[Guru3d] MSI 390X Gaming 8G OC review

[amenx]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,1.html

Nice card. But... basically a triple slot cooler.

 

[EightySix Four]

So it goes toe-to-toe with and ocassionally beats the 980, has more than 2x the ram and is priced ~ the same. I hope AMD is able to sell this as a win, I think it is but everyone else is just going to scream "rebrand rebrand rebrand".

Also that reviewer's writing is atrocious.

 

[beginner99]

So it preforms pretty much identical to the old 290x... at a higher price. Yeah, this card is useless. Just grab a 290(x) now while still available at way lower price or get a fury /980ti.

 

[asendra]

So it goes toe-to-toe with and ocassionally beats the 980, has more than 2x the ram and is priced ~ the same. I hope AMD is able to sell this as a win, I think it is but everyone else is just going to scream "rebrand rebrand rebrand".

Also that reviewer's writing is atrocious.

and

So it preforms pretty much identical to the old 290x... at a higher price. Yeah, this card is useless. Just grab a 290(x) now while still available at way lower price or get a fury /980ti.

LOL

/thread

 

[piesquared]

So it performs faster than a 970 3.5GB + .5GB card, ties a 980 card, comes with 8GB memory, is cool and quiet, and is priced between a 970 and 980. Right on point.

 

[Keysplayr]

and



LOL

/thread

All in the eyes of the beholder. Perfect example.

 

[Creig]

So it preforms pretty much identical to the old 290x... at a higher price. Yeah, this card is useless. Just grab a 290(x) now while still available at way lower price or get a fury /980ti.

So it's as fast or faster than a $500 GTX 980, has twice as much VRAM and is $100 cheaper. Despite all that it's still useless?

Right.

 

[Keysplayr]

So it performs faster than a 970 3.5GB + .5GB card, ties a 980 card, comes with 8GB memory, is cool and quiet, and is priced between a 970 and 980. Right on point.

It is hard to see though, why somebody would pay 400.00 for essentially the same GPU they can get for 240.00. I do admire the lower noise and cooler running temps at 10% higher clocks though. That is a step in the right direction.

 

[desprado]

So it goes toe-to-toe with and ocassionally beats the 980, has more than 2x the ram and is priced ~ the same. I hope AMD is able to sell this as a win, I think it is but everyone else is just going to scream "rebrand rebrand rebrand".

Also that reviewer's writing is atrocious.

it barely beats a reference GTX 980.

 

[Gloomy]

Eh, it's a 290x basically, plus a decent 10 percentish gain. Decent card but nothing new, it was a decent card one year ago, I mean...

 

[EndlessWargasm]

It is hard to see though, why somebody would pay 400.00 for essentially the same GPU they can get for 240.00. I do admire the lower noise and cooler running temps at 10% higher clocks though. That is a step in the right direction.

Because you won't be able to buy 290s for much longer? In my neck the woods basically no 200 series cards are in stock anymore.

Get them fire sale 290s while they're hot

 

[Creig]

it barely beats a reference GTX 980.

Pretty much ensures that nobody will want to buy a 980 at its current asking price of $500, though.

 

[piesquared]

It is hard to see though, why somebody would pay 400.00 for essentially the same GPU they can get for 240.00. I do admire the lower noise and cooler running temps at 10% higher clocks though. That is a step in the right direction.

Not really considering 400.00 is more than fair, and 240.00 is far undervalued to begin with. And it trades blows with a more expensive card. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[desprado]

Pretty much ensures that nobody will want to buy a 980 at its current asking price of $500, though.

I grantee you that still GTX 980 will be sold a lot more than MSI R9 390X and still MSI r9 390X will be non selling success because If AMD cannot sell R9 290X stock properly than how can they sell R9 3xx rebrand with a higher price.

AMD had a lot problem selling R9 290X at a such a cheap price than how good they can sell R9 290X rebrands at much higher price.

