Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Retail Radeon R9 290X Graphics Cards Slower Than AMD's Press Samples

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-you-can't-trust-marketing-departments,-who-can-you-trust dept.

crookedvulture writes "AMD's recently introduced Radeon R9 290X is one of the fastest graphics cards around. However, the cards sent to reviewers differ somewhat from the retail units available for purchase. The press samples run at higher clock speeds and deliver better performance as a result. There's some variance in clock speeds between different press and retail cards, too. Part of the problem appears to be AMD's PowerTune mechanism, which dynamically adjusts GPU frequencies in response to temperature and power limits. AMD doesn't guarantee a base clock speed, saying only that the 290X runs at 'up to 1GHz.' Real-world clock speeds are a fair bit lower than that, and the retail cards suffer more than the press samples. Cooling seems to be a contributing factor. AMD issued a driver update that raises fan speeds, and that helps the performance of some retail cards. Retail units remain slower than the cards seeded to the press, though. Flashing retail cards with the press firmware raises clock speeds slightly, but it doesn't entirely close the gap, either. AMD hasn't explained why the retail cards are slower than expected, and it's possible the company cherry-picked the samples sent to the press. At the very least, it's clear that the 290X exhibits more card-to-card variance than we're used to seeing in a PC graphics product."

77 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. the cards run at higher temps by default by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been discussed in many places like toms hardware. Essentially they found the cards volting is determined in the bios and the fan speeds can be altered. change the bios which many have released and the undervolting which occurs at lower temps is solved. Sapphire already released a new bios for the card to make these changes to keep them consistent yet keeping them from going above 95 degrees.

    1. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      There seem to be some problems with the cooling paste installed on a lot of cards as well, causing them to overheat and ramp themselves down.

    2. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by Xicor · · Score: 1

      if this happens, you return it and get yourself a new one

    3. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you bothered to RTFA (I know!), you'd see that they indeed checked this out. They flashed the BIOS of their sample card onto their worst performing retail card. There was a small difference, but far from enough to make up for the gap between that card and the sample unit they received from AMD. It also made the retail card crash because the voltage was too low. The sample card managed to give better performance at lower fan speeds and voltages.

      At this point it's reasonable to assume that AMD cherry-picked the cards they sent reviewers to make sure they were as good as they could be.

    4. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia/Intel/anyone else is doing the same.

      Kinda like the picture on the menu and what you get in your plate

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    5. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It's surely common in any industry, but the performance difference in this case (assuming no weird stuff is going on) is more than what is considered reasonable by the collective.

      The problem is probably the lack of a specific lower threshold to which the cards are held (would also help explain the aggressive pricing).

    6. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 2

      Of course they are. But they're also not delivering one product for review and a completely different product to sell. What AMD's done here is little more than a bait-and-switch that's coming back to bite them in the ass. Of course there's going to be some variance from card to card, but what's happening here goes far beyond what's expected.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    7. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Nvidia does it to, but since they HAVE a base clock on their cards then what ever boost card can do. You know all the cards if running at base clock will be within a few % of each other and not this 15-20% that some sites have seen with AMD cards. press nvidia cards seem to overclock like beats which does show you if you are lucky to get one those you could do with it, Sadly the "up to" terms AMD used makes them sound like an ISP.

    8. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      And this is why I'm going to be watercooling mine :)
      (Assuming the waterblock gets any closer than Neufahrn which is where it's currently languishing on it's journey)

    9. Re:the cards run at higher temps by default by makomk · · Score: 1

      Actually, NVidia have been doing the same thing for a couple of generations of GPUs as far as anyone's been able to tell, the press are just a lot less willing to kick up a fuss about anything they do than with AMD. (And I mean literally the same thing - designing their cards so the actual clock speeds and performance they run at out the box varies from card to card, then cherry-picking the best ones to send to reviewers.)

  2. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AMD cards are faster for GPGPU. They crunch numbers faster than nVIDIA cards, at the cost of more power and flakier drivers. Also AMD has better free software drivers.

  3. Re: I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And you are like the people that always eat the same pizza, while complaining that there's no variation.

  4. Mendacity or incompetence? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cherry-picking would be a bad thing; but if it turns out that the junior thermal past application technicians get less attentive once the first production batch is finished and the people who've been babying the project leave, that wouldn't be a total surprise.

