videocardz AMD Radeon R9 290X Memory Bus: 512-bit

[blackened23]

So the real question is how in the world can a steam box do well without having an astronomical price? I mean, they could throw in a low performing AMD APU which would be cheap, but that wouldn't be desirable from a market standpoint IMO. I could be wrong but I suspect that most folks wanting a game experience would want more than the lowest common denominator, which is what an AMD APU would provide.

If they want a box that performs they'll obviously need to throw an intel CPU in and whatever GPU they can get for a reasonable cost (whether that is AMD or nvidia). I just can't see such a box being a true competitor to consoles when the price will surely be way higher. Maybe that isn't a bad thing? Perhaps Valve isn't going for all out volume sales? I don't know. I'm hesitant to call this a "win" for either AMD or nvidia because surely such a box would have minuscule sales because the cost would be astronomical for a true "high end" gaming experience.

 

[tviceman]

That's great for Valve to rid themselves of being tied to Windows. But that has nothing at all to do with potential GPU wins in a STEAM box.

So Tegra 3 being in the original Nexus 7, despite there being dozens and dozens of other devices featuring SoC's othe than Tegra, had nothing to do with Tegra 3's success?

 

[Silverforce11]

Consoles can sell at a loss and make it all back via game royalty. Steam games run on the PC, why would people pay more for a steam game??

 

[blackened23]

That's great for Valve to rid themselves of being tied to Windows. But that has nothing at all to do with potential GPU wins in a STEAM box.

You're right - it is great for valve because it ensures that they get 100% revenue without having competition from the Windows store. If steam OS picks up that ensures that Steam will have a near monopoly on digital distribution.

While I love the way steam is currently, the news of Steam OS from my consumer standpoint is far different. Windows is 100% completely fine for gaming, why should we switch? Why should I care? Should we switch to fatten Gabe's wallet? Yeah thanks but no thanks.

 

[Gloomy]

You're right - it is great for valve because it ensures that they get 100% revenue without having competition from the Windows store. If steam OS picks up that ensures that Steam will have a near monopoly on digital distribution.

While I love the way steam is currently, the news of Steam OS from my consumer standpoint is far different. Windows is 100% completely fine for gaming, why should we switch? Why should I care? Should we switch to fatten Gabe's wallet? Yeah thanks but no thanks.

Is it 100% fine though? Are you 100% fine with Microsoft withholding DX updates until you upgrade? Are you fine with developers never supporting the latest and greatest because most are still stuck on DX9?

That doesn't seem 100% fine to me... more like 70% fine at best.

Are you 100% fine with DX11.2 being W8.1 exclusive? Really? Well, you might be, since by all accounts it's not that big an update. What about DX12, are you fine with that being tied to Microsoft's next OS?

Putting GPU feature support back in AMD and Nvidia's hands can only do us good. Unless cards start blowing up or micro-stuttering as usual. :hmm:

 

[tviceman]

Consoles can sell at a loss and make it all back via game royalty. Steam games run on the PC, why would people pay more for a steam game??

Who said people are paying more for steam games or would pay more within Steam OS? Quite the contrary. Steam games typically drop in price faster than console equivalents and almost always have bigger discounts/sales more frequently. Why would that change?

You're right - it is great for valve because it ensures that they get 100% revenue without having competition from the Windows store. If steam OS picks up that ensures that Steam will have a near monopoly on digital distribution.

While I love the way steam is currently, the news of Steam OS from my consumer standpoint is far different. Windows is 100% completely fine for gaming, why should we switch? Why should I care? Should we switch to fatten Gabe's wallet? Yeah thanks but no thanks.

That is the beauty of it. You don't have to switch and there probably won't be any Steam OS exclusive games for several years. If you like dropping $1500 on hardware every other year and $80 on a new OS every 3-5 years so you can get the artificially locked out DX features, then you'll be able to keep using Windows and MS, so long as Windows 9/10 hasn't moved to a complete walled garden. And if you already primarily use Steam, how would switching to the freely distributed Steam OS fatten Gabe's Wallet?

 

[blackened23]

Look, I love the way steam is now but let's face the facts here. Valve is not a charity, they don't do PC games for the betterment of man kind. They are in the business of making money, period, and they make a LOT of money at that from digital distribution.

I appreciate the fact that Steam has improved a LOT over the years, but I don't see any net benefit from using Steam OS. The only people really overjoyed at this news are the "F*** M$" blowhards. It almost feels like it is 1999 again with the MS hate. Whatever.

