AMD cuts price on 300 & Fury GPUs

[AtenRa]

R9 390 4GB should be $20-30 less than the 8GB version.

Also, PowerColor Fury Nano at $510 AR.

 

[psolord]

Who in their right mind would prefer to pay 10% less money to get 50% less video ram?

 

[3DVagabond]

Who in their right mind would prefer to pay 10% less money to get 50% less video ram?

People who are comparing with 970/980

 

[RussianSensation]

Despite the 380X launch bashing across the web, the R9 380X is slowly taking its place as the best mid-range card, at least until 960Ti launches or 970/390 have price drops back down to $260.

$210 XFX R9 380X

Who in their right mind would prefer to pay 10% less money to get 50% less video ram?

But in the case of R9 390 4GB vs. 8GB, what matters is having at least 4GB of VRAM over 3-3.5GB, not necessarily having 5-8GB. In that case 390 4GB seems like a smart choice to save $ on and invest it towards an SSD, CPU cooler, better PSU, better CPU, etc.

I got one better for you, pay $10 less for GTX960 4GB to lose almost 19-30% of the performance against the $210 R9 380X.

 

[Squeetard]

Anybody seeing these price cuts at retailers? I'm sure not here in Canada.

 

[el etro]

Despite the 380X launch bashing across the web, the R9 380X is slowly taking its place as the best mid-range card, at least until 960Ti launches or 970/390 have price drops back down to $260.

$210 XFX R9 380X

Great if AMD maintain the price of 380x this low. Tonga with all GCN1.2 features plus amazing value = win.

 

[RussianSensation]

Anybody seeing these price cuts at retailers? I'm sure not here in Canada.

Countries where native currency has devalued greatly against the USD are unlikely to see major price cuts because the corporate earnings of AMD/NV are in USD. This means if AMD/NV lower prices 15-20% but CDN dollar drops 15-20% in the same time, the final market price would stay about the same. This is the same reason price cuts on Xbox One and PS4 are not as high in % terms as they are in the US market simply because the way corporate earnings are reported implies that to remove large losses due to foreign exchange rates, companies like MS, Sony, NV/AMD (and their AIBs), Intel, etc. have to make pricing adjustments throughout the year to protect them from FX losses.

January 2015
$1 USD = 1.17 CDN

July 2015
$1 USD = 1.26 CDN

December 16, 2015
$1 USD = 1.38 CDN
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/exchange/10-year-converter/

Our dollar has depreciated ~18% since the beginning of the year.

PowerColor R9 390 = $460 - 10% off coupon converted to USD (before taxes and rebate) = $300 USD roughly.

If the exchange rate was similar to January 2015, AMD's AIB could have priced this card at $351 CDN.

Blame our CDN dollar dependent on the oil & gas economy and our 13% HST.

 

[UaVaj]

Who in their right mind would prefer to pay 10% less money to get 50% less video ram?

those who are smart enough to realize that 4gb is plenty of vram for a single gpu. even 2gb is sufficent. especially when enjoyable frame rate is taken into consideration.

that 10% could be used toward something else more beneficial.

 

[Techhog]

those who are smart enough to realize that 4gb is plenty of vram for a single gpu. even 2gb is sufficent. especially when enjoyable frame rate is taken into consideration.

that 10% could be used toward something else more beneficial.

You're out of your mind if you thing 2GB would be sufficient for an R9 390-class GPU.

 

[xthetenth]

Who in their right mind would prefer to pay 10% less money to get 50% less video ram?

People who feel that 50% less video ram diminishes the overall card by less than 10%, duh. Some people may think that the card is going to use more than 4 GB, and that's worth the extra. Some might not, and to them, why pay 10% more for a nearly 0% increase in performance? A video card's value is defined by framerates, not the BoM.

 

[RussianSensation]

You're out of your mind if you thing 2GB would be sufficient for an R9 390-class GPU.

I do not understand the defense for 2GB cards because it's not as if it's applicable to just one company selling GPUs. It's not a brand specific issue but a GPU industry wide theme. This theme is that all 2GB cards are starting to suffer greatly in modern titles. Considering we had HD7850 2GB for just $249 in 2012, it's almost sad the amount of defending there is for 2GB cards when we are almost in the year 2016. This is akin to defending 2004's 256MB GPUs in the year 2008 when mid-range cards already has 512MB and flagships had 1GB.

People who feel that 50% less video ram diminishes the overall card by less than 10%, duh. Some people may think that the card is going to use more than 4 GB, and that's worth the extra. Some might not, and to them, why pay 10% more for a nearly 0% increase in performance? A video card's value is defined by framerates, not the BoM.

