tolis626
Senior member
- Aug 25, 2013
- 399
- 0
- 76
Interesting perspective. GTX980 only beats R9 290 by 20-25% or so and R9 290 has been on sale for $399 10 months before 980 came out for $550. 980 sold like hot cakes with these metrics but you suggest that a 20% faster R9 390 at say $500-550 against a 980 is a failure? What if AMD brings out a card with 980's performance for $399, that's a failure too?
I am personally far far more excited now for 14nm given the pricing of 980/Titan X and the delays of R9 390 cards, but people seem to overinflated how great 970/980 were when they dropped. After-market R9 290 like the Sapphire Tri-X were selling for $350-370 before 970/980 came out. Just because most reviewers/gamers didn't pay attention to those prices, doesn't mean it wasn't the reality.
I don't know if it's poor choice of words on my part or if you read what I wrote wrong, but that's not what I meant. 980 and 970, from a performance satndpoint, not perf/W, are nothing special in themselves. Managing a 20% lead over the 980 9 months after its release is underwhelming. And it's not just that. It will be a year and a half after Hawaii launched. I'd expect better after so long. 7970->290x was a nice jump. I expect at least as good a jump with 290x->390x.
Also, it's not like I don't care about perf/$. I don't have that much money, and I will most likely be going with a 390 non-X when it comes out.
Other than that... Yeah, 14nm GPUs can't come quickly enough. I just hope AMD is going to have something ready in time to counter whatever NVidia puts out. Otherwise we're going to see a potentially huge performance gap between the two companies and we can be sure NVidia is going to milk the hell out of us for the added performance.