R9 390 is the new price/performance king.

[Beriallord]

You can get one for $329.99 on newegg:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874&cm_re=r9_390-_-14-127-874-_-Product

 

I ordered one for my other rig after I sold the old GPUs I had in it for $80 a piece. It smokes the GTX 970 for that price range, no contest. I OC'd mine to 1200/1600 @ +100mv, (nearly a 20% overclock on core) and the Twin Frozr V cooler keeps temps manageable. Anyone thinking of getting a 970 might want to get an R9 390 instead.

 

Not only that, but a lot of AMD GPUs can be bios flashed to a better version, etc 6950 can be flashed to a 6970, R9 290 can flash to a 290x, etc. Its a new card, and I'm not sure anyone has flashed one yet, but judging from previous history, its extremely likely you'll be able to flash a 390 to a 390x in the future, which makes its price/performance even better.

[obobski]

R9 390/390X are based directly upon R9 290/290X (they're all Hawaii GPUs), and the 290 series have been around $300 for some time. They are all a good value indeed. The biggest difference is that all 390 cards (afaik) are 8GB, while there are both 4GB and 8GB variants of the 290.

 

Speaking of flashing, I wouldn't be surprised if people start trying to cross-flash their 290s into 390s.

Edited July 15, 2015 by obobski

[Beriallord]

The 390 runs cooler, has more overclocking potential, and is cheaper than the R9 290x. The GPUs are similar, but they're not the exact same, so I doubt cross flashing will work. On newegg.com, R9 290x 8GB models are in the $350+ range, while you can get an R9 390 for $329.99, and its a Twin Frozr V model which is pretty good.

 

Here are some benchmarks on my 390 I ran earlier for Witcher 3.

 

I5 2500k @ 4.0ghz
MSI R9 390 gaming 8G - OC'd to 1170/1570 which is a mild overclock because its 1040/1500 stock
16GBs DDR3 1600mhz
Windows 7 64 bit.

AMD Catalyst 15.7 drivers.

Witcher 3 1.06

 

I did my benchmark run through this area of Novigrad:

 

http://s11.postimg.org/p0u1yvqde/benchmarkrun.jpg

 

 

Here are my results with Fraps for the above run:

 

Settings:

Full ultra except for hairworks which is off, all post processing settings turned on/maxed. Vsynch off, FPS unlimited. No modifications to the Witcher 3 profile in CCC. 1080p resolution.

This bench was done @ 1170/1570 which is a mild overclock because its 1040/1500 stock. I can push it to 1200/1600 @ +100mv, but I can run 1170/1570 stable @ +60mv, and might be able to adjust the core or memory up a little more. Bare bones stock for an R9 390 reference model is 1000 core, so 1170 is a +17% overclock for only +60mv which isn't bad at all. I'm sure others got better GPUs than I did and could push into the 1250/1700 range on air. Or with water you might be able to get a 35-40% overclock. Temps are in the 75C range under heavy load and that's with the stock fan profiles, with the overclock so that's pretty good.

I started at glory gate, took a right, and circled around through Hierarch square, and then back to Glory gate. I looked straight forward the entire time while using full sprint till I ran out of stamina, let the bar recover to full, then full sprint, repeat. I never opened the menu once, nor picked up any items, nor talked to any people, nor did I fight any mobs.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6781, 110604, 49, 71, 61.309

 

http://s28.postimg.org/le4av6l0d/CPU.jpg

 

My CPU did bottleneck during the run, but its minimal. My CPU is unstable at higher OCs. So that probably cost me a few FPS on the top and bottom. I've heard some people claim Witcher 3 is CPU neutral, but if it bottlenecks an I5 2500k @ 4.0ghz it most certainly is NOT CPU neutral. Its quite demanding.

And that's running through some of the most demanding spots in the game. Outdoors, away from cities, I get considerably higher FPS. I've seen as high as 88fps running through fields with the same settings.

 

61.3 fps average running through Novigrad with full ultra except for hairworks is pretty damn good for a $329 GPU. This is a new card, and the drivers are only going to improve with time, so there is lots of potential for the R9 390.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Beriallord

[Dark0ne]

Haven't trusted AMD driver support since the Crossfire fiasco with Rage. Their crossfire support continues to be awful and Nvidia will have to slip up more than they have, or AMD will have to release something that truly stomps the Nvidia equivalent, to convert me back. Highly disappointed with the Fury X, for example.

