Benchmarking R9 290 vs. 780 vs. 780 Ti - Stock and Overclocked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
RS, just curious but weren't you also using your card(s) for mining?

Yes, but I also used my previous generation GPUs for distributed computing projects in the past for 2-3 years at a time 24/7 at 99-100% load and their fans never failed. I realize that based on my usage pattern, GPU's fans would be worn out far quicker than for the typical gamer but compared to all my overclocked NV/AMD cards that I loaded for DC projects in the past, this card was not abused much more. Also, none of my CPU fans has ever worn out like that and my CPU fans are on 24/7 as well.

Blastingcap has said the same of the sapphire fans. This is too bad to hear, but is it within warranty terms?

I think the warranty on it has expired. I will have to check. I mean it's not that big of a deal because of mining the card paid for itself many times over but still I can't even resell it now because of a $2 fan. Then there is the fact that Sapphire only has a 2 year warranty vs. 3 for say MSI/Gigabyte. I guess I never cared for these things in the past but next GPU purchase I will pay closer attention.

----

Interesting to see how the power consumption differences between R9 290 and 780 have been overblown. Once the 2 chips are overclocked to be competitive with one another, the differences are rather minor ;)
 
Last edited:

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
Yes, but I also used my previous generation GPUs for distributed computing projects in the past for 2-3 years at a time 24/7 at 99-100% load and their fans never failed. I realize that based on my usage pattern, GPU's fans would be worn out far quicker than for the typical gamer but compared to all my overclocked NV/AMD cards that I loaded for DC projects in the past, this card was not abused much more. Also, none of my CPU fans has ever worn out like that and my CPU fans are on 24/7 as well.

Ok I see where you coming from now, got it and it makes sense now on your point of view. I was just curious to know if you mined on that card for sure or not for myself.
 

tolis626

Senior member
Aug 25, 2013
399
0
76
Well, well, turns out the power consumption thing really was overblown. Very nice write Termie! Goes to show that, unless you're in it for the overclocking or for the absolute best performance no matter what (Which is fine, just not everyone is that way), AMD's GPUs, and especially the 290, are the way to go.

Regarding the issues with the quality of the cooler, how would the PCS+ 290 compare to the Tri-X? I've never owned a PowerColor card and never considered one, as if they are a second tier manufacturer, but then I realised there isn't a reason I'm doing that. Any ideas?
 

rtsurfer

Senior member
Oct 14, 2013
733
15
76
Well, well, turns out the power consumption thing really was overblown. Very nice write Termie! Goes to show that, unless you're in it for the overclocking or for the absolute best performance no matter what (Which is fine, just not everyone is that way), AMD's GPUs, and especially the 290, are the way to go.

Regarding the issues with the quality of the cooler, how would the PCS+ 290 compare to the Tri-X? I've never owned a PowerColor card and never considered one, as if they are a second tier manufacturer, but then I realised there isn't a reason I'm doing that. Any ideas?

GK110 gets really power hungry when OCed, it is common knowledge, people just tend to ignore that fact for whatever reason.

As for the PowerColor PCS card, it has the best cooler out there for Hawaii, just a hair shy of the Lightning, & as good if not better than Tri-X.
Look here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powercolor-pcs-r9-290x-graphics-card-review,3803-7.html

I don't have any experience with PowerColor CS, so I will leave that for someone more experienced to answer.


And also, thanks to Termie for all the hard work.
Would have preferred a Higher Overclock on the 780Ti, but that's just me.:biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
GK110 gets really power hungry when OCed, it is common knowledge, people just tend to ignore that fact for whatever reason.

As for the PowerColor PCS card, it has the best cooler out there for Hawaii, just a hair shy of the Lightning, & as good if not better than Tri-X.
Look here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powercolor-pcs-r9-290x-graphics-card-review,3803-7.html

I don't have any experience with PowerColor CS, so I will leave that for someone more experienced to answer.


And also, thanks to Termie for all the hard work.
Would have preferred a Higher Overclock on the 780Ti, but that's just me.:biggrin:

The PCS+ card imo is in my top 3 cards on the AMD side which include the 290 Vapor X & Tri X 290. I was tempted to go with the PCS+ 290x when RS posted it on sale at NG for $422.00! But as I was considering it, I check the price of Tri-X 290 also after reading his post and wow, it was listed at $354.99 so went with it. If it wasn't for that price I might of had that PCS+ in my system today.

