• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Radeon R9 290X cards need reviews that help me.

F

FiLeZz

Diamond Member
AMD Radeon R9 290X cards need reviews that help me.
Currently running 3x780 sc on 3x30" monitors with a res of 7680x1600

The only review that even comes near my resolution is tech power up. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/
But still no multi card setup comparisons as of yet at these high resolutions.

My initial take on the review is that the 780 actually performs better at these higher resolutions despite having less vram. I guess I have to sit and wait for multi card reviews.

Looks like the AMD card does fantastic currently at the lower resolutions.
 
You'll probably have to wait for reviews at your current setup (3x1600p), but you can take a look at results to get an idea of how the cards do at higher resolutions. 4K is approximately 40% less pixels, but its about as close as you'll get.

Anandtech has 4K results.
 
This may be off topic, but Firebird's post made me wonder... is pixel-count the most important thing here, or are dimensions important as well? All else being equal, that is.

Obviously more pixels requires more power to push well, but I'm wondering if the FOV of a 7680 x 1600 (or my 5760 x 1080) changes the ability for the game enging/gpu/cpu to push frames out vs. something that is 3840 x 2160.

7680 x 1600 = 12,288,000 pixels (148% of 4K)
5760 x 1080 = 6,220,800 pixels (75% of 4K)
3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels (100% of 4K)

I think we can all agree that 7680 x 1600 will require more overall gpu power to push of these three options. But does it actually require an additional 48% to push at equal fps? And does 5760 x 1080 really require just 75% of what it would take to push 4K at equal fps?

This may be a silly question... but I'm not a hardware expert.
 
FiLeZz said:
AMD Radeon R9 290X cards need reviews that help me.
Currently running 3x780 sc on 3x30" monitors with a res of 7680x1600

The only review that even comes near my resolution is tech power up. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/
But still no multi card setup comparisons as of yet at these high resolutions.

My initial take on the review is that the 780 actually performs better at these higher resolutions despite having less vram. I guess I have to sit and wait for multi card reviews.

Looks like the AMD card does fantastic currently at the lower resolutions.
Click to expand...


Curious why you think that? single card showing very well at 4k and crossfire scaling seems to be very good. Seems these cards were made for hi res; but I would wait until we see the aftermarket coolers on them to really see what they can do.

Gibbo and 8Pack seem to be having a field day over at OC; with them.
 
I'm really curious about how you came to the conclusion you did. That review indicates the exact opposite, as does logic...
 
Tomshardware have a few benches at 7680x1440.

arma-76-fr.png

bf3-76-fr.png

bioshock-76-fr.png

crysis-76-fr.png

metro-76-fr.png

skyrim-76-fr.png

tombraider-76-fr.png


Be advised that Toms is running on quiet mode.
 
FiLeZz said:
My initial take on the review is that the 780 actually performs better at these higher resolutions despite having less vram. I guess I have to sit and wait for multi card reviews.
Click to expand...

I think this is backwards. The reviews so far show that the 290x has its largest leads over 780/Titan at the higher resolutions. The lead is narrower at 1440p and 1080p. The main issue is whether AMD CF works on multi-monitor setups. I don't know if those issues are solved yet.
 
Tom's review has 4k for almost every game. I would take those performance numbers and chop-off apprx. 30% off the fps. That should give you a ballpark of performance.

Honestly, 1x 290x will probably not cut-it for 30fps+ on all the games with your setup. 2x 290x should comfortably give you solid 40+ fps on almost all titles. Can always toss-in a third. 😛
 
exar333 said:
Tom's review has 4k for almost every game. I would take those performance numbers and chop-off apprx. 30% off the fps. That should give you a ballpark of performance.

Honestly, 1x 290x will probably not cut-it for 30fps+ on all the games with your setup. 2x 290x should comfortably give you solid 40+ fps on almost all titles. Can always toss-in a third. 😛
Click to expand...

Why would he use that instead of toms 7680x1440?
 
GaiaHunter said:
Why would he use that instead of toms 7680x1440?
Click to expand...

