300 series Rebadge & Refresh confirmed

[SimianR]

Yet these two year old cards are pretty competitive with the 970/980 - which sort of highlights how little the 970/980 moved performance forward so much as they did improve perf per watt. Hopefully AMD can move more of these cards this time around.

 

[Leyawiin]

Yet these two year old cards are pretty competitive with the 970/980 - which sort of highlights how little the 970/980 moved performance forward so much as they did improve perf per watt. Hopefully AMD can move more of these cards this time around.

The GTX 970 and 980 are almost a year old themselves and the R9 290 and R9 290X were never being kicked to the curb by them anyway. Basically, there's nothing new here other than increased VRAM. Anyone can slightly overclock a 290 or 290X (and for all intents and purposes that's the sum of this "refresh"). Wait for Fiji - this Hawaii in Grenada clothing is nothing to get excited over.

 

[LTC8K6]

We sure are seeing the words "rebrand" and "rebadge" repeated over and over and over and over and over again by certain people.

A refresh is not a rebrand. They are different words with different meanings.

It's like some people really, really, really want it to be true and think repeating it enough times will make it true.

Well, I think it's a rebrand.

Should I say something other than what I think?

I also think I will buy an R9-380 for the light gaming I plan to get back into.

 

[Stuka87]

Going by the article on Anandtech, the 390X is not a re-brand (Simple name change). It is most definitely a refresh. Benchmarks will prove this, but from the article there are many changes to the card outside of memory capacity.

 

[IEC]

Well, I think it's a rebrand.

Should I say something other than what I think?

I also think I will buy an R9-380 for the light gaming I plan to get back into.

From AnandTech's "A Prelude to Fury":

Last but certainly not least however, we want to talk a bit more about the performance optimizations AMD has been working on for the 390 series. While we’re still tracking down more details on just what changes AMD has made, AMD had told us that there are a number of small changes from the 290 series to the 390 series that should improve performance by several percent on a clock-for-clock, apples-to-apples basis. That means along with the 20% memory clockspeed increase and 5% GPU clockspeed increase, we should see further performance improvements from these lower-level changes, which is also why we can’t just overclock a 290X and call it a 390X.

 

[Vesku]

Doesn't the lack of full DX12 function make these less compelling than a 970 or 980 of equivalent price and performance? Otherwise they seem competitive.

http://www.se7ensins.com/forums/threads/dx12-full-compatability-chart.1335526/

 

[Leyawiin]

From AnandTech's "A Prelude to Fury":

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/9#.VYMNaraPXaA

 

[Vesku]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/9#.VYMNaraPXaA

This proves it, at the same clocks the AMD Radeon R9 390X performs exactly the same as the AMD Radeon R9 290X.

We will say this, the AMD Radeon R9 390X is more competitive to GeForce GTX 980 than AMD Radon R9 290X was. Let's face it, the R9 290X got creamed by the GTX 980 in performance lately. The R9 390X helps bring competition back to the AMD line in comparison to the GTX 980. However, the R9 390X certainly does not dominate GTX 980.

How about being honest and saying "we can no longer hide the actual performance of the aftermarket 290 series from you the reader so we will instead ignore that we pretended 970 and 980 were a whole other tier of performance."?

 

[Hitman928]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/9#.VYMNaraPXaA

HardOCP didn't test enough games/situations. The improvements aren't going to be shown in every game, just like the 285 improvements didn't show up in every game. Here are hardware.info results in percentages. In some games the 390x leads by 20%, well beyond what clocks will get you. In Project Cars the 390x has up to a 30% lead over the 290x. It also has higher clocks and double the memory without using more power than a 290x, so there are efficiency improvements as well.

 

[IEC]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/9#.VYMNaraPXaA

They're going to need a bigger shovel to keep digging themselves deeper judging from the reviews saying otherwise...

Edit: Beat by Hitman928.

 

[bryanW1995]

its not a rebrand.
if you change and tweak then its simply a refreshed line up.

Indeed, i was just questionning the relevancy of the thread title...

