If you missed the GTX 970 deal, there is also a nice deal on the R9 390X going on at Amazon UK, credit to HUKD. This is a backorder, but shouldn't take too long for Amazon to get stock and deliver. Vat is removed at checkout to bring the final price down. Cue the pascal/polaris comments. Enjoy
CamelCamelCamel 
Keepa.
nvidia fanboy
It actually costs more to make a 390x than a GTX 980 but it's cheaper than a GTX 980.
And performs the same as a 980 for cheaper
It's really a no brainer
Exactly right that's why I built two PC's for mates and got them the 390x.
Note it uses almost double the power - something which shows a fair bit with GPUs. 275w is quite the jump from 150-175w. Now add in that most AMD cards actually use closer to their TDPs (nVidia usually use a lot less) and it's more ~100w underload compared to ~250w. (185w compared to 294w) Let's assume you're under full load for the equivalent of say 3 hours usage a day*, that's 327w difference every day. That's around 119kw/year, or ~$35.
Also for those calling me an nVidia fanboy, I'll let my beloved FX-8350 do the talking. :P
I love AMD and can happily say I'm a fan, though it'd be un-ozbargain-like for me to blindly buy an AMD card without considering the fact it uses so much extra power and it's price-performance ratio is quite average, esp. compared to the nVidia deal earlier today.
Edit: Overall both are decent cards at great prices, though if I had the choice (if the other deal was still active) $359 for a 970 is better than $483 for an international 390x. That's all I meant.
Edit2: I take some of this back… Turns out the 980 also uses around it's rated TDP, though as expected the AMD 390x uses more than TDP, much more than even I assumed - up to 360w.
Edit3: Just to backup claims above some more (don't want to be labelled an nVidia fanboy again xD), here's my overall logic…
Overall a 390x is around +30% (according to benchmarks at 4k, barely a difference at 1080p - note I personally use 1080p so for me it IS COMPLETELY useless compared to a 970). $359 + 30% = 466. ~$475 if you include the $6 shipping. As this is $483 for an international import which uses a noticable amount extra power (few bucks extra every bill), I'd prefer the 970 if it was still available. Factor in that nVidia are releasing new cards and the 970 most likely will be available again soon at that lower price and suddenly this 390x is a pretty average lower-price.
@dyl: They don't use double, it's a lot closer to 50% more and performance would only be similar in a handful of games. Majority of games the 390X should be 10-20% faster.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-38…
While completely idle figures are quite similar, not sure about how they compare for desktop graphics (browsing etc)
Gaming (more likely real-world situation):
970: 168W
980: 185W
390X: 294W (+60%)
Full load:
970: Unknown (no reference card shown, only an overclocked gigabyte)
980: 177W
390X: 363W (over double)
You do you know the GTX 970 has gimped memory? you would actually pay for a cut chip for a full chip like a 390x just to save power?
@dyl:
That's around 119kw/year, or ~$35.
I honestly do not understand the people who keeps going on and on about extra power usage for AMD, if $35 a year/10c a day really bothers you that much, then just play chess.
With the extra power draw comes a requirement for a better PSU that costs more. The hungrier card also generates more heat meaning more cooling is needed and therefore more noise is generated by the spinning fans.
So a more efficient system is ideal.
I have 2 x 7950s, so I'm not a NVIDIA fanboy but I am looking forward to what AMD offers this year to see if I can build a near silent PC.
@FabMan:
I would direct you to the R9 Fury, in particular the sapphire Tri-X model
It runs completely fanless for general tasks (like a lot) but has an entire fan free of a backplate or anything to interfere with the flow of air. Check out a review, because it's a pretty interesting design that both cools the card really well, and keeps it running quieter than a vast majority of cards
Yeah sure, I've seen it and while it looks good it costs a bit too much for me. Also it still uses 28nm process for the GPU, new tech this year.
@FW190:
I'm not saying it's full out a difference, but it's enough that you need to consider it. Also note I'm comparing the difference rather than actually considering the total cost of each card - if anyone wanted to do that you'd go for a 750/950. Both are no where near the performance of the 970/980/390x, but use much much less power.
Also note my 8350 warms up the room a little (~140w TDP), so I'd assume this card would be even worse in that aspect. You WILL need some kind of air flow in your room (a fan or something) on warmer days… Though in the winter it can come in kinda handy (free heating!).
Edit: so overall it's the beefy PSU needed (not much extra), the ~$35/year in extra power AND extra cooling requirements. The advantage being it'll literally heat your room in the winter.
@dyl:
@fabman
usually for PSU I would get the next model up then what I think I will need, most of the time it would only cost an extra $30, and it will help further down the track if you want to do incremental upgrades
@thecontact
usually, at the same price point (except for flag ship), AMD would out perform their Nvidia counterpart(but obviously that changes over time), I guess that would fit the definition of "better bang for the buck".
