r9 390 issues with DX11....future DX12?

[gmart]

Building a rig. 6600k, asus z170A, 850W PS, and fill in the rest.
want to get the r9 390, but currently seems there is no catalyst driver answer for DX11 games. 15.7 and recently 15.8 (beta) the current fix. I think the card will do well when DX12 gets rolling, but from now till then, its hard to take the plunge. I know everyone has driver issues from time to time. is amd just flailing away with DX11 for this 300 series, just waiting for DX12?

 

[Elixer]

What specific game you looking at?
Usually, you can still play DX9/10/11 games just fine.

 

[im-different]

I would say to go for it, I'm seeing positive reviews for the R9 390 and it performs well for its price. DX12 won't be seen in major games for a while, the DX11 drivers should be fine soon.

 

[Despoiler]

Building a rig. 6600k, asus z170A, 850W PS, and fill in the rest.
want to get the r9 390, but currently seems there is no catalyst driver answer for DX11 games. 15.7 and recently 15.8 (beta) the current fix. I think the card will do well when DX12 gets rolling, but from now till then, its hard to take the plunge. I know everyone has driver issues from time to time. is amd just flailing away with DX11 for this 300 series, just waiting for DX12?

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the 15.2xx.xxx.x branch of drivers massively improved AMD's CPU efficiencies compared to previous branches. It's not as good as Nvidia's, but they are working on it. Also, the r9 390 is the current best price to performance card so how do you think it's somehow inadequate?

 

[soccerballtux]

possibly troll post? he simply claims an assumption of dx11 problems, which I have not heard before

 

[chimaxi83]

OP needs to be rewritten using complete sentences and an actual question.

 

[gmart]

possibly troll post? he simply claims an assumption of dx11 problems, which I have not heard before

when I went to the amd forum, there were many people having driver issues with the r9 3xx series cards. crashing, black screen, wont post, freezing........etc, etc.
seems NVidia cards work better, driver wise, in DX11, compared to amd.
just wondering if this is a real problem, that possibly anyone on this forum could advise me on.

and like I have seen in DX12 benchmark games, this amd card works pretty good. kinda like amd is looking ahead to DX12.

anyway........ if you actually own and use a r9 390, let me know if you have any problems with the card.

 

[gmart]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the 15.2xx.xxx.x branch of drivers massively improved AMD's CPU efficiencies compared to previous branches. It's not as good as Nvidia's, but they are working on it. Also, the r9 390 is the current best price to performance card so how do you think it's somehow inadequate?

ark survival evolved is the game.
building the rig for grandson.

don't think its inadequate, in fact think it will rock in DX12, but doesn't seem to compare to a gtx 970 in dx11 games.

 

[Chaosblade02]

I dunno what you're talking about TC. My MSI R9 390 Gaming 8G runs both Witcher 3 and DA:I very good. It whips a 970 in both those games. I'm able to OC mine as high as 1220 core @ +100mv and 1750 mem @ +45 aux. It'll run 1130/1650 on stock voltages. That's a straight up OC without any Nvidia "boost" gimmicks that give you extra clocks at low usage levels, which is absolutely useless for demanding games. The Twin Frozr cooler on my GPU can keep it cool @ +100mv, but the temps will get into the 80C range, and you'll need a custom fan profile. The card is rated to handle that though.

Also, why reward Nvidia for their Vram fiasco? They straight up lied about the 970 having 4GBs of Vram. Its got 3.5GBs of GDDR5. The GPUs perform close to the same at lower Vram usages, but what happens when games start needing more than 3.5GBs of Vram? That 970 is gonna hit a wall, or you'll be turning settings down to medium, when a 390 will be able to run high-max lmao.

 

[gmart]

I dunno what you're talking about TC. My MSI R9 390 Gaming 8G runs both Witcher 3 and DA:I very good. It whips a 970 in both those games. I'm able to OC mine as high as 1220 core @ +100mv and 1750 mem @ +45 aux. It'll run 1130/1650 on stock voltages. That's a straight up OC without any Nvidia "boost" gimmicks that give you extra clocks at low usage levels, which is absolutely useless for demanding games. The Twin Frozr cooler on my GPU can keep it cool @ +100mv, but the temps will get into the 80C range, and you'll need a custom fan profile. The card is rated to handle that though.

