If it was £10-20 extra I'd agree, but it's £100 more!

And IMO 8GB VRAM is only needed for 4K resolutions. 4GB is fine for 1440p and lower.

Textures aren't going to drastically improve much due to consoles...

Yep agree, I have the MSI version of this card and had to cut a chunk out of my HD mounting caddy for it to fit in my case.
Size comparison photo I took when replacing my old GTX 660 ti...

Scorching! Pretty much the same as a 390X, but "only" 4GB of RAM; get one before they all vanish.

Fallout 4 recommended spec suggests this card

thx OP, Bought one, with delivery £229 :smiley: more that £100 saving lovely

Thanks amended the title to £229 to reflect the shipping costs

Because this has the same architecture as the 3XX series card's driver's will be identical so the only real difference is the more VRAM on the 390x and the higher core clock.

I've got third degree burns after this deal!

1080p 144fps minimum on games??

Just bought! was looking for something cheaper than the 390 :smiley:

Thanks for posting :smile: Ordered one there still 4 left.

Good quality card btw... Used to have the Asus Cucore II 280x, which is slightly better built quality wise but the Sapphire is not bad either. Again...beware of the length of the card. It is 30 cm so you might need a new tower.

I tested a 290X against a GTX 770 and the dual Xeon CPUs were limiting the 290X! So I'd make sure you have the CPU horsepower to back it up. I have an XW6600 workstation, it's old but still has some CPU power, equivalent to 2 x Q9550 CPUs.

This or the GTX 780 for £190 delivered ?

Good price. Not as great as the 290x lightning i got for £215 :smile:

Thanks. Actually a few pennies cheaper using Amazon's conversion:


Articles : EUR 289,90
Livraison : EUR 6,56
(Montant total : EUR 296,46)
Total du paiement : GBP 228.48

Yep agree, I have the MSI version of this card and had to cut a chunk out of my HD mounting caddy for it to fit in my case.
Size comparison photo I took when replacing my old GTX 660 ti...

Actual research into this has shown that this is not the case: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch-8.html

It's interesting how people believe stuff they read on forums as opposed to the actual data that's out there.

I would still say guys go with 390 the base model or even the X version. More memory will come in handy in the next wave of games and fuller directx compatibility will also come of use in terms of better performance.

Very hot deal... Just won't fit in my case :-/

HSBC charged me an £11 non-sterling transaction fee when I bought something from Amazon.de last month so it might be worth using Amazons currency conversion option...

That's the 780 Ti...

Is this better than the GTX 970?

According to the benchmarks I've seen the 390 is slightly better than this card and with 8GB of VRAM I would go with that over 290X.

You can get R9 390 for the same price as this graphics card

780 runs on the same drivers as 780 Ti and has the same amount of VRAM. It'll just be a bit slower, but it proves that Kepler cards haven't been nerfed.

It works fine with Nvidia cards though, GTX 970 etc.

Why would you want a newer slower card for the same money though? This is a 290X, a 390X would be equivalent not a 390.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+R9+290+%2F+390

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+R9+290X+%2F+390X

I got one of these around the same price half year a ago, I am surprised it is still at this price range now.

How is it slower that doesn't represent real world performance in games the 390 performance is higher than 290x and also has 8GB of VRAM and it runs cooler

Quite right - the 390 is around 5-7% faster and it does indeed have 2x the RAM. This is a good 290X though - it'll OC to match 390X, though obviously you won't have 8GB of RAM.

There used to be a site where you could compare Amazon prices from different countries. I understand it was closed because Amazon objected to that use of their API. Is there, perhaps, another way to compare prices?

Not saying that the 780 performance has got worse since release. I actually had sli 780's when this was originally bought up and tested old vs new drivers myself and the test results were the same so I do know first hand Nvidia isnt "nerfing" their older cards they just arent optimising the drivers for them anymore. The 290X has got better and better and with DX12 and Nvidia's problems with asynchronous compute I really think its a bad step to go with the 780.

How does this compare to a 970? Some benchmarks claim it has 980 performance, some show worse than 970 performance.

Cant decide... Ill bespoke beat my prive it and let tht decide.

AMD have driver issues I think which is why they require more CPU grunt which your 7 year old CPU lacks.

Ah maybe this is part of how Bespoke and Flubit works? Buying Amazon items from other countries.

Had mine for two years now, fitted a closed loop liquid cooler. Its still a beast. runs MGS5 and the new starwars battle front 1920x1080 on ultra settings no problems!

Yup that appears to be the case in my testing. I have access to a variety of cards in work to test. So personally I prefer Nvidia, however that doesn't mean this card is not a great performer.