Techpowerup for one (and perhaps other sites) jumped the gun after getting an early sample of 390x and stated that it was a "rebrand". Some of the sites will certainly back off from that claim now, though all of them SHOULD post a retraction. Unfortunately, tech review sites are like any other business, it's all about the money. And posting semi-speculation with some basis in fact probably generated a lot of hits for them recently, whereas a retraction would do nothing for their bottom line and could perhaps give their opponents/competitors an opportunity to attack them in the future.

This sort of behavior is not limited to tech specifically or even the internet in general. Elizabeth Warren quoted a "$26 billion dollar" figure for excess car dealership profits from interest rate markups the other day while arguing for enhanced supervisory powers for the CFPB. Typically, we all know what we can do with politicians' statements, but the NYT editorial board used the same source a few days later to push for the reforms Senator Warren wanted. Guess what? The source was extrapolated from a tiny sample of special finance (ie, non-typical) loans from just a few lenders, only one of whom was top 20 nationally. The company who was used as a source had, after its publication, posted a semi-retraction and admitted that they had at least exaggerated by a factor of 2. Upon review of their methodology, it is clear to anybody with knowledge mathematics or finance that the report was a complete waste of paper. I was so upset by it that I contacted a friend of mine who is a sometimes contributor to the NYT... and it went nowhere. The Washingon Post gave Senator Warrens comments 4 pinocchios, their worst rating possible...didn't matter.

When such an esteemed publication as the NYT gives up posting real, verifiable information in their stories, how can we expect anything more from random websites that may or not be run out of some dude's basement?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ler-markups-cost-consumers-26-billion-a-year/ - Glenn Kessler's outing them at the Washington Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/sunday/putting-an-end-to-abusive-car-loans.html?_r=1 - the NYT editorial

 

[Hitman928]

They're going to need a bigger shovel to keep digging themselves deeper judging from the reviews saying otherwise...

Edit: Beat by Hitman928.

It's strange that they didn't use GTA V in their clock to clock comparison. They tested the game for the review and the apples to apples comparison showed a 27.5% increase from the 290x to 390x. You think someone would have said, hmmm, maybe we should test that with equal clocks?

 

[Stuka87]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/9#.VYMNaraPXaA

This does not prove anything. They declocked the GPU and memory too. So if the slower memory is the bottleneck, of course speeds will be similar. Plus, only three games? If anything they should have overclocked the memory of the 290X and then looked at GPU results without the memory bottleneck.

Other reviews have shown otherwise.

 

[Stuka87]

It's strange that they didn't use GTA V in their clock to clock comparison. They tested the game for the review and the apples to apples comparison showed a 27.5% increase from the 290x to 390x. You think someone would have said, hmmm, maybe we should test that with equal clocks?

But that would disprove what they are trying to push onto everybody

 

[bryanW1995]

Wait, the 370 is slower than a 270? What the hell, AMD?

Wait, a 3xx is faster than a 9xx??? HUH?? What?? <insert more fake incredulity here>

Oh come on. It's the direct replacement for the part- x70 to (x+1)70. You would expect it to get faster, or at the least stay the same.

Um...that is pretty weird. I admit that I never got around to reading about 370 or even 270, as those cards don't interest me in the slightest, but that's an odd decision to say the least. What do you call that, a "Negative ReBrand"?

 

[bryanW1995]

Wait, the 370 is slower than a 270? What the hell, AMD?

Wait, a 3xx is faster than a 9xx??? HUH?? What?? <insert more fake incredulity here>

Doesn't the lack of full DX12 function make these less compelling than a 970 or 980 of equivalent price and performance? Otherwise they seem competitive.

For 980 you can make a case for that, but 970 still has the 3.5gb memory problems + the bad mojo from all the drama surrounding it. However, NV clearly recognizes that issue, as 970 is now the cheapest of the middle foursome of 390/390x/970/980. In fact, I think I saw HappyMedium or someone else link a 970 for $280 earlier, if it's really $50 cheaper than 390 then that would be tough to resist for a midrange buyer like me.

