AMD cuts price on 300 & Fury GPUs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
It may be supported but what good will they do you in the latest AAA titles? It's time to upgrade if you're on anything less than a 600 series at this point.
 

atticus14

Member
Apr 11, 2010
174
1
81
this headline scared me as I have a 390 that is currently being shipped, but I paid less than that. I was thinking badluckbrian.jpg Card price obsoleted 1 day after purchase.
 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,430
660
136
AMD "leads" in price/perf not by choice, but because they are forced to. Consumers are willing to pay more for NVIDIA GPUs at a given level of performance than AMD GPUs.

Sucks for AMD, but good for AMD buyers :)

They are forced to because of their own incompetence. Or lack of funding to do all the things Nvidia does. I know i am minority customer, but then again i am surely not alone, who basically has no choice but to buy Nvidia stuff because of features they provide, which AMD does not.

So Fury X can hypothetically be sold for 100 USD and its still not an option to me. AMD have only themselves to blame for that.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
What modern games (the only ones you'll need constant updates on) are you going to play with VLIW cards? Remember they aren't DX12 capable either.

Sadly not everyone plays or cares about games.

I can't upgrade desktops with HD 4xxx class GPUs to windows 10. Which really sucks.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,495
144
106
For general usage (not games), can't you use the generic driver from Windows 10?
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,257
12,196
136
Sadly not everyone plays or cares about games.

I can't upgrade desktops with HD 4xxx class GPUs to windows 10. Which really sucks.

For general usage (not games), can't you use the generic driver from Windows 10?

From the AMD site.
Driver support for these products under Windows® 8.1 and Windows® 10 is only available via Windows Update. Please enable Windows Update to allow it to automatically detect and install display driver version 8.970.100.9001
So, last driver version available for download for HD 4000 on Win8 64bit: 8.97.100.7
Last version available via Windows update: 8.970.100.9001
 
Last edited:

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,495
144
106
I know about driver from AMD. But I was asking about the generic driver from Windows. You have an image on display even before installing the AMD driver. Can't you stay with that?
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
From the AMD site.
So, last driver version available for download for HD 4000 on Win8 64bit: 8.97.100.7
Last version available via Windows update: 8.970.100.9001

Yeah, you can use the generic driver but its a risk and given the choice I'd rather stick to Win 7 rather than break something.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
They are forced to because of their own incompetence. Or lack of funding to do all the things Nvidia does. I know i am minority customer, but then again i am surely not alone, who basically has no choice but to buy Nvidia stuff because of features they provide, which AMD does not.

So Fury X can hypothetically be sold for 100 USD and its still not an option to me. AMD have only themselves to blame for that.

Which features?

I was in the same boat with AMD for years because their features beat what nV was offering. Things have worked out where I can be brand agnostic these days, though I admit that looking to a move to free/gsync at some point raises concerns about having to pick a brand and stick with it again...
 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,430
660
136
Which features?

I was in the same boat with AMD for years because their features beat what nV was offering. Things have worked out where I can be brand agnostic these days, though I admit that looking to a move to free/gsync at some point raises concerns about having to pick a brand and stick with it again...

CUDA in my case.

I would happily buy AMD card, if the app i use was not CUDA-only (for the time being). But it is and it has been for past 7 years.

Its unfortunate, cause its possible the AMD cards could have been actually faster (given the fact they usually have higher TFlops rates than Nvidia cards, which is important for my kind of computing), if they worked.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
CUDA in my case.

I would happily buy AMD card, if the app i use was not CUDA-only (for the time being). But it is and it has been for past 7 years.

Its unfortunate, cause its possible the AMD cards could have been actually faster (given the fact they usually have higher TFlops rates than Nvidia cards, which is important for my kind of computing), if they worked.

In my case, no Gsync on big screen monitors. So I'm not buying Nvidia.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,257
12,196
136
Yeah, you can use the generic driver but its a risk and given the choice I'd rather stick to Win 7 rather than break something.
What are you talking about? It's a driver from AMD vetted by MS and you consider it a risk?!
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
Indeed. Same for GF 8/9/200 series cards. If your GPU is more than four years old, one should not expect support in the latest Operations Systems, let alone the latest games.

maybe in the past, but we had DX11 for years as the main API, old Radeons have the hardware capabilities to run every single game out there, some of the cards also deliver enough performance for current games; in the past, in 2 years you would have at times games that were simply incompatible (think of the Radeon x800 no supporting SM3.0), so short support life made more sense back then I think.

in any case, Fermi is older than the VLIW4 Radeons and is still supported, including with DX12 (not enabled yet, but Nvidia said it will)

also, 4 years you say? goodbye GCN 1.0? AMD is still selling them new, AMD released VLIW GPUs after the 7970 (like Richland)


From the AMD site.
So, last driver version available for download for HD 4000 on Win8 64bit: 8.97.100.7
Last version available via Windows update: 8.970.100.9001

the windows update driver is from 2012 and it lacks CCC or any kind of control panel, when I tried forcing a windows 7 or 8 driver I still didn't get a working CCC, but yes, the driver itself works.