Mmmm.
I'm not sure you have tested all drivers else you would realise AMD have been much better than Nvidia for more than two years now. They are also just about to release catalyst 15.20 that will offer 6%+ across GCN, does Nvidia ever manage that.
Nvidia drivers meanwhile are struggling heavily with windows 10.

In comparison to your old card, this new card looks like some sodding Jet Turbines for a Fighter Plane or something?, damnnnnnn ..... lol.

Yeah. AMD drivers are rock solid. Sure some betas have occasional problems, but that's to be expected. I'm playing Battlefront at 1440p and med to ultra settings at 60fps on my 7950... can't complain about that.

I can't help but think the people who bemoan them either already have an unwavering preference for Nvidia... or haven't used a AMD card for years...

I still think I'd get a GTX 970 over this, I can get one for the same price 145W versus 290W, serious difference there.

The conversation I was having with fishmaster at no point mentioned driver stability but was referring to the amount of CPU resources that AMD drivers appear to require being noticeably more than for nVidia.
We both have come seemingly across this but I can't confirm it as it is just something I came across in passing and as I don't own a dGPU I am not interested in researching it.
My initial comment was about the relatively poor IPC of a 7 year old Intel CPU so was not even about AMD at all.

That's the only positive. Nvidia GPUs are going to suffer immensely with new DX12 titles. Their superior DX11 performance will all but vanish.
Anyhow I have a 175 watt AMD Nano that is almost competing performance wise with a stock 250watt 980ti and its only half the size and much quieter.
AMD drivers will only push Nanos performance further even more.

145W for the 970 is a myth. None of the custom versions use that little, because setting the power target that low will cause the GPU to throttle. It's Nvidia being clever with their "reference" numbers, despite no 970 actually running at speeds that low (because even GPU Boost will take it way above that). Most custom cards run at close to 200W (which is still good for the performance).



Equally, the 290X doesn't use 290W. Closer to 250W on average, with peaks at ~280W.



That's not to say that it isn't a hotter, more power-hungry card by any metric, but the difference isn't as pronounced as some would have you believe. It's in the region of 75W on average.

Fanboy alert!

It is true I do not like NVIDIA's unethical business practices. There are many.
Regardless, NVIDIA is ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to perform Asynchronous compute in their hardware and this is a big problem for a consumer looking for a future proof GPU. AMD GPU's will gain anywhere up to 25% performance boost when performing Asynchronous compute from DX12 demo's. Did you know the AMD 390x is given the 980Ti a run for it's money?.
Both XBox One and PS4 contain AMD hardware WITH Asynchronous compute engines and this will encourage developers to use the technology and embrace it.

Interesting times with DX12 shaking the tree. I don't game so I just read a bit from the sidelines. I'd wait until a decent number of top DX12 titles are released and benchmarked on current hardware and drivers before having any opinion at all.

​i agree my 7970 is still rock solid for 1080p ultra on most games just tweak the aa to suit

The GPU is a great performer, it's just that AMD drivers have a much higher CPU overhead than NVIDIA drivers, nearly twice as much. That means the weaker the CPU you have the worse this GPU will perform. A comparable NVIDIA GPU, say the 970, would perform much better in the same system because of this.

The only difference between the 290/390 and 390/390x are the stock clocks and VRAM amount. The GPU is the same so it's the same GCN 1.1, DX12 features and feature levels.

Yeah, that's what I thought thanks for reassuring me :smiley:.

Pretty sure it was when the 300 series was just being released and the 200 series cards were being discounted.

You post a lot about this but you don't reply to anyone that counters your argument. 25%, where did you get that from?
At the top end, Fable Legends seems to be the same as DX11, NVIDIA leading. If Async compute did so much surely the Fury X would out perform it. Yes, I know about the 390x and the 980, but that's most likely due to DX12 itself and not Async compute. It should be common knowledge now about AMD's CPU overhead in DX11.

I know your not asking me but i remembered reading something similar when the whole Async Compute thing came out so I just looked it up again heres the link : http://gearnuke.com/oxide-dev-console-devs-now-getting-30-extra-gpu-performance-via-async-compute/

And the quote "Our use of Async Compute, however, pales with comparisons to some of the things which the console guys are starting to do. Most of those haven’t made their way to the PC yet, but I’ve heard of developers getting 30% GPU performance by using Async Compute."

Although this is only from an oxide developer and i didn't really read much more into it.

Edit : Re-read his post, thought he mentioned about the consoles gaining 25% more performance. Sorry mb :smiley:.

Ashes of the Singularity, in my opinion, is a marketing tool for AMD and Async compute. The benchmark itself works for AMD's strengths. If you see Fable Legends, it's a slightly different story at the top end.
I'm interested too because I run an AMD GPU, not NVIDIA, so all this just adds to the bank of "which GPU to buy next time".
I want to see AMD GPU's with Async compute giving 25% performance over NVIDIA, I just don't see it happening with any soon to be released game.