 

[SimianR]

Even if most of the performance difference is because of the clock changes, so what? The memory clock boost is pretty nice - I know that not every 290/x will do 1500 mhz out of the box like that - it depends on what type of memory you got. If your card came with Elpida, good luck without substantial voltage increase. Once the 290/290X aren't available anymore at dirt cheap prices then the market situation will probably be different as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

From AnandTech's "A Prelude to Fury":

That doesn't change my mind at all.

They are rebrands as far as I am concerned, small differences and all, and it doesn't bother me.

I have no problem with rebranding.

I was eyeing a Tonga card before, and I am still looking to get one.

I'm disappointed that I can't get full Tonga for the money, but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[bryanW1995]

That doesn't change my mind at all.

They are rebrands as far as I am concerned, small differences and all, and it doesn't bother me.

I have no problem with rebranding.

I was eyeing a Tonga card before, and I am still looking to get one.

I'm disappointed that I can't get full Tonga for the money, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Wait, solid evidence from AT that the card is NOT a rebrand, but rather a refresh, doesn't change your mind? I think that you might be my cousin...Calvin, is that you??

 

[SimianR]

GPU models have in the past been separated by binning and clock speeds - so why was that okay then and this is just now considered a rebrand and is somehow "bad"?

Come to think of it, you can't get a 290X out of the box that is clocked at 1100/1525 like that MSI R9 390X. Those are pretty substantial clocks. If you want to get the same or more performance you're going to have to get the pricier 980 and overclock, get a factory overclocked 980 or jump up to the 980 Ti @ $649.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wait, solid evidence from AT that the card is NOT a rebrand, but rather a refresh, doesn't change your mind? I think that you might be my cousin...Calvin, is that you??

I didn't see any solid evidence though.

Just reps making claims.

If solid evidence was presented, I don't remember seeing it.

If you want to use a different term, I don't care.

Rebranded, refeshed, recycled.

Who cares?

We won't be able to buy the other cards new anymore, so it doesn't make any difference in the long run.

Plus XFX has a Black R9-380 at 1030 and 5800. :biggrin:

 

[geoxile]

HardOCP didn't test enough games/situations. The improvements aren't going to be shown in every game, just like the 285 improvements didn't show up in every game. Here are hardware.info results in percentages. In some games the 390x leads by 20%, well beyond what clocks will get you. In Project Cars the 390x has up to a 30% lead over the 290x. It also has higher clocks and double the memory without using more power than a 290x, so there are efficiency improvements as well.

What review is this from? I don't see it on hardware.info's site.

 

[boozzer]

I didn't see any solid evidence though.

Just reps making claims.

If solid evidence was presented, I don't remember seeing it.

If you want to use a different term, I don't care.

Rebranded, refeshed, recycled.

Who cares?

We won't be able to buy the other cards new anymore, so it doesn't make any difference in the long run.

Plus XFX has a Black R9-380 at 1030 and 5800. :biggrin:

you are still singing this tune even after the reviews are out showing 390x neck in neck with 980? 390 beating 970? :awe:

 

[LTC8K6]

you are still singing this tune even after the reviews are out showing 390x neck in neck with 980? 390 beating 970? :awe:

I didn't say the cards weren't a little better.

I said I think they are rebrands.

Why does my opinion of AMD cards*, which I am going to buy, elicit such a fierce defensive response?

Why don't you just dismiss my silly opinions and move on with your life? :biggrin:

* (or of anything at all)

 

[Stuka87]

I didn't say the cards weren't a little better.

I said I think they are rebrands.

Why does my opinion of AMD cards*, which I am going to buy, elicit such a fierce defensive response?

Why don't you just dismiss my silly opinions and move on with your life? :biggrin:

* (or of anything at all)

Because they are not all rebrands. Yes some are, but the 390/390X are refreshes, no rebrands. If the cards are changed, its not a rebrand. Rebrand involves just a name change with a new sticker.