Looking for 970 vs custom cooled 290s reviews

[amenx]

What are you talking about?

Talking about what you said:

When one wins it's often not close. For instance the AMD card is 31 FPS faster than the 970 G1 and 10fps faster than the 980 G1 in BF4 @ 1600x1200. @ 1900x1200 its 25fps faster than the 970 G1 and 7fps faster than the 980 G1.

BF4 benches 970 vs 290x: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/9.html

 

[Despoiler]

Talking about what you said:

BF4 benches 970 vs 290x: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/9.html

If you would please re-read the thread title, the OP is looking for custom cooled 290/x not reference cards which is what is in the review you linked. Furthermore in my post I said exactly what the links provide, which is aftermarket Gigabyte Windforce 970 and 980 vs Gigabyte Windforce R9 290X. FYI the Windforce R9 290 and 290X are clocked @ 1040. On top of that, the Asus 970 numbers line up exactly with Guru3d's Gigabyte 970 numbers.

 

[amenx]

If you would please re-read the thread title, the OP is looking for custom cooled 290/x not reference cards which is what is in the review you linked. Furthermore in my post I said exactly what the links provide, which is aftermarket Gigabyte Windforce 970 and 980 vs Gigabyte Windforce R9 290X. FYI the Windforce R9 290 and 290X are clocked @ 1040. On top of that, the Asus 970 numbers line up exactly with Guru3d's Gigabyte 970 numbers.

Still doesnt hold. An OC'd aftermarket card cannot be that much faster than ref at stock in the reviews. Even if it was further OC'd to the max. Which is why I asked if you could provide a link to your 31fps and 25fps advantage claims. If ref 970 and ref 290x are around 75fps @ 1920x1080, than you are saying aftermarket 290x reviews would be around 100fps in BF4. Link to that please...

 

[Despoiler]

Still doesnt hold. An OC'd aftermarket card cannot be that much faster than ref at stock in the reviews. Even if it was further OC'd to the max. Which is why I asked if you could provide a link to your 31fps and 25fps advantage claims. If ref 970 and ref 290x are around 75fps @ 1920x1080, than you are saying aftermarket 290x reviews would be around 100fps in BF4. Link to that please...

I already did....look at the Guru3d links.... You are suffering from the premise that the reference cards are good when they are in fact terrible. They are crippled by their sub-par cooler. They run @ 95C in uber and throttle like crazy. These cards really open up when you get proper cooling on them so they can stay at their target boost clock.

 

[wand3r3r]

I already did....look at the Guru3d links.... You are suffering from the premise that the reference cards are good when they are in fact terrible. They are crippled by their sub-par cooler. They run @ 95C in uber and throttle like crazy. These cards really open up when you get proper cooling on them so they can stay at their target boost clock.

This is true, and AMD can enjoy the ramifications of their poor reference cooler. Every review is comparing a card that is barely able to run at stock clocks or is throttling instead of any of the custom cards which maintain clock speeds without fluctuation. A fair review is one with the G1 and gaming 970 vs. e.g. the tri-x or DD or similar. These are the better of both sides and reflect the choice a buyer has to make. The cards should all be heated up too to show how they throttle (both do somewhat).

 

[amenx]

I already did....look at the Guru3d links.... You are suffering from the premise that the reference cards are good when they are in fact terrible. They are crippled by their sub-par cooler. They run @ 95C in uber and throttle like crazy. These cards really open up when you get proper cooling on them so they can stay at their target boost clock.

Ok point taken, didnt expect that much of a performance spread between 290x and aftermarket card. Was looking for the 31 and 25 fps diff of 970 and 290x OC in same review which threw me off, sorry for that .

But holy crap, AMD were insane not to have allowed aftermarket cards on release day with this much of an affect on performance. D:

 

[MTDEW]

Well...crap...I already typed this all out while you guys were posting, so i'm posting it anyway. :biggrin:

What he said was just fine for the Guru3d Benchmarks he listed for BF4.
BF4 / Ultra / 2X MSAA / DX 11
1600x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 99
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 120
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 130
1920x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 87
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 105
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 112
2560x1440
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 65
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 75
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 79
3840x2160
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 31
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 37
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 35
(Its a shame they don't have a R9 290 OC card reviewed to go with those also.)

But we all know we can all cherry pic benchmarks, to defend either way.

I think the whole point here is that the performance is MUCH closer than what most reviews would have you believe....when you actually compare factory overclocked vs factory overclocked.

And making those comparisons should be easier for the consumer....that SHOULD be the whole point of the reviews in the first place!....to give the consumer as much info as he needs to make an informed purchase!
But its not what happens at all...at the end of the review, you're supposed to buy the GPU being reviewed/advertised....not a competitors GPU.