  5. Typical by bit+trollent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is becoming a habit for AMD. You can't even trust their FRAPS measured frame-rates. Seriously. I will never ever own another AMD card. Their graphics cards are nothing but empty promises and bad drivers.

  6. FPS TOO LOW!! by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh gosh I hope this doesn't result in some poor sap attempting to play Battlefield 4.7 and while thinking they should achieve a pure 115fps they only hit a measly 92fps and their lives are ruined forever. The consequences will never be the same.

    1. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      When you pay for discrete graphics you're usually making purchase decisions based on performance/$. When the reviews all say you'll achieve a certain trade-off, but with the retail product you don't, then the market has been deceived - perhaps you would have been better off buying something else.

      No comment as to what's actually going on in this case, if anything, since I haven't been following it...

    2. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but nobody's interested in playing Quake 1 any more :). Generally speaking, with the recent/upcoming graphics-intensive games, when you're set to a reasonably high resolution and the pretties up, you'll have a hard time maintaining a steady 50+ FPS in the middle of an intense firefight. Which is exactly the moment when you need it the most, even if anywhere else you get 100 FPS. The lows are what you want to avoid.

      Besides, the whole point of burning $550 on a top-of-the-line graphics card is the expectation of a performance level of X, and, well, you're going to feel ripped off when you find out that your store-bought $550 card, unlike the review sample, performs just slightly above the $400-ish one.

    3. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1
      92/115 = 0.8 ratio != 20/40 = 0.5 ratio. See how stupid you sound? Also, trolling an obvious joke with insults....

      Nobody even brought up the monitor refresh rate.

    4. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I am. I liked Quake 1, 2, and even Arena. I also liked Doom and Doom 2. And Duke Nukem 3d. And Command and Conquer. And Starcraft/Brood War. Hell, I'd love to be able to play Carmageddon again. What's wrong with having fun with a game vs being able to count the chest hairs on Duke as they wave in the gentle breeze?

      And get off my lawn. It's dying under the snow there.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      If I buy a Ford Fiesta with a 1.2l engine, and $RoadTestReview gets 45MPG over a week, three tank refills, and a good mixture of motorway and city driving, I don't expect my (supposedly) identical 1.2l Ford Fiesta to get 36MPG in the same period under the same conditions.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      I still play Quake1 from time to time. It's still my favourite FPS of all time.

      As for Carmageddon, if you have a decent Android or iPhone, you'll definitely want to pick this up: http://www.carmageddon.com/funsize/carmageddon

    7. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

      Yes I second the mobile Carmageddon recommendation! It's just like the original game, except with semi-clumsy touchscreen controls but with more levels and more cars.

    8. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Gee, you're a pedant. Am I going to have to start opening Windows calculator every time I want to point something out?
      Honestly, it doesn't sound like a joke, more like you're making fun of people who got less than they hoped for when purchasing a product. It doesn't matter if it's a graphics card or a car, false advertising is false advertising (assuming this is all more than a few misbehaving cards, of course).

      Say you buy 1kg of *insert favorite nourishment here*. Wouldn't you get pissed if you found out it was actually only 0,8kg? Same principle.

      Please don't misunderstand me, everybody says something that sounds stupid occasionally. That doesn't mean the person is stupid and pointing something out is not generally meant as an insult.

    9. Re:FPS TOO LOW!! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      You just made my year. Thank you very much.

      (Off to buy Carmageddon...)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  7. Not uncommon... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    This probably happens more often than we think. Frankly, it makes sense to validate that a card is going to run solid for someone before you send it to them if they're going to be blabbering all over the interwebs about it. It's just in this case they got burned (and justifiably) due to the fact that the software/driver adjusts the frequency independently instead of being a static clock speed (something they should have disclaimed to the reviewers).

    1. Re:Not uncommon... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This probably happens more often than we think.

      For a long time we've know that demonstrations lie.

      Any demo indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently rigged.

      I fail to see why anyone is surprised by this, Nvdia do it, Intel do it, Apple do it, everyone lies with demonstrators and all demonstration machines are rigged up to their eyeballs. IBM spends money making sure the lights on their demonstration machines blink in unison for crying out loud.

