• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

New cards from AMD in two weeks ?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Sorry, I thought I conceded software changes. There are no changes to the die was my talking point. :)
 
Last edited:
If AMD engineers were working for a year on a 390X then they wasted a lot of money and time on nothing ( again ? ) ... great job :p These are the same chips as 290X 8GB but maybe they corrected various stability issues ( new batch or something, maybe bigger BIOS fix but not totally new chip ). For sure performance clock to clock is the same but 390X is starting as a card at higher base clocks so in reviews it will be slightly faster.
AMD will never tell straight that they just released rebranded cards while all were waiting so long for a totally new product. Even they aren't so stupid and their marketing department simply can't tell things like that.
Facts are that except Fury/Fury X, everything in "new" series is rebranded with barely any changes.
However, except maybe 0.5% users, all others care to get well performing, problem free product no matter how it's called or if it's rebranded or not. AMD can easily fool most gamers with new naming and they know that. Those who are unhappy about all these rebrands are only small % of all potential customers and you can find them on forums like ours.
 
A year is not a long time at all to bring even a new spin of the same die out. The vast majority of that time would have been spent in verification/validation and some of the power saving techniques were also used in the Fury cards, so most likely they started that work on the Hawaii core to validate the techniques which were then added to future cards. Stuff like this is fairly common practice. Again, the improvements are minor and mostly focused on power efficiency, but they are not straight rebrands, they are not just overclocked 290(x) gpus, they are not identical chips. Is it much of a value add to the consumer? Probably not for most and that's what matters most. It's about a 10% increase in efficiency, nothing earth shattering, but a small improvement that has been proven on a safe design that they can take to future designs.
 
Actually I haven't seen anywhere that these "rebranded" series had any better efficiency than their older versions. It's exactly the same from our point of view regardless how it's called. Also I don't think that AMD actually spent that year on improving any older cards. Recently barely any manufacturer is spending more than a half year for new product tests, not to mention about rebranded stuff. Later users report various issues so you can see something like 10 BIOS versions in 1 month ( officially 1-2 non-beta ) or new PCB revision within 2-3 months after premiere when they can't fix issues with BIOS.
Manufacturers were testing hardware much better in the past ( read 7-10 years ago ). Right now we are their beta testers.
Only AMD knows if these "rebranded" GPUs are the same as old or not. We can only trust what they say but knowing previous products, it's hard to trust them. Also test results are not showing us any improvements regarding performance or efficiency. They are simply not manufacturing their less efficient GPUs anymore like 7970/280X but replaced that spot with slightly corrected R9 285/380.
The only theoretical efficiency improvements can be in ASIC quality but on stock clocks it doesn't really matter.
 
Yeah sad indeed.
Every year wish for something huge... and yet disappointed with marginal improvements.
Still wish the best for AMD and hope they come up with something new and exciting since it seems to help keep nVidia in line more so. Though I might be off the bandwagon and getting a nVidia card next time I upgrade. Can only be disappointed so many times in a row.
 
I still count that someone figure out how to overclock these Fury cards much higher. Performance at stock is great even though I was counting on much lower starting price. Because of Nvidia prices bumping also AMD is raising prices and it's just stupid. There is no reason to raise prices every 3-4 years for the same grade graphics cards especially that they supposed to directly replace older series and manufacturers are telling us that.
The highest graphics ( maybe except Titans etc ) should cost about $500, not 650+. The same gaming cards should start at about $200, not 400. Now you are spending $200+ on a graphics cards only to find out that half of the new games will run at lower details. Couple of years ago the same grade cards could handle high details in everything.
All that has started because of nvidia's 600 series and how they "cheated" customers with prices, seeing that there is no competition from AMD side. It was also related to problems with manufacturing stable, high end chips. We got average graphics cards like GTX680 with cut memory bus instead of top of the line cards. Later the same after fixes was released as GTX700 and of course price bump on everything.
 
I have to agree with woomack here "sigh".

I love AMD cards and all but a few things are bugging me.

No overclock-ability 2-3 weeks after release this should have been resolved if it was easily fixed some one should have figured out a work around already its just weird.
Sub par performance for the tech thats involved esp at 1080-1440p which is truly where most gamer's are right now lets be honest.
4k is awesome but how about including the other 98% of the market into your future plans.

AMD software team needs a real kick in the you know what.

They have good hardware but if your bios and drivers cant utilize things its not any good .

A card that runs at load 55*C is cool but not practical to gamer's either.

I also agree with the claims against pricing.

Hey yes if AMD released something that smoked Titan X's by 5-10% , then be my guest AMD charge 750$ blah blah. what ever price. .. but something that merely competes and cant OC ? you need to undercut Nvidias offerings by atleast 15% imho to be competitive to that.

I feel by the time AMD reacts Nvidia will be on the next gen release dates.

and it makes me sad.
 
I agree SF101 and Woomack.
Are the current $$$$$ of the cards inflated like the 200 series when they first came out???
 
The prices aren't truly 'inflated' they are at MSRP for the most part. The 2** series AMD GPUs were inflated over MSRP because of the 9months or so of cryptocurrency mining that was profitable.
 