I think I read somewhere about the Fable Legends benchmark, that NVIDIA GPU's are doing some work almost twice as quick as AMD GPU's, so any benefits from Async compute might not matter.

Ah, think it was overclockers? remembered thinking what a price, but hey no disposable at that time, where is Delorean when you need her!

Yeah could be, I didn't really read to much into it tbh. I also own a AMD card and would also like to see the performance gains with Dx12.

Not sure and I have her atm I can go back and get you one if you want ? Just a small commission charge :P.

Why do you not do a literature search. There is now plenty of evidence to be had.
Anyhow, Ashes Of the singularity is released on Steam, really beta access on the 22nd October. AMD's optimized Fury / Nano drivers to be released around the same time. Maybe after that happens, or perhaps early next year when Deus Mankind really makes GCN shine by use of DX12 and those ACE's you might admit I was right?
I am simply giving people the opportunity to make an informed choice, or at the most wait and see how new games perform out before splashing too much cash on underwhelming Hardware.

You have been here long enough, why are you trying to hide away from what so far is extremely compelling evidence that NVidia will fall behind for the foreseeable future. Not even Pascal has ASYNC compute.
Its not a rumour. It's fact. You should be glad I am making fellow HUKD users aware of the situation

Why don't you post some proof with your claim instead of telling me to search for something you're claiming to be true?

390x beating the 980 Ti, 25%, where are they?










I'm not seeing it anywhere.

I'm in no way saying Async compute won't be worth it in the future, if I have, show me where. I'm asking for proof that it makes a substantial difference in games, currently, there's nothing. If in the future it does, you haven't proved me wrong because I never denied the possibility, just doubted it because of lack of evidence.

Instead you just carry on posting about how much AMD will benefit from Async compute, and when someone counters it, you tell them to search for it. It's quite funny.

It was overclockers. Quite a bit ago now but i think it was £250 and came with gold reward (3 games) and sid myers civ. Sold the games and it worked out i paid £215. Awesome price and card although its like having a metal brick hanging off ya mobo :smile:

Amazing ATI card

lol.
Cherry picking benchmarks that make AMD look good regardless. That's funny.
Now post the Ashes of the singularity benchmark that shows how well the 390X is doing. Show people the other side of that coin.
Ashes uses more Async compute and is more definitive.

Also, why don't you google Async compute and the benefit PS4 developers have gained from using it.

And for virtual reality and why Liquid VR is the best VR development kit:
quote:
'AMD's asynchronous shaders are key to its LiquidVR'

source:
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASRM_enGB648GB648&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=oculus%20amd%20asyn


I could find plenty more but you will still be in denial regardless so I won't bother.

If AMD get a 25% boost in performance with Async compute and still the 980 Ti is ahead of the Fury X. If you think that's funny maybe you should rethink your stance on AMD.
I've already expressed my opinion on the AMD sponsored game showcasing AMD GPU's strengths.

PS4 is irrelevant here as we are comparing NVIDIA to AMD not PS4 to PS4.

No, the discussion is ASYNC compute and you made that quite clear. Stop shifting the goal posts.

No, the discussion is how AMD will benefit with Async compute over NVIDIA. Get with the conversation.

I could not care less for Nvidia. Its about the performance increase GCN cards with aces will achieve. I started the conversation.
Its just unfortunate that NVIDIA will get left behind because they never had the foresight to use ACE's.
Why are you so defensive all of a sudden.??
You cant even comprehend that if if console developers can get much better performance from AMD hardware with ACES that the PC versions of games will too under DX12 that allow for Async compute.
You gotta think outside the box a bit more kid.

You couldn't care less huh?


I'm not seeing it it?


Consoles aren't the same as PC's, low level API or not. You should research that. Only a handful of games use Async compute on the PS4.


I am. That's why I'm asking for you to give some proof of Async computes benefits for AMD GPU's over NVIDIA GPU's in PC gaming. Still waiting.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.
Goodbye know it all.

Gonna wait for the january sales to see if prices drop on graphics cards and everything else i need for pc.

I bet, had the 770 version, awesome card, wish l can convince her that the gtx version is what we need, and tell the mortgage people to wait for a while.:smile:

heat added my nan loves this card,and after taking the fans off saves her putting the heating on!

Yes it's exactly what I've found. I will changing to a Skylake based system next year anyway as a new build.

You made a bold claim, it is *your job* to prove a bold claim, not ours.

There is not evidence from cursory google searches to support your bold claim, so back it up or stop foisting it upon people as truth.

its a different price now

Down to €284.61 now which is ~£200 plus shipping which is a bargain for this card.

When I translate the delivery part is says "Delivery not available to:" and UK mainland is in the box. Anyone actually get this deal?

I've got third degree burns after this deal!