Team Group MP34 NVME SSD (512GB) review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming OC review
Anno 1800: PC graphics performance benchmark review
NZXT H500 Overwatch Special Edition review
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Twin Fan 6 GB Review
Corsair Carbide 275Q review
Cooler Master MK850 keyboard review
WD Blue SN500 NVME SSD (250GB) Review
ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme Alpha review
PowerColor Radeon R9 390 PCS+ 8GB review
Posted by: on: 07/01/2015 05:26 PM [
25 comment(s) ]
We review the PowerColor Radeon R9 390 PCS+ 8 GB edition. The card's equipped with that renamed Hawaii Pro GPU, now called Grenada. It comes fitted with a massive triple slot air cooler keeping this product under 70 Degrees C, that's under full gaming load whilst being factory overclocked and fairly silent.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
powercolor
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Posted on: 07/01/2015 07:05 PM
Still heaps cheaper than a GTX 980 and performs roughly the same. Where it seems to really lag, driver updates should help.
Still heaps cheaper than a GTX 980 and performs roughly the same. Where it seems to really lag, driver updates should help.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Posted on: 07/01/2015 07:20 PM
Sometimes I get the feeling Nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab, even if it's hard to believe since they tend to be greedy scumbags.
I mean performs the same as a 980, yet 200$ cheaper. That's great value.
Sometimes I get the feeling Nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab, even if it's hard to believe since they tend to be greedy scumbags.
I mean performs the same as a 980, yet 200$ cheaper. That's great value.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Posted on: 07/01/2015 07:48 PM
Sometimes I get the feeling Nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab, even if it's hard to believe since they tend to be greedy scumbags.
I mean performs the same as a 980, yet 200$ cheaper. That's great value.
That doesn't make any sense. What is more logical is; AMD knows they have something that performs similar (depending on the game) to the 980 and decides to undercut Nvidia by quite a bit (which just eats into their margins), what does that have to do with nvidia "deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab"?
Sometimes I get the feeling Nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab, even if it's hard to believe since they tend to be greedy scumbags.
I mean performs the same as a 980, yet 200$ cheaper. That's great value.
That doesn't make any sense. What is more logical is; AMD knows they have something that performs similar (depending on the game) to the 980 and decides to undercut Nvidia by quite a bit (which just eats into their margins), what does that have to do with nvidia "deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab"?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Posted on: 07/01/2015 07:53 PM
I wouldn't say nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments, but for the past 8 years or so they've been consistently and significantly more expensive than AMD, whether they were #1 or not. Even though nvidia currently own the crown for best overall performance and best performance-per-watt, that's no excuse for their GPUs to cost so much.
That doesn't make any sense. What is more logical is; AMD knows they have something that performs similar (depending on the game) to the 980 and decides to undercut Nvidia by quite a bit (which just eats into their margins), what does that have to do with nvidia "deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab"?
I wouldn't say nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments, but for the past 8 years or so they've been consistently and significantly more expensive than AMD, whether they were #1 or not. Even though nvidia currently own the crown for best overall performance and best performance-per-watt, that's no excuse for their GPUs to cost so much.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:02 PM
They have value-added features. I mean you can argue that you don't value those features, but they do exist and clearly the majority of the market (75%) value those to the point of buying their GPU's despite the cost difference.
I wouldn't say nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments, but for the past 8 years or so they've been consistently and significantly more expensive than AMD, whether they were #1 or not. Even though nvidia currently own the crown for best overall performance and best performance-per-watt, that's no excuse for their GPUs to cost so much.
They have value-added features. I mean you can argue that you don't value those features, but they do exist and clearly the majority of the market (75%) value those to the point of buying their GPU's despite the cost difference.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:13 PM
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
They have value-added features. I mean you can argue that you don't value those features, but they do exist and clearly the majority of the market (75%) value those to the point of buying their GPU's despite the cost difference.
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
vbetts
Posts: 14285
Posts: 14285
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:18 PM
Eyefinity is pretty much just a multiple monitor setup (Nvidia Surround). With 4k and even higher on the rise on a single monitor, Nvidia Surround and Eyefinity really aren't used as much anymore.
