Support NeoGAF

[Felix Lighter]

As a console user who is planning to build a PC I have this misconception that nvidia cards work well with most programs and games than AMD cards. I don't know if I gain this thought from reading comments over the years but is there any truth to this. Because a 5% increase doesn't seem worth it if Nvidia is known for being "better" and more user friendly.

Also I don't ever plan to overclock (it doesn't seem like something useful to me if I just want 1440p 60fps). Wouldn't it make sense for me to stick with Nvidia 980ti?

It's more complicated than that, but in my personal experience, in a single GPU configuration, I would be comfortable with either manufacturer but I prefer Nvidia's software suite. I find Nvidia is typically quicker with game optimized drivers and multi-gpu profiles. For me the biggest plus for AMD is having access to Freesync, which is less expensive option for dynamic refresh-rate monitors.

 

[pestul]

Disappointed with the 390/390x so far. Was hoping for something impressive enough to sway me from the GTX 970 but considering I'm only interested in 1080p gaming right now, I think I'm happy with my decision to go with plan A.

I think I'm actually going to order it right now so I can install it in my PC this weekend. I doubt these 300 series reviews are going to drive any price drops with the 970 and if I order now, I still get the free Batman game and can start enjoying these games I've bought in the Steam sale.

You really cannot wait for a couple of days for real reviews?

 

[Machspeed007]

An avg of 5 fps faster than a 980ti, that's too little. And why so much focus on 4K whats happening around 1080p and 1440p?. Need more benchmarks.

5fps from 50fps total is not the same thing as 5fps from 120fps total.

 

[Xplatformer]

Is 649 the liquid cooled Fury X?

Curious to see performance at lower resolution ie 1440p.

1080p...which 90% of gamers will use for the next few years.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Disappointed with the 390/390x so far. Was hoping for something impressive enough to sway me from the GTX 970 but considering I'm only interested in 1080p gaming right now, I think I'm happy with my decision to go with plan A.

I think I'm actually going to order it right now so I can install it in my PC this weekend. I doubt these 300 series reviews are going to drive any price drops with the 970 and if I order now, I still get the free Batman game and can start enjoying these games I've bought in the Steam sale.

I'm in the same boat as you, although I'm debating whether to pony up the extra cash and just get a 980.

 

[Mad Max]

Disappointed with the 390/390x so far. Was hoping for something impressive enough to sway me from the GTX 970 but considering I'm only interested in 1080p gaming right now, I think I'm happy with my decision to go with plan A.

I think I'm actually going to order it right now so I can install it in my PC this weekend. I doubt these 300 series reviews are going to drive any price drops with the 970 and if I order now, I still get the free Batman game and can start enjoying these games I've bought in the Steam sale.

There are already reviews for the 3XX cards, for example:

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/613...90x-review-nieuwe-line-up-met-bestaande-chips (dutch, but you'll figure it out)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,16.html

It's the fury x review that people are still waiting for.

 

[Seanspeed]

Maybe I just been seeing videos of people going to extremes for overclocking. I just get confused and worried that this would destroy my cards or I would mess up my future computer and I would hope to also use it for work as well as gaming.

Overclocking my GPU and getting another 5% performance from it is *literally* as simple as downloading a program(a legit program by a major company), dragging the clock speed slider to the right and then hitting 'Apply'. That's it.

CPU overclocking can be a bit more involving, but is still pretty simple once you get over the fear of messing with BIOS settings. It's quite foolproof stuff these days.

As for harming your PC, if you're just doing some modest overclocking, there's hardly anything to worry about.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I'm in the same boat as you, although I'm debating whether to pony up the extra cash and just get a 980.

I would advise against that right now, as the price/performance ratio of the 980 is terrible.

Also, the Fury Nano is probably going to come out under the price of a 980 and is likely faster too as it's a cut-down Fiji GPU.

 

[Durante]

Performance?

I'm wondering if I'm the only one in these threads who are still waiting for benchmarks before jumping to conclusions based on cards sizes, TDP, prices, etc.

Independent frametime benchmarks across a variety of games is all I'm waiting for, for any card.

 

[Machspeed007]

I think I might just get a 970 or a 980. The few benchmarks I've seen for the 390 and 390X are pretty good and they trade blows with the 970 and 980, but that power consumption is just too much. I'm only running a 7950 ATM, I don't much fancy increasing the consumption by over 100 watts. Besides I don't need that 8GB frame buffer as I only play at 1080p and I have no plans to get a new monitor and/or go Crossfire.

Plus you can still get Arkham Knight over here which is cool.

True. But then again I've just exchanged my fridge with an A++ energy class one so I'm fine with the power savings..