      Which is why anyone with half a brain does not base purchasing decisions on a vendor's product demonstration.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. Yeah by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    I'm a huge fan of market competition and AMD. If this is not not a slashvertismemnt then I'm a noob.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:Yeah by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      Hello noob.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    2. Re:Yeah by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I'm a huge fan of market competition, which is why I can't wait for a capable third manufacturer to compete against the big two.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Yeah by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Intel should can compete just fine in the low end market, and is starting to poke their nose into the mid-range. You can play Battlefield 4 with the integrated graphics of an i5/i7 desktop Haswell chip at 720p and low settings at 30fps.

      Desktop processors running Iris Pro graphics may let Intel start stealing the spot light from AMD's APUs. I wouldn't count on Intel diving into the high-end market, so hopefully Nvidia won't be killed off. I also believe Nvidia has foreseen the end of themselves being anything but a high-end option and has innovated with PhysX, 3d Vision, and the new GSync.

  9. Same old story by riis138 · · Score: 1

    It seems like this is a recurring problem for AMD. I recall a similar issue with the bulldozer cpu's

    --
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Same old story by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      As far as I remember, those were plainly slower than the ones they were to replace, let alone Intel's products, even running at significantly higher clocks.
      They performed to spec, but the spec wasn't what AMD had originally hoped for.

  10. Throttling + OEM fan speed and grease variance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Toms Hardware covered this pretty extensively a month ago.

    The short story is that AMD is throttling clock speeds to hold within a temperature limit. They learned the hard way that 40% PWM does not equal 40% fan speed, especially across all fans the OEMS used. There's a driver fix for that now measures fan speed and adjusts accordingly when in quiet mode that eliminates most of this performance discrepancy (retail cards can now see higher performance in line with review samples).

    Remaining differences between cards may be due to different heatsink grease, also already examined by replacing the grease on a retail card for a significant performance gain.

    1. Re:Throttling + OEM fan speed and grease variance by jandrese · · Score: 2

      I've always found it shocking that after reading about how important it is to apply paste properly and take the time to do it right when building my own machine, every time I open up an OEM box I discover the paste just globbed on there willy nilly with a caulking gun. nVidia had a huge problem with this back with the 8xxx series GPUs in laptops.

      I know some guy making $0.30/day in China isn't going to take a credit card and insure a perfectly smooth and even coating of thermal paste before carefully applying the cooler, but there must be a better way than blorting it on like a 3 year old with a tube of oil paint.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Throttling + OEM fan speed and grease variance by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      How come applying thermal grease is still such a big problem in the semiconductor industry?
      They've been doing it for decades, but still haven't figured out how to get it right every time.

      Even Apple, who are renowned for their design and manufacturing prowess, keeps hiring companies that screw it up.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Throttling + OEM fan speed and grease variance by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      How come applying thermal grease is still such a big problem in the semiconductor industry?
      They've been doing it for decades, but still haven't figured out how to get it right every time.

      Even Apple, who are renowned for their design and manufacturing prowess, keeps hiring companies that screw it up.

      I think it's too much variation in the way heatsinks attach to the chip. Ideally it would be something like how heatsinks on Intel do it (there may be others, but Intel is what I have experience on) - you put on a small dab (which can be on a gun that gives a pre-measured amount like the condiment guns at fast food joints), and then the act of putting the heatsink on spreads it.

      But that's if the heatsink applies pressure - other times it's just stuck on with glue or the mechanism has too much give for it to work well.

      It's sort of why the industry moved to pads and the like - putting on the paste and smoothing it out took too much time to manufacture and is too prone to mistakes, so they use a pad and eliminate the problem head on.

    4. Re:Throttling + OEM fan speed and grease variance by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      Probably because there's no test for it. If they put the CPU on the board backwards, they'll notice when they try to turn the system on. Too much paste (or too little), and things will work just fine as far as any test is concerned.

      When I did computer repair, I once encountered a PowerMac where the heatsink had a manufacturing defect; one of the posts that fit in a hole on the CPU card had a large extra blob of aluminum on it. It was impossible to seat the heatsink on the CPU, though it could still be strapped on (it's just that there was enough extra clearance caused by the malformed post that the heatsink didn't touch the CPU). As far as the customer was concerned, the computer worked just fine for close to 3 years (though I imagine it probably ran fairly slowly sometimes). Then, the CPU finally died and the computer wouldn't boot any more. Luckily, Apple agreed with me that it was totally their fault, even though he was well beyond the warranty period, and they covered replacing both the CPU and the heatsink. But it's not something that any manufacturing test would've caught, unless the CPU got hot enough to literally fry itself. (It was one of the slower models of the day, with not even a heatsink fan, so it couldn't have fried itself immediately.)