It seems to be AMD's pattern. 4K=Great! Sup par elsewhere. Eight cores=Great! Sub par clock to clock. They grab a little bit of the future and the rest of the hardware underwhelms. Their reach contiinues to exceed their grasp. This does not bode well for the future of AMD. *sigh*
 
Janus67 said:
The prices aren't truly 'inflated' they are at MSRP for the most part. The 2** series AMD GPUs were inflated over MSRP because of the 9months or so of cryptocurrency mining that was profitable.
Click to expand...
That was what I was wondering :thup:
Also on AMD being Late to the Game : Their new ZEN CPU had better launch on time @ 16~14nm because INTEL already has their 16~14nm CPU on store shelves.
 
So has anybody here actually bought one of the Fury/Fury X offerings?

If so, any conclusions from actual use?
 
No, I was only interested at this site. There are fewer hard-core fan boys here, a much more honest and reasonable crowd. Many here, like me, regularly switch between AMD and Nvidia. I just went from an AMD streak with a 270, 7970, 280X, 290 and 290X to my current GTX 980.
 
MaddMutt said:
That was what I was wondering :thup:
Also on AMD being Late to the Game : Their new ZEN CPU had better launch on time @ 16~14nm because INTEL already has their 16~14nm CPU on store shelves.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone really cares about the process its built on compared to it's performance. ;)
 
Last edited:
Janus67 said:
The prices aren't truly 'inflated' they are at MSRP for the most part. The 2** series AMD GPUs were inflated over MSRP because of the 9months or so of cryptocurrency mining that was profitable.
Click to expand...

Cryptocurrency mining was the most popular after these stupid price bumps from nvidia and 290X was already on the market for some time. It's not the AMD fault as their 290X was still in reasonable price as a new card, comparing to GTX680 and newer series. Cryptocurrency only stopped price drops for some time.
After premiere 290X cost about as much as GTX780 but there was still GTX780Ti released some time later and Titan.
AMD had no $650+ graphics card till Fury X. Nvidia pushed them to release Fury X in this price. If they decided to give us Fury X at the beginning of this year then probably price would be lower but they overslept ( again ) and when they released Fury/X then nvidia already had GTX980Ti. After some ( not big ) price drops Nvidia has simply better offer even though still highly overpriced.

You can also see how stupid are most gamers and how they are easily manipulated by ( not even good ) marketing. Manufacturers are saying that new cards are best for 4k ... all try to spend their hard earned money on $300 more expensive card than they need. They see no special difference and they still sit on 1080p but " since there is so strong graphics card in my pc then I won't need upgrade for next 5 years" and make the same 1-2 years later.

Most gamers can easily use $100 graphics cards from auctions to play 95% games in higher details in 1080p. Market is pushing stronger hardware because of 2-3 games per year but who said that all are playing these 2-3 games. You don't spend $500 on a graphics card to play 3 year old game. The same the most popular games ( except maybe something like Witcher ) are online games. Most online games don't need strong graphics card. Exception can be something like Battlefield with many players on the map.

Other thing is that game developers focus more on console games so if any company is trying to make money then is releasing it on Xbox/PS and also on PC at the same time. Since engine is the same then what can be better on PC ? ... textures and additional effects like AA but not even all. Because of that effects like nvidia physx almost don't exist in most games lately.
 
Woomack said:
Most gamers can easily use $100 graphics cards from auctions to play 95% games in higher details in 1080p. Market is pushing stronger hardware because of 2-3 games per year but who said that all are playing these 2-3 games. You don't spend $500 on a graphics card to play 3 year old game. The same the most popular games ( except maybe something like Witcher ) are online games. Most online games don't need strong graphics card. Exception can be something like Battlefield with many players on the map.

Other thing is that game developers focus more on console games so if any company is trying to make money then is releasing it on Xbox/PS and also on PC at the same time. Since engine is the same then what can be better on PC ? ... textures and additional effects like AA but not even all. Because of that effects like nvidia physx almost don't exist in most games lately.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, but you touched on something that I hope goes away very soon...Explicit use of brand tech. Aka, physx, gameworks, mantle, etc. These kinds of things are just awful for the industry and game devs adopting specific brands is just purely damaging to the gaming community.
 
Bishoff said:
I agree with most of your post, but you touched on something that I hope goes away very soon...Explicit use of brand tech. Aka, physx, gameworks, mantle, etc. These kinds of things are just awful for the industry and game devs adopting specific brands is just purely damaging to the gaming community.
Click to expand...

Honest question about that opinion: Is there a way to implement those effects into games brandlessly? I know that using physx or hairworks in a game, when turned on, will favor a Nvidia card, and similar with AMD and it's branded tech...but I like those features. Physx, et al., is a great addition to the gameplay experience in an absolute sense (Who wouldn't want those things if they didn't cost anything). However, I'm aware that they can cost a good bit of performance, and that the impact is usually skewed towards one card developer or the other. Is there any way to keep those kinds of feature sets without making them branded tech?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back