300 series Rebadge & Refresh confirmed

[Hitman928]

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

It's on their Dutch site.

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/613...90x-review-nieuwe-line-up-met-bestaande-chips

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)

I think it's because when people think rebrand, it implies zero improvements/tweaks (maybe a small clock bump and more memory). However, AMD is saying, and reviews are confirming, that there have been some performance and power tweaks for the new cards, so a rebrand label doesn't really apply.

I get that for you, it's not enough to make a difference, which is fine, but rebrand has a negative connotation to it which has been used repeatedly to dismiss the cards even before reviews so people are a little jumpy about the term. I think if you called it a refresh and said that it's not enough to get your interest, no one would care. BTW, I share in your disappointment of the missing full tonga (380x presumably). Had they come out with one equipped with 4 GB VRAM, I would have snatched one up right away assuming they didn't blow the pricing.

 

[bryanW1995]

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.

Well, in his defense, 370 is a re-suck-stepdown though. So, you average out the 370 + 390 = straight rebrand for both...

edit: Just read through the HC review, here are SKYMTL's final thoughts on this rebrand vs refresh "question":

Regardless of whether you want to call this a rebrand or refresh (I’m firmly on the refresh side)

 

[werepossum]

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

Thanks. I'll go through that tonight (if I can stay awake) but more and more I'm thinking that developers are probably going to stick to what is supported by the consoles, to make PC ports cheaper and quicker. By that metric I think current gen cards from either would be fine.

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.

You and me both, although I really wish I could forecast whether or not developers will be able (and willing) to use that extra 4GB VRAM to pre-load high quality textures. Or whether there will ever be any actual detriment (other than increased drama lol) from the 970's gimping. Or that AMD would just release a 4GB VRAM version of the 390 at around that same price point. Right now I'm using AMD, and historically I've had to do much less work to get an acceptable driver installation from the same company compared to swapping brands.

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.

They are small differences, but not insignificant. If they were simply reclocked rebrands, then the power budget would increase with clock speeds. Instead they have decreased, which makes me feel better about buying an AMD.

 

[piesquared]

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.

I guess I just can't understand how anyone could find something so trivial to be worth complaining about. Even if it wasn't an R9 270X vs an R7 370 we are talking about.

 

[NTMBK]

I guess I just can't understand how anyone could find something so trivial to be worth complaining about. Even if it wasn't an R9 270X vs an R7 370 we are talking about.

No, the 370 is slower than even the 270, not just 270X.

 

[JDG1980]

No, the 370 is slower than even the 270, not just 270X.

Of all the weird decisions AMD made in this round, this is one of the oddest. Obviously the yields were good enough even back in 2013 to offer full Pitcairn silicon in everything (there was no immediate successor to the 7850; the R7 265 only came along during the mining craze). And the R9 270 was modest enough in its power requirements to only need one six-pin connector, so going down to the Pitcairn Pro doesn't gain anything there. If they did want to cut power further, down-clocking it would make more sense than using a salvage part, since then at least the end user could crank it back up if they wanted to make the tradeoff.

I know it's probably not true, but it really feels like AMD is giving us the middle finger with this round of releases. They seem to have gone out of their way to make this "generation" of cards as insulting as possible to enthusiasts. Price hikes on Hawaii, no full Tonga, not only bringing back Pitcairn but dropping down to a salvage part, omitting HDMI 2.0 from even the Fury... every single decision is a slap in the face.

 

[IEC]

Of all the weird decisions AMD made in this round, this is one of the oddest. Obviously the yields were good enough even back in 2013 to offer full Pitcairn silicon in everything (there was no immediate successor to the 7850; the R7 265 only came along during the mining craze). And the R9 270 was modest enough in its power requirements to only need one six-pin connector, so going down to the Pitcairn Pro doesn't gain anything there. If they did want to cut power further, down-clocking it would make more sense than using a salvage part, since then at least the end user could crank it back up if they wanted to make the tradeoff.

I know it's probably not true, but it really feels like AMD is giving us the middle finger with this round of releases. They seem to have gone out of their way to make this "generation" of cards as insulting as possible to enthusiasts. Price hikes on Hawaii, no full Tonga, not only bringing back Pitcairn but dropping down to a salvage part, omitting HDMI 2.0 from even the Fury... every single decision is a slap in the face.

Nice narrative spin.

Fortunately the 390/X reviews don't seem to agree with that narrative, and the more objective take is that AMD is finally competitive with nV at most price points again - as well as offering a "halo"/high-end competitor in the Fury X.

It's nice to have proper competition again.

 

[Cookie Monster]

It looks to me like the performance increase over the R290X (in some games) could potentially be due to the drivers (on top of the increased clock/memory).

Clock per clock scaling doesn't indicate any GPU level changes either.

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

 

[IEC]

It looks to me like the performance increase over the R290X (in some games) could potentially be due to the drivers (on top of the increased clock/memory).