  11. liq N2 option by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone obviously didn't buy the turbo liquid nitrogen supply option.

  12. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use Intel/Nvidia with FreeBSD because they have better driver support than AMD/ATI.

  13. Re:They're just rebranded last year's model cards. by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    Nope. The 290/290X is a much larger chip - similar architecture, but bigger (and mildly improved).

  14. Re:AMD does what everyone else does. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    And cherry picks the best units to send out to reviewers.
    Can't seem to care too hard. Unless this wasn't an industry standard way of doing things... But it is.
    Not just in computer related things either. The stuff sent to be reviewed is always the absolute best and pre-tested before the reviewers get it.

    Video card manufacturers have been cheating for more than 20 years. Sending hardware and drivers to reviewers that has been tweaked and optimized far beyond what is available at retail.

  15. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by tom17 · · Score: 2

    I used to be an Nvidia guy until last week. Just hopped onto the crypto coin mining bandwagon and my new 7950 card should pay for itself in ~2-3 weeks.

    Nvidia are junk for this, unfortunately.

    And it shows, you try to find a new or 2nd hand 79xx card anywhere for a reasonable price. They have all been snapped up by the miners :(

  16. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by arbiter1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    um yea coin mining now days, you will barley break even vs cost of card and electric needed to mine them. you missed the bandwagon by about 1-2 years.

  17. Lots of coins by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are lots of alt-coins in addition of bitcoin.
    Some are easier to mine on GPU than other.

    You need to pick up a coin that plays well with it.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Lots of coins by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      who buys those altcoins? speculators? do they have valid exchanges?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Lots of coins by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      For example in one Finnish online store (they ship worldwide) you can buy computer components and other electronics with Litecoin, in addition to Bitcoin. Litecoin is quite profitable to mine on GPUs at the moment.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  18. You jest by DrYak · · Score: 1

    You're joking but that's more or less what's happening.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  19. Not that FIX / Thermal performance by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you bothered to RTFA (I know!), you'd see that they indeed checked this out. They flashed the BIOS of their sample card onto their worst performing retail card. There was a small difference, but far from enough to make up for the gap between that card and the sample unit they received from AMD

    Not that BIOS. As other have pointed in the thread, the variation in performance is more or less linked to the variance of thermal management.
    Not all PWM Fan behave the same. There's a *newer* BIOS version (not as in "use the one that came with the sample" but as in "download the latest version that was made available on the manufacturer website, betwen when you bought it and now").
    This version of BIOS is better at computing what signal it should send to the fan to have better cooling.
    And once the cooling is improvent, the card will automatically scale up its speed.

    Also, there can be difference in thermal grease, etc.

    At this point it's reasonable to assume that AMD cherry-picked the cards they sent reviewers to make sure they were as good as they could be.

    Or, instead of cherry-picking, maybe there's some build quality between the first engineering sample sent by AMD, and the mass-produced card by NONAME asian manufacturer ? (Or even mass-produced cards by very popular brands that have to fulfill lots of orders ?)

    Difference in quality of the fans (NONAME will pick whatever is currently the cheapest, and even with popular big-names, there's going to be some variance, depending on where the current batch was sourced).
    Difference in quality of thermal conduction of the interface. Difference of quality of thermal grease (NONAME will pick the cheapest, bigname might have variation in batches, specially if they source batch from several manufacturer to keep up with the pace). Difference in quality of work (NONAME might even do a sloppy job in applying the thermal medium to the radiator).

    You end up with exactly the same chip produced by AMD, but vastly different thermal condition, all this with a firmware and a driver which isn't yet best at fan throttling, and you end-up with some measurable difference in output. ...BUT...

    Pick up Nvidia cards, and you're going to see exactly the same effect.