I would assume it would not be hard for AMD to fix it, Nvidia offered a new driver release for windows 10 going as low as the 8800s from 9 years ago,
and with my geforce 6, using the win 8 driver (forceware 309 I think) on 10 also gave me a working control panel with no problems

but this discussions is perhaps OT, unless it's also relevant for people buying the new rebranded stuff, GCN 1.0 buyers should be more worried I guess, they have a different level of DX12 support compared to GCN 1.1-1.2,
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Do we know if the cuts are going to be permanent, or just from now to Christmas time?
A year ago we were able to get R9 280 for $130AR. It went back up in price and never made to that $130 number again.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
These prices are what they should have launched with based where these products fit against the competition.
If the cards were selling at the old price then they should've kept the old pricing. It sucks for consumers but it'll suck even more if AMD goes bankrupt.

AMD needs to stop trying to be price competitive. Instead, consistently price their cards higher than nVidia's and push the "boutique-halo-quality" angle.
 

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,643
615
136
Well, they are not quite going that far. But the Su strategy has been 1:1 price parity for the most part. 390 and 970 were priced the same. Fury X and 980 Ti the same. Fury and 390X pretty much surrounded the 980, one a little more one a little less. 380 price goes equal with 960.

The consumers spoke that price-to-performance was not an important metric. Brand, and whatever that entails both real benefits or imaginary premiums, is the deciding factor. If it were price-to-performance the 290 would have outsold the 970 and 960 - at least when compared separately if not combined. Remember for most of the existance of the 970 and 960 you could find a 290 for in between those two cards. Instead I'd wager that each one of those separately has outsold all of the Hawaii and Tonga cards in 2015 combined. And probably left over 280s and 280X's since the 960s launch when they almost always provided better price-to-performance and have still mostly been available this year. The vast majority of GPU consumers are not interested in getting the best framerate per dollar.
 
Last edited:

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,450
2,490
146
Well, they are not quite going that far. But the Su strategy has been 1:1 price parity for the most part. 390 and 970 were priced the same. Fury X and 980 Ti the same. Fury and 390X pretty much surrounded the 980, one a little more one a little less. 380 price goes equal with 960.

The consumers spoke that price-to-performance was not an important metric. Brand, and whatever that entails both real benefits or imaginary premiums, is the deciding factor. If it were price-to-performance the 290 would have outsold the 970 and 960 - at least when compared separately if not combined. Remember for most of the existance of the 970 and 960 you could find a 290 for in between those two cards. Instead I'd wager that each one of those separately has outsold all of the Hawaii and Tonga cards in 2015 combined. And probably left over 280s and 280X's since the 960s launch when they almost always provided better price-to-performance and have still mostly been available this year. The vast majority of GPU consumers are not interested in getting the best framerate per dollar.

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but do you know if your Fury unlocks? This IMO, has been a really nice little feature of the AMD side for the last few years, starting with the 6950.
 

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,643
615
136
Yes, I have mine partially unlocked at 3840 shaders. Currently running at 1075 core and 550 mem as this seems the max stable overclock so far (knock on wood). I'm not gonna try changing voltage though.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
Sorry for going a bit off topic, but do you know if your Fury unlocks? This IMO, has been a really nice little feature of the AMD side for the last few years, starting with the 6950.

Probably makes the Sapphire the best deal out of all of the Fiji chips. You might as well take the best cheapest card with the best cooler, and hope for the best with the unlock. FuryX/Nano isn't going to net you that much more as long as you get some of the cores unlocked.

They're really all meh deals though. The Fury X's lowest price needs to be $100 under the 980 Ti's lowest price for me to be interested.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Probably makes the Sapphire the best deal out of all of the Fiji chips. You might as well take the best cheapest card with the best cooler, and hope for the best with the unlock. FuryX/Nano isn't going to net you that much more as long as you get some of the cores unlocked.

They're really all meh deals though. The Fury X's lowest price needs to be $100 under the 980 Ti's lowest price for me to be interested.

The pump issues and the lack of Overclock[er's dream] wouldn't have probably stung as bad if the Fury X launched at $550.

But I know AMD is now in it to make as much possible. The age of fleecing from both sides is upon us!
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
this is good news.

considering 3 (or perhaps 4) for mixed rotation configuration.

hopefully a better brand (asus/gigabyte) will follow suit soon. not exactly excited about powercolor.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Prices were, as expected, temporary cuts.
With the exception of the R9 270, all of them are back to the higher price.