[Beriallord]

Haven't trusted AMD driver support since the Crossfire fiasco with Rage. Their crossfire support continues to be awful and Nvidia will have to slip up more than they have, or AMD will have to release something that truly stomps the Nvidia equivalent, to convert me back. Highly disappointed with the Fury X, for example.

The Fury X is horrible from a price/performance ratio. Its only got a few % points over the 390x. Then of course if you could bios flash a 390 to a 390x (likely possibility in the future), and then overclock it, you could easily reach fury performance for $329.99 or 1/2 the price of a fury.

 

I agree about crossfire performance. There has been an issue with AMD crossfire & flickering textures on several games, and these issues are rarely fixed completely. I don't have epilepsy, but if I did, playing WItcher 3 with AMD crossfire would have given me a seizure. ENB settings could limit the flickering textures in skyrim. One particular effect was the culprit, but I don't remember exactly which one. For good measure, AMD could at least post an epilepsy warning when using AMD crossfire if they're too lazy to fix these issues and leave the work to modders to fix.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Beriallord

[obobski]

Haven't trusted AMD driver support since the Crossfire fiasco with Rage. Their crossfire support continues to be awful and Nvidia will have to slip up more than they have, or AMD will have to release something that truly stomps the Nvidia equivalent, to convert me back. Highly disappointed with the Fury X, for example.

 

Honestly I hear all this buggabo about Rage from time to time, and it doesn't matter very much imho - it's one game, and imho an entirely forgetable one at that. I have had no problems with my HD 4800s (single, double, and triple GPU configuration), or with my current HD 4350 or 290X. The closest to a problem would be launch-day in Fallout 3, the performance on HD 4800 was not great, but I was using (even at the time) months outdated drivers, and a quick download solved that (and had me up and running at 1600p on multiple GPUs with no fuss). OFC if Rage is a big deal to you, so be it, but I can think of examples that have affected nVidia as well - neither side is "perfect" (*especially* when talking multi-GPU).

 

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone either - honestly I don't care either way, and am equally happy with my GeForce cards (the latest-and-greatest I have is a GTX 660) and their drivers. I absolutely and unequivocally LOATHE first-generation SLI (GeForce 6/7; yes I still have hardware that old) and will say that imho first-generation CrossFire (Radeon X850) is (imho) significantly more user-friendly and easier to live with. This isn't saying that first-generation SLI doesn't work or anything - it just isn't as user-friendly as it should have been imho. GeForce 8 (and later) have corrected this.

 

As far as 290 vs 390 - benchmarks have shown them to perform identically, and the 390 to draw more power and run hotter whilst doing it. They're based on the same GPUs as well (Hawaii Pro and Hawaii XT). Sources:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/1

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178.html

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7205/sapphire-tri-radeon-r9-390x-8gb-video-card-review/index.html

[Beriallord]

I managed to get my 390 a little higher by bumping up aux voltage. I can get as high as 1270/1750 with +100mv and +32mv on aux with +15% power limit. Survived a 30 minute furmark with no artifacts. But I need to improve the airflow in my case in order to make that viable. That's around a 25% overclock. But I haven't seen enough 390s posted to know whether I got an average one, or a really good one.

 

 

 

As far as 290 vs 390 - benchmarks have shown them to perform identically, and the 390 to draw more power and run hotter whilst doing it. They're based on the same GPUs as well (Hawaii Pro and Hawaii XT). Sources:

 

The 390 has double the Vram, and memory clocks quite a bit higher for only a tiny bit more power draw. The 390 is basically a newer 290x for less money. And I believe the gap is going to widen in time as better drivers come out, seeing as how AMD will be focusing on improving the performance of their newest line. So R9 3XX users if anything are going to reap the benefits of better drivers.

Its pretty safe to say without any uncertainty that the R9 390 I got smokes a 290x for as high as I can push the clocks and memory. It does run really hot with voltages pushed that high, but that's not something a couple case fans, and a PCI fan couldn't solve.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Beriallord

[obobski]

I managed to get my 390 a little higher by bumping up aux voltage. I can get as high as 1270/1750 with +100mv and +32mv on aux with +15% power limit. Survived a 30 minute furmark with no artifacts. But I need to improve the airflow in my case in order to make that viable. That's around a 25% overclock. But I haven't seen enough 390s posted to know whether I got an average one, or a really good one.