Clock per clock scaling doesn't indicate any GPU level changes either.

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

Already been addressed by Hitman. H dug themselves into a nice hole

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.

 

[Silverforce11]

This is more of a 680 -> 770 transition, higher clocks, more performance, similar TDP. But this also has better coolers and more vram.

So in light of all the reviews, it's clear its a refresh and not a rebadge/rebrand.

 

[x3sphere]

The only reason I find the 300 series disappointing is because today you can pick up a 290X Tri-X for $344 ($324 after rebate), or the 8GB version for $379.

If you base your purchases on price/performance the 290X is a far better deal and I would pick one up now before they're gone.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...02145&cm_re=290X_Tri-X-_-14-202-145-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...02144&cm_re=290X_Tri-X-_-14-202-144-_-Product

AMD is hiking up its prices with no benefit to consumers really. Given the more positive reviews I expect the cards to sell better than the 200 series though.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yup, last week there still quite a few R290/X for $100 cheaper but they are all out on a few etailers here. Models like TriX and DD were an excellent deal since they run fast, quiet, cool, and used less power than the reference used in reviews.

 

[Creig]

I considered picking up a 2nd Sapphire Tri-X OC for CrossFire on my new build before prices went up. But for the resolutions that I regularly game at, single card performance is usually good enough. And I avoid the dual card issues of CrossFire/SLI. So I'll wait until I have my system ready to go before I decide if I'm going to upgrade from my current 290X.

 

[piesquared]

No, the 370 is slower than even the 270, not just 270X.

Why are you dismissing the R9 to R7 brand? If branding means so much to you.

 

[Red Hawk]

Tonga, still the cut down since full-dies => Apple.

This is the most disappointing thing to me, I was hoping to get my hands on a fully enabled Tonga. I just don't need a full-powered Hawaii based chip, but I do want the improved tessellation performance and other goodies that come with being newer than GCN 1.0. But I also want more than 2 GB of RAM. Hawaii was too expensive, Tahiti was too old, and Tonga didn't have enough RAM. This slide indicates there will be 4 GB versions of Tonga available, which is good. I guess I'll have to settle for having a partially disabled chip on my card, it's just a pet peeve of mine that I prefer to have fully enabled chips.

 

[shady28]

Already been addressed by Hitman. H dug themselves into a nice hole

You mean like Civ BE?

According to Hitman's chart, the R9 390X baseline is 100 vs 77 on the R9 390X. I assume this is the kind of thing you're talking about.

That's based on 4K ultra settings, where the 8GB matters.

In other words, it looks a lot like this chart where the R9 290X 8GB is 14% faster at 4K than the 4GB version, and 2% faster at 1080p.

(NOTE these are R9 290X 4GB vs 8GB) :

 

[bryanW1995]

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)

Interesting that Ryan Smith disagrees with you...considering what he wrote on page one of his 300 series writeup today:

The next stage, coinciding with today’s article, is the formal launch of the numbered members of the Radeon 300 series, which are product refreshes based on existing AMD GPUs, similar to what we saw with the 200 series in 2013.

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.

Is Ryan Smith a good-enough source for you? I'll wait.

Of all the weird decisions AMD made in this round, this is one of the oddest. Obviously the yields were good enough even back in 2013 to offer full Pitcairn silicon in everything (there was no immediate successor to the 7850; the R7 265 only came along during the mining craze). And the R9 270 was modest enough in its power requirements to only need one six-pin connector, so going down to the Pitcairn Pro doesn't gain anything there. If they did want to cut power further, down-clocking it would make more sense than using a salvage part, since then at least the end user could crank it back up if they wanted to make the tradeoff.

I know it's probably not true, but it really feels like AMD is giving us the middle finger with this round of releases. They seem to have gone out of their way to make this "generation" of cards as insulting as possible to enthusiasts. Price hikes on Hawaii, no full Tonga, not only bringing back Pitcairn but dropping down to a salvage part, omitting HDMI 2.0 from even the Fury... every single decision is a slap in the face.

Naw...if they were trying to be "as insulting as possible", we would find out 2 mos after launch that Fury X was really 3.5 gb.

 

[Hitman928]

You mean like Civ BE?

According to Hitman's chart, the R9 390X baseline is 100 vs 77 on the R9 390X. I assume this is the kind of thing you're talking about.

That's based on 4K ultra settings, where the 8GB matters.

In other words, it looks a lot like this chart where the R9 290X 8GB is 14% faster at 4K than the 4GB version, and 2% faster at 1080p.

(NOTE these are R9 290X 4GB vs 8GB) :

You jumped to a pretty big conclusion with very little evidence. Can 8 GB vs 4GB explain these results?

 

[LTC8K6]

Interesting that Ryan Smith disagrees with you...considering what he wrote on page one of his 300 series writeup today:

Is Ryan Smith a good-enough source for you? I'll wait.

What is the point of continually trying to convince me?

Especially by repeating what's already been posted?