 

[Keysplayr]

Not really considering 400.00 is more than fair, and 240.00 is far undervalued to begin with. And it trades blows with a more expensive card. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

That is not logical. How is 400.00 more than fair when 240.00 will do the job for the same GPU? It's an overclocked 290X with a much better cooler and 8GB of RAM that won't make a difference over current 4GB models for this card. It's a money grab card IMHO.

 

[Keysplayr]

Because you won't be able to buy 290s for much longer? In my neck the woods basically no 200 series cards are in stock anymore.

Get them fire sale 290s while they're hot

Or buy used. Problem solved.

 

[krumme]

It is hard to see though, why somebody would pay 400.00 for essentially the same GPU they can get for 240.00. I do admire the lower noise and cooler running temps at 10% higher clocks though. That is a step in the right direction.

There is far better board control than on 290x. Eg. As with many 970 the fan turns of at idle. That is an excellent feature imo and much needed in amd lineup.

I wonder if we dont (when) get 4 gb cards instead of this 8gb marketing stunt. I am pretty sure we will. And then some far lower prices. And it goes for 980 to. As rs says this is midrange cards. Ffs amd gets 4 cards above so no way is 400 going to be the price.

 

[Pariah]

So it's as fast or faster than a $500 GTX 980, has twice as much VRAM and is $100 cheaper. Despite all that it's still useless?

Right.

Not really useless, but the 8GB of RAM on a card of this class is pretty close to useless. AMD can't really argue otherwise since their own flagship will only have 4GB. It would have been better to make this a 4GB card which is plenty for the sub 4k resolutions this card is optimized for and then knock $50 off the price.

 

[raghu78]

let me leave this here.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...69646-amd-r9-390x-8gb-performance-review.html

I am not impressed with this rebranding effort of AMD. SKYMTL calls it a refresh. But that higher memory bandwidth and core clocks along with the latest drivers seems to pack a decent bit of punch. 10-15% higher perf is not bad. There is still hope once Fury Nano launches at USD 449 and pushes the R9 390X to USD 349.

 

[beginner99]

So it's as fast or faster than a $500 GTX 980, has twice as much VRAM and is $100 cheaper. Despite all that it's still useless?

Right.

Yes because you could get that performance for like 9 month now at a lower price albeit with only 4 GB of vram. But that extra 4 GB on the 390(x) is useless anyway.

Problem is 290(x) had huge problems vs 970 before at very low prices. Now the price/performance is actually worse. of course most people have no clue and might fall for the 8 GB trap, but anyone that has a clue is better of with 290(x) special offers.

 

[desprado]

let me leave this here.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...69646-amd-r9-390x-8gb-performance-review.html

I am not impressed with this rebranding effort of AMD. SKYMTL calls it a refresh. But that higher memory bandwidth and core clocks along with the latest drivers seems to pack a decent bit of punch. 10-15% higher perf is not bad. There is still hope once Fury Nano launches at USD 449 and pushes the R9 390X to USD 349.

Your answer is here
If AMD cannot sell R9 290X stock properly than how can they sell R9 3xx rebrand with a higher price.

What is more sad is that AMD cannot gain back that lost share with rebrands but hope they back with a great line up in 2016.

 

[Silverforce11]

Seems to beat 980 in quite a few tests, so its a bit more than +10% on R290X.

Maybe the extra vram bandwidth helps more than the core clocks would indicate.

Basically power usage is the same, Guru3d got less, HC got more (system power).

Would have been great if power use was lowered to 225W gaming load, would make it a lot more enticing. But whats amazing is GCN tech in these GPUs are so outdated yet still beating Maxwell equivalents. :0

Still, last week, I could have got R290/X for ~$100 cheaper. I don't need 8GB vram, certainly not on that performance class. Maybe Lisa has a plan, AMD needs to stop being a value company.

