It looks like Hawaii won't die anytime soon
>>54027344
Looks as though they deliberately left out the latest AMD cards in order to put Nvidia at the top.
>>54027344
>GTX 980 gets BTFO by a lowly 290
Embarassing.
>>54027344
is this game even popular?
>>54027412
get in with the times
>>54027421
Nah.
Same could be said with every console port lately, They run great on AMD cards but the performance is abysmal on Nvidia GPU's which would explain why those games are barely popular.
>>54027421
>it only counts when I want it to
>>54027447
I mean the games sure did sell that's marketing for you but the discussions have boiled down to how bad they run instead of the game itself (lore, characters etc)
The latest Hitman per example only renders rain about 1 meter radius of you, like a PS1 game.
>>54027465
Far Cry Primal now runs at the same level as a 290X with a GTX 970 since two drivers ago which puts it above the 390 now.
>>54027492
>runs at the same level as a 290X with a GTX 970 since two drivers ago which puts it above the 390 now
390 is already better than a 290x so I don't know what you mean, also relying on driver optimisation for every new title won't cut for long since Pascal will hit the market and Nvidia will pull the trigger for Maxwell
>>54027523
>390 is already better than a 290x
No is not, who told you that.
my sources: overclockers forum 290/290x/390/390X club thread.
Bought a 750ti instead of a HD7850. Should I return it?
>>54027575
Naw. Just stick with it for now.
You kinda fucked up though, you should have gotten a GTX 950.
>>54027404
they do that every time
>>54027575
you fucked up big time
>>54027429
Jesus fuck, the 960 there is at 1400 mhz and it only matches the 380
>>54027575
>tfw 2gb 7850 sitting at 1250Mhz
>never goes over 70C or 50% fan speed
>released in 2013
>outperforms a 2014 architecture in 2016 games
is Nvidia even trying anymore?
>>54027344
Something is wrong in this chart, unless they are only using 1 GPU on the 295x2
>>54030709
it probably doesnt support crossfire. if it did the 295x2 would kill everything else on that list.
>>54027344
>No Fury in the lineup
What?
>>54030573
Both were stuck in 28nm, things should evolve soon, as they are jumping on 15nm processors.
>>54027548
The 390 has faster-rated memory modules, alleviating what was a bit of a bottleneck in the 290-series. You'd have to be very lucky to overclock the memory on a 290 or 290X to match the stock memory speed on a 390.
20% faster memory beats an extra 10% or so cores.
>>54027404
No, fury has driver issues with this game atm
>>54031754
Can't have an AMD card at the top of the chart now, can we goyim?
>>54031836
an oc 290x matches or loses to a 390x by only like 3-4 fps in most games whilst being significantly cheaper. if the 390 is faster than the 290x then the 390 would be on par with a 390x, but we know its atleast 15% slower.
>>54032221
You can't even read your own table.
stock 390x is 9-15% faster than a stock 290x despite only having 8% higher clocks.
1080/1500 390x is still faster than a 1080/1425 290x. Even 4-5% in some games.
Even at identical clocks (1080/1425) the 390x is consistently ahead of the 290x because of the 8GB of memory
>>54032466
$130 more for like 6 fps more on average. nahi'ts still not worth it. the 390x oc barely even beats the stock 980.
>>54032221
not true, because bios and drivers amd has made it so the 390 is 10-15% faster. i know i have both.
also you used to be able to bios mod 290 to a 390, but that doesnt work anymore, so there are a few hardware differences besides the ram ofc in the cards.
![perfrel_2560_1440[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/MpTLmh7.png "perfrel_2560_1440[1].png")
>>54027548
The 390 is faster than the 290X, you fucking retard.
See pic related for actual source rather than just some bullshit forum.
>>54032771
Are you retarded? The 290X was replaced by the 390 at the same price point, slightly higher performance and twice as much memory. The 390X was introduced to be one step above that (although the performance does not justify the price, just like 970 vs. 980).
Why the fuck would you compare the old $300 card to the new $430 card instead of the new $300 card, you fucking idiot?
>>54033050
>slightly higher performance
your own graph shows there's only 1% difference between the two >>54032992 that's literally margin of error stuff.
>Why the fuck would you compare the old $300 card to the new $430 card
because the 390x is the natural successor to the 290x. they even share the exact same specs except for base clock speed and ram (which can't even be fully utilized by either card lol). it's only normal for people to compare the two. go and tell every benchmark site that the're stupid to be comparing the 290 with the 390 and 290x with the 390x.
