Looking forward to product benchmarks. I jumped and bought a 285 a few months ago on a good sale with an additional $30.00 rebate. Made my card about $70.00 cheaper than the 380x, but I would love to see the actual numbers on the performance difference. Please, when you bench these, make sure the 285 is thrown in the mix!
The problem is the 10% performance increase comes at a 30% price increase. Unless this card is $200 I don't see it being worth it. I mean just spend $50 more and get the 390 which is substantially faster.
"That AMD is launching it now is somewhat arbitrary – we haven’t seen anything new in the $200 to $500 range since the GTX 960 launched in January and AMD could have launched it at any time since – and along those lines AMD tells us that they haven’t seen a need to launch this part until "
<20% dGPU market share in back to back quarters isn't arbitrary
My guess would be that the delay was yield related. There's no reason not to offer a full die model at or shortly after launch unless you're not getting enough perfect chips to meet demand.
Nvidia has had no problem supplying massive numbers of GM204 and GM206 based cards into the channel, I'd be surprised if AMD wasn't having extraordinarily high yields right off the bat. I suspect the reason may be financial, Tonga has a much larger die than the GM206 it just edges out performance wise and margins may be so tight they're willing to cede market share in this segment.
It's not a yield issue. It probably has to do with originally they didn't launch because to many 280x in the channel. Than after those mostly got cleared out they could wait a few months and pull in some extra dollars using the 380. Which launched at $200 for 2GB and about 230 for 4GB.
The fact that the 380 is the fastest card until you get up to the 970/390 hence AMD has no competition there also made a delay entirely possible.
I generally agree with "there's no bad product, just bad pricing" but Tonga appears out of position in the market and that may be part of why this product hasn't launched until now as a gap may not exist. The GTX 960 is the value leader in the cut-throat <$200 1080p gaming market (and shooting up the Steam survey charts) while the marginal performance improvements offered by the 285/380 make the slightly higher price and power requirements difficult for consumers to justify.
The 1440p branding is truly wishful thinking even with the fully enabled die of the 380X, gaming consumers who spend $300-700 on a 1440p display aren't terribly price sensitive and won't pair it with anything below a 970/390 GPU
380 is about 10% faster, plus nice additions like FreeSync (no, GSync doesn't compare to it, as monitors are also more expensive) that is hardly "marginal".
Nah, it wasn't yields - not on that mature process.
It's a combination of two factors.
The first is that Apple bought a lot of them. If you have the option to sell a chip to Apple, you better sell it to Apple.
The second was the 290 dropping in price so much meant that there was simply no room for a fully enabled Tonga part. It would either have to be stupidly cheap or else everyone would just get a 290.
And why would you sell your chips cheaply when Apple is willing to buy?
But now the 290 is falling out of style and there's now room for a profitably priced fully enabled Tonga.
I disagree with it having anything to do with Apple. Everyone seems to agree that yields are Very high (for 28nm) so AMD was paying for a die size with 32 CU (compute units) but only enabling 28 of them and selling the chips as R9 285s and R9 380s. So obviously they were paying for a large die but than cutting it down for lower performance. Now I am not saying I know as to why they did this, they must have Some kind of business reasoning behind it, but I do not think Apple had anything to do with it.
"... they haven’t seen a need to launch this part until"
Exactly. Better sell those chips for significantly less money in cut-down versions and don't tempt any customers with offers too good. That would put the current average selling price and market share numbers at risk.
I'm definitely interested in how this card stacks up. The 7970 has been my go-to AMD card for quite a while; it is nice to have a potential successor with better performance and lower power usage. I am also very interested to see if the release of the fully enabled Tonga could open the door to unlocking the partially disabled 285 and 380.
"... the architectural and clockspeed similarities of R9 380X mean that it’s essentially a fourth revision of this product. Which is to say that you’re looking at performance a percent or two better than the 7970, well-tread territory at this point."
Don't waste your money, wait for Pascal and Arctic Islands.
