[TPU Article] Radeon R9 290 (non-X) Launch Pushed Back a Week

[atticus14]

Launch of AMD's Radeon R9 290 (non-X) is reportedly pushed back by a week, to Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The card was expected to launch on October 31, 2013. The reason for this delay? AMD reportedly developed a new driver that significantly improves performance on the R9 290

slightly more at link: http://www.techpowerup.com/193497/radeon-r9-290-non-x-launch-pushed-back-a-week.html

 

[x3sphere]

Why wouldn't the driver also benefit the 290X? Makes no sense...

Referring to this

The driver reportedly makes the R9 290 extremely competitive with GeForce GTX 780. A side-effect of that would be that the recently launched Radeon R9 290X could be rendered unattractive.

 

[atticus14]

Why wouldn't the driver also benefit the 290X? Makes no sense...

Referring to this

I'm sure it does, but that ships done sailed, and the 290x will also be in these benchmarks too, so they'll still make somewhat of an impact for potential buyers since many people will be looking at this card but still yet see the 290x at the top of the dog pile.

I'm sure they wish they could have got them in on time, but it was already an awkwardly long build up to launch, I don't think they wanted to wait any longer.

It does seem weird that writer would make this assumption that the benefits wouldn't apply to the same architecture, maybe he just wanted a few more words in the article

 

[wand3r3r]

The driver reportedly makes the R9 290 extremely competitive with GeForce GTX 780. A side-effect of that would be that the recently launched Radeon R9 290X could be rendered unattractive.

That's a great "problem" for me (and consumers).
I'm not sure what they would call a problem? Beating the 780 and putting it within percentage points of the 290x? Why wouldn't the driver also improve 290x as well. Maybe they are just too close on the silicon level?

 

[3DVagabond]

That's a great "problem" for me (and consumers).
I'm not sure what they would call a problem? Beating the 780 and putting it within percentage points of the 290x? Why wouldn't the driver also improve 290x as well. Maybe they are just too close on the silicon level?

We'll have to wait and see. I can't imagine a way that a driver could improve performance of the 290 and not the 290X. It would be different if they said there was a new bios for the 290, but not a driver.

 

[Silverforce11]

As many review sites tend to do, they lump the recent results into their charts, with only the card in question being benched with newer drivers etc. This would make the R290X look like a non-starter to people who aren't privy to minor details.

As for R290 specific driver performance tweaks, would be pretty damn hard to isolate it and not the R290X...

 

[boxleitnerb]

Why shouldn't the 290 not already be competitive with the 780? It has better specs all around except for the TMUs which should be rather unimportant in most cases.

 

[OCGuy]

Another delay.....

 

[amenx]

Hope they can review some non-ref cards as well. A 290 with tamed temps @ $450 should a monumental winner.

 

[Zanovar]

Christ,ill just buy a pair of Kef r100 at this rate and just wait for 20nm:S.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm sure it does, but that ships done sailed, and the 290x will also be in these benchmarks too, so they'll still make somewhat of an impact for potential buyers since many people will be looking at this card but still yet see the 290x at the top of the dog pile.

I'm sure they wish they could have got them in on time, but it was already an awkwardly long build up to launch, I don't think they wanted to wait any longer.

It does seem weird that writer would make this assumption that the benefits wouldn't apply to the same architecture, maybe he just wanted a few more words in the article

I don't see how this statement makes it look like 290x wouldn't benefit from the driver improvements ~

The driver reportedly makes the R9 290 extremely competitive with GeForce GTX 780. A side-effect of that would be that the recently launched Radeon R9 290X could be rendered unattractive.

All it does is that it makes the 290 more attractive, since it can be overclocked pretty easily to match a stock 290x, price wise as well as more competitive than the stock 780 at 500$

 

[boxleitnerb]

There is the possibility that AMD originally wanted the 290 to be clocked more conservatively for cooling and efficiency reasons. Maybe with the recent price cuts on the GTX 780 they decided differently.
But if that were true, how would this be affected by the driver? Isn't the boost information stored in the BIOS?