And yes AMD has other features such as Mantle or TressFX, however these aren't features that are widely used. Whereas with Nvidia, there are really only 2 main features. That's Cuda(which a good amount of programs use), and Physx(Not a whole lot use Physx, but a major game engine does).
Nvidia does also have HDMI 2.0 support for 4k at 60hz on the 970, 980, and ti I believe?
That being said, none of these features Nvidia has aren't important to me at least.
Waiting on my Fury X to come in!
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
Eyefinity is pretty much just a multiple monitor setup (Nvidia Surround). With 4k and even higher on the rise on a single monitor, Nvidia Surround and Eyefinity really aren't used as much anymore.
And yes AMD has other features such as Mantle or TressFX, however these aren't features that are widely used. Whereas with Nvidia, there are really only 2 main features. That's Cuda(which a good amount of programs use), and Physx(Not a whole lot use Physx, but a major game engine does).
Nvidia does also have HDMI 2.0 support for 4k at 60hz on the 970, 980, and ti I believe?
That being said, none of these features Nvidia has aren't important to me at least.
Waiting on my Fury X to come in!
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2698
Senior Member
Posts: 2698
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:23 PM
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
Physx is about the only thing I can think of.
I have used both Radeon and Nvidia off and on now since 2008.
Nvidia has surround which is their version of eyefinity. Eyefinity is much more poished and feature savy imho. Have used both.
Most of Nvidias features are nvidia only crap honestly.
Nvidias gpus are quite over priced IMHO.
Been that way since the 8800 gtx launched.
Back when the X1900xtx was out and kicking the hell out of the 7900gtx, especially in DX9c games with HDR lighting and MSAA Nvidia was way more balanced in price point.
Plus Radeon gpus since the HD 7 series really hold their life longer. Just look at the HD 7950/70 R9 280/280x series of gpus. 280x is competing with the GTX 780 in alot of games now.
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
Physx is about the only thing I can think of.
I have used both Radeon and Nvidia off and on now since 2008.
Nvidia has surround which is their version of eyefinity. Eyefinity is much more poished and feature savy imho. Have used both.
Most of Nvidias features are nvidia only crap honestly.
Nvidias gpus are quite over priced IMHO.
Been that way since the 8800 gtx launched.
Back when the X1900xtx was out and kicking the hell out of the 7900gtx, especially in DX9c games with HDR lighting and MSAA Nvidia was way more balanced in price point.
Plus Radeon gpus since the HD 7 series really hold their life longer. Just look at the HD 7950/70 R9 280/280x series of gpus. 280x is competing with the GTX 780 in alot of games now.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:29 PM
Come on, let's say you have a product and your competitor offers the same product at a better price. You as an owner WILL drop the price in order to stay competitive, otherwise you lose more than you gain.
Nvidia isn't doing this for some reason. I mean the 980 has to be one of the least sold cards in their current lineup. At least currently. I know it sold plenty when it first appeared.
They are greedy faks but I don't think they're actually hoping to sell more 980s.
That doesn't make any sense. What is more logical is; AMD knows they have something that performs similar (depending on the game) to the 980 and decides to undercut Nvidia by quite a bit (which just eats into their margins), what does that have to do with nvidia "deliberately leaving market segments for AMD to grab"?
Come on, let's say you have a product and your competitor offers the same product at a better price. You as an owner WILL drop the price in order to stay competitive, otherwise you lose more than you gain.
Nvidia isn't doing this for some reason. I mean the 980 has to be one of the least sold cards in their current lineup. At least currently. I know it sold plenty when it first appeared.
They are greedy faks but I don't think they're actually hoping to sell more 980s.
ManofGod
Senior Member
Posts: 1295
Senior Member
Posts: 1295
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:31 PM
Looks like a good card to me. Having the cut down R9 390 beat the R9 290x is excellent. However, since I already have a R9 290 reference from November, 2013 and I just spent money on a new 4k monitor, these cards are not in my radar at the moment. (None are really though.)
Looks like a good card to me. Having the cut down R9 390 beat the R9 290x is excellent. However, since I already have a R9 290 reference from November, 2013 and I just spent money on a new 4k monitor, these cards are not in my radar at the moment. (None are really though.)