Looking at the benchmarks just added to the comparison tool, I have to agree with you. From the description, I thought it would regularly beat the 7970 (if only by a small margin) and use quite a bit less power. While it does use maybe 20w less under load, it doesn't have any clear advantage over the 7970-it actually has slightly worse performance in quite a few tests.
Really the lack of performance vs the 7970 is the least of its problems right now since you can get either an R9 290 or GTX 970 for pretty much the same price or less, both of which thoroughly trounce the 380X.
When are we going to see some 14/16 nm FinFET magic? Pretty much just waiting for that (seems like AMD is as well). We've been stuck on 28 nm forever. I'm expecting big things!
The $200 bracket is somewhat tempting for my however-old 1GB Radeon 7850, but 16nm GPUs are so close I think it probably makes sense to hold off for now, right? When are they actually expected to hit market, 1H or 2H of 2016?
If you game with headphones or with speakers turned up, do not mind the extra noise levels, do not care that a card was designed to operate at 95C, you can get a PowerColor R9 290 for about $160ish:
It's going to take a while before a 16nm card can deliver R9 290's level of performance for just $160. If you need the extra performance now, grab that 290, and then resell it in 15-18 months and buy a 16nm card when it's much cheaper. Chances are NV/AMD will split the next generation by first launching a mid-range marketed as flagship for $550-600 and then follow-up with the real flagship towards the end of 2016/1H of 2017. That's why buying a stop-gap 290 for $160 is a brilliant strategy right now bearing in mind that it does run hot and loud.
Can't wait to see your guys review on this. Also, any chance we will be getting a GTX 970/960/950 review? Actually, even if you guys can just test, because missing so many relevant cards in the 2015 GPU Bench really sucks, as Bench has always been my go to for comparison for tech.
Some tech products are just pure legend, Nehalem 920 (mine fried this year), SB 2400? AMD 7970 and 5870? I haven't had any Nvidia cards since Geforce FX (5600) but the 980Ti was perfectly executed so I expect users will be holding onto it for a very good while....
You can't attribute merits to a meh card when its successors are even worse than it. What 7970 was at the time was sub average. What it is now is even less than sub average. If you have not noticed the market went on without looking back at those sub par products which in fact today costs 1/4 of what they did and which halved AMD market share.
I'm sure I've complained about this before, but I really don't like that AMD claims that anything above a 390 is good for gaming at 4K. No single-card solution from either GPU company gives good performance at 4K. I don't think any of the games in Bench can hit 4K/60 (there may be one, I didn't go through every game) on any card and even the flagships struggle to maintain a solid 4K/30.
I know AMD isn't lying (I'm sure a three year old game or a 2D game could be played at 4K60), but it's still annoying to keep seeing "recommended for 4K" completely unqualified.
@ cfenton I'm run wittcher 3, medium to high settings, on an asus 4k @30fps+ on a 290 oc card, i7-3770k, 16 gigs 2400 memory. I get a FEW stutters, but far from making the game unplayable. Benchmarks are only the tip of what any piece of hardware can do. AMD isn't claiming MAX resolution, just that their games can run 4k. Which is true, and at that massive resolution, even medium quality settings are fricken spectacular for most modern games, way better looking than max settings on my 27" 1090p tv.
However, it isn't really overpriced against the 960. R9 380X is almost 30% faster and based on preliminary benchmarks of DX12 (Fable Legends), it will beat 960 in DX12 games too. I agree that this card would have been a sure winner at $199 but 960 is far behind it.
Looks nice, this is the one I was waiting for, as back when the 390 launched, it was still $320, and full Tonga seemed like it was the best bang/budget. But now that 390's are cheaper (and there are still 290's available) I may just see if I can get a good deal on the short (10") Gigabyte 390 during a holiday sale.
That said, for people who want the ultimate 1080p card, this may be it. Good upgrade for 760 and 7850 users.
Nice deal! Add a filler and $15 off $15 Visa Chase Freedom checkout or $25 off $200 AMEX Newegg promotion and it's even cheaper than $180. Unbeatable value.