R390 will beat 970 for ~same $, with 8GB vram. R290X will match or beat 980 for less $, with 8GB vram. Guess Lisa figures, that's a good deal for the masses. Why sell them for $100 less? Just add 4 extra GB of vram and make it all custom models with good coolers and call it a refresh.

Time will tell if that tactic works.

 

[krumme]

let me leave this here.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...69646-amd-r9-390x-8gb-performance-review.html

I am not impressed with this rebranding effort of AMD. SKYMTL calls it a refresh. But that higher memory bandwidth and core clocks along with the latest drivers seems to pack a decent bit of punch. 10-15% higher perf is not bad. There is still hope once Fury Nano launches at USD 449 and pushes the R9 390X to USD 349.

"
It’s been a long time since I’ve been so torn about a graphics card review. I went into this thinking the exact same thing that many of you who actually made it this far probably did: the R9 390X would be a waste of time, simply a rebrand without much going for it. On one hand, that’s true since it doesn’t bring any few features to the table but despite using an older architecture, this is still an excellent card.

At this point in time you might think I’ve either gone off the deep end or I might have started drinking AMD-flavored Kool-Aid but hear me out. With higher core clocks and an epic amount of memory bandwidth, the R9 390X is able to leave the reference R9 290X in its dust and even manages to outmuscle the GTX 980 in nearly every test.

All of this has been achieved without a massive increase in power consumption or even switching to a completely different architecture. To me, that shows AMD has achieved their goals while still living within their somewhat limited financial means. They just don’t have the money to introduce a completely new volume-focused architecture on a manufacturing process that will soon be phased out in favor of 14nm. The high-cost, low volume Fiji design is a perfect testing ground for AMD’s bold vision of the future and that’s what it is being used for.
"
The performance result looks good to me and really good temp and noise ratings imo.
Make sense to reuse the same arch if this is what they can achieve with it.
This is going to be a fine 300usd card competing with 980 at 350.

 

[Grooveriding]

let me leave this here.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...69646-amd-r9-390x-8gb-performance-review.html

I am not impressed with this rebranding effort of AMD. SKYMTL calls it a refresh. But that higher memory bandwidth and core clocks along with the latest drivers seems to pack a decent bit of punch. 10-15% higher perf is not bad. There is still hope once Fury Nano launches at USD 449 and pushes the R9 390X to USD 349.

Really it shows what a mistake it was to release 290 and 290X to reviewers with that cooler. First time I have seen a card gain an enduring reputation as being slower than its direct competitor just because its cooler was not adequate.

Reviews still have been using those old reference launch 290x & 290 numbers. Now we see it here fully uncorked by a good cooler and reviewed as such. Imagine how poor the 980 reviews would of been if the 290x had released with such an adequate cooler. It would of been perf/w is great, but otherwise even with a new architecture it's still slower than 290x.

That reference cooler on 290x was a huge mistake.

 

[desprado]

Seems to beat 980 in quite a few tests, so its a bit more than +10% on R290X.

Maybe the extra vram bandwidth helps more than the core clocks would indicate.

Basically power usage is the same, Guru3d got less, HC got more (system power).

Would have been great if power use was lowered to 225W gaming load, would make it a lot more enticing. But whats amazing is GCN tech in these GPUs are so outdated yet still beating Maxwell equivalents. :0

Still, last week, I could have got R290/X for ~$100 cheaper. I don't need 8GB vram, certainly not on that performance class. Maybe Lisa has a plan, AMD needs to stop being a value company.

R390 will beat 970 for ~same $, with 8GB vram. R290X will match or beat 980 for less $, with 8GB vram. Guess Lisa figures, that's a good deal for the masses. Why sell them for $100 less? Just add 4 extra GB of vram and make it all custom models with good coolers and call it a refresh.

Time will tell if that tactic works.

because they are not able to sell R9 2xx rebrands.If AMD cannot sell R9 2xx with such a cheap price than how can AMD sell rebrands with a higher price even if they add extra vram.