I don't care about it. How many times do I have to post that?

Especially when it's clear that I am looking to switch to AMD?

Are you trying to irritate me out of my decision?

 

[monstercameron]

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/19/amd-outs-caribbean-islands-aka-r9-300-series-gpus/

What a bizarre world we live in, semi accurate downplays what the rest of the press commended.

 

[Silverforce11]

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/19/amd-outs-caribbean-islands-aka-r9-300-series-gpus/

What a bizarre world we live in, semi accurate downplays what the rest of the press commended.

Well it's quite crap for gamers because they jack up prices and for what? A small clock speed bump and extra vram that's useless?

Sure they can market it better without hot/noisy stigma, and maybe some joe is gonna buy that 8GB bullet point but damn it's quite bad when R290/X custom models were $100 cheaper for so long.

All this series does is remind me how good we actually had it, great affordable high quality gaming with the R290 especially.

As said, it's really a marketing move and to keep their AIB partners happy with new SKUs without the reference R290X stigma.

The 680 -> 770 was underwhelming, but at least NV lowered the price.

 

[SimianR]

The whole point is that selling 290 and 290X cards at those prices wasn't sustainable. AMD doesn't want to be selling $300+ cards at $200-250. There was quite a large window to grab those cards if someone wanted to. You can still get them for cheaper than the new 300 cards if you wish to do so. As those cards are cleared out the product lineup will be different as the only cards available will be the new 300 series/fury vs NVIDIA's lineup.

I think the MSI R9 390X as an example is a pretty impressive card - 1100/1525 out of the box is higher than any 290X factory overclocked card and as the reviews have stated does go toe to toe with factory overclocked 980's. It's strange, I remember getting into video cards (3dfx era) where models were separated by clock speeds alone (Voodoo3 2000 vs 3000) and that was fine then, no one was flipping out. Yet somehow now its dirty or deceiving. IMHO this is basically like AMD releasing the 7970 GHZ edition after the vanilla 7970. There are plenty of reviews out there showing you exactly what you get when you buy an R9 390 or 390X and how they stack up against the competition. Even at the $329 and $429 pricepoints they are a great value but you wouldn't know it with the massive amounts of complaining going on

 

[Atreidin]

The whole point is that selling 290 and 290X cards at those prices wasn't sustainable. AMD doesn't want to be selling $300+ cards at $200-250. There was quite a large window to grab those cards if someone wanted to. You can still get them for cheaper than the new 300 cards if you wish to do so. As those cards are cleared out the product lineup will be different as the only cards available will be the new 300 series/fury vs NVIDIA's lineup.

I think the MSI R9 390X as an example is a pretty impressive card - 1100/1525 out of the box is higher than any 290X factory overclocked card and as the reviews have stated does go toe to toe with factory overclocked 980's. It's strange, I remember getting into video cards (3dfx era) where models were separated by clock speeds alone (Voodoo3 2000 vs 3000) and that was fine then, no one was flipping out. Yet somehow now its dirty or deceiving. IMHO this is basically like AMD releasing the 7970 GHZ edition after the vanilla 7970. There are plenty of reviews out there showing you exactly what you get when you buy an R9 390 or 390X and how they stack up against the competition. Even at the $329 and $429 pricepoints they are a great value but you wouldn't know it with the massive amounts of complaining going on

Good point. I was also thinking when Intel refreshes a CPU with a slightly faster frequency I don't read nearly as much complaining, or over-the-top hyperbole about them "giving us the middle finger". Talking about how companies *hate* us based on what is or is not released sounds childish.

 

[maddie]

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/19/amd-outs-caribbean-islands-aka-r9-300-series-gpus/

What a bizarre world we live in, semi accurate downplays what the rest of the press commended.

Did you read the article?

Quotes:

"That brings us to performance and how well these cards will do. In short they are going to get blown out of the water and AMD knows it. Worse yet they went out of their way to deny the press the opportunity to test these cards, they are that afraid of what independent testing will find."

"For the ‘real benchmarks’, AMD shows the 390 up against a Radeon HD7950 and a GTX 660 Ti, not anything it would be up against for real. The 390X is likewise shown head to head against similarly obsolete cards, the HD7970 and the GTX 670. It does beat both dinosaurs by large margins in an unspecified test with specifics buried in the footnotes dozens of slides later. If there was a Windows 8 driver for a Tseng Labs ET4000, I am pretty sure AMD would have dug one out to round out this ‘fair’ comparison. Worse yet it is saying that Nvidia not just pummels the new 300-series rebrands, they pummel it by being more efficient with a vastly cheaper to produce memory interface. Brilliant own goal there."

Its obvious he scrambled to write this after seeing the press release and without any checking anyone else and they actually have a paywall.

I'm going to read Charlie's after he becomes aware of the actual tested results.

 

[Wreckem]

I am starting to get the opinion Tech "journalists" should be treated like Game "journalists" these days.

There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity in both fields these days.