AMD Radeon R9 380 Launched by PC OEM

[Renald]

I just think that they will allow OEM builder to rebrand their 290X with 380, but that's all. Nvidia did the same with 500M and 600M series.
The constructor could use an official chip or a rebranding, because nVidia considers that performance are identical.

If that so, we can expect a very good R9 390X (a real one )

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But he just paraphrased what HP said, "For performance, customers have the choice of up to NVIDIA GTX 980 or AMD Radeon R9 380 discrete graphics". That doesn't read as they're implied as similar, actually with HP's choice of words one might come away with just the opposite.

Honestly, AMD would have to find some "real secret sauce" (improvement) from a re-spun Hawaii Pro part to be positioned akin to the 980.

"Up to" could be limited by PSU. GTX 980 recommends 500w so R9 380 likely requires 500w as well. R9 290 recommends 750w. R9 285 recommends 500w. Rebranded/upgraded R9 285 makes sense.

He's probably mentioning this: http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-300-series-not-rebrands/

I've caught that too before. Just dunno. Have to see when they finally ship I guess.

If that is the case then it is the new core dropped down to operate under a 500w PSU.

That link points to this link which makes a pretty strong case that the R9 380 is all new. AMD has to clear its old inventory so the R9 3## (at least 380, 390, 390X) cards may be ready to ship already.

 

[Casecutter]

"Up to" could be limited by PSU. GTX 980 recommends 500w so R9 380 likely requires 500w as well. R9 290 recommends 750w. R9 285 recommends 500w. Rebranded/upgraded R9 285 makes sense.
If that is the case then it is the new core dropped down to operate under a 500w PSU.

I’ve never understood AMD's affliction to over-stating the PSU. When a 290X or a 780Ti had basically the same average and peak power, Nvidia states it as "Minimum Recommended System Power" of 600W, while AMD denotes, a PSU of 750 is recommend. It's like AMD has to shoulder the worst case scenario, like OC'n both CPU/GPU and other power sapping components, or they take the onus for someone’s crappy over-rated PSU from 2009.

It's well documented and discussed that most contemporary 550W PSU's of acceptable quality are more than satisfactory with the bulk of R9 290's. If you check Guru3D's power supply recommendation for a R9 290 DirectCU II OC Edition which has 1000Mhz boost; he's indicating for the average system a 550~600 Watt PSU is acceptable.

Interestingly an OEM as HP would value price, power, heat/thermals, within that chassis build, while maintaining strong performance/value. This might leave one to reason a R9 380 as acceptable on power/heat and priced for HP to consider it even over the 970, or on par to what Nvidia was willing to provide though not at as an attractive price.

Although the flip side, AMD couldn't best the 980's thermal/power envelope, and HP is willing take Nvidia pricing of the 980 to provide the "utmost" that chassis/PSU can maintain.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I’ve never understood AMD's affliction to over-stating the PSU. When a 290X or a 780Ti had basically the same average and peak power, Nvidia states it as "Minimum Recommended System Power" of 600W, while AMD denotes, a PSU of 750 is recommend. It's like AMD has to shoulder the worst case scenario, like OC'n both CPU/GPU and other power sapping components, or they take the onus for someone’s crappy over-rated PSU from 2009.

It's well documented and discussed that most contemporary 550W PSU's of acceptable quality are more than satisfactory with the bulk of R9 290's. If you check Guru3D's power supply recommendation for a R9 290 DirectCU II OC Edition which has 1000Mhz boost; he's indicating for the average system a 550~600 Watt PSU is acceptable.

Interestingly an OEM as HP would value price, power, heat/thermals, within that chassis build, while maintaining strong performance/value. This might leave one to reason a R9 380 as acceptable on power/heat and priced for HP to consider it even over the 970, or on par to what Nvidia was willing to provide though not at as an attractive price.

Although the flip side, AMD couldn't best the 980's thermal/power envelope, and HP is willing take Nvidia pricing of the 980 to provide the "utmost" that chassis/PSU can maintain.

Yeah people have always overstated AMD's power usage for whatever reason (And ignored Nvidia's when the 580 was using over 300w).

Kepler was no more efficient than GCN (Even 1.0).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's no standard for measuring maximum power consumption.

 

[Casecutter]

There's no standard for measuring maximum power consumption.

Exactly, recommend PSU, TDP's from manufacture can't be collated. Reviewers pulling power with a Kill-a-Watt from the wall that take snap-shots of the total systems maximum draw especially from one game, at 1080p, for 3 minutes, denotes little if anything anymore considering the sophisticated boost and power monitoring that is now part of GPU’s.

There needs to be a "standard" (aka CAFA mpg) that runs several titles over a 10 min loop and logged with high-level equipment. While Tom's employs a logging oscilloscope they seem to mess around with test computers configuration and testing parameters (title, time etc.), so the data isn’t organized to correlate results from other testing they do.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728-4.html

 

[HumanSmoke]

I just think that they will allow OEM builder to rebrand their 290X with 380, but that's all.

Not quite...
The R9 series:
R9 380 is a straight up rebrand of the R9 285
R9 370 is a rebranded R7 265 (HD 7850) with a 50MHz clock increase
R9 360 is a rebranded R7 260 (HD 7790) with a 60MHz clock increase
The R7 series:
R7 350 is straight up rebrand of the R7 250
R7 340 is a R7 250 with a 270 MHz lower clock
The R5 series:
R5 340 is a R7 240 with a 45MHz clock increase
R5 330 is a R5 240 with a 75MHz clock increase

 

[nunyabuisness]

Not quite...
The R9 series:
R9 380 is a straight up rebrand of the R9 285
R9 370 is a rebranded R7 265 (HD 7850) with a 50MHz clock increase
R9 360 is a rebranded R7 260 (HD 7790) with a 60MHz clock increase
The R7 series:
R7 350 is straight up rebrand of the R7 250
R7 340 is a R7 250 with a 270 MHz lower clock
The R5 series:
R5 340 is a R7 240 with a 45MHz clock increase
R5 330 is a R5 240 with a 75MHz clock increase

That is a very sad and disappointing lineup