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:36 PM
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
I mean for the most part now, AMD has feature parity with a bunch of stuff and vice versa. But in the past, at some point, Nvidia, in random order, had: CUDA/PhysX, MFAA, HDMI 2.0, VXGI, VR Direct, Asynchronous Warp for VR, G-Sync, Geforce Experience, Shadow Play, DSR, Game Streaming (To Shield Stuff), i'm sure more stuff that I can't think of.. but yeah Nvidia had/has most of those either first or currently exclusively (MFAA for example, AMD had something similar but dropped it). I personally know one person that bought a 780Ti over a 290x because of Shadow Play alone.
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
I mean for the most part now, AMD has feature parity with a bunch of stuff and vice versa. But in the past, at some point, Nvidia, in random order, had: CUDA/PhysX, MFAA, HDMI 2.0, VXGI, VR Direct, Asynchronous Warp for VR, G-Sync, Geforce Experience, Shadow Play, DSR, Game Streaming (To Shield Stuff), i'm sure more stuff that I can't think of.. but yeah Nvidia had/has most of those either first or currently exclusively (MFAA for example, AMD had something similar but dropped it). I personally know one person that bought a 780Ti over a 290x because of Shadow Play alone.
mameira
Senior Member
Posts: 1425
Senior Member
Posts: 1425
Posted on: 07/01/2015 08:45 PM
For that price its a way better deal than the 980, and just overclock it a bit and you get about the same performance for $200 less, physx is not worth $200 more..
I'm aiming at this card for my next purchase unless the fury nano offers a lot more.
For that price its a way better deal than the 980, and just overclock it a bit and you get about the same performance for $200 less, physx is not worth $200 more..
I'm aiming at this card for my next purchase unless the fury nano offers a lot more.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Posted on: 07/01/2015 09:20 PM
I wouldn't say nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments, but for the past 8 years or so they've been consistently and significantly more expensive than AMD, whether they were #1 or not. Even though nvidia currently own the crown for best overall performance and best performance-per-watt, that's no excuse for their GPUs to cost so much.
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Come on, let's say you have a product and your competitor offers the same product at a better price. You as an owner WILL drop the price in order to stay competitive, otherwise you lose more than you gain.
Nvidia isn't doing this for some reason. I mean the 980 has to be one of the least sold cards in their current lineup. At least currently. I know it sold plenty when it first appeared.
They are greedy faks but I don't think they're actually hoping to sell more 980s.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
I wouldn't say nvidia is deliberately leaving market segments, but for the past 8 years or so they've been consistently and significantly more expensive than AMD, whether they were #1 or not. Even though nvidia currently own the crown for best overall performance and best performance-per-watt, that's no excuse for their GPUs to cost so much.
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Come on, let's say you have a product and your competitor offers the same product at a better price. You as an owner WILL drop the price in order to stay competitive, otherwise you lose more than you gain.
Nvidia isn't doing this for some reason. I mean the 980 has to be one of the least sold cards in their current lineup. At least currently. I know it sold plenty when it first appeared.
They are greedy faks but I don't think they're actually hoping to sell more 980s.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
TheFayth
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Posted on: 07/01/2015 09:44 PM
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
Well..It's not "Unique" to nvidia,but AMD doesn't use it(Except in Civ V).
Command Lists
The way that DX11 was supposed to achieve this was by using Deferred Contexts in combination with Command Lists. NVIDIA suppors both, AMD does not support Command Lists...
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
Well..It's not "Unique" to nvidia,but AMD doesn't use it(Except in Civ V).
Command Lists
The way that DX11 was supposed to achieve this was by using Deferred Contexts in combination with Command Lists. NVIDIA suppors both, AMD does not support Command Lists...
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Posted on: 07/01/2015 09:49 PM
Comparing to the 390x msi one we have as the other 390 card in the review?
MSI one seems to perform a good deal better.
Comparing to the 390x msi one we have as the other 390 card in the review?
mcfart
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Posted on: 07/01/2015 09:57 PM
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
Also, Nvidia usually just release a new GPU to make an old GPU obsolete (980Ti for example, so much more for +$100), rather then price cutting. That way, they make their new GPU seem better because it's dominating their previous expensive GPU.
Also yes AMD have to be the "value village" of GPUS and CPUS because for CPUS, they're behind on hardware and with GPUs their behind on software (drivers, features etc).