    Either card that vary in their performance (or that have big variation in temperature, depending on how the current firmware throttles the card)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Not that FIX / Thermal performance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not all PWM Fan behave the same

      That doesn't matter if you are competent, because they have a tachometer lead. you don't just send a PWM signal and then trust that the fan is going at the speed you want.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. ...add variation in source. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    but if it turns out that the junior thermal past application technicians get less attentive once the first production batch is finished and the people who've been babying the project leave, that wouldn't be a total surprise.

    Now add in the mix that some parts, like fans, might be sourced from several different manufacturer (and according to source, BIOS wasn't until latest update so good at operating them), add also that there might be variation in quality between the different batches of thermal paste (which got very probably sourced from several productors) and the output variation is clearly expected.

    But also fixable (newest BIOS to compensate fans with better throttling, manually replace thermal paste. Now cards works as good as benchmarking sample or even better)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:...add variation in source. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      There are a variety of possible sources of variation. And, since the part's (not illogical, if somewhat unhelpful for making firm predictions) thermal management strategy seems to be 'run as fast as possible; but don't die', those variations would show up in performance.

      What I'd want to know (but am unlikely to find out) is whether AMD was actively misleading reviewers by sending them hand-picked especially good cards, or whether review cards come from the initial run, probably the one where AMD's people are mostly tightly and nervously observing the process, rather than the potentially more variable just-another-day-slapping-chips-on-cards production that follows.

      Merely variation is only inconvenient, and may well mean that the usual 3rd-party overkill heatsinks actually help significantly. Actively misleading reviewers? Not So Good.

    2. Re:...add variation in source. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      THe issue is the thermal paste, as well as chip manufactors lower mhz clock speeds until yields improve.

      It is a standard process for all chip makers. What AMD did was pick the best of the best where yields would not make sufficient defect free chips at that speed for the demo.

      As chip makers increase production and yield quality increases then the speed goes up as well. Notice Tom got closed if not matching the real demo with these tricks.

      So these were not botched demos at all! However, you do need to void the warranty and apply elbow grease or water cool them and you will gain the same performance.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  21. It's known. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    due to the fact that the software/driver adjusts the frequency independently instead of being a static clock speed (something they should have disclaimed to the reviewers).

    It's well known that these cards operate at a fixed temperature and push the clock and voltage as high as they can within these thermal limits.
    It's so well known among professionnal, that some like Tom's are giving advice about BIOS replacement (newer have better and more consistent throttling or fan accross all the varied parts) or thermal paste replacement (to improve cooling and thus performance).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  22. More or less by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think AMD should have waited until it had legitimate improvements to offer before releasing anything, rather than trying to fool people with the R9 series.

    The problem, is that AMD got too busy doing legitimate improvement under contract for the coming generation of consoles (Xbox One, Play Station 4, and some of the upcoming Steam Box, all run the same combo of AMD CPUs and GPUs).
    With that work, there was going to be some delay for their PC's Radeon HD 8xxx serie.

    So it was either:
    - have absolutely nothing to sell.
    - do some small upgrade on the older board (R2 270/280 are simply older board slightly upgraded) and older chips (R2 290(X) are GCN1.1 chips, slightly newer than the GCN1.0) and have something to sell until the real new gen comes, while still taking advantage of the time to add some improvements.

    Note that this was pretty much announced that way, and well known for people in the field.

    now look at the bright side of the things:
    even if they are coming with some delay, that means that next year, you're going to finally see the newer GCN2.0 chip based card, that have taken advangtage of all the R&D done for consoles to improve the performance and quality for radeons.

    A little bit later, but a little bit more R&D money poured on the steps leading to them (specially the latest step)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:More or less by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Will gamers see that much of an improvement? The PS4 and Xbone being x86 hardware is nice as the excuses on why a port to PCs can't happen, but both consoles are pretty sad when compared to current mid-range PCs let alone a high-end rig. The Xbone one is struggling to hit 1080p while the PS4 is hitting it, but at 30fps. This is matching or lower than the performance of a current mid-range PC and the performance gap will only widen.

      It's good that AMD was able to get the contracts to get income as they have been struggling lately, but the Radeon 7000 series was a big of a disappointment, and were rumors of Nvidia branding the GTX660 as the GTX680 and the Titan was supposed to be the original GTX680. AMD new series is all rebranded cards save for the R9 290 and 290X. The cards a cheaper compared to Nvidia's offering, but they run hot and loud. Plus this article is discussing performance issues so maybe they aren't as good as the original look into them lead everyone to believe.