Not worth it to buy a video card until AMD/Nvidia's Greenland/Pascal coming out next year. The jump in manufacturing process from 28nm to 14nm is huge. There are already rumors/specs out there stating transistor count is going to be around 15-16billion compared to the 8 from Fury/980Ti with HBM 2.0 memory reaching the 16gb+ range (rumored up to 32gb for workstation cards). 4k gaming is literally on the cusp of the next GPU release so don't bother upgrading anything until then. Really excited for next year!
Depends, a $160ish R9 290 is a stellar deal as per the above by Communism. It's going to be a while before we have a $159 16nm card that matches it in performance. R9 290 is 2.6-2.7X faster than the GTX750Ti. That means if NV prices 750Ti's Pascal successor at $149, it will have no hope to even come close to an R9 290. Also, it's still months until we will see 16nm GPUs. A lot of older gamers play games over the winter season (November->March) since they aren't in school/university with exams :)
I do agree with you that next gen sounds exciting but be prepared to pay for that extra performance.
The price will be higher if AMD can't get anything good as they did with these pathetic GCN generations. The GTX750Ti which mounts one of the smallest GPU nvidia has ever produced is sold at that price because AMD can compete with it only with a GPU which is double as big and twice as power hungry. If nvidia comes out with a Pascal architecture that is just a bit better than Maxwell, AMD must come out with an architecture that is 1.5x as fast for equivalent die space (so about 3 times what is now) to be competitive. Or the R9 290 will be the best for price card for loooong time. Which however is really far to put it as the best card to be purchased, price apart.
It will likely enable some rather insane chips, yes. But $/transistor hasn't scaled quite that well so I expect Titan-plus pricing on the high end. And we'll probably see single cards pushing the ATX spec to the max again.
The release is for Holiday season, but is there any actual release date (other than sometime before Black Friday)? So far on all the American major venders (newegg, tiger direct, amazon, superbiiz to name a few) don't even have a place holder for this card and all have higher prices than the Fall/Winter 2015 GPU Pricing comparison in the article. In some cases quit a bit higher. Unless we are going to see a bit of a price drop across the board, from current prices, the 380x will more than likely be a bit higher... maybe in the $250 range. Only a week until BF, doesn't seem like this card is going to shake up a whole lot of anything.
I'm just looking at my R9 380 box that arrived today (Black Friday - Sapphire Nitro 4GB)... My estimation is that I got it with like $100 cheaper that what 380x will launch in my country, so it wasn't a bad deal after all. Will replace a 7850 2GB that will go into the kid's PC.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
52 Comments
Back to Article
jardows2 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Looking forward to product benchmarks. I jumped and bought a 285 a few months ago on a good sale with an additional $30.00 rebate. Made my card about $70.00 cheaper than the 380x, but I would love to see the actual numbers on the performance difference. Please, when you bench these, make sure the 285 is thrown in the mix!Flunk - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
the 380 and 285 are functionally the same, so the 380x should be about 10% faster (According to this article).Samus - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
The problem is the 10% performance increase comes at a 30% price increase. Unless this card is $200 I don't see it being worth it. I mean just spend $50 more and get the 390 which is substantially faster.T1beriu - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
The VRAM also doubles to 4GB.drwhoglius - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
"That AMD is launching it now is somewhat arbitrary – we haven’t seen anything new in the $200 to $500 range since the GTX 960 launched in January and AMD could have launched it at any time since – and along those lines AMD tells us that they haven’t seen a need to launch this part until "<20% dGPU market share in back to back quarters isn't arbitrary
http://jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-rep...
DanNeely - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
My guess would be that the delay was yield related. There's no reason not to offer a full die model at or shortly after launch unless you're not getting enough perfect chips to meet demand.drwhoglius - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Nvidia has had no problem supplying massive numbers of GM204 and GM206 based cards into the channel, I'd be surprised if AMD wasn't having extraordinarily high yields right off the bat. I suspect the reason may be financial, Tonga has a much larger die than the GM206 it just edges out performance wise and margins may be so tight they're willing to cede market share in this segment.testbug00 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
It's not a yield issue.It probably has to do with originally they didn't launch because to many 280x in the channel. Than after those mostly got cleared out they could wait a few months and pull in some extra dollars using the 380. Which launched at $200 for 2GB and about 230 for 4GB.