I don't know how they've stayed afloat this long TBH. I thought Bulldozer would've been the end of them competing in enthusiast GPU and CPU markets. R&D must be destroying them.
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
Also, Nvidia usually just release a new GPU to make an old GPU obsolete (980Ti for example, so much more for +$100), rather then price cutting. That way, they make their new GPU seem better because it's dominating their previous expensive GPU.
Also yes AMD have to be the "value village" of GPUS and CPUS because for CPUS, they're behind on hardware and with GPUs their behind on software (drivers, features etc).
I don't know how they've stayed afloat this long TBH. I thought Bulldozer would've been the end of them competing in enthusiast GPU and CPU markets. R&D must be destroying them.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Posted on: 07/01/2015 11:51 PM
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
Yes, I see your point but as a competitor if Nvidia were to lower prices they would completely obliterate AMD. That's what I meant.
Clarification: In a normal situation they'd battle to the death with aggressive prices and good hardware. It would make a lot of sense to deny AMD marketshare growth, even if their marketshare is rather slim to start with.
At this point Nvidia could even outright kill AMD if they were to lower prices, but obviously that doesn't make a lot of sense. When I say kill I mean by lowering their prices drastically, to a point where AMD is almost bleeding money.
Understand what I mean?
No excuse? high-end graphics cards have always been 500-600 dollars for the past, what? 10-15 years? and that's on both sides of the graphics war, it is recent that Nvidia has been bringing out "higher" then high end cards, yes, and those cost an arm and a leg, so what does that have to do with anything? And AMD has done it as well.
Because they don't have to? again i'm not seeing the logic here in your original statement or your new one. AMD is undercutting them to get people to buy their product, this is what AMD has been doing for the past who knows how many years with both Nvidia and Intel, and for the most part it's worked for them to "stay afloat", but AMD is cutting into their margins to do it. Why would Nvidia cut into their Margins, if they don't have to? And they don't, the people who buy AMD cards because they are cheaper but perform the same(ish) are not that many people because of what Nvidia has exclusive to them, as well as what nvidia has driver wise (i really don't care if someone says "oh i won't have driver issues with my AMD card" because you are not the norm even if you don't want to believe it)
But my point, in the end, is why would nvidia lower their prices when they don't have to? that's the only question needed answering, because nvidia doesn't have to match AMD, but AMD does NEED to undercut nvidia, that's how the tables are turned currently
Yes, I see your point but as a competitor if Nvidia were to lower prices they would completely obliterate AMD. That's what I meant.
Clarification: In a normal situation they'd battle to the death with aggressive prices and good hardware. It would make a lot of sense to deny AMD marketshare growth, even if their marketshare is rather slim to start with.
At this point Nvidia could even outright kill AMD if they were to lower prices, but obviously that doesn't make a lot of sense. When I say kill I mean by lowering their prices drastically, to a point where AMD is almost bleeding money.
Understand what I mean?
Daftshadow
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Posted on: 07/02/2015 01:57 AM
For that price its a way better deal than the 980, and just overclock it a bit and you get about the same performance for $200 less, physx is not worth $200 more..
I'm aiming at this card for my next purchase unless the fury nano offers a lot more.
considering what's going in the market right now with AMD cards such as being behind driver support, developer support (look at the Batman Arkham Knight fiasco with AMD cards), lack of features and performance in Witcher 3, if you put it in terms of value, the 970/980 is a better card for whichever it's compared to despite being more expensive. i'll take that over poor support.
For that price its a way better deal than the 980, and just overclock it a bit and you get about the same performance for $200 less, physx is not worth $200 more..
I'm aiming at this card for my next purchase unless the fury nano offers a lot more.
considering what's going in the market right now with AMD cards such as being behind driver support, developer support (look at the Batman Arkham Knight fiasco with AMD cards), lack of features and performance in Witcher 3, if you put it in terms of value, the 970/980 is a better card for whichever it's compared to despite being more expensive. i'll take that over poor support.
rta
Member
Posts: 85
Member
Posts: 85
Posted on: 07/02/2015 03:22 AM
Then there is Shield gaming with Grid and Game Stream. Something I use quite often.
considering what's going in the market right now with AMD cards such as being behind driver support, developer support (look at the Batman Arkham Knight fiasco with AMD cards), lack of features and performance in Witcher 3, if you put it in terms of value, the 970/980 is a better card for whichever it's compared to despite being more expensive. i'll take that over poor support.
