[WCCF] AMD Radeon R9 390X Pictured

[digitaldurandal]

I'm not going to take any real speculation on the 390x's performance seriously...but on the competition point, yes. We need some competition. I don't care if AMD goes out of business - as long as someone else steps in. I don't prefer red, blue or green. I'll take whichever is the best value for me...

Matrox and Intel failed to do it. There are very few companies that could even contemplate entering the market and the companies that could are likely not very interested in doing so, they are used to making quite a bit more money.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I'm fine with 4GB again. I'm considering going 21:9 1440p, so I'll be pushing the memory needs higher than most people. If I run into problems, ticking textures down a notch isn't world ending. 8GB would be nice, but there is always a cost involved.

I am in the same boat as you.

If there is an option above 4 GB and the price is right I may get it. But realistically I am probably sitting this generation out, or I will be purchasing cards at the end of the life cycle like I did this time for half of their original cost.

I am waiting for LG to release the 34in 21:9 3440x1440 with freesync. So that is probably all the PC money I can spend for the year but I think the monitor will last me longer than a GPU anyway.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Best would be to wait til 2016 and R9 400 series and Pascal. Both new architectures and FinFETs and HBM2 with massive gains.

But it means waiting a year. I think my GPU summer buy will have a short life before its replaced

 

[Alatar]

For a company that just presented slides about virtual reality, and is facing 6GB/12GB cards from Nvidia, 4GB would not be ideal.

VR is actually a high end GPU market that actually doesn't need the huge VRAM amounts. The chances of getting 4K VR devices in the next 2 years is slim to none. It's 1440p or lower and with 1440p or 1080p you're not even using the entire screen so the actual effective resolution is lower.

VR needs low latency and just more shader grunt.

 

[Kippa]

My old monitor went fubar, so I bit the bullet at bought a 4K monitor. I have Titan not a Titan Black or Titan X. I really was pleasantly surprised, I turned off multisampling and AA altogether and it handles my games alright. As for jaggies around edges, on my monitor at 4K being 28" screen I can't see them. BF4 runs fine on a Titan at 4K with no AA or supersampling. The general rule that I took was just to play the games and "see how it felt", no looking at fps or benchmarks. All the games that I have played so far look and feel fine.

As for the 390X goes I'm still interested but not as much as I was before I tested my games. If you turn off supersampling and AA in general I have found that playing games at 4K isn't as demanding as I thought it would have been.

 

[3DVagabond]

Assuming it is 4GB, every generation in recent history up until now AMD has had more vram. Never seemed to hurt nVidia. 4GB on the 980 didn't hurt them. There were even plenty of nVidia users who said the memory system on the 970 didn't matter. We've got plenty of people running 980 SLI, with again 4GB. Now, if AMD releases a 4GB card, it's complete failure because nVidia has more VRAM on Titan?

If the card is priced correctly for the performance, then it won't be an issue. Again, that's assuming it turns out that way.

 

[SPBHM]

Assuming it is 4GB, every generation in recent history up until now AMD has had more vram. Never seemed to hurt nVidia. 4GB on the 980 didn't hurt them. There were even plenty of nVidia users who said the memory system on the 970 didn't matter. We've got plenty of people running 980 SLI, with again 4GB. Now, if AMD releases a 4GB card, it's complete failure because nVidia has more VRAM on Titan?

If the card is priced correctly for the performance, then it won't be an issue. Again, that's assuming it turns out that way.

that's because the 680 happened before the transition to the next gen consoles and games (and it looks like it was more of a 560 Ti successor anyway), with Titan Nvidia had double the vram, and with the 780 parity, the 290s had more but I don't think it gave AMD much of an advantage, again, it was before or during the transition to the next gen; now we have the Next gen (with the GPUs being able to play with more than 4GB on the consoles if needed) established and DX12 coming soon, it can be more of factor,

also 5870 to 6970 added 1GB
6970 to 7970 added 1GB
7970 to 290x added 1GB
290x to 390x = ?

 

[3DVagabond]

that's because the 680 happened before the transition to the next gen consoles and games (and it looks like it was more of a 560 Ti successor anyway), with Titan Nvidia had double the vram, and with the 780 parity, the 290s had more but I don't think it gave AMD much of an advantage, again, it was before or during the transition to the next gen; now we have the Next gen (with the GPUs being able to play with more than 4GB on the consoles if needed) established and DX12 coming soon, it can be more of factor,

also 5870 to 6970 added 1GB
6970 to 7970 added 1GB
7970 to 290x added 1GB
290x to 390x = ?

Look at this: source

COH2 was released June 2013. Hitman Absolution is even older Nov. 2012. Why weren't they showing the deficiencies of less VRAM with these titles back then? Back when AMD had more VRAM than nVidia. Instead we saw review after review that showed 2 and 3GB nVidia cards performing just fine. Now they are showing the benefit of 8GB over 4GB on games that have been around for years.

