Back to Article

  • jeraldtapz - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I was happy to see a card from Amd at the $100 price point but i am a bit disappointed that it is a rebrand. I am pretty excited about seeing how the gtx 750 will be priced by Nvidia. Reply
  • yannigr - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Unfortunately we are talking about Nvidia and that means usually higher prices than what we would like. I hope they prove me wrong.
    Personally I would expect 750 from $115 to $130. Not lower.
  • owan - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I get the feeling of disappointment at seeing something again, but what could you possibly be expecting in this segment. Look at where it slots into the market. The R7 260 has 768 SP's. If you're AMD, you're going to slot in under that, you've only got so much granularity, and you've already got a GPU designed on roughly the same architecture (GCN 1.1 vs 1.0 isn't exactly revolutionary) that has 640 SP's. Seems just about perfect to me. What would a new design bring? True Audio and a couple other minor checkbox features at most, maybe even a few shaders less to give more of a reason for the 260 to exist and save some die space. But in the end, it was almost certainly way more expensive to create a one-off design to slot between 2 low end gpu's just to hit a pice point than it is to re-use an existing die Reply
  • takeship - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    At least a move from GCN 1 to 1.1, and the additional of the finer granularity voltage regulation would have been appreciated. Mind you, I'm not upset that they've rebranded lower end 2012 tech for this card, but that nearly the entire R7&R9 lines are rebrands. The 280x & 270x could have really benefitied from a GCN 1.1/1.2 move and the finer clock switching. Reply
  • Solid State Brain - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    Apparently with GCN 1.1 AMD video cards energy consumption when more than one display is connected to the videocard (and enabled) still sucks, mainly because memory clocks don't get decreased in such scenario.

    Too few websites test video card consumption with 2 or more display, which is a pity.
  • owan - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    The thing is, a move from GCN 1.0 to 1.1 wouldn't have added much but slightly lower power consumption and a couple other minor features, but would probably have involved a non-trivial amount of engineering. When you're working with limited engineering resources it just doesn't make sense to spend it tweaking existing dies to very limited effect Reply
  • Darksurf - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    I think its a good thing. The rebrand isn't so bad with the level up on GCN! Now I'll have decent card to crossfire with my AMD A10-7850K APU! Reply
  • stickmansam - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    What I want is the R9 280 (7950) to take the $300-$250 segement Reply
  • Beany2013 - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Me too - I have a 7770 2gb and I'm looking for an upgrade. Buggered if I'm spending £200+ though! Reply
  • marc1000 - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I knew it, I knew it! "X" and "non-X" versions for all gpus! I knew this was AMD plan all the time. they just kept the secret a little longer. Reply
  • yannigr - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Yes but 250 should have been 240X. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Nope - just drop that X and use the last digit in increaments of 5 or so. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I agree. While we're at it, get rid of the "R9, R7" business.

    The R7 250X should just be a 255.
  • nathanddrews - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    The entire R-prefix is pointless, just like GT vs GTX. There is no R5 290X or GTX 730. The GHzE, Boost, Ti, etc. suffixes all indicate something of value, but the prefixes don't do anything.

    Ultimately, I don't have a degree in marketing or business, so I am not qualified to make the decision anyway. C'est la vie.
  • Death666Angel - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Huh, no? I mean, the prefixes are stupid and everything should be done by simple numerals. But GTX > GT in terms of performance and R9 > R7. So they do do something. Just something that could be done better by keeping to 785 / 780 / 770 for nVidia or 295 / 290 / 285 / 280 / 270 etc. for AMD. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    In the old days we had the 7800 GT vs 7800 GTX, but now we have GTX 780 vs GTX 780 Ti. The GTX prefix doesn't mean anything anymore because we know everything we need to know from the model number and its suffix. Likewise, the model numbers of AMD's offerings (2xx) do the same, with higher numbers and the suffix determining superiority.

    I can't say I've ever heard someone say, "I'd like a GT-class card" or "I'd like an R5-class card" because there many cards within each classification (whatever that classification means). What exactly does the general classification prefix tell us that is worth knowing on any sort of practical level? Does it matter to OEMs?

    We don't have to agree on this, it just seems weird to me that these prefixes are still being used.
  • Death666Angel - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I was disagreeing with your distinction between suffixes and prefixes. I think both are useless in a perfect world. Alas, they are both used to promote different levels of performance. nVidia still has GT cards available, which are their lower performing ones. Not saying they use it well, just saying that it is not a pointless prefix because all have them, they don't all have it.

    And I have never heard anyone say "I want an -X card" or "I want a -Ti card", so what's the point?
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    On the contrary, you must use the suffix in order to properly distinguish between the cards - 280 vs 280X, 780 vs 780Ti. Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Monday, February 17, 2014 - link

    And the OP is saying you wouldn't need the suffix (or the prefix) if you used different numbers for each card. Thus, the overly complicated R# ###[X] label becomes a simple 3 digit number:

    R5 250 --> 250
    R5 250X --> 255
    R7 260 --> 260
    R7 260X --> 265
    R7 270 --> 270
    R7 270X --> 275
    R9 280 --> 280
    R9 280X --> 285
    R9 290 --> 290
    R9 290X --> 295

    RADEON ### is much nicer, cleaner, easier-to-understand.
  • PEJUman - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I think the R9 came from 'Radeon 9000' series, they decided to keep some familiarity to the name for layman who expected larger is better. the Radeon 8000 series were OEM only re-brand.

    I agree that they should just call these guys 290x, 290, 280x, etc with the X assigned to performance/un-cut GPU.

    This whole rebrand BS is officially crazy. Before there is some logical 'decoder ring' to the name: say 55xx to 64xx, increase the gen by 1, drop the family by 1. Signifying the rebranded 'performance' comparison have dropped in the new generation cards.
    But now all of this have gone wacky, no rhyme or reason beside the market spot pricing.
  • yannigr - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    If you do that you are going to end up with a 250X model with more shaders than 255. Reply
  • yannigr - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    To be more precise the models should have been
    240 : 320 sps
    240X : 384 sps
    250 : 512 sps
    250X : 640 sps

    Now we have
    240 : 320 sps
    250 : 384 sps
    250X : 640 sps

    No room for a 240X, no room for a 512 sps model.
  • Flunk - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    You're assuming that this is linear and has to make sense. the 240x could have 320 cores but a 10% higher clock. Reply
  • yannigr - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    Yes I thought that about 240X, and yes I assume that when you change the naming after so many years you will try, in the beginning at least, to use it in a way that makes sense.

    If 240X is just a speed bump at least 240 and 240X will be close in performance something that it is also true for 260 and 260X, 270 and 270X, 290 and 290X, maybe latter for 280 and 280X. But 250 and 250X are just two models with huge performance difference that can't be justified just with an X and looking at the other cards.

    AMD it seems that they didn't wanted to introduce the R7 series without a 250 model, so they really created a mess by baptizing the 240X as 250 a few months ago. That's what I think. For some reason they couldn't give a 512 sps model back then but at the same time their marketing department needed a 250 model.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I think AMD screwed up big time here. the 250 has 384 cores, the 250x has 640.
    but the a10-7850 has 512 cores!
    so, if you wanted dual graphics, you either have to waste part of the 250x or hold back the integrated gpu with the 250.
    good going there amd...
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Kaveri only has 8 ROPs anyhow. So no discrete GPU is going to be a perfect match in terms of the number of hardware units available. Reply
  • blzd - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Not to mention the whole graphics memory side of the story. Even the best DDR3 will struggle to keep up with GDDR5. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now