 

 

 

As far as 290 vs 390 - benchmarks have shown them to perform identically, and the 390 to draw more power and run hotter whilst doing it. They're based on the same GPUs as well (Hawaii Pro and Hawaii XT). Sources:

 

The 390 has double the Vram, and memory clocks quite a bit higher for only a tiny bit more power draw. The 390 is basically a newer 290x for less money. And I believe the gap is going to widen in time as better drivers come out, seeing as how AMD will be focusing on improving the performance of their newest line. So R9 3XX users if anything are going to reap the benefits of better drivers.

Its pretty safe to say without any uncertainty that the R9 390 I got smokes a 290x for as high as I can push the clocks and memory. It does run really hot with voltages pushed that high, but that's not something a couple case fans, and a PCI fan couldn't solve.

 

Yeah the bump to 8GB of RAM is absolutely a benefit at the same price, vs 8GB 290s (which tend to have exorbitant mark-up); I would guess that both the 200 and 300 generation will reap the benefits of driver development, just like the 7000 series did after the 200s came out (280 series is to the 7900s as the 390 is to the 290s). I'm not sure what good or bad overclocks are for 290 or 390 honestly - I've heard 1100+ is not uncommon for 290s though, as long as cooling is sufficient.

[soupdragon1234]

Is there any point in 8gb Vram for a single card just now? If you're running UltraHD (4K) then maybe but then from what I understand there isn't any single card capable of running decent framerates at that resolution, you'd need to be running a two or more card SLI/Xfire for that kind of setup.

 

4Gb Vram is more than enough for my 2K textures Skyrim, infact I never had any issues with 3Gb. 4K textures on a 1080p/1200p TV/monitor is overkill IMO.

 

 

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone either - honestly I don't care either way, and am equally happy with my GeForce cards (the latest-and-greatest I have is a GTX 660) and their drivers.

 

Heh, I always say I'm going to have another Nvidia card this time and then look at the prices say "stuff that" and buy an ATI/AMD instead. Same performance for less money? Yes please. (I did buy a basic Nivida card a year or two for my mothers PC) I never run SLI/Xfire so I've never run into those issues. Otherwise drivers have been no problem, well ok there have been the odd issue now and then but Nividia aren't immune to driver troubles either. In which case I'll use an earlier version that is known to work or try one of the beta's instead.

 

 

Point to 4GB of VRAM? Not really. However with the launch of the 390 series it may be possible to get an 8GB card for the same price as a 4GB card, and there's certainly no reason to shy away from it.

 

 

 

Yeah thats what I figured. No reason to shy away if you're upgrading from 7950 or the like, pointless if if you have a 4GB card already.

Edited July 20, 2015 by soupdragon1234

[obobski]

Is there any point in 8gb Vram for a single card just now? If you're running UltraHD (4K) then maybe but then from what I understand there isn't any single card capable of running decent framerates at that resolution, you'd need to be running a two or more card SLI/Xfire for that kind of setup.

 

4Gb Vram is more than enough for my 2K textures Skyrim, infact I never had any issues with 3Gb. 4K textures on a 1080p/1200p TV/monitor is overkill IMO.

 

 

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone either - honestly I don't care either way, and am equally happy with my GeForce cards (the latest-and-greatest I have is a GTX 660) and their drivers.

 

Heh, I always say I'm going to have another Nvidia card this time and then look at the prices say "stuff that!" and buy an ATI/AMD instead. Same performance for less money? Yes please. (I did buy a basic Nivida card a year or two for my mothers PC) I've never run SLI/Xfire so I've never run into those issues. Otherwise drivers have been no issue, well ok yes there have been the odd problem now and then but Nividia aren't immune to driver troubles either. I'll use an earlier version that is known to work or try one of the beta's instead.

 

Point to 4GB of VRAM? Not really. However with the launch of the 390 series it may be possible to get an 8GB card for the same price as a 4GB card, and there's certainly no reason to shy away from it.