 

[5150Joker]

Assuming it is 4GB, every generation in recent history up until now AMD has had more vram. Never seemed to hurt nVidia. 4GB on the 980 didn't hurt them. There were even plenty of nVidia users who said the memory system on the 970 didn't matter. We've got plenty of people running 980 SLI, with again 4GB. Now, if AMD releases a 4GB card, it's complete failure because nVidia has more VRAM on Titan?

If the card is priced correctly for the performance, then it won't be an issue. Again, that's assuming it turns out that way.

Times have changed with these new generation consoles come ports that will eat more vram. Back when NVIDIA was at a disadvantage, the Xbox 360/PS3 were still the main console platforms. Launching a top end GPU in mid 2015 with only 4 GB is a mistake that AMD will pay for if true.

 

[Silverforce11]

Look at this: source

COH2 was released June 2013. Hitman Absolution is even older Nov. 2012. Why weren't they showing the deficiencies of less VRAM with these titles back then? Back when AMD had more VRAM than nVidia. Instead we saw review after review that showed 2 and 3GB nVidia cards performing just fine. Now they are showing the benefit of 8GB over 4GB on games that have been around for years.

Because even older games, once you crank up the MSAA (8X) will eat vram. Max Payne etc, with 4x MSAA will cripple 2-3GB vram GPUs.

But I don't really care for obscene MSAA amount, its the texture quality. SOM recommends 6GB for the ultra texture. While min/avg fps looks "fine", actual gameplay is not, there are stutters for cards with 4gb or less. Most prominently on the 970 prior to the recent drivers. But overall the game is less smooth.

Some games show they can use more than 4gb, whether they need it or not, cannot be shown via a simple min/avg fps. You need frame time analysis to see the impacts.

 

[boozzer]

Look at this: source

COH2 was released June 2013. Hitman Absolution is even older Nov. 2012. Why weren't they showing the deficiencies of less VRAM with these titles back then? Back when AMD had more VRAM than nVidia. Instead we saw review after review that showed 2 and 3GB nVidia cards performing just fine. Now they are showing the benefit of 8GB over 4GB on games that have been around for years.

you should know by now. with certain members of this forum, they have 2 standards. one for nv and another for amd. there is something wrong with every amd gpu there is nothing wrong with any nv gpu, even if it is the same things they complain about with amd gpus

 

[3DVagabond]

Because even older games, once you crank up the MSAA (8X) will eat vram. Max Payne etc, with 4x MSAA will cripple 2-3GB vram GPUs.

But I don't really care for obscene MSAA amount, its the texture quality. SOM recommends 6GB for the ultra texture. While min/avg fps looks "fine", actual gameplay is not, there are stutters for cards with 4gb or less. Most prominently on the 970 prior to the recent drivers. But overall the game is less smooth.

Some games show they can use more than 4gb, whether they need it or not, cannot be shown via a simple min/avg fps. You need frame time analysis to see the impacts.

Read into it a bit. We didn't have 8GB cards back then. We did have 2 to 4 GB cards though. We didn't see them run settings though that would show us any differences then, even though the games and the tech (Eyefinity/Surround) were around. People were let believe that 2GB 680/770 were fine. They didn't need 3GB 7970/280X. They were lead to believe that 3GB 780's were fine. They didn't need 4GB 290's. Even in 980/970 reviews, even SLI reviews, they aren't shown to be VRAM limited. Now though, when we have a rumor that the 390 will be 4GB, well, now we need 8GB.

 

[Kenmitch]

Read into it a bit. We didn't have 8GB cards back then. We did have 2 to 4 GB cards though. We didn't see them run settings though that would show us any differences then, even though the games and the tech (Eyefinity/Surround) were around. People were let believe that 2GB 680/770 were fine. They didn't need 3GB 7970/280X. They were lead to believe that 3GB 780's were fine. They didn't need 4GB 290's. Even in 980/970 reviews, even SLI reviews, they aren't shown to be VRAM limited. Now though, when we have a rumor that the 390 will be 4GB, well, now we need 8GB.

In the mobile world Apple dictates the acceptable screen size.

In the GPU world NVIDIA determines the....Everything to a lot of people it looks like.

Funny how things work in the real world.

Brand loyalty is a strange thing.

 

[LTC8K6]

If AMD thinks their new flagship card should have 8gb of vram, then that's probably what it will have.

I tend to agree with the idea that new flagship video cards in 2015 should have 8gb of vram.

 

[stuff_me_good]

@RS Way to be selective of my quote. Note my emphasis in this thread & others on the usage of VSR, downsampling from 4k to 1080/1440p monitors.