 

[Irobot82]

There are already reviews for the 3XX cards, for example:

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/613...90x-review-nieuwe-line-up-met-bestaande-chips (dutch, but you'll figure it out)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,16.html

It's the fury x review that people are still waiting for.

Woah woah woah. These are essentially show that the 390x isn't just a rebrand. That's a pretty decent improvement. Maybe it does have Tonga updates on it.

Metro Last light veru high1080 shows a 20fps increase over the 280x.

 

[HazySaiyan]

I would advise against that right now, as the price/performance ratio of the 980 is terrible.

Also, the Fury Nano is probably going to come out under the price of a 980 and is likely faster too as it's a cut-down Fiji GPU.

Think I should just go with the 970 then?

True. But then again I've just exchanged my fridge with an A++ energy class one so I'm fine with the power savings..

Well I live with family and pay board so I can't really justify it. If I had my own place I'd think about it at least.

 

[opticalmace]

Some other 3xx reviews are listed here: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/3a9yak/amd_radeon_r7_r9_300_series_launched_reviews/

Looks like overall the 390X and 390 slot in in between the 970 and 980. At least from a quick glance.

edit: 390 is behind the 970 is some tests, I guess it's basically competitive with the 970.

 

[Paganmoon]

Woah woah woah. These are essentially show that the 390x isn't just a rebrand. That's a pretty decent improvement. Maybe it does have Tonga updates on it.

yeah, wow, didn't expect that, quite a boost in some games. And not so much in others though.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Think I should just go with the 970 then?

Well I live with family and pay board so I can't really justify it. If I had my own place I'd think about it at least.

Either get a 970 and overclock it easily with MSI Afterburner to bring it up to around the same level as a 980 or wait for the price on the R9 Nano. That might force NV to adjust prices on the 980s.

 

[wachie]

Think I should just go with the 970 then?

If you dont plan to keep the card for a while then YES.

 

[Irobot82]

yeah, wow, didn't expect that, quite a boost in some games. And not so much in others though.

40fps increase on Project Cards...WTF...

Ok I'm thinking maybe these old cards are using old drivers from the first time this website tested them.

 

[HazySaiyan]

If you dont plan to keep the card for a while then YES.

Define 'a while'

 

[wachie]

Define 'a while'

2 years.

 

[Durante]

Woah woah woah. These are essentially show that the 390x isn't just a rebrand. That's a pretty decent improvement. Maybe it does have Tonga updates on it.

I don't really follow any of those sites. Do they re-test old cards using new drivers or simply re-use the old results?

Edit: I just read the Computerbase review, and it seems like Catalyst 15.15 causes some pretty decent performance improvements in some games and can currently only be installed on 300-series cards.

 

[KillaKalz347]

40fps increase on Project Cards...WTF...

Ok I'm thinking maybe these old cards are using old drivers from the first time this website tested them.

Yeah most likely, the 15.5 catalyst update fixed stuff in Project Cars and witcher 3.

 

[Irobot82]

I don't really follow any of those sites. Do they re-test old cards using new drivers or simply re-use the old results?

I don't know either. My go to sites are PCPer and TechReport. I was just browsing what these guys have. They do post some frame times on a few games but it's in a shitty format. I just find it hard to believe the performance on some of these games. Either Granada is Hawaii core count with Tonga features or they just posted old card results.

 

[HazySaiyan]

2 years.

Well I'd be looking at maybe one or two years

EDIT: what would you recommend in that case?

 

[LilJoka]

Yeah I was gonna say the same thing.

A water-cooled card is going to have more headroom for overclocking than an air-cooled 980 Ti reference model. If you want a water-cooled 980 Ti to be able to match the $650 reference Fury X, you are going to have to fork out more like $700-800.

Not really true, if the chips don't scale well like the current 2XX cards it doesn't matter what cooling you have.

Whereas Maxwell scales really good and just lets you explore further as cooling becomes limiting at such extreme overclocks.

 

[Larogue]

There are already reviews for the 3XX cards, for example:

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/613...90x-review-nieuwe-line-up-met-bestaande-chips (dutch, but you'll figure it out)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,16.html

It's the fury x review that people are still waiting for.

I'm really impressed with the R9 390X, its head to head in performance with GTX 980, and even outshines it in some. And all that with being $100 cheaper. At $429.99.

 

[matmanx1]

Frame cap to save power usage, and prevent the card from going into 1000+ FPS situations.

Does capping your framerate in the actual game do the same thing or is this something you have to use the driver software for? And I wonder if you can just make the settings in the driver global, for every application?

