I know the graphics card debate has been done to death and consensus seems to be the R9 290x is the best all round performer, but system builders are no longer supplying these (or at least Scan isn't). So, anyone any experience of the 3xx series? Are these the cards to buy for a new system?
Like Oldsmoke says. The 390x seems to an optimization of the 290x design that runs cools and has better performance. The Fury X with HBM, and 64 compute units vs 44, is the revolutionary design in the 3xx release of cards.
Indeed I'd read that thread and that had a lot to do with me concluding the R9 290x was the card to go for. However the only reference to the 390 was JR's
"AMD just came out with the Radeon R9 390X 8GB! The reviews say it's a monster. ;-)"
"The reviews" aren't necessarily reviewing it in terms of Vegas, which is why I was asking.
However OldSmoke and astar have set my mind at rest that it is likely to be at least as suitable as teh 290.
I have an R9 390. It makes timeline preview of FX/compositing smooth, but is not much benefit on rendering. It almost certainly COULD be of great benefit in rendering, but Sony does not really support GPU-assisted rendering as they suggest.
@IAM4UK That's a shame. Improved timeline performance will certainly be useful as I do quite a bit of compositing with kids, green screens and animated backgrounds (though I'm doing more of that in HitFilm nowadays) but disappointing about the rendering. I may save half the cost of the card and go for the 380.
@Nick Hope I'd be glad to report back but as this would be a wholesale upgrade form me (i7 2600K -> i7 6700K, 8GB RAM ->16GB RAM, 7200rpm HD -> SSD for project files, I doubt I'll be able to quantify in any meaningful way how much of a difference the graphics card makes.