They use 8x FSAA/AF ultra in the 7680x1440 vs. 4x FSAA/AF high in the other non-CF reviews. Both are helpful IMHO, and doubling the FSAA in this high of a resolution makes a significant difference.

They really should have been more consistent, because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not.

The GTX 780 CLEARLY falls behind as your increase resolution. I thought that was a given even from the leaked benchmarks. The higher the resolution the more handidly the R9 290x beats it. Also, we can see that the R9 290x has better multi card scaling.

The issue I'd be most concerned about if I was OP is the fact that he already has 3 GTX 780s. That's a brand new card not even a year old. Are you the type of person that upgrades each time a newer better card comes out? If so (that means you spend a lot of cash on this hobby) then I guess consider this upgrade but IMO it's not worth it when you're essentially throwing away money.

Biggest concern though is that You can't fit 3 R9 290xs in a configuration without heat issues (my guess!!!!). It just doesn't seem possible.
 
Every review I have seen has the 290X well ahead at very high resolutions (Like 4K).

The Titan is actually a bit faster at 1080P. I think this is where the 512bit memory interface and the 64 ROPs really helps the 290X.
 
tential said:
I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not.

The GTX 780 CLEARLY falls behind as your increase resolution. I thought that was a given even from the leaked benchmarks. The higher the resolution the more handidly the R9 290x beats it. Also, we can see that the R9 290x has better multi card scaling.

The issue I'd be most concerned about if I was OP is the fact that he already has 3 GTX 780s. That's a brand new card not even a year old. Are you the type of person that upgrades each time a newer better card comes out? If so (that means you spend a lot of cash on this hobby) then I guess consider this upgrade but IMO it's not worth it when you're essentially throwing away money.

Biggest concern though is that You can't fit 3 R9 290xs in a configuration without heat issues (my guess!!!!). It just doesn't seem possible.
Click to expand...

I am not trolling at all just don't want to jump in on something that does not have enough of the data sets I need to make a decision.

If I jump on the AMD band wagon again I will be doing 3 cards not two as I see the reviews show.

The last thing I want is to have is a tri crossfire setup that does not work much like my 7970 tri setups or my AMD cards before that.

I am out to get the best performance I can get. Its looking good but still have unanswered questions of performance between the cards. If I drop $1500-$1700 on cards plus another $450 on waterblocks, I want to know I made the right choice. My current cards run at 1150mhz 24/7 that can outrun tri sli titans. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2341362&highlight=
I just have no idea where new cards would stack up against my current setup. only educated guesses.
 
FiLeZz said:
I am not trolling at all just don't want to jump in on something that does not have enough of the data sets I need to make a decision.

If I jump on the AMD band wagon again I will be doing 3 cards not two as I see the reviews show.

The last thing I want is to have is a tri crossfire setup that does not work much like my 7970 tri setups or my AMD cards before that.

I am out to get the best performance I can get. Its looking good but still have unanswered questions of performance between the cards. If I drop $1500-$1700 on cards plus another $450 on waterblocks, I want to know I made the right choice. My current cards run at 1150mhz 24/7 that can outrun tri sli titans. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2341362&highlight=
I just have no idea where new cards would stack up against my current setup. only educated guesses.
Click to expand...

Guru3D usually does a great multi-GPU test a couple days after launch. I would check them out in a day or two.
 
What I'd do in your place is buy 2x R9 290X and water cool them. The cards are ~1200 bucks and the WC kit should put you back about 500. This gets you better perf than 2x Titans for cheaper and you can reuse the WC kit.

EDIT: Two 290 watercooled should be a good deal faster than two Titans.
 
Last edited:
DownTheSky said:
What I'd do in your place is buy 2x R9 290X and water cool them. The cards are ~1200 bucks and the WC kit should put you back about 500. This gets you better perf than 2x Titans for cheaper and you can reuse the WC kit.

EDIT: Two 290 watercooled should be a good deal faster than two Titans.
Click to expand...

I think I need 3 to overtake my current performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top