Then there is Shield gaming with Grid and Game Stream. Something I use quite often.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Senior Member
Posts: 7116
Posted on: 07/02/2015 04:34 AM
Yes, I see your point but as a competitor if Nvidia were to lower prices they would completely obliterate AMD. That's what I meant.
Clarification: In a normal situation they'd battle to the death with aggressive prices and good hardware. It would make a lot of sense to deny AMD marketshare growth, even if their marketshare is rather slim to start with.
At this point Nvidia could even outright kill AMD if they were to lower prices, but obviously that doesn't make a lot of sense. When I say kill I mean by lowering their prices drastically, to a point where AMD is almost bleeding money.
Understand what I mean?
Obliterating AMD wouldn't be a smart idea, if you have nothing to compete with other then yourself, that only works for so long. Both Intel and Nvidia do not want AMD to fail, they want for themselves to be on top, but they don't want to be the only people out there, it's not good for business
As to understanding what you mean, i guess i "understand" your concept, but it doesn't really hold in reality. If they don't HAVE to eat into their margins, they won't, it'd be bad business to do it just because they can.
considering what's going in the market right now with AMD cards such as being behind driver support, developer support (look at the Batman Arkham Knight fiasco with AMD cards), lack of features and performance in Witcher 3, if you put it in terms of value, the 970/980 is a better card for whichever it's compared to despite being more expensive. i'll take that over poor support.
^ And this mindset is why Nvidia doesn't HAVE to lower their prices and eat into their margins. I'm the same way, even if AMD had the most amazing card out there right now for dirt cheap i likely wouldn't get it, i'd likely go with the less-performing more-expensive Nvidia card, because of my past experiences, and what i continually see currently. It's problem after problem after problem. Nvidia has their problems as well, no doubt, but i do not see or hear of them nearly as often, and though they can be slow to fix it, in general, they are faster then AMD.
Yes, I see your point but as a competitor if Nvidia were to lower prices they would completely obliterate AMD. That's what I meant.
Clarification: In a normal situation they'd battle to the death with aggressive prices and good hardware. It would make a lot of sense to deny AMD marketshare growth, even if their marketshare is rather slim to start with.
At this point Nvidia could even outright kill AMD if they were to lower prices, but obviously that doesn't make a lot of sense. When I say kill I mean by lowering their prices drastically, to a point where AMD is almost bleeding money.
Understand what I mean?
Obliterating AMD wouldn't be a smart idea, if you have nothing to compete with other then yourself, that only works for so long. Both Intel and Nvidia do not want AMD to fail, they want for themselves to be on top, but they don't want to be the only people out there, it's not good for business
As to understanding what you mean, i guess i "understand" your concept, but it doesn't really hold in reality. If they don't HAVE to eat into their margins, they won't, it'd be bad business to do it just because they can.
considering what's going in the market right now with AMD cards such as being behind driver support, developer support (look at the Batman Arkham Knight fiasco with AMD cards), lack of features and performance in Witcher 3, if you put it in terms of value, the 970/980 is a better card for whichever it's compared to despite being more expensive. i'll take that over poor support.
^ And this mindset is why Nvidia doesn't HAVE to lower their prices and eat into their margins. I'm the same way, even if AMD had the most amazing card out there right now for dirt cheap i likely wouldn't get it, i'd likely go with the less-performing more-expensive Nvidia card, because of my past experiences, and what i continually see currently. It's problem after problem after problem. Nvidia has their problems as well, no doubt, but i do not see or hear of them nearly as often, and though they can be slow to fix it, in general, they are faster then AMD.
Ven0m
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Posted on: 07/02/2015 07:12 AM
Thanks for the review, Hilbert.
I'm kind of disappointed, and not by 390 but by 290X. When I was comparing benchmarks of NV and AMD cards, AMD got greater performance increase over time and it was an argument for me to look for AMD product as they were supposed to last longer, but this looks bad.
Thanks for the review, Hilbert.