The fact that the 380 is the fastest card until you get up to the 970/390 hence AMD has no competition there also made a delay entirely possible.
drwhoglius - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
I generally agree with "there's no bad product, just bad pricing" but Tonga appears out of position in the market and that may be part of why this product hasn't launched until now as a gap may not exist. The GTX 960 is the value leader in the cut-throat <$200 1080p gaming market (and shooting up the Steam survey charts) while the marginal performance improvements offered by the 285/380 make the slightly higher price and power requirements difficult for consumers to justify.The 1440p branding is truly wishful thinking even with the fully enabled die of the 380X, gaming consumers who spend $300-700 on a 1440p display aren't terribly price sensitive and won't pair it with anything below a 970/390 GPU
medi03 - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
280x is about 15-20% faster than 960, while being on par in power consumption (e.g. 229w vs 199w total power in Metro Last Night)http://www.hardwareheaven.com/2015/11/xfx-amd-rade...
380 is about 10% faster, plus nice additions like FreeSync (no, GSync doesn't compare to it, as monitors are also more expensive) that is hardly "marginal".
cygnus1 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Or because you're selling every single one to Apple...AS118 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
That's probably about the size of it. They do have to give the best ones to Apple.ImSpartacus - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Nah, it wasn't yields - not on that mature process.It's a combination of two factors.
The first is that Apple bought a lot of them. If you have the option to sell a chip to Apple, you better sell it to Apple.
The second was the 290 dropping in price so much meant that there was simply no room for a fully enabled Tonga part. It would either have to be stupidly cheap or else everyone would just get a 290.
And why would you sell your chips cheaply when Apple is willing to buy?
But now the 290 is falling out of style and there's now room for a profitably priced fully enabled Tonga.
SunnyNW - Sunday, November 22, 2015 - link
I disagree with it having anything to do with Apple. Everyone seems to agree that yields are Very high (for 28nm) so AMD was paying for a die size with 32 CU (compute units) but only enabling 28 of them and selling the chips as R9 285s and R9 380s. So obviously they were paying for a large die but than cutting it down for lower performance. Now I am not saying I know as to why they did this, they must have Some kind of business reasoning behind it, but I do not think Apple had anything to do with it.MrSpadge - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
"... they haven’t seen a need to launch this part until"Exactly. Better sell those chips for significantly less money in cut-down versions and don't tempt any customers with offers too good. That would put the current average selling price and market share numbers at risk.
SunnyNW - Sunday, November 22, 2015 - link
LOL. Exactly^zeeBomb - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
R9 my body can't handle 380X.calculagator - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
I'm definitely interested in how this card stacks up. The 7970 has been my go-to AMD card for quite a while; it is nice to have a potential successor with better performance and lower power usage.I am also very interested to see if the release of the fully enabled Tonga could open the door to unlocking the partially disabled 285 and 380.
The_Assimilator - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
"... the architectural and clockspeed similarities of R9 380X mean that it’s essentially a fourth revision of this product. Which is to say that you’re looking at performance a percent or two better than the 7970, well-tread territory at this point."Don't waste your money, wait for Pascal and Arctic Islands.
calculagator - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Looking at the benchmarks just added to the comparison tool, I have to agree with you. From the description, I thought it would regularly beat the 7970 (if only by a small margin) and use quite a bit less power. While it does use maybe 20w less under load, it doesn't have any clear advantage over the 7970-it actually has slightly worse performance in quite a few tests.Really the lack of performance vs the 7970 is the least of its problems right now since you can get either an R9 290 or GTX 970 for pretty much the same price or less, both of which thoroughly trounce the 380X.
3DoubleD - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
When are we going to see some 14/16 nm FinFET magic? Pretty much just waiting for that (seems like AMD is as well). We've been stuck on 28 nm forever. I'm expecting big things!darkchazz - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Agreed.It's the one reason I haven't yet upgraded from the trusty Kepler 680.