As far as how it would fatten Gabe's wallet? In baby steps of course. Slowly but surely Valve games would be Steam OS exclusive. Other games which require steamworks would be sure to follow. HL3 steam OS exclusive? Of course that is a hypothetical situation but would ensure that games are locked into the Steam ecosystem which benefits no one except Gabe and Valve software. Again - Valve is NOT A CHARITY. They are in the business of making money, and they make a TON of money from DD. Somehow "locking" folks into Steam OS ensures more dominance in terms of DD and would not benefit the consumer in terms of choice, but would surely give Gabe more grocery money, I suppose.

Again, I love steam and steamworks. Steam for windows is a net benefit for the consumer because it is the most non-intrusive DRM platform in existence. Yet, Steam OS isn't a net benefit to the consumer - i'm going to be using windows regardless of what my gaming platform is, and Windows is my preferred gaming platform. OpenGL still hasn't caught up to DX11 yet, either - that's another issue.

 

[wahdangun]

Did the same thing basically. Now I have your card in the end.

lol, and I have yours. Going great btw

Warning issued for inappropriate language and thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[Gloomy]

Look, I love the way steam is now but let's face the facts here. Valve is not a charity, they don't do PC games for the betterment of man kind. They are in the business of making money, period, and they make a LOT of money at that from digital distribution.

I appreciate the fact that Steam has improved a LOT over the years, but I don't see any net benefit from using Steam OS. The only people really overjoyed at this news are the "F*** M$" blowhards. It almost feels like it is 1999 again with the MS hate. Whatever.

As far as how it would fatten Gabe's wallet? In baby steps of course. Slowly but surely Valve games would be Steam OS exclusive. Other games which require steamworks would be sure to follow. HL3 steam OS exclusive? Of course that is a hypothetical situation but would ensure that games are locked into the Steam ecosystem which benefits no one except Gabe and Valve software. Again - Valve is NOT A CHARITY. They are in the business of making money, and they make a TON of money from DD. Somehow "locking" folks into Steam OS ensures more dominance in terms of DD and would not benefit the consumer in terms of choice, but would surely give Gabe more grocery money, I suppose.

Sure feels like a charity when I buy games at a tenth of what they cost on consoles, but that might just be me.

I think this is a "lesser of two evils" scenario. Can you honestly say Valve isn't better than the alternatives?

And they already own 50-70% of the market by some accounts, so they've already managed the "lockdown" that you fear and it's only the "F*** Steam" crowd that is complaining. Sounds like you and the "F*** M$" spergs may have a lot more in common than you think :sneaky:

 

[tviceman]

Look, I love the way steam is now but let's face the facts here. Valve is not a charity, they don't do PC games for the betterment of man kind. They are in the business of making money, period, and they make a LOT of money at that from digital distribution.

I appreciate the fact that Steam has improved a LOT over the years, but I don't see any net benefit from using Steam OS. The only people really overjoyed at this news are the "F*** M$" blowhards. It almost feels like it is 1999 again with the MS hate. Whatever.

As far as how it would fatten Gabe's wallet? In baby steps of course. Slowly but surely Valve games would be Steam OS exclusive. Other games which require steamworks would be sure to follow. HL3 steam OS exclusive? Of course that is a hypothetical situation but would ensure that games are locked into the Steam ecosystem which benefits no one except Gabe and Valve software. Again - Valve is NOT A CHARITY. They are in the business of making money, and they make a TON of money from DD. Somehow "locking" folks into Steam OS ensures more dominance in terms of DD and would not benefit the consumer in terms of choice, but would surely give Gabe more grocery money, I suppose.

Sheesh it's almost like you're getting mad that Gabe and Valve have a vision for Steam and want to expand it's reach. I'm not arguing the monetary benefit of Steam having it's own, exclusive platform from which to work. But I am arguing that the Steam OS may in fact end up being a better OS for people like you and I in the long term. However, if you're still happy using Windows 7 in 2017 and spending $1000 a year on hardware upgrades then God bless you. If you upgrade to Windows 9 and experience the full MS-touch screen effect, ever expanding walled-garden, and desktop disappearing features, good for you in supporting the MS charity, errr I mean MS bottom line. GFWL is going defunct in 2014 and it's unclear how games that use it's service are going to function after it disappears. You want to continue to support that?

If in 3 years Valve is doing better in every way than what Windows is doing to serve the purposes of what you use a PC for, will you continue to beat the "Valve is not a charity" drum? If the exact same hardware in a Steam OS environment performs 15% faster in games and comes without all the clutter of crap that you NEVER, EVER use with a copy of Windows and it's still FREE how is that choice to use it not good?

 

[NIGELG]

Epic thread derail talking about Steam and Valve....

Let us get back to the R9 290x....

Would a good 700 W power supply run this card??

 

[pcslookout]

Epic thread derail talking about Steam and Valve....

Let us get back to the R9 290x....

Would a good 700 W power supply run this card??