Also, why reward Nvidia for their Vram fiasco? They straight up lied about the 970 having 4GBs of Vram. Its got 3.5GBs of GDDR5. The GPUs perform close to the same at lower Vram usages, but what happens when games start needing more than 3.5GBs of Vram? That 970 is gonna hit a wall, or you'll be turning settings down to medium, when a 390 will be able to run high-max lmao.

thanx for the info.
do you think the 390x is worth the extra bucks? know temps are higher with this card. would I have to bump my ps up from 750 to 850 if I went this route? is the $$ worth it. air cool or water cool for 6600k? sorry for all the questions.

 

[Chaosblade02]

thanx for the info.
do you think the 390x is worth the extra bucks? know temps are higher with this card. would I have to bump my ps up from 750 to 850 if I went this route? is the $$ worth it. air cool or water cool for 6600k? sorry for all the questions.

The 390x isn't worth the extra money over a 390. The 390x is maybe 5-6% faster, and you can make that up easily by overclocking the 390. I bought and MSI R9 390 gaming 8G model for about $320 (US). Looks like they're currently sold out on newegg.

Since you're on a budget, get a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Evo cooler. Its about $30. Its widely accepted as the best price/performance air cooler on the market. If you want a water cooler, a Corsair H80i would be a reasonably priced one that will get you noticeably better cooling than air.

 

[Headfoot]

ark survival evolved is the game.
building the rig for grandson.

don't think its inadequate, in fact think it will rock in DX12, but doesn't seem to compare to a gtx 970 in dx11 games.

huh?

Where exactly have you been looking where a 390 doesnt compare to a 970 in current games ? they're tied neck to neck

 

[Techhog]

huh?

Where exactly have you been looking where a 390 doesnt compare to a 970 in current games ? they're tied neck to neck

Until you overclock. :/

 

[Headfoot]

Until you overclock. :/

Source? Reviews in the 290(x) days showed it getting a slightly lower overclock than the 970 but with slightly better scaling, equaling a wash still at OC v OC. I cant imagine that's changed with the 390

 

[Shmee]

I have 2x 290s. A 390 is basically a 290 with double VRAM and higher clocks. No driver issues here, though crossfire isnt always supported depending on the games. Of course you are only using 1 card, a 390 would be a fine choice, and a good 750W PSU should be plenty for it.

 

[raghu78]

Until you overclock. :/

rubbish. R9 390 is on par or slightly ahead of GTX 970 OC and even when both are overclocked the R9 390 is faster.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/...h/2/#diagramm-rating-1920-1080-hohe-qualitaet

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/...h/2/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9cKZiJw6Pk

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...o-Radeon-R9-390-8GB-Review/Grand-Theft-Auto-V

http://www.msi.com/product/vga/GTX-970-GAMING-4G.html#hero-overview

R9 390(1010 Mhz) is beating MSI GTX 970 Gaming (1114 Mhz base/1253 Mhz boost) in the above pcper review.

R9 390 can overclock to 1150-1200 Mhz and GTX 970 OC which even at stock runs at 1250-1300 Mhz boost clocks can overclock to 1450-1500 Mhz. So there is not a huge difference in OC headroom between the two. More importantly the R9 390 has massive 8 GB VRAM which keeps it well prepared for the present and future games. GTX 970 OC is already showing its limitations at 1440p in the most demanding games.

 

[Chaosblade02]

OCs from boost shouldn't even be included when comparing. I personally don't see any use in +200 more core when my GPU usage is in the 50% range or under. Straight up OC is the only thing that matters. Boost is a gimmick. People will push their GPUs to 100% in these newer games, certainly a 970 or a 390. Boost gets nothing in that scenario.

Also, there are diminishing returns with OCing. For example, bumping my core from 1040 to 1130 got me 5-6fps in Witcher 3. OCing it to 1200 from 1130 will only get me another 1-2fps. Its safe to say that even if I could OC this GPU to 1300, I wouldn't see a tremendous amount of gains over an 1130 OC.