Just thought I also mention HC reviewed the 290 Vapor X and over clocked that 290 Vapor X to 1280 which is highest oc I seen so far on a R9 290 from a review site. I am waiting to see the first site to hit 1300+ on a 290 from a review site which I think/believe could happen still with either a 290 Vapor X or 290 Toxic.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Well here's one criticism. You didn't list what drivers you used for the NVidia setup, or even your benchmark configuration..

Drivers are extremely important to getting good results, and the fact that you omitted what drivers you used for NVidia is a bit suspect in my opinion. The 337.50 drivers on up have significant improvements in CPU limited circumstances for instances, which would certainly impact the results.

In fact, much of your results seem very skewed towards AMD compared to benchmarks from professional reviewers, such as Anandtech and HardOCP..
 

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
Well here's one criticism. You didn't list what drivers you used for the NVidia setup, or even your benchmark configuration..

Drivers are extremely important to getting good results, and the fact that you omitted what drivers you used for NVidia is a bit suspect in my opinion. The 337.50 drivers on up have significant improvements in CPU limited circumstances for instances, which would certainly impact the results.

In fact, much of your results seem very skewed towards AMD compared to benchmarks from professional reviewers, such as Anandtech and HardOCP..
what happens if he used the latest drivers?

The thing to remember about most professional reviews is that they don't go out their way to tell you about boost clocks and other things that introduce variation in benchmarks.

His 290 is not throttling at all which helps their results a lot.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
what happens if he used the latest drivers?

I don't know, I just found it odd that he never bothered to even state his benchmark configuration. I'm not calling him a liar, but why should I automatically believe his results?

Not only the drivers, but what OS is he using? We've already been over this before in other threads. Using Windows 7 for BF4 on NVidia leads to much lower scores...

His 290 is not throttling at all which helps their results a lot.
If the 290 isn't throttling, one would assume that the GTX 780 OC wouldn't be throttling either if the test area is well cooled and ventilated..

What gets me about the review, is that the GTX 780 at 1200+ is brutally quick, and the R9 290 has a 100mhz deficit in clock speed, yet it pulled ahead in Crysis 3 and BF4, the latter without the benefit of using Mantle.. o_O
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Well here's one criticism. You didn't list what drivers you used for the NVidia setup, or even your benchmark configuration..

Drivers are extremely important to getting good results, and the fact that you omitted what drivers you used for NVidia is a bit suspect in my opinion. The 337.50 drivers on up have significant improvements in CPU limited circumstances for instances, which would certainly impact the results.

In fact, much of your results seem very skewed towards AMD compared to benchmarks from professional reviewers, such as Anandtech and HardOCP..

Thanks for the feedback. I used a 332 branch driver for the GeForce cards, because I actually benched them a few months ago. This was all done on a 4770K@4.4 with 16GB@1866, running Win8.1.

The driver issue is an important one, but I highly doubt anyone but HardOCP is using the latest drivers for every card they list in a given review, because it would take too long to rebench a lot of cards for every review. HardOCP only includes three or so cards per review, and it definitely seems all cards are usually rebenched.

Then again, you run into differing results for the same card when you do that, and people start to wonder what's going on. So it's a tricky balancing act.

One last point I'll make - benching new games or ones that are patched a lot also causes problems, because you should probably rebench after every patch, which becomes a never-ending process.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
OK thanks for being honest Termie. I definitely respect your effort, and I don't think you purposely manipulated the benchmarks to favor one or the other.

However, using the 332 drivers most definitely impacted the results for NVidia, in a negative manner. The 332 drivers were released at the beginning of the year, and the latest 337/338 series drivers are significantly faster and more optimized generally speaking..

I know this because I pay attention to driver updates on a regular basis, and I conduct my own tests. And most professional reviews do keep up with driver updates. Anandtech, Tech Report and PCper in particular..