I reported everyone of them too. Just like they did to me in the Simcity 5 thread.

Anyway yes a 700 watt power supply should be fine to run the card.

 

[tviceman]

Epic thread derail talking about Steam and Valve....

Let us get back to the R9 290x....

Would a good 700 W power supply run this card??

My fault, I didn't mean to start a derail and ruin the thread. My original post was about AMD's GPU announcements tomorrow having, in part, to do with Linux performance and how that coincides with Valve's continued Linux-based Steam OS announcements.

 

[NIGELG]

My fault, I didn't mean to start a derail and ruin the thread. My original post was about AMD's GPU announcements tomorrow having, in part, to do with Linux performance and how that coincides with Valve's continued Linux-based Steam OS announcements.

It happens....no problem.

This release is exciting to say the least.:awe:.

I'm very much interested in seeing how the new top AMD card goes against my 7970 in raw benchmarks.

 

[Elfear]

It happens....no problem.

This release is exciting to say the least.:awe:.

I'm very much interested in seeing how the new top AMD card goes against my 7970 in raw benchmarks.

Yup. Hoping for real reviews and not just marketing slides with performance data.

 

[Teizo]

So the real question is how in the world can a steam box do well without having an astronomical price?.

Use Nvidia's Grid technology to stream the games through the console. Nvidia just announced they are going to be making their drivers open source to help with Linux. Something tells me that subtle leak is not a coincidence.

 

[tential]

So the real question is how in the world can a steam box do well without having an astronomical price? I mean, they could throw in a low performing AMD APU which would be cheap, but that wouldn't be desirable from a market standpoint IMO. I could be wrong but I suspect that most folks wanting a game experience would want more than the lowest common denominator, which is what an AMD APU would provide.

If they want a box that performs they'll obviously need to throw an intel CPU in and whatever GPU they can get for a reasonable cost (whether that is AMD or nvidia). I just can't see such a box being a true competitor to consoles when the price will surely be way higher. Maybe that isn't a bad thing? Perhaps Valve isn't going for all out volume sales? I don't know. I'm hesitant to call this a "win" for either AMD or nvidia because surely such a box would have minuscule sales because the cost would be astronomical for a true "high end" gaming experience.

That's probably because you have a GTX 780... You're a PC gamer at heart and a SteamBox is not really directed at PC Gamers, it's for people who sit at an HDTV and game from their console. Which is probably only 5% of this forum tops, I know I'm in this bracket. Having shown off my rig to my friends, and I don't have my settings turned up on any game they're medium by default at the moment, my friends already said it looked amazing.

You can't think of it from a PCGamer point of view where you sit up close, look at FPS, tune/tweak etc. You have to look at it from a console gamer, where the graphics are secondary and GAMES are important. So an APU right now actually would satisfy quite a number of people. I played through a NUMBER of games at 720p with medium settings (360 settings basically) on my laptop and I'm sure an APU is capable of that. When I did, my friends joined in and also played (we switched off) and they said it felt better than a console. My bro was thoroughly impressed with it and enjoyed Dark Souls, XCOM, and other games.

In short, you can't think of it from the PC Gamer viewpoint where we spend 1000+ on our system and gaming on an APU is a joke to us. You have to think of a person who's still gaming at xbox 360, who doesn' tknow what 720p and 1080p is (You'd be surprised how many console games I know who DO NOT know what these really mean), etc.

Edit: The reason for SteamBox/SteamOS though right now is to just to start. I don't think it's intention is to compete right now, but to start getting support. 2-4 years from now it can be a viable solution.

@ Teizo
Yup thank you I just posted that link in another thread as well. Definitely not a coincidence.

Edit2: I'm so tired of seeing the "Valve is going to lock all their games to SteamOS" argument. Hate this doomsday type post with zero proof to back it up.

 

[Saylick]

Use Nvidia's Grid technology to stream the games through the console. Nvidia just announced they are going to be making their drivers open source to help with Linux. Something tells me that subtle leak is not a coincidence.

Mhm. Leave it to nVidia's marketing team to always have a card up their sleeve...

 

[tential]

I was under the impression that "steam box" was an open specification and Valve would let anyone build such a machine.

I'm under the impression that "STEAMBOX" is in fact sold by Valve. However, ANYONE is allowed to build a steambox and that valve will have a list of certified parts from BOTH vendors.

How is that different than building a Windows or now Linux based PC that has STEAM installed? Obviously something involved that I'm missing...

I've been trying to explain this to you PC Master Race gamers who game at a desktop but well, it's been hard to explain so I'll try my best!!!!

Steam Box is marketed to people who use HDTVs to game on. So imagine sitting at your COUCH, Xbox 360 wireless controller in hand (or whatever you choose to use but lets be real this is your only good option) and you want to fire up Crysis 3? You have to whip out your mouse/keyboard, and click it on the desktop, then put it away.