 

[soccerballtux]

when I went to the amd forum, there were many people having driver issues with the r9 3xx series cards. crashing, black screen, wont post, freezing........etc, etc.
seems NVidia cards work better, driver wise, in DX11, compared to amd.
just wondering if this is a real problem, that possibly anyone on this forum could advise me on.

and like I have seen in DX12 benchmark games, this amd card works pretty good. kinda like amd is looking ahead to DX12.

anyway........ if you actually own and use a r9 390, let me know if you have any problems with the card.

in w10 or 7?

 

[soccerballtux]

The 390x isn't worth the extra money over a 390. The 390x is maybe 5-6% faster, and you can make that up easily by overclocking the 390. I bought and MSI R9 390 gaming 8G model for about $320 (US). Looks like they're currently sold out on newegg.

Since you're on a budget, get a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Evo cooler. Its about $30. Its widely accepted as the best price/performance air cooler on the market. If you want a water cooler, a Corsair H80i would be a reasonably priced one that will get you noticeably better cooling than air.

but you can just have a clock the 390x too. I think that AMD's drivers are not scaling very well with the higher shade counts and I think that's going to change in the next few years. So personally although I would probably prefer the 390 myself financially, I think that the 390x is still a worthwhile investment--not now, but for the future

 

[soccerballtux]

OCs from boost shouldn't even be included when comparing. I personally don't see any use in +200 more core when my GPU usage is in the 50% range or under. Straight up OC is the only thing that matters. Boost is a gimmick. People will push their GPUs to 100% in these newer games, certainly a 970 or a 390. Boost gets nothing in that scenario.

Also, there are diminishing returns with OCing. For example, bumping my core from 1040 to 1130 got me 5-6fps in Witcher 3. OCing it to 1200 from 1130 will only get me another 1-2fps. Its safe to say that even if I could OC this GPU to 1300, I wouldn't see a tremendous amount of gains over an 1130 OC.

ah, I don't know. Is worth considering because it improves current game titles and experience playing them significantly, by dumping all of the TDP into that 50% of usage. It simply means that in two years when games are more demanding, performance will tank much more quickly

 

[Chaosblade02]

ah, I don't know. Is worth considering because it improves current game titles and experience playing them significantly, by dumping all of the TDP into that 50% of usage. It simply means that in two years when games are more demanding, performance will tank much more quickly

Core boosts at lower GPU usage is redundant. You should already be maxing the game out at the refresh rate of your monitor if you're gaming at below 100% usage, providing you're not bottlenecked elsewhere. That's why I said it was a gimmick. Modern games like Witcher 3 will max out a 970. Its not accurate to add an extra +200 core to whatever your baseline OC is just because you got boost, because you're not always gonna get that extra +200 core, certainly not in any really demanding games. Realistically, the ones claiming 1450 core OCs in reality are 1250 core OCs. As another poster already pointed out, top end for OCs on a 970 aren't that much better than a 390.

MSI GTX 970 Gaming (1114 Mhz base), bumping that up to 1250 is comparable to a 390 with 1010 core bumping up to 1150, which is not that hard to reach at all from what people have been saying. Mine will run 1130 core at stock voltage. Lots of 390s can hit 1200 core using a +100mv limit.

 

[soccerballtux]

I thought there was a good reason but I'm drawing a blank right now.

 

[kawi6rr]

Until you overclock. :/

Got a source for that or just trolling? It's getting old!

 

[wolf_squad]

ark survival evolved is the game.
building the rig for grandson.

don't think its inadequate, in fact think it will rock in DX12, but doesn't seem to compare to a gtx 970 in dx11 games.

ark is an unoptimized ue4 game. nvidia does hold an advantage there, due to ue4 inherently liking nvidia cards more.

I'm not sure how much the dx12 mode changes this picture for amd. devs say it's a 20% performance boost, but whether both amd and nvidia enjoy this boost equally, that I don't know.

 

[MeldarthX]

ark is an unoptimized ue4 game. nvidia does hold an advantage there, due to ue4 inherently liking nvidia cards more.

I'm not sure how much the dx12 mode changes this picture for amd. devs say it's a 20% performance boost, but whether both amd and nvidia enjoy this boost equally, that I don't know.

ARK runs like crap on both period and will for a long time - they are supposed to be putting out a dx12 patch to help with it but have pulled it back for now.