Review: PowerColor Radeon R9 390 PCS+

#5112333 Posted on: 07/01/2015 09:49 PM

---

Comparing to the 390x msi one we have as the other 390 card in the review?

#5112342 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.

#5112414 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?

#5112495 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.

#5112534 Posted on: 07/02/2015 03:22 AM

---

Then there is Shield gaming with Grid and Game Stream. Something I use quite often.

#5112557 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.

#5112597 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.

#5112995 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.

#5113005 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.

#5113006 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.