Moving from 2GB to 4GB is a lot more important for today's level of GPUs than moving from 4GB -> 6-8GB. This could change for 2016-2018 games but right now the absolute cut-off seems to be 3GB at minimum, preferably at least 3.5-4GB (970/290 class). That means in the case of an R9 390 4GB vs. 8GB, the $20-30 savings could make a big difference since instead of a $280 R9 390, it's suddenly a $250-260 R9 390, much closer to the prices of far weaker cards like the GTX960 4GB or R9 380X 4GB. I think a lot of gamers would be willing to pay $50 extra for a $250 R9 390 over a $200-210 960 4GB/R9 380X while at $280-300, it's a bigger stretch over their budget.

AMD should have launched R9 390 4GB on day one though and priced it at $289 or something. Would have spoiled a lot of the thunder of $330-350 970s.

 

[Blitzvogel]

those who are smart enough to realize that 4gb is plenty of vram for a single gpu. even 2gb is sufficent. especially when enjoyable frame rate is taken into consideration.

that 10% could be used toward something else more beneficial.

I have a 2 GB R9 270. I wish I had bought something with more, because games are now utilizing very large textures that really require a 3 or 4 GB card.

The same thing happened last console generation. The 8800GTS 320 MB was a beast of a GPU (I had one), but that didn't stop multiplatform games from needing well north of that amount of VRAM as the generation dragged on.

 

[UaVaj]

You're out of your mind if you thing 2GB would be sufficient for an R9 390-class GPU.

based on your notion. 290x x4 would require 8gb min. and ideally 12gb.

clearly not the case. based on actual gameplay. can barely saturate 4gb. especially when enjoyable frame rate is being considered.

if your cup of tea is to jack up game setting (to jack up vram) for un-enjoyable frame rate. then more power to you.

 

[RussianSensation]

based on your notion. 290x x4 would require 8gb min. and ideally 12gb.

I don't think that's what he meant at all. He isn't suggesting that with more GPU horsepower, VRAM requirements scale linearly. For R9 290/290X/390/390X level of GPU, 4GB is more than enough. Fury, Fury X are faster cards and perform better than 8GB R9 390/X. It would have been better for most consumers if R9 390 cost less and had 4GB of GDDR5.

Right now even 6GB seems overkill for any cards but 4GB seems to be the sweet-spot for single GPUs.

When moving to GTX970 SLI / R9 290 CF, 3.5GB seems to not be enough in some games. Of course for 1080P/1440P, this isn't a problem.

While there is clearly a benefit for having 4GB of VRAM for some modern GPU setups, right now there seems to be a diminishing return beyond 4GB. Perhaps once GPUs get more powerful to handle MSAA at 4K, then 6-8GB will become the minimum.

 

[fourdegrees11]

There's pretty much no reason to purchase a gpu in the $150-$250 range that is not a $210 380x right now IMO (not counting used market).

 

[3DVagabond]

Keep in mind too that there is a difference in VRAM usage between nVidia and AMD. AMD, with the release if Fiji, has started optimizing their drivers better for VRAM usage.

 

[RussianSensation]

There's pretty much no reason to purchase a gpu in the $150-$250 range that is not a $210 380x right now IMO (not counting used market).

Now $200.

Believe me, there will be some justifications used for why 960 should be recommended, even a 960 2GB, like power usage or HDMI 2.0 or better video codec, anything that suddenly shifts the focus away from NV's weaknesses in the $150-250 pricing segments. The most important things for why people buy PC over consoles such as higher gaming performance, price/performance, GCN DX12 support and VRAM advantages will always be downplayed if NV starts losing in those metrics.

I have a feeling NV may launch 960Ti though. Once they do, even if it's priced at $229.99, there will be as little mention as possible about $200-210 R9 380X and the value of R9 380X will be downplayed as if these decent R9 380X prices didn't exist.

 

[96Firebird]

I have a feeling NV may launch 960Ti though. Once they do, even if it's priced at $229.99, there will be as little mention as possible about $200-210 R9 380X and the value of R9 380X will be downplayed as if these decent R9 380X prices didn't exist.

No worries, you will be here to save the day and spam it around in every thread!

Even better perf/$ would be the 970 on Jet.com for $250 after promo code, no rebates to deal with...

Edit - Or the 390 for $260, same site and promo code.

 

[railven]

No worries, you will be here to save the day and spam it around in every thread!

Even better perf/$ would be the 970 on Jet.com for $250 after promo code, no rebates to deal with...

Edit - Or the 390 for $260, same site and promo code.

No kidding. At this point just put it in your sig and save us the trouble.

 

[Techhog]

based on your notion. 290x x4 would require 8gb min. and ideally 12gb.

clearly not the case. based on actual gameplay. can barely saturate 4gb. especially when enjoyable frame rate is being considered.

if your cup of tea is to jack up game setting (to jack up vram) for un-enjoyable frame rate. then more power to you.

No, I'm just saying that it's fast enough that 2GB would be a bottleneck in many games. You just said that it can "barely saturate" 4GB, which implies that more than 2GB is easily satruated, does it not? You're free to show me otherwise, though.