@dyl
yeah heat does seem to be an issue, I did got (literally) a bit sweaty when my 290 reached high 80s/low 90s from time to time, but TBH it has not crashed on me yet
disclosure - I brought a 970 when it was first released, but took it back for a refund after the 3.5gb ram BS, at that time, it's performance was on par with the 290/X but $200 cheaper so obviously it was a no brainer, but pricing has changed a lot since then, so at this point in time, and if you must have a new graphics card right now, there is (IMO) no point of getting a 3.5gb 970 over a 8gb 390/X (and DX12 ready as well), assuming there is no special deals.
anyway, hope I have not offended anyone :)
@FW190: it's not that it'll crash, it's more (as you mention) that your room temperature will become uncomfortably high. In the summer I usually need a fan on low-mid speed to increase airflow past my computer and around my room to counter this when only using a 8350 (125w TDP) - you would actually need a lot of extra airflow to keep ~150-500W+* of thermal energy moving and prevent it from heating up your room/house.
*Full load 390x + FX9590 = 495W TDP.
As with the power supply, not usually much of a problem though it can be in some cases a difference. At full load with over clocking a 390x can use almost 400w of power, compared to ~200w on nvidia cards. 200w isn't simply 'a tier higher', rather it's multiple higher - the difference between needing a decent 500w power supply and a beast 700-750w. It more becomes a problem with using a high-end AMD CPU as well, you can easily max out a 700w power supply under full load once you add in HDDs and fans (750-850w would be a safe pick) - compared to Intel+nvidia running comfortably on a 500w mid tier supply.
The R9 390X is less efficient, consuming appprox. 86% more power according to http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390X-vs-GeForce-GTX-970 but it also faster, delivering 19% more performance according to http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu.
I'd buy one of these over a 970 any day especially at this price, but alas I have a 980Ti so my needs are fulfilled.
Just moved up from an R9 290 to an STRIX 980Ti. I must admit, AMD drivers are still not exemplary. Personally, have had a fair number of issues (all driver related) over the past couple of years. Not sure if it's the same with the 390.
AMD cards are great for the people trying to squeeze out the best bang for their buck, but in terms of AAA-grade experience, Nvidia is still a bit ahead.
I moved back to AMD after a few years with NVidia and although I think my 7970 is a good card, the drivers are definitely better for NVidia. But unfortunately I just couldn't justify the NVidia price premium.
I'm looking forward to the next gen release though. Should be interesting.
Yeah definitely agree. Was getting a bit pissed off with the texture flickering in a number of games, as well the radeon shiteware they bundle (the razr crap, which was causing major issues with GOG and Steam big picture mode).
Nvidia is a lot cleaner and more robust. The price premium is staggering. The 980ti cost me almost $1.1k (which is the most I've ever paid for a Gpu). That said, I'm very happy with it. Excellent performance at 1440p and runs a whole lot cooler.
Looking at the future, Pascal really looks amazing. Paper specs look absolutely insane. May be tempted to upgrade to a Ti version of the 1080(?)
It does look great. I have a 4k monitor now and only really old games run nicely. I don't have the money I used to have for gaming though so I've been waiting for pascal for what feels like years.
I'm worried about the pricing though. As you said, the price premium is just nuts. AMD are good cards. In most cases I don't think it's worth paying extra for the NVidia. But if I had the cash? I wouldn't think twice.
Back when I had NVidia I always overclocked my monitor by around 10%. So 66 frames instead of 60. Nothing major but it was cool to do it. I found this to be absolutely impossible with the AMD drivers without waaaaaay too much mucking around and using 3rd party yum cha programs. With NVidia it was literally 2 clicks and done.
@Sxio: Having a bit more disposable cash for my rig, I decided to go for Nvidia. I was also sick of the AMD drivers messing up from time to time, as I mentioned before.
Really keen to get one of these:
https://www.pccasegear.com/products/34212/acer-predator-xb27…
A colleague has this with a 980Ti SLI and he mentioned that it has been a tremendous improvement to the overall gaming experience. Apparently the fluidity of movement is insanely good.
@gearhead: That's EXACTLY the one I'm planning to get as well!
The 4K monitor I'm going to use for video editing and that sweet baby will be my gaming screen. I don't even game that much on PC anymore, but when I have the cash, I'm hitting that up with Pascal.
144hz will be insane!
YOU have good taste my man! You don't live in Brissy do you?
@Sxio:
Likewise mate! Likewise. :) Am based in Sydney.
I can feel the money burning a hole in my pocket. So keen to get it as my existing Dell 27" Ultrasharp is awesome for docs and images, but utterly shithouse when it comes to gaming.
how much of an improvement is this over the 290x?
I play open world games- so is double the ram advantageous?
Mainly depends on resolution, anti-aliasing and textures being used.
Running at 1080p, you wouldn't notice much in most games. Higher your resolution, the more you'd benefit.
Great card for a great price! But I'm not sure I would recommend this particular one. I own the 390 variant and it can get quite loud when playing games. If you don't mind the noisy fans, then this would definitely be a good pickup!
With new cards so close I really couldn't recommend spending this kind of cash on old AMD tech. The plus is that AMDs drivers these days are pretty damn good IMHO. At least I've had the most minor of issues with Direct X 12 titles, where Nvidia's implementation so far has been a abysmal: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/directx-12-tested-an-e…
If it was me I'd wait and see what happens in the next few months when the dust clears a litte.
Was about to order 1, but u guys stopped me with your comments about the new generation of GPU is coming out soon!
Thank you, guys!!!
Nvidia should be announcing a GTX 1080/1070 tomorrow night, AMD wouldn't be too far away
[Deactivated] on 01/05/2016 - 16:42 Comment score below threshold.