      AMD really needs to buckle down and hit one out of the park. The Bulldozer was a dud, so the processor side of the business is also without a hit. I thought we might see the beginnings of an PC architecture redesign once you look at the new consoles, but I don't believe that anymore. I'm not hopefully that Kaveri is going to be the strike again Intel that AMD needs like the glory days of the Athlon 64 vs the Pentium 4, nor AMD releasing a GPU in the coming year that will force Nvidia to stop coasting along and release a highend card that is 80% of Titan SLI performance on a single card.

  23. Re:Nvidia has worse drivers today by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    The latest ones crash ALOT if you read maximumpc.com or tomshardware.com and my Nvidia fanboys I raid with.

    AMD has better quality hardware with less flaky voltage regulators. I went through 2 nvidia cards over 8 years that failed and switched all AMD/ATI in 2010 with the phenom II (better that steamroller per clock tick sadly ) and an ATI 5750.

    Had one bizaare issue with black edges on the screen when switching to HDMI. That problem went away after I went into the drivers and configured my screen to not do underscanning.

    NO issues for 2 years! Just upgraded to an ATI 7850 and it runs GREAT. No black screens, no overheating, no wierd driver issues at all. This was true in 2002 with the ill fated ATI Rage Pro 128 TV adapter. The Mac version was the only one that worked ok.

    But damn that was 11 years ago!

    I admit I do not like steamroller, but over all I got a nice $600 system that is 6core, runs VMWare accelerated, back in 2010 back when I would need an Intel extreme edition for $700 without anything else but the damn chip!

    What they do not tell you is Intel cripples the bios and turns off hyperthreading and Virtualization support to force you into the more expensive units. AMD chipsets never do this.

    IF AMD gets their act together and not create underperforming space heaters I will consider AMD again for a CPU purchase. But what I have works great and the phenom II was a pretty competitive chip for its time.

    Raedons are great GPUs and are very competitive with Nvidia. Drivers are worse today with Nvidia unless they clean things up.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  24. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    My cheap AMD/ATI system is the most stable computer I ever owned.

    Only BSOD was from an unproper shutdown and file corruption that I did.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  25. Hanlon's razor / Napoleon Bonaparte by DrYak · · Score: 1

    or whether review cards come from the initial run, probably the one where AMD's people are mostly tightly and nervously observing the process, rather than the potentially more variable just-another-day-slapping-chips-on-cards production that follows.

    I would indeed agree with your first post and this part. To me, a big conspiracy to manipulate results is far less likely than simply slopiness of a mass-produced good, where speed of production counts, in order to quickly meet the demand.

    To quote a variant of Hanlon's Razor (often attributed without sources to Napoleon Bonaparte):
    "Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence."

    Merely variation is only inconvenient, and may well mean that the usual 3rd-party overkill heatsinks actually help significantly.

    Yup very probably. Specially with modern card that try to go as fast as they can, while still within target thermal envelope.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  26. Re: I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    For some values of GPGPU. They are great for MHash(Bit coin last year) but poor for some Boinc projects. Cuda (prior to some specific changes made for AMD to make it par) crunched 5-10x faster than its AMD equivalent.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  27. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    perhaps, but this is typical of AMD and ATI products ranging all the way back to my experiences with Athlons and the ATI Rage 128 graphics card.

    Their hardware just isn't as stable as Intel or Nvidia. And that's my experience with 4 different AMD systems over the years. When you put an intel computer on the same power supply, stability just happens.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  28. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    bwahahaha. If you were a serious miner, you'd have an ASIC rig.

    GPU miners don't cover the cost of their electrical bills.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  29. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by substance2003 · · Score: 1

    Maybe AMD's open source drivers are better but Nvidia's drivers are better suited for use to do renders in Blender because of their support of CUDA.
    While few will need to buy a graphics card for Blender 3D in particular it does show that you have to consider what you wish to use the card for when you want to make a purchase to get the performance you need out of it.

  30. Re:price check by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

    do people really need a $500 video card?

    People running 4k displays or multi-monitor displays with the latest games do.

