Originally Posted by moustang
I think the segment that you speak of has moved a bit. This card is the same price as a GTX 970 now, and they both seem to be very similar in performance as well.
I see it as a strange card. I can't help but wonder why AMD bothered even making a new card that was so close to their existing ones in performance. Seems to me they could have simply doubled the RAM on the 290X and it would have essentially been the same thing. In fact I can't help but wonder why it has 8GB of RAM when it clearly lacks the performance and bandwidth to actually make use of it in high resolutions. 8GB is hardly necessary for 1080p playing.
Hm, that depends on where you are I suppose. The 970 is still more expensive where I live, and offers less performance at 1080p even with the obvious issues and traditional terrible AMD launch drivers. This is also a card meant to grow the TAM. Whether or not that is realistic is another question. But for those purposes offering a card that can play new games at 1080p and has a bigger VRAM number than the competition, a less knowledgeable consumer new to PC gaming is probably going to pick the cheaper card with the bigger VRAM number. 'Coz that has to be good, right? I don't think it's a perfect card at all but I see where they were going. Whether or not that was the best choice is still up in the air but they needed to try something different because losing to Nvidia's newest thing on launch day and then catching up 6 months later with nobody 're-reviewing' the cards was just not working out for them. They don't have the money to square off with Nvidia like that. So I see what they were going for and for the sake of the market I hope it works out for them.