Anyway, like I said, I admire your effort and I know it's a lot of work for one person to do this much benchmarking :)
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
the latest 2 drivers made little to no difference in most games with a single card. Hitman Absolution certainly made a decent bump though in average and huge leap in minimums. using 4x MSAA in that game though negates most of that improvement as its more gpu limited. I ran the Hitman benchmark with latest 337.88 at the same clocks on my 780 as he did on the stock 780 SC and got 68 fps where as he got 66 fps. my cpu is 4.3 where his is 4.4 and my memory is 1600 where his is 1866 but at those graphical settings those differences are irrelevant. Tomb Raider was identical to his 780 SC results at 82 fps.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
the latest 2 drivers made little to no difference in most games with a single card. Hitman Absolution certainly made a decent bump though in average and huge leap in minimums. using 4x MSAA in that game though negates most of that improvement as its more gpu limited. I ran the Hitman benchmark with latest 337.88 at the same clocks on my 780 as he did on the stock 780 SC and got 68 fps where as he got 66 fps. my cpu is 4.3 where his is 4.4 and my memory is 1600 where his is 1866 but at those graphical settings those differences are irrelevant. Tomb Raider was identical to his 780 SC results at 82 fps.

There are so many permutations with hardware and software, that it's practically impossible to accurately predict the extent of a performance increase you would get by running the newer set of drivers.

But my point was, that drivers definitely matter and cannot simply be glossed over if you want to provide an unbiased review.. Hardwarecanucks did a test with the 337.50 drivers using a single GPU and here are the results:

NV-DRIVER-1.JPG


And Termie was running an even older set than what was used in that review..
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
lol I saw no increase in any of those games that I tested except Hitman which they actually show no increase...
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,021
10,348
136
lol I saw no increase in any of those games that I tested except Hitman which they actually show no increase...

Don't worry, it's not you. Anandtech tested the 337.50 driver (aka super driver) against last year's driver (331) which was even older than what Termie used:

62483.png


Some people reported a little higher gains, others absolutely nothing. Just depends on what you play and what part of the game you're benching (if not using built in benches). Outside of some SLI profiles being added and a couple specific game improvements, there's been nothing significant. pcgameshardware.de even tested in 720p to try and emphasize cpu performance improvements (a key improvement of what the 337.50 driver was suppose to deliver) and found nothing significant, even in BF4.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi...-sGeforce-Treiber-33750-gegen-Mantle-1116527/

Edit: Termie, forgot to say thank you, I know this stuff is very time consuming and can be a pain. It really is appreciated though. I think what you've shown really is true, any of those cards are within spitting distances of each other in almost every case, it really just comes down to budget and which you prefer.
 
Last edited:

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,110
1,260
126
The 'super driver' was a farce. It amounted to sub 5% increases in a few games, basically just a standard driver update. The only actual gain was a year late SLI profile for Rome 2...

The whole DX11 multi thread blah blah nvidia driver claims are FUD and made up. Never seen any evidence to prove it, just links to random graphs that prove nothing.

Last time out a poster was trying to use benchmarks done on the Battlefield 4 beta client to spread the FUD, the beta client... , known to be broken under Windows 7 and later fixed in retail.

It's good for a laugh though.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Don't worry, it's not you. Anandtech tested the 337.50 driver (aka super driver) against last year's driver (331) which was even older than what Termie used:

So 10% in Bioshock Infinite and 11% in Metro Last Light are nothing eh? :rolleyes:
Some people reported a little higher gains, others absolutely nothing. Just depends on what you play and what part of the game you're benching (if not using built in benches).
This much is true. Some areas of a game might be more CPU, or GPU dependent than others. Crysis 3 is a prime example of that..

Outside of some SLI profiles being added and a couple specific game improvements, there's been nothing significant. pcgameshardware.de even tested in 720p to try and emphasize cpu performance improvements (a key improvement of what the 337.50 driver was suppose to deliver) and found nothing significant, even in BF4.
Apparently you merely glossed over the article in your zeal to downplay the importance of drivers.. According to the article, Crysis 3's (one of the games Termie tested) minimum and average jumped 17% and 16% respectively as a result of those drivers, which I suppose is nothing significant to you..

You guys can downplay driver enhancements and optimizations if you want to. But there's a damn good reason why reputable hardware review sites always make sure their drivers are up to date in their reviews..
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,021
10,348
136
So 10% in Bioshock Infinite and 11% in Metro Last Light are nothing eh? :rolleyes:

I can appreciate sarcasm, but it's not really needed here, this is what I said:

"Outside of some SLI profiles being added and a couple specific game improvements, there's been nothing significant."

