ASUS Radeon R9 380X Strix 4GB

[rruff]

Send me to the sites your on, I cannot find anything close to those prices even with rebates!

Search Jet.com and use 20NOW for 20% off if you are a 1st time buyer, or SHOPWITH15 for 15% off if you aren't, and waive free returns and use debit for extra off. ASUS and MSI have $20 rebates on this level of card in Nov. I ordered a EVGA GTX 950 for $108 a couple days ago, no rebate. Their prices fluctuate, so it's best to keep checking.

Also look on slickdeals/hotdeals/computer. There is currently a Zotac GTX 970 on ebay sold via Newegg for $250 and has a game you can flip easily for $30. No rebate.

 

[Luka KLLP]

There was never any chance of a fully-enabled Tonga beating a GTX 970.

True, I guess I kinda overhyped this card

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

for the 1st time I'm seeing AMD's refreshed card in a new limelight. This card is exceptionally decent. peak usage of under 240W means that AMD got the design right this time, though the use of Elpida instead of Samsung (aka Hynix) is just a small setback to what it's suppose to be a very highly competitive sub-$250 class pixel pusher.

 

[geon2k2]

I was maybe considering this as an upgrade from my 280x, but it seems like the 280x performs better in BF4 at 1080p.

This was not the purpose of this card, even when they launched 285, the goal was to get pretty much the same performance as previous 280 generation, that's why the name was in the middle of those 2, while having lower production cost. And this card does exactly that, gets the same performance with 256 bus, instead of 384 bit, which is a good achievement from AMD. Also brings more recent GCN, with HW decode for 4k, Freesync, True Audio and other things.

 

[SonicZap]

It looks like a very good card, probably the best AMD release for a while despite low-ish efficiency. It doesn't get close to the GTX 970, but has no problem beating the GTX 960, and it's also decently faster than the closest AMD card (R9 380). Definitely captures its price range of 200-250$.

It'll be interesting to see if Nvidia responds to this card, it's likely going to be popular if AMD is just able to produce enough of these. Too bad I already finished Witcher 3 so I don't need a new card right now Otherwise this would be my choice.

 

[eodeo]

I love the new look! Had to log in to chime in.

Also, Toms Hardware says that adding a second monitor does not increase 13w idle power draw. Which one of you is wrong?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-380x-nitro,4361-6.html

At idle, AMD's Radeon R9 380X consumes approximately 13W, and this number stays essentially the same when two monitors are connected.

 

[W1zzard]

I love the new look! Had to log in to chime in.

Also, Toms Hardware says that adding a second monitor does not increase 13w idle power draw. Which one of you is wrong?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-380x-nitro,4361-6.html

At idle, AMD's Radeon R9 380X consumes approximately 13W, and this number stays essentially the same when two monitors are connected.

Maybe unchanged if resolution and timings are exactly the same

 

[Steevo]

So 7970/280X performance with 33% lower power draw.


Which is much faster than the 960..... and yet assholes still whine about their mange not getting green cream filling.

 

[rruff]

Which is much faster than the 960..... and yet assholes still whine about their mange not getting green cream filling.

The 380x beats the 960, but by very little. Comparing pseudo base clocks, the 380x is 14% ahead (note the listing for the 960 in this test is incorrect. look at previous tests). I just checked all 6 of TPU's 960 tests, and on average they OC to a performance level that is 20% above base. The 280x Strix in this article OC'd to 14% above, which seems typical of AMD cards lately. They push them closer to their max out the door, while the Maxwell cards OC well above base clocks. So in real life the 380x is about ~7% faster.

 

[Steevo]

The 380x beats the 960, but by very little. Comparing pseudo base clocks, the 380x is 14% ahead (note the listing for the 960 in this test is incorrect. look at previous tests). I just checked all 6 of TPU's 960 tests, and on average they OC to a performance level that is 20% above base. "Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 18.3%." EXCEPT THEY DIDN"T!!! The 280x Strix in this article OC'd to 14% above, which seems typical of AMD cards lately. They push them closer to their max out the door, while the Maxwell cards OC well above base clocks. So in real life the 380x is about ~7% faster.

Do you really feel the need for attention by making shit up?

Maybe we didn't read the same review, or see the same graph? Here it is in case you missed it, since it was hidden in the back of the review.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png

25% is only a little huh? The number of users that don't overclock is very high compared to our community that does. My brother doesn't. But still, overclocked to overclocked the AMD card wins. So lets see, thats a win out of the box, a win when overclocked, and can be had for less than a 960.... so. **EDIT The prices have dropped on Newegg for a 960 to $169.00....**


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/30.html

14.4% performance increase, still well behind the 25%, plus the 9% overclocking http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/26.html provided, making it a whopping 19.6% faster still..... But I get it, maths are hard yo....

No go drink your green juice from the phallic bottle you love in some other corner.

This also doesn't take into account any voltage tuning you can do, where the 380X responds well to voltage scaling.

 

[rruff]

25% is only a little huh? The number of users that don't overclock is very high compared to our community that does. My brother doesn't. But still, overclocked to overclocked the AMD card wins. So lets see, thats a win out of the box, a win when overclocked, and can be had for less than a 960.... so.