Fleeb - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
GPUs = half node.Drumsticks - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
The $200 bracket is somewhat tempting for my however-old 1GB Radeon 7850, but 16nm GPUs are so close I think it probably makes sense to hold off for now, right? When are they actually expected to hit market, 1H or 2H of 2016?MrSpadge - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
More like 2H 2016. But yes, it makes sense to holf off a little longer unless you've got a good use for your old GPU.RussianSensation - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
If you game with headphones or with speakers turned up, do not mind the extra noise levels, do not care that a card was designed to operate at 95C, you can get a PowerColor R9 290 for about $160ish:http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=3784741...
It's going to take a while before a 16nm card can deliver R9 290's level of performance for just $160. If you need the extra performance now, grab that 290, and then resell it in 15-18 months and buy a 16nm card when it's much cheaper. Chances are NV/AMD will split the next generation by first launching a mid-range marketed as flagship for $550-600 and then follow-up with the real flagship towards the end of 2016/1H of 2017. That's why buying a stop-gap 290 for $160 is a brilliant strategy right now bearing in mind that it does run hot and loud.
thepaleobiker - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
R9380 in the main table shows 32 ROPs, it should be 28 right?RussianSensation - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
It has full 32 ROPs.britjh22 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Can't wait to see your guys review on this. Also, any chance we will be getting a GTX 970/960/950 review? Actually, even if you guys can just test, because missing so many relevant cards in the 2015 GPU Bench really sucks, as Bench has always been my go to for comparison for tech.Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Dan will be working on backfilling performance results and catching up on 950/960 cards in December.britjh22 - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
That is AWESOME to hear, thanks Ryan!1nf1d3l - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Looks like I'm sticking with my 7970Ghz for a while longer. Was hoping this would be a bit closer to 390 territory.tipoo - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
May as well wait for the 28nm stall to end at this pointTallestJon96 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Those who bought 7970s back in 2011-2012 must be feeling pretty good. The card and its successor ares still very capable four years later.K_Space - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Some tech products are just pure legend, Nehalem 920 (mine fried this year), SB 2400? AMD 7970 and 5870? I haven't had any Nvidia cards since Geforce FX (5600) but the 980Ti was perfectly executed so I expect users will be holding onto it for a very good while....CiccioB - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link
You can't attribute merits to a meh card when its successors are even worse than it.What 7970 was at the time was sub average. What it is now is even less than sub average.
If you have not noticed the market went on without looking back at those sub par products which in fact today costs 1/4 of what they did and which halved AMD market share.
cfenton - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
I'm sure I've complained about this before, but I really don't like that AMD claims that anything above a 390 is good for gaming at 4K. No single-card solution from either GPU company gives good performance at 4K. I don't think any of the games in Bench can hit 4K/60 (there may be one, I didn't go through every game) on any card and even the flagships struggle to maintain a solid 4K/30.I know AMD isn't lying (I'm sure a three year old game or a 2D game could be played at 4K60), but it's still annoying to keep seeing "recommended for 4K" completely unqualified.
wolfemane - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
@ cfenton I'm run wittcher 3, medium to high settings, on an asus 4k @30fps+ on a 290 oc card, i7-3770k, 16 gigs 2400 memory. I get a FEW stutters, but far from making the game unplayable. Benchmarks are only the tip of what any piece of hardware can do. AMD isn't claiming MAX resolution, just that their games can run 4k. Which is true, and at that massive resolution, even medium quality settings are fricken spectacular for most modern games, way better looking than max settings on my 27" 1090p tv.Jumangi - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Overpriced. Would get an OC'd 960 for that price instead. Should be $199 tops for the performance and power/ heat the thing makes.RussianSensation - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
It is overpriced at $229 relative to a $200 R9 280X, $160 R9 290 (http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=3784741... $250 GTX970 (http://slickdeals.net/f/8262137-zotac-geforce-gtx-... or $275 R9 390 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...However, it isn't really overpriced against the 960. R9 380X is almost 30% faster and based on preliminary benchmarks of DX12 (Fable Legends), it will beat 960 in DX12 games too. I agree that this card would have been a sure winner at $199 but 960 is far behind it.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_St...
