AMD R290 or Geforce GTX 780?

[rgallant]

Depends on resolution

For stock vs stock cards,

At 2560x1600 the 290 is maybe 5% faster than GTX 780
At 5760x1080 the 290 is 10.4% faster

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/24.html

just saying
GTX 780
R9 290Radeon
Clock863 MHz vs 947 MHz

no boost clock's = useless data as per most GPU reviews from the time of the gtx 680 release

 

[Silverforce11]

just saying
GTX 780
R9 290Radeon
Clock863 MHz vs 947 MHz

no boost clock's = useless data as per most GPU reviews from the time of the gtx 680 release

What do you mean no boost? They artificially prevent boosting? Because thats not what I get reading their reviews. Stock = whatever it does out of the box. From other sites, 780s tend to boost to around 1ghz.

 

[rgallant]

no I mean no boost clock's recorded with the fps data = useless graphs you can't compare cards with in 5-10% and say who is faster , based on the post I replied to.

when
canned benches avg. over time as in 780 release game benches were not redone for the 290 benches also not having no real time boost clocks per game ,per bench, per vender gpu bios [boost] makes any non real time avg. fps per game per card useless.

you know that .

but looking at my cards stock clocks 941, boost = 993 per evga listed spec.,but in real time out of the box they run at 1097 +1084 so in bench marks you can list any numbers off the box and nv bs over brains wins a again.

so pitting a 1097mhz [993 per spec]card against a 9xxmhz amd card guess who wins [or lost less]

how can any reviewer post any stats and not list the real time clocks per card.
different games at different res. might/will boost cards to a level not recorded so how can they avg. it out on a chart with out all the data is my point - nv vs amd in that context or lack of. so useless data

 

[Silverforce11]

Okay i think i got it, you want reviewers to show actual boost clocks ingame so the comparison can be made more valid or better interpreted. Fair enough. Lots of review sites already do that.

Most of the ones I've seen, ingame boost clocks of 780/ti are already above 1ghz, with many custom models going at 1.1ghz. The 780 Ghz ed from Gigabyte for example actually boost to 1.21ghz "out of the box".

 

[MtSeldon]

There are a few Nvidia specific features, but noone seems to care about them much.

3D vision, lightboost , and maybe gsync .

Doesnt anyone use 3dVision or lightboost?

Gsync is rather new, AMD has FreeSync on their side. How do these compare?

 

[3DVagabond]

There are a few Nvidia specific features, but noone seems to care about them much.

3D vision, lightboost , and maybe gsync .

Doesnt anyone use 3dVision or lightboost?

Gsync is rather new, AMD has FreeSync on their side. How do these compare?

GSync is available as an add on mod to the Asus VG248QE monitor. It's $200 direct from nVidia for the G-Sync kit (They are out of stock currently.) and you have to install it yourself, or get a tech to do it. It voids your warranty. Their are some retailers you can buy The monitor from with the kit already installed or have them install the kit for you if you already own the compatible Asus model.
Digital Storm, for example, sells the monitors for $500 modified by them, or for $300 you can send them your monitor and they will do the mod for you. I'm not sure what sort of warranty they (or others) offer.

G-Sync enabled monitors are supposed to be released by Asus (and I think BenQ) sometime in the 2nd quarter this year, if not delayed.

FreeSync is not AMD only. It's been incorporated into the latest DP standard (1.2a), so in theory should work on any monitor/GPU combo that is DP 1.2a compliant. The GPU would need driver support, but there's no licensing required by VESA members (Thus why it's called "Free"), which AMD, Intel, and nVidia are (As well as others). There's been no announcements from any Monitor vendors of when they are going to offer supported monitors. The standard is very new only being ratified in the last few weeks.

 

[blastingcap]

just saying
GTX 780
R9 290Radeon
Clock863 MHz vs 947 MHz

no boost clock's = useless data as per most GPU reviews from the time of the gtx 680 release

I have no idea what you are talking about, but here's another site:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-3gb-review-13.html

At 1440p, the 780 Ti is 23% faster than GTX780 and 16% faster than the R9 290. That implies that the R9 290 is about 6.0% faster than the GTX780 at 1440p. This is consistent with TechPowerUp's findings.

I'm linking to latest reviews because they more often use updated drivers, hence my linking to 780 Ti and 295x2 reviews rather than r9 290 reviews.