 

[opticalmace]

I was hoping the 390 would be a clear winner over the 970. I'm wondering if I should just buy a 970 and be done with it, though the memory thing is kind of annoying. Playing at 1200p now but will switch to 1440p sometime within the next 6-10 months. :/

 

[Irobot82]

I don't really follow any of those sites. Do they re-test old cards using new drivers or simply re-use the old results?

Edit: I just read the Computerbase review, and it seems like Catalyst 15.15 causes some pretty decent performance improvements in some games and can currently only be installed on 300-series cards.

I wonder if guru3d had modded the drivers to work with the rest. I'd like to see a fair test then.

 

[riflen]

Yeah true, but that is not coming until a good way into 2016 and will likely be expensive initially.

Also, for those with the budget, I think AMD will be releasing their 8GB Fury X2 (or Fury 'Maxx') probably later this year.

I wonder if Nvidia will bother with a GTX 990? Seems likely that they would do. The dual GPU cards are always a bit of a funny thing to me.

 

[Whatever'sComfortable]

I'm really impressed with the R9 390X, its head to head in performance with GTX 980, and even outshines it in some. And all that with being $100 cheaper. At $429.99.

The consensus on Guru3D is the 390X card is garbage.

Despite it equaling the performance of the GTX 980 at $100 cheaper, the overclocking potential and poorer power consumption means it's a poor buy.

The 390X is already at it's limit so you may as well buy the much cheaper 290X and just overclock it.

 

[Van Owen]

I was hoping the 390 would be a clear winner over the 970. I'm wondering if I should just buy a 970 and be done with it, though the memory thing is kind of annoying. Playing at 1200p now but will switch to 1440p sometime within the next 6-10 months. :/

I was pretty close to getting a 970 too, but I'm going to wait until the Nano is out to see what it's like. I should be fine in the mean time.

 

[opticalmace]

I was pretty close to getting a 970 too, but I'm going to wait until the Nano is out to see what it's like. I should be fine in the mean time.

I assume the Nano won't be out until August. What's your current card?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

This card is a hard sell IMO. Same price as a 980 Ti, nearly the same performance, and it's AMD. I was actually hoping it was going to be the card everyone hyped it up to be so that it would push Nvidia prices down, but it's not going to move the needle.

Going back to this post.

I would disagree, assuming the Fury X is indeed at least 5% faster than a 980 Ti. Bear in mind all Fury X cards will be reference and the same price, it has a few factors in its favour and slots in nicely:

980 Ti reference: Air cooled, lower OC headroom - $650
Fury X: Water cooled, higher OC headroom, smaller form-factor, +5% performance - $650
980 Ti Hybrid: Water cooled, +5% performance - $750

Looked here for 980 Ti prices: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gtx-980-ti-spec-roundup,news-50556.html

 

[jfoul]

The consensus on Guru3D is the 390X card is garbage.

Despite it equaling the performance of the GTX 980 at $100 cheaper, the overclocking potential and poorer power consumption means it's a poor buy.

The 390X is already at it's limit so you may as well buy the much cheaper 290X and just overclock it.

Yeah, the R9 390X isn't that great of a buy, I would just go with the R9 390 8GB for $329ish. The R9 Nano is going to shake up this whole segment big time (TDP 175 / HBM).

 

[Corpsepyre]

AMD really needs to step up their driver game. It's utterly inexcusable an R9 290 or 290x even should perform far lower than a 970. Hell, even a 960 is coming up around 280x in some games.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Not really true, if the chips don't scale well like the current 2XX cards it doesn't matter what cooling you have.

Whereas Maxwell scales really good and just lets you explore further as cooling becomes limiting at such extreme overclocks.

I should have been more specific - I'm comparing what we know about the Fury X with a reference 980 Ti, which is the same price, in terms of overclocking potential.

The Fury X GPU is apparently kept at 50 degrees C under load and the cooler supports up to 500 watts of thermal capacity. I think that will offer superior headroom for overclocks than a fan cooled 980 Ti reference card.

 

[LCGeek]

AMD really needs to step up their driver game. It's utterly inexcusable an R9 290 or 290x even should perform far lower than a 970. Hell, even a 960 is coming up around 280x in some games.

Doubtful it's gonna happen the company wants to dick around on features and performance. The VSR/DSR issue is gonna make me go back to nvidia next time I'm done hacking my own system to use a feature I know that should be enabled by drivers but still isn't for 7XXX series owner. Company is a fucking joke my 560 can downsample with no effort but not my 7950.

 

[mephixto]

I should have been more specific - I'm comparing what we know about the Fury X with a reference 980 Ti, which is the same price, in terms of overclocking potential.

The Fury X GPU is apparently kept at 50 degrees C under load and the cooler supports up to 500 watts of thermal capacity. I think that will offer superior headroom for overclocks than a fan cooled 980 Ti reference card.