AS118 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Looks nice, this is the one I was waiting for, as back when the 390 launched, it was still $320, and full Tonga seemed like it was the best bang/budget. But now that 390's are cheaper (and there are still 290's available) I may just see if I can get a good deal on the short (10") Gigabyte 390 during a holiday sale.That said, for people who want the ultimate 1080p card, this may be it. Good upgrade for 760 and 7850 users.
Communism - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
R9-290 Sapphire Reference200 USD (180 USD after MIR)
http://flash.newegg.com/Product/N82E16814202043?ic...
RussianSensation - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Nice deal! Add a filler and $15 off $15 Visa Chase Freedom checkout or $25 off $200 AMEX Newegg promotion and it's even cheaper than $180. Unbeatable value.Communism - Saturday, November 21, 2015 - link
R9-290 Sapphire Reference w/ Dirt Rally220 USD (200 USD after MIR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Zefeh - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Not worth it to buy a video card until AMD/Nvidia's Greenland/Pascal coming out next year. The jump in manufacturing process from 28nm to 14nm is huge. There are already rumors/specs out there stating transistor count is going to be around 15-16billion compared to the 8 from Fury/980Ti with HBM 2.0 memory reaching the 16gb+ range (rumored up to 32gb for workstation cards). 4k gaming is literally on the cusp of the next GPU release so don't bother upgrading anything until then. Really excited for next year!RussianSensation - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Depends, a $160ish R9 290 is a stellar deal as per the above by Communism. It's going to be a while before we have a $159 16nm card that matches it in performance. R9 290 is 2.6-2.7X faster than the GTX750Ti. That means if NV prices 750Ti's Pascal successor at $149, it will have no hope to even come close to an R9 290. Also, it's still months until we will see 16nm GPUs. A lot of older gamers play games over the winter season (November->March) since they aren't in school/university with exams :)I do agree with you that next gen sounds exciting but be prepared to pay for that extra performance.
CiccioB - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link
The price will be higher if AMD can't get anything good as they did with these pathetic GCN generations.The GTX750Ti which mounts one of the smallest GPU nvidia has ever produced is sold at that price because AMD can compete with it only with a GPU which is double as big and twice as power hungry.
If nvidia comes out with a Pascal architecture that is just a bit better than Maxwell, AMD must come out with an architecture that is 1.5x as fast for equivalent die space (so about 3 times what is now) to be competitive. Or the R9 290 will be the best for price card for loooong time. Which however is really far to put it as the best card to be purchased, price apart.
Kjella - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
It will likely enable some rather insane chips, yes. But $/transistor hasn't scaled quite that well so I expect Titan-plus pricing on the high end. And we'll probably see single cards pushing the ATX spec to the max again.Dritman - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
Here is the information you were expecting to see: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-...Jesus Anandtech can you not do anything on time? Ian always has great excuses so get your popcorn this is going to be hilarious
I'm so glad you take this seriously enough to reword the press releases in lieu of getting a real article done on time
Let the excuses commence
Gigaplex - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link
Why do you bother reading this site if you think it's so bad?wolfemane - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
The release is for Holiday season, but is there any actual release date (other than sometime before Black Friday)? So far on all the American major venders (newegg, tiger direct, amazon, superbiiz to name a few) don't even have a place holder for this card and all have higher prices than the Fall/Winter 2015 GPU Pricing comparison in the article. In some cases quit a bit higher. Unless we are going to see a bit of a price drop across the board, from current prices, the 380x will more than likely be a bit higher... maybe in the $250 range. Only a week until BF, doesn't seem like this card is going to shake up a whole lot of anything.Mugur - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link
I'm just looking at my R9 380 box that arrived today (Black Friday - Sapphire Nitro 4GB)... My estimation is that I got it with like $100 cheaper that what 380x will launch in my country, so it wasn't a bad deal after all. Will replace a 7850 2GB that will go into the kid's PC.