I'm kind of disappointed, and not by 390 but by 290X. When I was comparing benchmarks of NV and AMD cards, AMD got greater performance increase over time and it was an argument for me to look for AMD product as they were supposed to last longer, but this looks bad.
gx-x
Senior Member
Posts: 1203
Senior Member
Posts: 1203
Posted on: 07/02/2015 05:06 PM
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
less power draw, less heat = cooler and makes less noise (with decent cooler). Also, 980 overcloks. Comparing this overclocked card to default 980 makes little sense. I can overclock my 280X and almost catch up to 290 and ask why is 290 100$ more or whatever. 980 is a good overclocker.
Then there is noise of these cards when they reach 70+ degrees C. I heard Toxic, Dual-X and Windforce models of 280X, and while some are better than the others - they are all VERY noisy after they break ~75C. And while most 280X models will stay under 70C, will 290X with SAME cooling solutions? There is virtually zero differences between windforce cooler on 7970/280x/290 etc. That card will be LOUD in something like Witcher 3.
Is it worth to pay 200$ more for nVidia? Depends on how much is 200$ for you. For me, it is not worth it, for my friend it was. He ditched "the jet noise" called the 280x windforce in crossfire and bought a single 980. He is happy.
So yea, it depends.
Other than the CUDA cores (and physx, which is CUDA based), what other features does nvidia offer that is unique to them? Most things they have, there is an AMD or open source alternative. Maybe not as polished, but still decent. Actually as of today, I'd say AMD currently has more features that are unique to them, like eyefinity (not sure if nvidia has an equivalent to that), Mantle, and TressFX. I'm not saying those are sought-after features, but my point is, I can't think of any features exclusive to nvidia that people want (that have no alternative).
EDIT:
For the record, I don't dislike nvidia. I bought as many nvidia GPUs as I've bought AMD/ATi.
less power draw, less heat = cooler and makes less noise (with decent cooler). Also, 980 overcloks. Comparing this overclocked card to default 980 makes little sense. I can overclock my 280X and almost catch up to 290 and ask why is 290 100$ more or whatever. 980 is a good overclocker.
Then there is noise of these cards when they reach 70+ degrees C. I heard Toxic, Dual-X and Windforce models of 280X, and while some are better than the others - they are all VERY noisy after they break ~75C. And while most 280X models will stay under 70C, will 290X with SAME cooling solutions? There is virtually zero differences between windforce cooler on 7970/280x/290 etc. That card will be LOUD in something like Witcher 3.
Is it worth to pay 200$ more for nVidia? Depends on how much is 200$ for you. For me, it is not worth it, for my friend it was. He ditched "the jet noise" called the 280x windforce in crossfire and bought a single 980. He is happy.
So yea, it depends.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Posted on: 07/02/2015 05:19 PM
Thanks for the review, Hilbert.
I'm kind of disappointed, and not by 390 but by 290X. When I was comparing benchmarks of NV and AMD cards, AMD got greater performance increase over time and it was an argument for me to look for AMD product as they were supposed to last longer, but this looks bad.
290x is looking good for 1.5 year old product it keeps up with 390x at same clocks because they are the same card. 390 is just 290 with 8gb ram with drivers that give an edge over 290... 290x is lasting just fine.
Thanks for the review, Hilbert.
I'm kind of disappointed, and not by 390 but by 290X. When I was comparing benchmarks of NV and AMD cards, AMD got greater performance increase over time and it was an argument for me to look for AMD product as they were supposed to last longer, but this looks bad.
290x is looking good for 1.5 year old product it keeps up with 390x at same clocks because they are the same card. 390 is just 290 with 8gb ram with drivers that give an edge over 290... 290x is lasting just fine.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Posted on: 07/02/2015 05:21 PM
@gx-x
I was discussing features that one brand offers that the other doesn't; this particular discussion isn't about what makes a GPU better or worse. That being said, the amount you can overclock or the amount of noise your GPU has isn't a feature, it's just something that makes a product better or worse. Though I'd like to point out - I'm not saying you're wrong.
@gx-x
I was discussing features that one brand offers that the other doesn't; this particular discussion isn't about what makes a GPU better or worse. That being said, the amount you can overclock or the amount of noise your GPU has isn't a feature, it's just something that makes a product better or worse. Though I'd like to point out - I'm not saying you're wrong.
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 5849
MSI one seems to perform a good deal better.