Maybe you didn't read my post. The numbers listed for the 960 are incorrect. And the MSRP for the 380x is currently $30 higher than the 960. You can buy a 960 for $126 right now if you want.

 

[xorbe]

It has been noted around the web that TPU's chart seems to suddenly show the 960 a bit lower, tied with 270X. That's what rruff is getting at. I'm too lazy to verify this though. I did notice that other reviews didn't paint the 380X as 29% ahead of the 960 on average.

I really hate boost and boost min specs, and all the wiggle room it has granted reviewers to play with the numbers.

 

[Steevo]

Well, lets use Tom's Hardware 380X review and one of TPU's 960 reviews.

960 in Shadow of Mordor 44FPS Avg /TPU 47FPS AVG (New review 960 gets 49)
960 in BF4 51FPS Avg/TPU 51FPS Avg (New review 960 gets 50FPS)
960 in Tomb Raider 61FPS Avg/ TPU 39.1 (New review does not include this game)
960 in Bioshock Infinite 75FPS Avg/ TPU 93.9 FPS Avg (New review does not include this game)


Wait.... Its with 4X AA.... when the TPU reviews show the 960 failing, indicating a lack of bandwidth...... in the Toms's hardware review on Bioshock they used ultra presets.



The biggest inconsistency I can find is GTA 5. Remove that one game and the performance is still very close to the same. If you read the notes, W1zz is pushing the highest quality settings in every game, and that is what causes the 960 to choke, lack of Vmem and bandwidth in GTA5...

"

• All video card results are obtained on this exact system with exactly the same configuration.
  
• All games are set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise.
  
• AA and AF are applied via in-game settings, not via the driver's control panel.

Each game is tested at these screen resolutions:

• 1600x900: Common resolution for most smaller flatscreens and laptops today (17" - 19").
  
• 1920x1080: Most common widescreen resolution for larger displays (22" - 26").
  
• 2560x1440: Highest possible 16:9 resolution for commonly available displays (27"-32").
  
• 3840x2160: 4K Ultra HD resolution, available on the latest high-end monitors.

 

[rruff]

Well, lets use Tom's Hardware 380X review and one of TPU's 960 reviews.

What are those numbers comparing exactly? You are showing 960 vs 960... for what reason?

 

[Steevo]

What are those numbers comparing exactly? You are showing 960 vs 960... for what reason?

did you bother to read Xorbe's comment?


I provided exactly what he was "too lazy to verify this though".


TPU's numbers are spot on, other review sites fuck with settings to make sure that most cards end up performing the same, showing no weakness between them.

 

[manofthem]

Great review as always. The cooler on this card is beast, 29dba at load!

Also I do like the newer look of the graphs, nice and classy

 

[xorbe]

See I actually have an issue with those results, because people with $165-$199 cards realistically won't be playing on ultra settings. The benchmark results aren't real-world usable. But I realize it is a lot of time to test X games * Y cards * Z settings, so what'cha gonna do.

 

[Steevo]

See I actually have an issue with those results, because people with $165-$199 cards realistically won't be playing on ultra settings. The benchmark results aren't real-world usable. But I realize it is a lot of time to test X games * Y cards * Z settings, so what'cha gonna do.

Then it needs to be said that a 960 is NOT a 1080 card, its less than, and for a whole $30 more you CAN have a 1080 card with more of everything, memory, performance, overclocks. And your videos/media look better too.


On that same note I could say that since a 380X isn't a 4K card the fact it doesn't have HDMI 2.0 is not a issue so it should have a higher score, like 9.5.

 

[rruff]

did you bother to read Xorbe's comment?

Yes I did. Your post is irrelevant though. TPU's 960 numbers on this test don't agree with TPU's 960 numbers on prior tests. It's a typo.

 

[rruff]

for a whole $30 more you CAN have a 1080 card with more of everything, memory, performance, overclocks.

Overclocks? Show me. Note that the Sapphire that Tom's tested wouldn't OC at all without throttling.

 

[xorbe]

Then it needs to be said that a 960 is NOT a 1080 card

What? I'm using one at 2560 at reduced settings. Ultra is for benchmark articles. Of course the 960 does 1080 fine, now you're just out there. Not replying to any more troll replies.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

I just dun get some ppl who thinks the benches are a little biased... Man, if u wanna see how good is the card, you would already stress test it with each game at it's highest possible settings as a base to see how good a pixel pusher goes, both stock & OCed. Also, the 960 is a budget card that replaces the 750Ti due to it's shortcomings (lack of 6-pin connector, capped power limits etc), so it's not a surprise to see the R9 380X to be a faster card than the 960 across most benches at popular resolution e.g 1080p, of course it can't beat the GTX970 which is still a killer card up to 1440p & much more expensive than the 380X.

 

[SNM]

So GTX 970 is still topping the list in mid range.....

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

it's an OP card after all... for $290. Once OCed, it's as fast as a base GTX980.

 

[Frick]

You can buy a 960 for $126 right now if you want.

Irrelevant. The only sane way to compare prices is either MSRP or go to someone like newegg.com and disregard the rebates and deals.

The funny thing is people will still buy high end 960's instead of ... well anything really.