There are other factors that can limit the OC not only temps. I can't push my G1 970 beyond certain point before crashing, artifacts and the card only hit 70°C under load OC.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

There are other factors that can limit the OC not only temps. I can't push my G1 970 beyond certain point before crashing, artifacts and the card only hit 70°C under load OC.

Of course, but the engineer saying the Fury X is "an overclockers dream" and other assertions to that effect, coupled with the over-engineering of the components for the purpose of overclocking, leads me to believe you'll be able to squeeze out a lot more performance from the chip. Certainly, it's not going to be as poor in this area as the Hawaii cards I bet.

 

[RandomSeed]

The specs of the 300 series cards on newegg are all fucked up. One 390 is actually 380, another 390 is listed as 16 inches long, and the number of stream processors is off (gigabyte lists 390x specs for that). It's like the wild west right now.

 

[anchorman128]

Doubtful it's gonna happen the company wants to dick around on features and performance. The VSR/DSR issue is gonna make me go back to nvidia next time I'm done hacking my own system to use a feature I know that should be enabled by drivers but still isn't for 7XXX series owner. Company is a fucking joke my 560 can downsample with no effort but not my 7950.

Obviously it's not as easy as just clicking a resolution in the geforce experience panel, but you can use our very own Durante's GeDoSaTo to down sample with any card.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807472

 

[matmanx1]

AMD really needs to step up their driver game. It's utterly inexcusable an R9 290 or 290x even should perform far lower than a 970. Hell, even a 960 is coming up around 280x in some games.

I agree with your first sentence. I'm not sure about the rest of what you wrote. We know that Nvidia hardware is not apples to apples in terms of comparison with AMD hardware. We also know that certain games favor certain cards (and Nvidia really likes to make sure that game makers favor their cards first and foremost) so I'm positive that you can't lay 100% of the blame for this on AMD's driver team.

They definitely need to be faster about getting new drivers and new updates out though. It took them 4 weeks to get a crossfire profile working for The Witcher 3 and that is just too long.

 

[Irobot82]

They definitely need to be faster about getting new drivers and new updates out though. It took them 4 weeks to get a crossfire profile working for The Witcher 3 and that is just too long.

I always find this argument funny. Let's spend a ton of resources on 1% of our customers.

 

[Renekton]

It's utterly inexcusable an R9 290 or 290x even should perform far lower than a 970. Hell, even a 960 is coming up around 280x in some games.

To be fair 960 and 970 are beating 770 and 780Ti respectively.

Your real beef might be AMD not having Fijis for the $300 price point.

 

[Mad Max]

Of course, but the engineer saying the Fury X is "an overclockers dream" and other assertions to that effect, coupled with the over-engineering of the components for the purpose of overclocking, leads me to believe you'll be able to squeeze out a lot more performance from the chip. Certainly, it's not going to be as poor in this area as the Hawaii cards I bet.

If these cards OC well I'll buy one day 0, I just hope they're not playing into the perception that any card will reach huge overclocks when you keep the temps low. Because, like you said, my 290 didn't really OC all that well on water, even with temps of <40C under full load.

 

[LCGeek]

I always find this argument funny. Let's spend a ton of resources on 1% of our customers.

and that's why they have a shitty perception with their drivers despite it not always being the case. When the only other competitor does put effort and its consistent it adds up especially when it happens with a majority of big releases say for the 7 years alone.

Obviously it's not as easy as just clicking a resolution in the geforce experience panel, but you can use our very own Durante's GeDoSaTo to down sample with any card.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807472

I do use it but it's not always compatible with some of the games I play. I love the tool when I can but it's not practical for every game like a cru or reg hack is. Love durante work but I don't see why someone like him does a better job than AMD in this area when they have the resources or talents to do more.

 

[Van Owen]

I assume the Nano won't be out until August. What's your current card?

7950 clocked at 1125/1500. I may have to wait to play Batman lol.

 

[sflufan]

For my upcoming build, I think I'm going to go with the R9 390 as an "interim solution" until both companies roll out their HBM 2.0 solutions next year.

 

[Hazaro]

For my upcoming build, I think I'm going to go with the R9 390 as an "interim solution" until both companies roll out their HBM 2.0 solutions next year.

Should just grab a used 290. They still have a year of warranty left and are like $200

 

[tenchir]

The previews are out for the Fury series, and they pretty much came out at the same time, which mean the reviews should be out soon. I would guess the reviews should be out on Monday when all the news of E3(games, VR, etc...) dies down, I think AMD doesn't want their cards to compete with E3 coverage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fury-x-fiji-preview,29400.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Exposes-Fiji-World-HBM-Enthusiast