    --
    Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  31. old news by murdocj · · Score: 1

    I listened to a Maximum PC podcast about this a couple of weeks ago. Is this a slow news day?

  32. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by Monsuco · · Score: 1

    Also AMD has better free software drivers.

    Yeah, but their proprietary Linux drivers are simply atrocious. Performance isn't so bad but stability is awful.

    --
    The Gospel according to lolcat
  33. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

    Hardware wise, I've had way more issues with NVIDIA. Software/driver wise, they've both had their fair share of issues. Don't go near AMD Enduro systems...

  34. Architecture by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I'm talking about all the above being GCN 1.x chips.
    The GCN 2.x chips (which was initially what was going to be inside HD 8000, before they delayed everything) will be here early next year.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  35. Scale! by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Will gamers see that much of an improvement? The PS4 and Xbone being x86 hardware is nice as the excuses on why a port to PCs can't happen, but both consoles are pretty sad when compared to current mid-range PCs let alone a high-end rig. The Xbone one is struggling to hit 1080p while the PS4 is hitting it, but at 30fps. This is matching or lower than the performance of a current mid-range PC and the performance gap will only widen.

    ...all this done with intergrated GPU. That's the key point. These performance are pulled using just an embed chip, that pulls minimal amount of power.

    Now scale this thing up, move one generation next ( to GCN 2.x ) and the discrete card that will be getting next year from AMD are going to be quite interesting.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  36. Indeed by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and that's the main exchange where I trade mine.

    A few other thing:
    - much smaller scale, but cryptsy has almost the whole zoo.
    - lots of trader are playing around and speculating with minor coin.
    - That means there's a lot of exchange traffic between major and minor alt coins.
    - That means it's easier to exchange whatever you mined with whatever is more usefull to do transaction for you.

    - LTC is starting to grow big enough to get some indenpendance from BTC.
    - ...thus it's starting to get more acceptance (more payment processor are accepting it too)
    - ...its fluctuation vs. fiat isn't so thighly couple to BTC as before.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  37. Exactly by DrYak · · Score: 1

    And according to Tom's, that exactly what the last BIOS update was all about. Taking better into account the tacho feedback.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Exactly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And according to Tom's, that exactly what the last BIOS update was all about. Taking better into account the tacho feedback.

      But this isn't exactly ATI's first time around the bases... how did they forget how PWM control works?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. How about R9 290 then? by fa2k · · Score: 1

    I've just ordered a R9 290X, before I saw this (oh no!). If this effect is reducing the 290X performance, and 290X is just a higher clocked 290, could I expect similar performance on the 290 as the retail 290Xs? If so I just want to return the 290X and recoup 25 % of the cost... Advice greatly appreciated

    1. Re:How about R9 290 then? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Looking at some pictures of the stock 290X heatsink, you will be well served by removing, lapping, and replacing the thermal grease with some decent stuff. Even more if you decide to spring for an aftermarket heatsink, but you may have to do a little leg work to figure out which ones will work and which ones won't.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:How about R9 290 then? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      that's an option that I didn't consider, cheers! (probably won't check back on this thread any more and will keep the 290X)

  39. Re: I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by tom17 · · Score: 1

    And me :)

  40. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by tom17 · · Score: 1

    Yeah I thought I missed the bandwagon, but then I discovered scrypt based coins and it turns out I might just be able to catch the tail end of this ride. My first card I just bought should pay for itself in ~16 days. *IF* that happens, I will be upgrading to a bigger rig.

    It's not too late.

    Mine for WorldCoin by the way. It's still one of the best longterm options for mining.

    I will either be wrong, in which case I have a perfectly sellable graphics card I can move on (Or game with) or I am right and BWUAAHAHAHAAAA

    I think that's called win:win :)

  41. Re:I never got the fascination with AMD/ATI by tom17 · · Score: 1

    Just for your info, I covered the extra electricity charges for the coming month in under 24 hours.

    And there are no ASIC chips for scrypt based mining yet so it's currently GPU mining all the way (to tha moon, lol).

    I'm not 100% sure yet, but I also think that due to the very nature of the scrypt algorithm, ASIC mining is unlikely to come soon as it;s really reliant on having a lot of fast memory (Basically, high end video cards). There is one company that claims it's close to making one, but they have not actually shown anyone a working product yet so we'll see.