Now, here comes SteamOS/SteamBox. You hit a button on your controller which fires up Steam OS and boots you directly into Steam Big Picture mode. You then use the left stick, select the game you want to play, and hit A. It's a much simpler setup for HDTV users and one that console users are used to.

I'd leave big picture mode open all the time on my gaming rig (I REALLY hate having to take my mouse out for gaming I only game with a controller from my couch now), but other people use the PC, so I have to leave WMC open because my family doesn't know how to launch WMC to watch TV on the PC. You guys forget how CLUELESS everyone else is at using a PC. Even using WMC, the easiest program ever to watch TV/access media, is a struggle for some of the people I know who have used my computer.

Simplicity is golden, just ask Apple.

The difference is that Walmart or Gamestop can peddle their own console whenever the Linux game support is ready. Set up a huge fancy kiosk and tell people to try it. Or Alienware can sell a fancy glowing steambox. Or MSI, or whoever.

When the games are ready.

This is basically what happened with servers and phones, so don't count it out just yet... actually, I see no reason why this wouldn't work as long as AMD and Nvidia get behind it (and they have). It's been tried and shown true.

Pretty much yup. Anyone can sell one. For the phone example, Apple is "The Big 3" and SteamBox is Android coming in.

 

[Final8ty]

Epic thread derail talking about Steam and Valve....

Let us get back to the R9 290x....

Would a good 700 W power supply run this card??

I was thinking the same as i have just got in from work.

 

[blackened23]

I've been trying to explain this to you PC Master Race gamers who game at a desktop but well, it's been hard to explain so I'll try my best!!!!

Steam Box is marketed to people who use HDTVs to game on. So imagine sitting at your COUCH, Xbox 360 wireless controller in hand (or whatever you choose to use but lets be real this is your only good option) and you want to fire up Crysis 3? You have to whip out your mouse/keyboard, and click it on the desktop, then put it away.

Now, here comes SteamOS/SteamBox. You hit a button on your controller which fires up Steam OS and boots you directly into Steam Big Picture mode. You then use the left stick, select the game you want to play, and hit A. It's a much simpler setup for HDTV users and one that console users are used to.

Okay, but my question becomes, how does this represent a desirable experience for someone who has a current generation or next generation console? I just can't see it being that great unless it costs a lot - I mean, with an AMD APU I think an xbox 360 would actually still have a better gaming experience for AAA games like Metro: LL and Crysis 3 (among others). Without an end user having to fiddle with image quality settings, you know?

I'll keep an open mind, I guess, but I can't agree with you that the Steam box will be a low cost device. The only way to differentiate the steam box from consoles is through performance, and the performance level of a 400-500$ steam box would be quite horrible honestly. I really think that many games would be better on even old consoles like the xbox 360 at 720p rather than an AMD APU (which would be the only fit for such a low cost). Or maybe they could do an i3 CPU with a low end GPU? I'll wait and see like I said. I just can't see it being such a low cost as you do, though. I think for a truly desirable experience you're look at a core i5 with some type of GPU (maybe a low end 660ti?) and all of those parts are obviously not 400$ cheap - even with an i3 and a 660ti you're looking at well above 400$ in BOM. Things can and will change with time, though. So i'll wait and see what the announcement is tomorrow.

edit: ANYWAY

Apologies for the off topic discussion - apologies for the tangent. Let's talk about this in the PC gaming thread, it's a better fit there.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I have to give AMD credit, its been a looooong time since I have been this enthused about a graphics card press conference, and this with my new 7950 in hand.

AMD clearly thinks they have something special, or they wouldn't have such a to-do over their latest GPU release. I eagerly await tomorrow.

 

[Despoiler]

Chris Roberts from Robert Space Industries/Star Citizen (the largest grossing crowdfunded video game in history) will be teaming up with AMD for tomorrow's announcement. Oh man if AMD scored that for a Gaming Evolved title....

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13280-AMD-Livestream-And-Press-Roundup

 

[blackened23]

I think the real question is, do we get benchmarks tomorrow? Or just press slides?

I hope someone can do some real meaningful testing rather than just stare at press slides all day long...

 

[Saylick]

I think the real question is, do we get benchmarks tomorrow? Or just press slides?

I hope someone can do some real meaningful testing rather than just stare at press slides all day long...

It's supposedly a Tech Day, so we may not get benchmarks as reviewers may not have been sent a physical card at the moment. With that said, even if AMD releases their own benchmarks, to what degree would you be okay with their testing methods? I personally would still wait till AT or another reputable third-party performs their own testing.

If anything, I'm counting on slides which shall present the new specs and features of the new card.