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

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

FiLeZz

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
4,778
47
91
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.
 
9

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,738
334
126
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.
 
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
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.
 
Grooveriding

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
Pixels are all that count no matter the FOV or aspect ratio. The more pixels to push, the more power you need.
 
M

MeldarthX

Golden Member
May 8, 2010
1,026
0
76
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.
 
T

Techhog

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,834
2
26
I'm really curious about how you came to the conclusion you did. That review indicates the exact opposite, as does logic...
 
GaiaHunter

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,697
397
126
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.
 
B

brandonmatic

Member
Jul 13, 2013
199
21
81
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.
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
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. :p
 
GaiaHunter

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,697
397
126
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. :p
Click to expand...

Why would he use that instead of toms 7680x1440?
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
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.
 
T

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
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.
 
Stuka87

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
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.
 
F

FiLeZz

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
4,778
47
91
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.
 
T

Techhog

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,834
2
26
Wait for non-reference reviews to show up so that you can see how it stacks up OC vs OC
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
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.
 
D

DownTheSky

Senior member
Apr 7, 2013
800
167
116
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:
F

FiLeZz

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
4,778
47
91
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

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom