By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Digital Foundry: Radeon R9 390X 8GB review

curl-6 on 22 June 2015

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-390x-review


4K performance chart

3840x2160 (4K)R9 390XGTX 980R9 290X
The Witcher 3, High, HairWorks Off, Custom AA 29.1 27.7 26.1
Battlefield 4, High, Post-AA 44.5 46.8 39.6
Crysis 3, High, SMAA 40.2 39.0 36.1
Assassin's Creed Unity, Very High, FXAA 22.7 21.8 18.7
Far Cry 4, Very High, SMAA 44.4 36.1 37.4
COD Advanced Warfare, Console Settings, FXAA 76.4 72.0 67.5
Ryse: Son of Rome, Normal, SMAA 37.8 31.5 34.0
Shadow of Mordor, High, High Textures, FXAA 50.1 42.4 44.8
Tomb Raider, Ultra, FXAA 51.4 47.1 45.9

 

1080p performance chart

1920x1080 (1080p)R9 390XGTX 980R9 290X
The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA 57.4 65.8 50.5
Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA 78.3 86.5 69.0
Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA 80.1 81.5 69.7
Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA 56.0 62.4 50.0
Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA 82.4 87.4 75.0
COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA 112.3 128.1 108.6
Ryse: Son of Rome, High, SMAA 81.8 76.1 74.5
Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA 101.9 91.7 89.4
Tomb Raider, Ultimate, FXAA 107.1 118.2 97.9


Around the Network
vivster on 22 June 2015

Pretty much what I expected. Fury X and 980ti should have a similar ratio.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JRPGfan on 22 June 2015

390x is not the top card... its just a overclocked 290x with better GDDR5.
Basically if you ran the tests with a normal 290x, they would look almost identical to that.

The new cards I think are called something like Fury and Fury X.



vivster on 22 June 2015
JRPGfan said:

390x is not the top card... its just a overclocked 290x with better GDDR5.
Basically if you ran the tests with a normal 290x, they would look almost identical to that.

The new cards I think are called something like Fury and Fury X.

980 is not the top card either. So I don't know what you want to say with that.

It's actually really surprising that they managed to boost the performance of the 390X as much as they did even though it's just a rebrand with minor improvements.

the 390X is the direct opponent to the 980 while the Fury X goes directly against the 980ti. The fury Pro should be somewhere between 980 and 980ti.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

BlueSlippySocks on 22 June 2015

I'm still shocked that these cards aren't HDMI 2.0. That's a huge miss for us 4K TV owners.



Around the Network
JEMC on 22 June 2015
vivster said:
JRPGfan said:

390x is not the top card... its just a overclocked 290x with better GDDR5.
Basically if you ran the tests with a normal 290x, they would look almost identical to that.

The new cards I think are called something like Fury and Fury X.

980 is not the top card either. So I don't know what you want to say with that.

It's actually really surprising that they managed to boost the performance of the 390X as much as they did even though it's just a rebrand with minor improvements.

the 390X is the direct opponent to the 980 while the Fury X goes directly against the 980ti. The fury Pro should be somewhere between 980 and 980ti.

Yes, but then there's AMD's Fury Nano which they say will be faster than a 290X, putting it against the 980 too.

I think that Fury X and Fury are have the same chip, and that the main difference is the cooling. There's only $100 between them, there's no way AMD only charges that much for a better chip and the best cooling any reference card has ever had. But it makes sense to charge that little if the only difference is the cooler.

That would leave Fury X on par with 980Ti with lots of room for OC'ing, then the regular, air-cooled, Fury again on par with 980Ti but with limited OC-ability, and lastly Fury Nano to compete with the 980.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

vivster on 22 June 2015
JEMC said:
vivster said:
JRPGfan said:

390x is not the top card... its just a overclocked 290x with better GDDR5.
Basically if you ran the tests with a normal 290x, they would look almost identical to that.

The new cards I think are called something like Fury and Fury X.

980 is not the top card either. So I don't know what you want to say with that.

It's actually really surprising that they managed to boost the performance of the 390X as much as they did even though it's just a rebrand with minor improvements.

the 390X is the direct opponent to the 980 while the Fury X goes directly against the 980ti. The fury Pro should be somewhere between 980 and 980ti.

Yes, but then there's AMD's Fury Nano which they say will be faster than a 290X, putting it against the 980 too.

I think that Fury X and Fury are have the same chip, and that the main difference is the cooling. There's only $100 between them, there's no way AMD only charges that much for a better chip and the best cooling any reference card has ever had. But it makes sense to charge that little if the only difference is the cooler.

That would leave Fury X on par with 980Ti with lots of room for OC'ing, then the regular, air-cooled, Fury again on par with 980Ti but with limited OC-ability, and lastly Fury Nano to compete with the 980.

The Fury Pro has some shaders disabled, it will be quite noticeably below the 980ti.

I'm interested in the OC potential of the Fury X because the 980ti has some significant room for OC us well even under air cooling. There are even som custom cards going up to 40+% with room to spare.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JEMC on 22 June 2015
vivster said:
JEMC said:
vivster said:

980 is not the top card either. So I don't know what you want to say with that.

It's actually really surprising that they managed to boost the performance of the 390X as much as they did even though it's just a rebrand with minor improvements.

the 390X is the direct opponent to the 980 while the Fury X goes directly against the 980ti. The fury Pro should be somewhere between 980 and 980ti.

Yes, but then there's AMD's Fury Nano which they say will be faster than a 290X, putting it against the 980 too.

I think that Fury X and Fury are have the same chip, and that the main difference is the cooling. There's only $100 between them, there's no way AMD only charges that much for a better chip and the best cooling any reference card has ever had. But it makes sense to charge that little if the only difference is the cooler.

That would leave Fury X on par with 980Ti with lots of room for OC'ing, then the regular, air-cooled, Fury again on par with 980Ti but with limited OC-ability, and lastly Fury Nano to compete with the 980.

The Fury Pro has some shaders disabled, it will be quite noticeably below the 980ti.

I'm interested in the OC potential of the Fury X because the 980ti has some significant room for OC us well even under air cooling. There are even som custom cards going up to 40+% with room to spare.

I also read about the disabled parts, but I don't know if they come from AMD or from "other sources".

As far as OC, Fury X can get to 1,200 MHz without touching the voltage... but that's because voltage tweaking is so far disabled. AMD could launch a patch to enable it after launch. Memory overclock will probably be impossible, but with these cards it's fair to say that there's already plenty of bandwidth so it shouldn't be a problem. And the fan of the radiator doesn't go beyond 15% while regular gaming, so there's ample room for OC if there is a way to increase the voltages.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

haxxiy on 22 June 2015

That power draw. Ewww.

But I guess Nvidia did miracles with Maxwell.



 

 

 

 

 

torok on 22 June 2015
haxxiy said:

That power draw. Ewww.

But I guess Nvidia did miracles with Maxwell.


The 390X just gets the same bad pattern of the 2XX series. However, The Fury and Fury X GPUs with HBM have a TDP more on par with Maxwell. I'm getting a new GPU in August and I'm right now waiting for benchmarks for the 2 Fury card to decide between one of them and the 980ti.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.