 

[thilanliyan]

ar dependent on the oil & gas economy and our 13% HST.

I miss the 5% tax in Alberta...back in Ontario now lol

 

[psolord]

People who are comparing with 970/980

Didn't we have the 290/290x for that? Which are the same cards?

But in the case of R9 390 4GB vs. 8GB, what matters is having at least 4GB of VRAM over 3-3.5GB, not necessarily having 5-8GB. In that case 390 4GB seems like a smart choice to save $ on and invest it towards an SSD, CPU cooler, better PSU, better CPU, etc.

I got one better for you, pay $10 less for GTX960 4GB to lose almost 19-30% of the performance against the $210 R9 380X.

If we are talking saving 30$ to invest on a different part, it's not really much of save. Ok I am not one without budget restrictions, but I still cannot see how losing half the video ram, will do any good on the rest of the system. I mean it's 30$. Essentially peanuts compared to the total system cost.

those who are smart enough to realize that 4gb is plenty of vram for a single gpu. even 2gb is sufficent. especially when enjoyable frame rate is taken into consideration.

that 10% could be used toward something else more beneficial.

Where's the smartness when you lose half the frame buffer for 30$?

Have you seen how games utilize video ram nowadays? I am not saying that they actively need more than 4GB to render high textures with high settings, but they can easily use excess video ram to store important data that will be requested later.

In any case, if someone is buying Hawaii, I don't see the point of not opting for the 8GB model, to give himself some future proofing.

Some people may think that such a card will run out of gpu power long before it runs out of vram. This may turn out to be true. I believe we have all seen that the most important setting that makes a game ugly, is the texture quality setting. Something that affects video ram usage directly. Why would someone want to risk that for 30$?

People who feel that 50% less video ram diminishes the overall card by less than 10%, duh. Some people may think that the card is going to use more than 4 GB, and that's worth the extra. Some might not, and to them, why pay 10% more for a nearly 0% increase in performance? A video card's value is defined by framerates, not the BoM.

I cannot disagree with that.

Everything is down to what each one feels. I feel that it's not worth to save that 30$.

That does not make me correct. Same goes for that other guy that feels different.

If the are looking what they are getting now, with no thinking about the future, sure go ahead and sacrifice that extra 4GB. Speaking for myself I wouldn't, even if I am on a 18-24month upgrade path for gpus. People with longer upgrade periods should future proof themselves.

 

[RussianSensation]

No worries, you will be here to save the day and spam it around in every thread!

Good, better to provide sound and objective advice with facts to prospective PC upgraders or newcomers to PCs than ignoring fundamental issues with products, while recommending them simply because they have a green logo because of personal preferences. Pretty sure based on my entire history on this forum and GPU ownership, as well as GPU recommendations, you and I stand in stark contrast to each other in this regard. So I'll take it as a compliment from you that I keep using objective measurements like VRAM capacity, price/performance, etc. not emotional fluffy metrics like brand value and myths about "superior single GPU driver support". :thumbsup:

Even better perf/$ would be the 970 on Jet.com for $250 after promo code, no rebates to deal with...

Edit - Or the 390 for $260, same site and promo code.

Ya, so post it in the hot deals then, just like this.

No kidding. At this point just put it in your sig and save us the trouble.

I didn't realize it's troubling for you when people point out great deals on GPUs, especially on AMD cards in a thread regarding AMD GPU price cuts. Don't recall you making a big deal when I linked hot deals on 980Ti cards though and talked smack about how 980Ti OC smashes Fury X. Yet, you seem to have a huge problem in recent times when I point out bad value in the green camp, but say nothing when I do the same on crappy/overpriced AMD products. The point of your post is just a snide remark that adds no value to the actual topic of this thread.

 

[railven]

I didn't realize it's troubling for you when people point out great deals on GPUs. It's not my fault you see everything as NV vs. AMD when hot deals are pointed out by me. You do seem to have a huge problem in recent times when I posted out bad value in but say nothing when I do the same on crappy/overpriced AMD products. Funny how that works.

Pat yourself on the back harder. I don't see things as NV vs AMD, you most certainly do. I don't recommend cards here, because any recommendation thread just turns into a pissing match. Of which you love to get into. And you get so sour when people don't take your advice. It's all good.

I just do what's best for me.

 

[96Firebird]

Good, better to provide sound and objective advice with facts to prospective PC upgraders or newcomers to PCs than ignoring fundamental issues with products, while recommending them simply because they have a green logo because of personal preferences. Pretty sure based on my entire history on this forum and GPU ownership, as well as GPU recommendations, you and I stand in stark contrast to each other in this regard. So I'll take it as a compliment from you that I keep using objective measurements like VRAM capacity, price/performance, etc. not emotional fluffy metrics like brand value and myths about "superior single GPU driver support". :thumbsup:

Eh, I've helped plenty of people here, but I don't feel the need to brag about it. Guess I'm just more humble than others...