So does this mean I should get R7 370? It's pretty high up the chart for a poorfag tier card
>>54027344
Great, because I sniped a 290x for £150 on ebay about 70 minutes ago.
>>54033159
if you're a britbong you can get a gigabyte gtx 950 with a free 120gb ssd right now for about £120
>>54033182
good deal. you didn't fall for the 390 meme which costs over £100 more and has margin of error performance differences between the two. i convinced a friend to do the same.
>>54033159
Nvidia and AMD are both releasing new GPUs in June. Don't buy anything now.
>>54033050
if you got a 8gb 290x it is the same minus lower stock clocks which you can just change in software to 390x speeds. Im pretty sure you can just flash 390x bios to it too then it is literally the same.
>>54029825
Why?
>>54028280
Costs twice more and probably won't fit my case.
>>54031836
it depends the memory you got on your 290x. some of em can do 390x speeds fine. i think hynix was the bad one if im not mistaken. I have one 8gb 290x withe not nice one that cant OC memory at all. my other can do 1200 core and 1500 on memory all day with +80mv
>it's the vram meme again
http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/
>We see plenty of gamers claiming that the 390 and 390X are excellent buys due to their 8GB frame buffer ensuring that they are "future proofed," and well, that simply isn’t the case, as neither GPU has the horsepower to efficiently crunch that much data. Perhaps the only valid argument here is that the larger frame buffer could support Crossfire better, but we haven’t seen any concrete evidence of this yet.
The 970 is already getting rekt by the lowly 280x and 380x. The gimping is real. All of you with a 3.5 meme card prepare your anus, it's going to get really fun from now.
>>54033718
This isn't the vram meme, it isn't even referencing the 390/390X, but the Hawaii chip beating the 980 despite being pretty old
>>54033702
nah elpida is the true trash tier
>all these tech retards saying a 290 is just as good as a 390
xD
>all these tech retards saying a 290 isn't just as good as a 390
>>54033993
ah yeah thats the one huh.
So glad I picked up my R9 290 for $170. Such a great purchase. Eventually I'm going to have to start toning down AA, but hey, nothing lasts forever.
>>54034260
To be fair, I can only clock my 290 to 1100 MHz. Chip binning did improve, but there's also the chance that you got a lucky 290 and are comparing to a shit 390 in which case the 290 will win. On average, clock speeds do favor the 390, just not by that much.
all this shows is how incredibly powerful hawaii architecture actually is and how garbage amd was at drivers for the longest time.
i do want to give a shout-out to both amd and nvidia though for doing an amazing job at sucking out as much performance they could from their architecture's on 28nm. they virtually brought die shrink level of performance to a the same die process they were on. that's amazing.
>>54027404
>"Bвидy зaвиcящих oт AMD oбcтoятeльcтв, видeoкapты ceмeйcтвa Fury выпaдaют из тecтoв нa нecкoлькo нeдeлeк."
>Due to circumstances on AMD's side Fury series of cards are not included in the tests for a few weeks.
>>54036362
amd's drivers are still garbage due to huge driver overhead on dx11 or lower games. all benchmark sites test gpus with top end intel i7 cpus but if they tested on non-ocable i5's, i3's or amd's cpus nvidia would pull ahead by a large margin.
it's a shame amd only focuses on the future of dx12 but ignores dx11 performance problems by not adding support for Driver command lists. the division for example has 100% cpu usage problems causing stutter and fps drops for those who have i5 (non k) and lower cpus even with top end amd gpus, but no problems on nvidia's side with same cpus.
>>54032771
you are retarded if you think a fucking hamburger is worth $300.
>>54033211
Waitfags are retarded. HBM2 isn't out yet, new cards will have GDDR5X or even fucking GDDR5. No budget or high end cards yet. The only reason to wait is if you're hyped for DX12, but I'm not sure why you would be since every game so far has had minor improvements or runs like garbage.
>>54035524
Most 390s don't go any higher than ~1100MHz either. Literally nothing changed. Some maximum stable overclocks from 390 reviews (all Sapphire Nitros, aka the best model):
Tom's Goyware: 1100MHz
Hexus: 1091MHz
eTeknix: 1063MHz
KitGuru: 1133MHz
TPU: 1175MHz
Bit-tech: 1095MHz
As always, it's a lottery.
>>54037144
>people will still defend spending $100+ more for a 390
