Following up on last week’s Radeon pricing observations, it looks like there has been one final shift in Radeon R9 290 series pricing. While R9 290 has held steady around $299 with the occasional small rebate, we’ve seen R9 290X continue to fall and drop below the roughly $400 price they were going for last week. Finally stabilizing, the R9 290X has leveled out at around $370, with a handful of cards going for even a bit less than that. At $370, the R9 290X is now $30 less than the week before and this puts it just $40 over the MSRP of the GeForce GTX 970.

Though I had been expecting prices to fall further, I am a bit surprised to see R9 290X prices drop below $400 so soon. With GTX 900 series availability still being outstripped by demand, Radeon prices needed to come down from their initial MSRPs in reaction to the NVIDIA launch, though not necessarily this quickly. Regardless, this does mean that the R9 290X is in a better position than it was last week; AMD can’t completely close NVIDIA’s technology advantage gap, but from a price/performance ratio anything that brings R9 290X closer to the similarly performing GTX 970 will help AMD’s partners move cards. In the meantime it’s worth noting that AMD appears to be sticking to their guns on influencing product value through game bundles rather than engaging in a pure price war, as the $370 R9 290X goes hand-in-hand with the continued inclusion of AMD’s Never Settle Forever bundle.

Speaking of game bundles, NVIDIA sends word this afternoon that Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is now shipping for customers who received vouchers as part of NVIDIA’s recent game bundle. This bundle was never extended to the GTX 900 series – NVIDIA is clearly having no trouble selling those cards right now – but this offer is still active on the higher-end GTX 700 series cards as part of the company’s efforts to sell off the remaining GTX 770/780 inventory.

Fall 2014 GPU Pricing Comparison
AMD Price NVIDIA
Radeon R9 295X2 $1000  
  $550 GeForce GTX 980
Radeon R9 290X $370  
  $330 GeForce GTX 970
Radeon R9 290 $300  
Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 285
$250  
Radeon R9 280 $200 GeForce GTX 760
POST A COMMENT

82 Comments

View All Comments

  • anubis44 - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link

    "The 970 has lower power consumption, better overclocking, better acoustics.... it's simply better every way possible."

    Except in Company of Heroes 2, which is the only game I really ever play on the PC. However, I'm holding out for the 20nm R9 390/390X cards in early 2015 anyhow. They should blow the GTX970/980 cards completely out of the water.
    Reply
  • HJTh3Best - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    No thanks, I'm all green but not because of the Nvida brand, its because the GTX 970 consume MUCH less power than the R9 290X. Reply
  • just4U - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    According to "bench" comparisons on Anand.. it consumes less... but to say "MUCH" well.. no.. not really.. but yeah.. it's a cooler running card, that does consume less power which is always a good thing provided performance is there and it is. Reply
  • mindbomb - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    The difference is pretty significant. It's like a 100 watt difference at load. 100 watts can power like 3 computers with ulv haswells. Reply
  • przemo_li - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link

    Isn't that stock Nvidia card?

    OCed GPUs have worse pow/perf ratio. (Power consumption go up faster then frequency)
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    lol its almost 1/2 the power consumption when comparing the 290X to 970, keep in mind, AT benches are total system power. Most would consider 1/2 "MUCH". Reply
  • just4U - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link

    12watts difference at idle and 60watts in games according to the bench. That's not half Chi. Reply
  • chizow - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link

    http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1059

    290X Uber (this is what aftermarket cards are clocked at) draws 97W more in Furmark and 97W in Crysis than 970.

    Back out ~150W for the rest of the system and you see, it is about half

    (300-150)=150 and (397-150)=247
    (284-150)=134 and (381-150)=231

    "MUCH" less power. ;)
    Reply
  • just4U - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link

    no their not.. geez your taking one of the highest overclocked 290x and using it as a comparison. I am looking at stock speeds which is the baseline you should be comparing.

    Look Chi, There is no question that the 970 is a great card.. but it's not the 980. It's slower than the 780ti. "IF" you can get a 780ti for the same price (..new) it's a great deal. "IF" you can get a 290x for the same price (.. definitely new don't want a miners card) or cheaper then it's a option.

    "IF" you can get a 780 or 290 for 50-100 less.. their also great options but you'll take a 10-20% hit in performance.
    Reply
  • garbagedisposal - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link

    Your love for nvidia is so strong. You must think about their products every day before you go to sleep. What a sad existence. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now