 

[krumme]

Well its the best time for gfx the last year or two for us consumers. It looks like both nv and amd can not do the usual segmentation trick and take a lot from the highend users.
I agree its unlikely we will see another 7950 but will get higher clocks day one.
Look at the 280x market. It looks like only 5% is using stock but the rest is at least 1ghz and up.
Tahiti is the weak spot in amd portfolio competing with 104 that have more perf/mm2. I think thats why we see no 280 non x.
Its obvious bonaire and hawaii that have the power/mm2 power/cost advantage.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

I think they're really delaying to send a BIOS update to reviewers along with updating their cards at the plant to have a higher clock speed. They may also be still pondering pricing. I imagine that's a tough choice. How close to $400 can they go and still be profitable? $450? $400?

They planned on having a huge advantage with the R9 290 in between the 770 and 780, but now it's going to be right on the R9 290's bumper with a decent bundle. Plus, I wonder if they aren't about to dump the reference design altogether and just let the OEM's use their custom coolers out of the gate instead.

It really seems like nVidia may have pissed on their hushpuppies with that rather incredible (for nVidia) price drop. I don't think I've seen nVidia do anything as reactionary as that since the days of the 280 and 260 being way overpriced before AMD arrived with its "keep it small" design philosophy (that they then abandoned after two generations). I think that was the last time nVidia was compelled to drop prices by so much so rapidly.

Competition is grand.

 

[Sureshot324]

Is there going to be a BF4 deal for the 290 non X? I'm wondering if I should just buy BF4 now or wait until the 290 comes out.

 

[FredNotFound404]

Only thing I care is that they get the Non reference versions has soon has possible, I'm not touching those reference cards, the cooler is just god awful, these cards need proper cooling to perform. I they release the Non reference ones by the end of the month so I can grab one, not sure if that will happen tho.

 

[railven]

Boooooo Hissss!!! Way to go AMD, just drive more of your business to Nvidia. People were saying "wait for the 290" now that's a week out and some of us are itching to buy!

 

[Face2Face]

I think it's gonna take AMD to price the R9 290 @ $400-$429 and equal stock GTX 780 performance for it to make a dent. And release some custom cards already - No one here wants a crappy reference cooler...

 

[GaiaHunter]

I think they're really delaying to send a BIOS update to reviewers along with updating their cards at the plant to have a higher clock speed. They may also be still pondering pricing. I imagine that's a tough choice. How close to $400 can they go and still be profitable? $450? $400?

NVIDIA and AMD can sell these cards for $200 and still make a profit.

We've already seen this story with GT200 and with Fermi.

 

[Grooveriding]

NVIDIA and AMD can sell these cards for $200 and still make a profit.

We've already seen this story with GT200 and with Fermi.

This. There are huge margins on these kinds of cards. Think on the line of about $700+ on a Titan...

You guys are probably right that they are re-positioning to take on 780. I'm going to get an aftermarket 290 once they are available and $399 290=780 sounds good to me.

 

[Subyman]

Perhaps they "could" sell them for $200 to only meet manufacturing costs, but they have an entire business to run.

 

[x3sphere]

Yeah, the cards themselves are cheap to produce, but they also have to cover years of R&D.

 

[MrK6]

NVIDIA and AMD can sell these cards for $200 and still make a profit.

We've already seen this story with GT200 and with Fermi.

Not initially they can't.

Perhaps they "could" sell them for $200 to only meet manufacturing costs, but they have an entire business to run.

Yeah, the cards themselves are cheap to produce, but they also have to cover years of R&D.

Exactly. Architecture designs just don't fall out of the sky. They can get more aggressive with pricing once they've recouped their R&D and other initial costs, but it's foolish to do so before necessary.

 

[Chumster]

How disappointing. I've been waiting to pull the trigger on a $400-$500 card and was hoping the 290 would fill that gap. A week delay + an indeterminate amount of time waiting on AIB solutions means I'll be picking up a 780 to satisfy my BF4 needs.

My personal needs aside, if they can bring this card in close to $400 I think it'll sell extremely well.

 

[smackababy]

Not initially they can't.


Exactly. Architecture designs just don't fall out of the sky. They can get more aggressive with pricing once they've recouped their R&D and other initial costs, but it's foolish to do so before necessary.

I don't get the whole argument of them making money off the cards being bad anyway. A company is trying to make a profit? What an awful thing to do!

And the idea that because the parts and labor to assemble a card only costs half (if not less) than the MSRP means they are reaping in massive profits is incredibly naive. Do all the engineers and programmers who worked on the products other than the physical building of the card cost no money now?