No, I don't need benches of 4K with MSAA to show me that Titan X + can't handle it. Because I won't be running MSAA at native 4K OR if I use VSR.

Are you gonna say with a straight face that now and til ~18 months away when next-gen 14/16nm GPUs come, that more games won't push the 4gb barrier with ultra textures running at native 4K or VSR?

4GB is a mistake for a GPU with potentially that much performance, its crippling it.

ps. This was my plan of upgrade, 390X + either 1440p IPS and use VSR or go with a nice 4K VA/IPS monitor and game without MSAA at native 4K. I've seen it in action, I dont think 4K needs MSAA, and with the trend of games where MSAA destroys performance, without it, games are very playable.

I think you are the one who is missing the point. Ok, the examples that RS showed to us didn't have those precious VSR examples you hold so dear, but VSR is essentially just rendering images at higher resolution and then down sampling them to you preferred resolution, right? So, even though the examples that RS posted didn't have VSR but instead they had 4k with AA which is more than plain VSR VRAM wise. So those examples shows to us the whole point we are discussing here... is 4GB enough for high end? From those examples that RS posted, I can see that while even titan x can't render games at high settings and clearly AA is way to much for even titan to handle at 4K, but when you look at GTX 980 results, the meager 4GB of ram is sufficient enough for it. No stuttering or anything for 980 on those same games with rendering settings that are clearly too much for it to handle VRAM wise(what we are discussing here), so why it's not enough for 390X series then?

So the real issue here is not the question is 4GB enough for lower than 4k games with AA, it's more of individual personal issue. Like you have been bitching so long here, for you 390X with only 4GB is clearly FAIL no matter how well it performs on games. You and clearly some others have already decided that high end card has to have 8GB or more and that's it, end of discussion and you continue to drum the same old song even though we know nothing concrete whether or not 390 resies have 8GB or less. So what ever happens some people have already decided that if 390X has only 4GB of VRAM, it's done... FAIL, no matter how it performs on real world applications and games.


Edit: But for AMD marketing and imago wise 4GB is not good. Even though in the past amd had usually the VRAM advantage, it was not issue not to nvidia customers at least, but clearly nv marketing has done it's job and suddenly it's the one most important spec of the product.

 

[_UP_]

Read into it a bit. We didn't have 8GB cards back then. We did have 2 to 4 GB cards though. We didn't see them run settings though that would show us any differences then, even though the games and the tech (Eyefinity/Surround) were around. People were let believe that 2GB 680/770 were fine. They didn't need 3GB 7970/280X. They were lead to believe that 3GB 780's were fine. They didn't need 4GB 290's. Even in 980/970 reviews, even SLI reviews, they aren't shown to be VRAM limited. Now though, when we have a rumor that the 390 will be 4GB, well, now we need 8GB.

Whereas I agree that some people have that problem, not all of us. I can tell you that some of the reasons for my upgrades were exactly the VRAM. I went 780 ti -> 290x just for that basically. So, I don't think it is always the case. Also, keep in mind that the 970/980 came out a little while ago by now. It isn't exactly a fair comparison. As for the 970 thing, well, I doubt I'll be buying an NV card for a while now because of that and GW. It's just not going to be enough for a *flagship* card, as those are supposed to push the limit (OTOH, 12 is probably way too much). I would say 6 should be enough, but not possible with the memory arrangement, so 8 it is. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[JDG1980]

In the mobile world Apple dictates the acceptable screen size.

No, they don't. Steve Jobs said in 2010 that no one would want to buy a phone with a big screen, so Apple didn't make one. But when the Galaxy Note and other "phablets" started to cut into Apple's market share, Tim Cook changed this policy, and as a result the iPhone 6 was available in two sizes, which were clearly based on and intended to compete against the Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy Note series. Apple's own internal PowerPoints showed that people wanted phones with bigger screens, and were getting them from other vendors. Eventually, Apple had no choice but to comply.

Likewise, Steve Jobs once said that 7-inch tablets were "dead on arrival" and that Apple would never make one. That had to change after the Android vendors started making smaller tablets that were actually good (most notably the Nexus 7), and Tim Cook had to do some tap-dancing to walk back Jobs' earlier statement when he announced the iPad Mini.

 

[SPBHM]

Look at this: source
http://www.bitsandchips.it/images/2014/11/06/8gb/triple/3.png
http://www.bitsandchips.it/images/2014/11/06/8gb/triple/5.png

COH2 was released June 2013. Hitman Absolution is even older Nov. 2012. Why weren't they showing the deficiencies of less VRAM with these titles back then? Back when AMD had more VRAM than nVidia. Instead we saw review after review that showed 2 and 3GB nVidia cards performing just fine. Now they are showing the benefit of 8GB over 4GB on games that have been around for years.

