the drivers.

It's all down to the individual in the end whether that be due to financial or not. I would personally go with the 290 to avoid potential issues the 970 design may or may not cause. The drivers from AMD are more than good enough for me personally.

 

[mazty]

Because it's cheaper. It still performs great and easily OC'able. I don't see why you would buy a 970. Your getting 3.5GB of vram, while it's hardly an issue now, in the future it will just become more apparent with games consuming more.

Look at those two reviews - they are certainly not OC'able to the same extent considering the 290 runs at 85C standard. Enjoy having a leafblower or melting the chip.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Look at those two reviews - they are certainly not OC'able to the same extent considering the 290 runs at 85C standard. Enjoy having a leafblower or melting the chip.

You seriously try so hard to start stuff.. why?
First off.. a leafblower.. really? If you even read the review you linked, it wasn't a leafblower. Maybe you should take a look at the review, as well taking a look on the 970 review. Where you can clearly see a 290x having a lower minimum and only 1 degree higher maximum. Even then the highest 290x in that review is 70C. 290x's do not run hot- get that out of your head. Get a great 290x cooler and you won't run hot at all.

Its clear to me that you are Nvidia biased. Bashing AMD cards with no knowledge of them besides the idea they run hot from reference cards, which btw 3rd party coolers solved easily. I think it's best to stop posting in a thread about AMD cards, every post you are making is just aimed at Nvidia being the better.

 

[mazty]

You seriously try so hard to start stuff.. why?
First off.. a leafblower.. really? If you even read the review you linked, it wasn't a leafblower. Maybe you should take a look at the review, as well taking a look on the 970 review. Where you can clearly see a 290x having a lower minimum and only 1 degree higher maximum. Even then the highest 290x in that review is 70C. 290x's do not run hot- get that out of your head. Get a great 290x cooler and you won't run hot at all.

Its clear to me that you are Nvidia biased. Bashing AMD cards with no knowledge of them besides the idea they run hot from reference cards, which btw 3rd party coolers solved easily. I think it's best to stop posting in a thread about AMD cards, every post you are making is just aimed at Nvidia being the better.

"try so hard to start stuff"....What are you on about? I'm talking about GPU's, not quite sure what I'd be "starting"....

Look at the reviews I gave you where it is like-for-like coolers. If you wanted to OC the MSI R9 290, it runs normally at 85, so you are going to have a temp battle on your hands hence why it would be a leafblower.

The MSI card runs at 85C. How is that not hot? Clearly you're just a fan of AMD and for some reason are not seeing what the entire industry knows - Maxwell destroys Hawaii. I think saying that you shouldn't mention AMD's market competition in a thread about AMD shows your actual agenda...

PS. I'm running a R9 280X, clearly I'm baised towards Nvidia

 

[TPC]

Many modern cards are design to increase their clock speed until they reach the set thermal limit. The 290/x does it the 280 does it the 960,970,980/ti does it, I guess you get my point.
Temp isnt a big deal until your card gets so hot that it gets louder AND starts to throttle.