So yes, a few games showed some nice gains, but that was about it. Even those games you pointed out show very mixed results depending on which test you look at. By the way you post, you also make it seem like AMD is just sitting on their hands the whole time and never have performance increase from their drivers either, which is not true at all. Some people have reported noticeable gains in some games with the 14.6 catalyst driver which Termie did not use either.

So no, I don't find that very significant in this context as this is pretty much the status quo. Would the Nvidia cards performed a little better with the latest drivers? Sure. Would have changed much in the big picture? Not really, Termie showed the cards going back and forth depending on the game, and they'd still be doing the same with newer drivers, just with slightly different margins.

By the way, here's another example:

1080p.png


Apparently you merely glossed over the article in your zeal to downplay the importance of drivers.. According to the article, Crysis 3's (one of the games Termie tested) minimum and average jumped 17% and 16% respectively as a result of those drivers, which I suppose is nothing significant to you..

I didn't gloss over anything and I never once downplayed the importance of drivers. Again, re-read what I wrote, in context, and you won't see any disagreement between my links and what I wrote. Also, just to reiterate since you focused on it, that particular test was run at 720p with no AA/AF to try and emphasize any improvements the driver was claiming to make to CPU performance. In other words, when playing at resolutions that a PC gamer with that type of card are going to play at (1080p), you most likely will not see the same type of improvement. For instance, at 2560x1440 Anandtech reported zero improvement and the C2Q system only showed about ~3% gains.

You guys can downplay driver enhancements and optimizations if you want to. But there's a damn good reason why reputable hardware review sites always make sure their drivers are up to date in their reviews..

No one is downplaying driver enhancements, just being realistic about them. Yes, it's usually best practice to have up to date drivers, but that doesn't mean we just throw out what Termie has done when he has the cards himself and was willing to put in the time and effort to do this for us. I'm not going to ask someone who volunteered his time to do this to go back and retest everything from a couple of months ago when we have plenty of reviews showing what the new drivers bring. The data is good. You can see it for what it is, use a little extrapolation if you want for driver updates, and go from there. Nothing really to debate here unless you just don't like the results. If you want, buy all of the cards yourself and run the tests how you see fit.

Termie, thanks again, I won't post here again because I don't want it to derail from your thread any more than it already has. Just trying to clear the air a bit, but I'll just move on.
 

Majcric

Golden Member
May 3, 2011
1,386
48
91
OK thanks for being honest Termie. I definitely respect your effort, and I don't think you purposely manipulated the benchmarks to favor one or the other.

However, using the 332 drivers most definitely impacted the results for NVidia, in a negative manner. The 332 drivers were released at the beginning of the year, and the latest 337/338 series drivers are significantly faster and more optimized generally speaking..

I know this because I pay attention to driver updates on a regular basis, and I conduct my own tests. And most professional reviews do keep up with driver updates. Anandtech, Tech Report and PCper in particular..

Anyway, like I said, I admire your effort and I know it's a lot of work for one person to do this much benchmarking :)


Actually driver 332.21 is better than the later drivers from Nvidia. Don't believe it just give it a go in 3Dmark 11, Valley, and Tomb raider. That's just 3 apps off the top of my head

This is when overclocking and trying to receive the best results. I don't know how they compare stock vs. stock.
 

KaRLiToS

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,918
11
81
So 10% in Bioshock Infinite and 11% in Metro Last Light are nothing eh? :rolleyes:

Carfax83, don't forget that GK104 and GK110 are almost 2 years old. Optimizations on these architectures are already very advanced.

Yes 10% in Bioshock infinite and 11% in Metro Last Light, but if we analysed the graphs correctly, there is around a 3-5% gains in Overall games. Some games actually have a decrease in performance while others are stable.
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
snip
Termie, thanks again, I won't post here again because I don't want it to derail from your thread any more than it already has. Just trying to clear the air a bit, but I'll just move on.

Your reasoned and self aware posts are great.

I think the debate with the points Carfax brings up is interesting and warranting of some back and forth with the info you bring in. I'd rather trust forum members like the OP and the somewhat rigorous debate to churn out an answer or reveal something, than the near propaganda levels of info each GPU maker often comes out with.
 

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
Termie great job there :) Thanks for all the time and effort put into this
Those Nvidia's cards do overclock well but i think you could extract another 50 to 80 mhz out of the 290.