I think the answer is in the graphics you posted, the 2012 game is running at 25FPS on the 290x, and the other is not running all that well... you have to use extreme settings to show the difference (to extreme for those GPUs), and with the lack of to many options of cards with more vram there wasn't a lot of incentive to be testing this scenario and I expect future games might be able to show the difference from 4 to 6/12GB without as extreme settings, and the Titan X and 390X are probably a lot faster than the 290X anyway...
when games at regular settings started to show an advantage for 2GB+ cards I think the advantage was well documented,

if you think it's a simple Nvidia bias to be talking about the impact of more than 4GB now, it would be simple to start looking for extreme settings the moment the Titan was launched (6GB) over 2 years ago, and the best card from AMD still had 3GB for a while,

 

[boozzer]

silverforce should just skip this generation or bite the bullet and buy a titan x if he can't live with 4gb vram. >>if<< 390x is 4gb, the most sensible thing for him to do is to buy a titan x. it seems that is what he wants. he should go for it. just pay the premium for the titan x for the 12gb vram. it has what he wants.

 

[Silverforce11]

No, I'll probably buy a 6GB GM200 SKU. Cos I aint paying big bucks for another 4GB GPU when I already have two. But saying that, due to the GW BS of late, I won't be buying NV regardless.

We'll see what AMD comes up with, but I am not going to buy Fiji XT if its 4GB.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think the answer is in the graphics you posted, the 2012 game is running at 25FPS on the 290x, and the other is not running all that well... you have to use extreme settings to show the difference (to extreme for those GPUs), and with the lack of to many options of cards with more vram there wasn't a lot of incentive to be testing this scenario and I expect future games might be able to show the difference from 4 to 6/12GB without as extreme settings, and the Titan X and 390X are probably a lot faster than the 290X anyway...
when games at regular settings started to show an advantage for 2GB+ cards I think the advantage was well documented,

if you think it's a simple Nvidia bias to be talking about the impact of more than 4GB now, it would be simple to start looking for extreme settings the moment the Titan was launched (6GB) over 2 years ago, and the best card from AMD still had 3GB for a while,

Don't get fixated on 8GB. That's today's number. When nVidia had 2GB and AMD had 3GB, I'm sure that the 2GB limitation could have been shown. Same thing when it was 3GB 780's vs. 4GB 290's. As far as the 6GB Titan, you aren't going to see nVidia show that their entire lineup sans the Titan had too little VRAM. That would have helped AMD. While the Titan sold well, they can't try and convince everyone they need 6GB without showing the limitation of all of their other cards.

 

[boozzer]

silver, why not wait for 2016? your current gpu is that bad? must upgrade?

 

[3DVagabond]

No, I'll probably buy a 6GB GM200 SKU. Cos I aint paying big bucks for another 4GB GPU when I already have two. But saying that, due to the GW BS of late, I won't be buying NV regardless.

We'll see what AMD comes up with, but I am not going to buy Fiji XT if its 4GB.

IF it's 4GB on release it doesn't mean it will stay that way. We know they have the tech to do 8GB. It just might not be ready quite yet.

 

[RussianSensation]

silverforce should just skip this generation

This isn't a bad idea actually. There aren't many great options for 4K monitors, nevermind FreeSync/GSync 4K monitors. I can't imagine buying a $1K 4K monitor without either of those features because 4K brings the pain to modern GPUs and adaptive sync really helps in the 30-60 fps range. The other thing is if someone is skipping GW titles until they hit bargain prices, R9 290X CF still plays vendor agnostic titles very well. Therefore, I don't think he has an urgent need to upgrade. Also, I do believe that 14nm/16nm + new architectures + HBM2 will provide a bigger boost in performance than this generation will. Since HD7970/R9 200 series have depreciated so much at this point, it's not as if selling those cards now is strategic anymore -- that point is long gone.

Financially holding on to R9 290/290X CF is actually worthwhile. Here is why:

Let's say you can resell a 290X used for $240 today, or $480 for both, in 18-24 months, you'll probably be able to resell them for $120-130 each, or $240-260 for both, which means a loss of resale value of $120-130 per 1 card.

However, if you buy a $600-800 28nm card today such as GM200, that card will likely lose $200-300 in value in 24 months. Upgrade to 2 of those and you are looking to lose $400-600 in resale value because 14nm/16nm GPUs will level this gen's flagships as far as price/performance goes - you can count on it (i.e., recall $330 970 ~ $700 780Ti just 10 months from launch. OUCH). Therefore, if money is a factor, if someone missed the 'perfect' time to resell his/her old card, it isn't such a bad idea to skip a generation(s) if a gamer is OK turning down some settings and doesn't need to run everything on Ultra in every game.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you guys seriously think next gen GPUs, on a brand new unproven node is going to be smooth sailing its way to a timely launch with good volume & prices?

It could be a very long wait.