buying two to run in PoorFire
another Graphics Poor Next 1.1 card
PoorSync
But but Mantle
buying two to run in PoorFire
another Graphics Poor Next 1.1 card
PoorSync
how much do they retail for?
LOL talking big about powering consoles to PC Master Race, like console peasant is going to drop $400 on your R9 290x rebrand. What a joke selling this with 8GB too, 8GB VRAM is for people running multiple 4k screens, but dual 290x in PoorFire is only capable of running a single 4k screen at a playable framerate.
So what the is the point of this card? You don't need 8GB to run a single screen in 4k, especially when you're not going to be able to run AA on any AAA game from 2012 or later.
Last edited by baseline bum; 06-12-2015 at 07:14 AM.
I mean 290x 4GB for $280 is a pretty good deal, but 290x 8GB for $430 or whatever? that, the extra vram would be useful in a single game, Shadow of Mordor to run the ultra textures.
$450 for this bull
Holy
LOL that got thought he was getting the Fury X. Now that he realizes it's a rebranded 290x no benchmarks, he just dumped the mother er on eBay to see if someone similarly uninformed would buy it thinking it's the Fury X.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/XFX-DD-AMD-R...item51d28c43eb
Video removed by the user, he probably offed himself right after
Someone reposted it.
Wow, what the AMD?
$450 for a rebranded R9 290x?
$150 for a rebranded R7 260x?
DJR210, get in here and dance !
AMD isn't even sending review samples out for these 300 series and Fury cards.
This is Ubisoft level .
and R9 390x officially sucks BBC
my GTX 970 gets a higher graphics score on Firestrike for $140 less
uses 125W more power than my 970
allegedly loud as
Firestrike recognizes the R9 390x as an R9 290x
They really are all rebrands, AMD really did it
Cry Havoc
DJR210 get your ass in here, this is ing hilarious
$450 for a $270 card after they basically crossed out the 2 and changed it to a 3 on the box
Last edited by baseline bum; 06-13-2015 at 02:21 PM.
Rebrand 9 300 series
At least they got this part of their advertising right
Damn Lisa Su knocked it out of the park in that presentation. The Fury looks to be a great deal if it's a 10% cutdown Fury X for $550 like they have done in the past with their flagships, and Nano being a 290x performer at half the power consumption looks like a great step for the company too. Cry Havoc must have a ing rager after that.
The 300 series rebrands still look like , but their new cards look like they might give the company hope to bounce back.
It's funny Lisa Su wanted to distance herself as far as possible from the R7/R9 300 series crap today.
You guys excited? That R9 300 series goes on sale tomorrow! You can pay $160 more for your R9 290x in a 390x box with 4GB of useless extra vram.
Well, AMD is ting on me in this thread.
The 390x with it's higher clocked memory is pretty much destroying 290x, at stock beating even 1500 MHz boost clock GTX 970, and not too far behind the GTX 980 in Firestrike.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,23.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,26.html
Probably still not quite worth that $430 price tag, though the 980 isn't worth the $500 MSRP either, and they have dropped TDP to 275W on the 390x also.
So apparently the gains in the R9 390x vs R9 290x and so on came strictly from better drivers.
E.g., if you hack your 290x to use 390x drivers it performs as well as the 390x. But you can't officially install them on the 290x.
This is some low by AMD, crippling 200 series performance through drivers and making you pay extra for the same cards now called the 300 series to get the good drivers.
Looks like the Fury X mostly is close to the 980 Ti at 4k, but the AMD drivers still cause it to lose out to weaker cards like the GTX 980 in heavily CPU bound games like Project Cars and WOW. So overall the 980 Ti looks like the superior card, especially if you get an aftermarket one like the MSI Gaming or Gigabyte Gaming. Pretty disappointing, this thing should be kicking the out of the 980 Ti if they want to sell it for $650 with 2GB less vram, especially considering you're not able to change voltage or memory clocks on the Fury X.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...Fury_X/31.html
I want to see real-world performance. I'm wary of any new cards after the last couple of generations.
Been out of the loop, just got back from Puerta Vallarta.
The Fury X is supremely disappointing. Lisa Su kept talking about how they had the fastest GPU in the world, making people think Fury X was that, but in reality she had to be talking about the dual Fiji card. Check this benchmark, where the 980 Ti mostly beats the Fury X at 4k using almost best case settings for playing to the Fury X's strengths while diminishing the 980 Ti's, e.g., no hairworks on Witcher 3, using the 3GB textures instead of the 6GB textures for Shadow of Mordor, turning off AA in Tomb Raider, etc, and the 980 Ti still usually wins. With the upgraded memory bandwidth, 4096 cores, and a ing water cooler I was expecting this to beat a reference 980 Ti by maybe 5%, not lose to it by 5%. Then if you factor overclocking in that gap between the two widens significantly.
Looks like 2H 2015 will be every bit as ugly as 4Q 2014 and 1H 2015 were for AMD.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)