AMD Takes Advantage of GTX 970 Problems, Cuts Price of R9 290X

/ 3 years ago


In the wake of the memory allocation problems suffered by NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 970 graphics card, the wily AMD has decided that now is the best time for its rival, the Radeon R9 290X, to be given a hefty price-drop. AMD are offering the graphics card, which has comparable levels of performance to the GTX 970, for as little as $299.

AMD is advertising the move with the cheeky “4GB MEANS 4GB” slogan, a sly dig at the GTX 970 and its release issues.

amd 4gb

Source: Tech Power Up


8 Responses to “AMD Takes Advantage of GTX 970 Problems, Cuts Price of R9 290X”
  1. Zeed says:

    I honestly hope 390x will wipe the floor with Maxwell. Hate NV that they keep milking its customers. It pisses me off that they dont release full on chips like they used to. Each time you have to wait for Ti or you end up with cut second grade gpu.
    Just start selling top shit you can produce when You are asking around 500 pounds for one card FFS

    • Weston Konik says:

      to be fair, AMD has been doing something similar for a few years now with the FX 8320. 8350, 9590… they are all just a binned/overclocked 8320. At least with Nvidia, the power draw goes down, and the performance goes up, and you DO get a top teir card. with AMD, seems their cards just keep using more and more power, and getting more and more hotter.

      • James Brand says:

        Most dedicated gamers tend to not care about power consumption in my case I have a 1300W PSU so power consumption don’t mean squat to me.I’ll stick with my twin 290’s since they run nice and cool and have no restrictions on their 4GB of RAM.It speaks volumes that Nvidia for all the piles of money they make had to gimp their 970 in order to compete with the R9 290/290X on price.

        • Weston Konik says:

          you obviously don’t know what you are talking about. the slower 0.5GB was due to the way the GM204 was binned. Due to a L2 cache module having to be turned off, they had no choice but to allocate it the way they did.

          I am not saying they shouldn’t have addressed it up front, but i believe it really was a miss-communication between marketing and the designers. but in gaming, the whole memory thing isn’t even noticeable. if it WAS, then we would have seen in in the hundreds of gaming benchmarks and thousands upon thousands of customers who have it already. fact is, the 970 AND 290 will never use more than 3.5Ghz anyways, while still getting playable framerates.

          the 970 is 20% faster in MANY AAA titles when compared to the 290. and it also runs about 20 degrees cooler under load. not to mention that AMD frametimes are worse.

          • James Brand says:

            Not the case with my R9 290’s(Powercolor PCS+OC R9 290) which never go above 68C under full load and outperform every 970 Benchmark I have seen, the only edge the 970 has over my card is power consumption and with a 1300W PSU that’s not a relevant factor to me.

            The memory issue is very noticeable when gaming at 2560×1440 and above which is a major issue for a card that’s supposed to be “4K Ready”.Even though the “binning process” is a valid reason for the way the card came out it does not excuse that they failed to release this information until many millions of units were sold.

            If this had been the 1st time they had claimed “communication errors” then maybe I would give them the doubt however this is becoming their defacto excuse for every issue that comes up with their products and inaccurate benchmarks etc etc.

          • Weston Konik says:

            970 is still 8+ degrees cooler than that under load.

            Not sure what you aren’t understanding, but the whole memory thing isn’t an issue. Again, let me explain. The 970, or 290 for that matter, would not be able to use even 3.4GB of vRAM realistically. by the time you use that much memory, the framerates are unplayable, down in the teens and low 20s at best. so, by the time you back off on the setting, you are well under even 3.5GB

            Also, it does handle 4K. in fact, it beats the 290 in 4K by 2-5 frames in most of the big AAA titles.

            So, lower power, lower temps, higher performance, lower frame times.. not seeing the issue here.

            Also, 1300W is kind of ridiculous XD can’t be very efficient 😛

          • James Brand says:

            its gold rated PSU so very efficient actually and actually in 4K and 2K the 290 beats 970 especially on the higher presets it was during 4K Benchmarks that the whole 970 VRAMGate was exposed.The 290 does not have the same problem because all of its 4GB is used at full speed unlike the 970 which has 1/8th of it gimped due to the design.

            Then there’s another thing the 290 can do that the 970 cant (double point floating precision)

          • Weston Konik says:

            um…. no, the ‘RAMgate’ thing was discovered using synthetic benchmarking.

            i don’t know where your sources are, but the 970 beats the 290 in most games, even when going up in SLI/Crossfire at 4K.


            same goes for 1080p. on games where it doesn’t get the same FPS, it leads he 290 by 10-20+% in some cases.

            For a ‘gimped’ card, it sure does good against the 290. btw, PCPER tested 4K, even up against the fully utilized chip of the 980….. obviously they had to use SLI (due to what i stated before. with a single 970/290, you would never get playable framerates if you were in a scenario that used that much RAM). where is the degradation after 3.5GB? if anything, it scales even BETTER after that point.


Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!