 

[Abwx]

Frequencies of all cards in function of games can be found here, click on the blue summary.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-9/protocole-test.html

 

[Jhatfie]

I had a powercolor PCS+ 290 for a while and it at 1190/6800 was just about equal to my 780 Classified at 1300/7400. I have not tested a 970 yet, but based on what I have observed, a 970 @ 1500mhz is very similar performance to a 780 @ 1300mhz. Regardless, I am pretty sure a highly OC'd 290 is very close in performance to a highly OC'd 970. I'd love to see some actual fresh numbers though as I only have my fading memory to go by at this point.

I honestly wish I would have hung onto my 290, it was a great card.

 

[Despoiler]

Ok point taken, didnt expect that much of a performance spread between 290x and aftermarket card. Was looking for the 31 and 25 fps diff of 970 and 290x OC in same review which threw me off, sorry for that .

But holy crap, AMD were insane not to have allowed aftermarket cards on release day with this much of an affect on performance. D:

No worries man. AMD is getting trashed because most of the review sites only have their reference coolers to show. It's their own fault.

Well...crap...I already typed this all out while you guys were posting, so i'm posting it anyway. :biggrin:

What he said was just fine for the Guru3d Benchmarks he listed for BF4.
BF4 / Ultra / 2X MSAA / DX 11
1600x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 99
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 120
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 130
1920x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 87
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 105
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 112
2560x1440
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 65
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 75
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 79
3840x2160
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 31
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 37
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 35
(Its a shame they don't have a R9 290 OC card reviewed to go with those also.)

But we all know we can all cherry pic benchmarks, to defend either way.

I think the whole point here is that the performance is MUCH closer than what most reviews would have you believe....when you actually compare factory overclocked vs factory overclocked.

And making those comparisons should be easier for the consumer....that SHOULD be the whole point of the reviews in the first place!....to give the consumer as much info as he needs to make an informed purchase!
But its not what happens at all...at the end of the review, you're supposed to buy the GPU being reviewed/advertised....not a competitors GPU.

Thanks for this nevertheless. The formatting is better than mine.

 

[MTDEW]

Frequencies of all cards in function of games can be found here, click on the blue summary.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-9/protocole-test.html

Nice link...very useful info there. :thumbsup:

 

[amenx]

What he said was just fine for the Guru3d Benchmarks he listed for BF4.
BF4 / Ultra / 2X MSAA / DX 11
1600x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 99
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 120
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 130
1920x1200
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 87
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 105
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 112
2560x1440
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 65
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 75
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 79
3840x2160
Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming - 31
Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming - 37
Gigabyte Windforce 290x OC - 35

On second thought I think theres some not quite right in the BF4 benches of the guru3d review. Its not replicated in other reviews of 290x aftermarket cards, incl the better MSI Lightning. In gurus BF4 chart, even the ref 290x was ahead of the 780ti. Funny since 780ti is faster than the 290x aftermarket cards in all other reviews out there. So something messed up in the guru review.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_290X_Lightning/9.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/762-gigabyte-radeon-r9-290-oc/page3.html

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-12/benchmark-battlefield-4.html

http://techreport.com/review/26092/custom-cooled-radeon-r9-290x-cards-from-asus-and-xfx-reviewed/4

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...c_asus_gtx_780_ti_dcuii_review/5#.VDbIe8k56L0

 

[Despoiler]

On second thought I think theres some not quite right in the BF4 benches of the guru3d review. Its not replicated in other reviews of 290x aftermarket cards, incl the better MSI Lightning. In gurus BF4 chart, even the ref 290x was ahead of the 780ti. Funny since 780ti is faster than the 290x aftermarket cards in all other reviews out there. So something messed up in the guru review.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_290X_Lightning/9.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/762-gigabyte-radeon-r9-290-oc/page3.html

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-12/benchmark-battlefield-4.html

http://techreport.com/review/26092/custom-cooled-radeon-r9-290x-cards-from-asus-and-xfx-reviewed/4

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...c_asus_gtx_780_ti_dcuii_review/5#.VDbIe8k56L0

Not really. The review sites don't all use the same game settings nor same resolution monitors (16:9 vs 16:10).

 

[amenx]

Not really. The review sites don't all use the same game settings nor same resolution monitors (16:9 vs 16:10).

Yes I know settings can throw things off, but that still doesnt doesnt jell in relative terms vs the other cards, incl 290x oc vs the ref card. In gurus review, the other games they tested do not replicate this massive BF4 jump in performance vs the ref card. Check em out. What makes the gigabyte 290x oc so special in only BF4?