More information about R9 290X

[Rvenger]

Must be competition if its even debatable right?

 

[Gikaseixas]

As R290 series reviews get closer (by the minute) so does the multiple posts/threads trying to put AMD under a bad light, even this thread was another attempt before OP was forced to edit the title.

 

[BoFox]

Damn, looks like it's gonna have 64 ROPs, if this holds true for pixel fillrate:

 

[wand3r3r]

Isn't there already a thread on this, with these slides.

 

[chimaxi83]

Isn't there already a thread on this, with these slides.

Yup, OP thought he found something else to bash the new cards on, but his reading comprehension failed. :thumbsdown:

 

[Cloudfire777]

Anyone going to talk about the actual content of the OP? Like the rumoured specs that are listed?

The most interesting thing was the supposedly high density memory bus, with 512-bit taking up less space than 384-bit, which would be quite big if it's true, and could mean higher bandwidth on future cards without being too expensive from a die space POV.
Although it indicates that they can't get such high memory clocks with it since the clock speed for the RAM is lower.

Doesn`t look like the children on this forum found it interesting. More important to hurl around personal attacks and such instead on this forum than discuss what the slides said (because they are new...)

Anyhow, I too found that slide regarding 512bit bus taking less space than the memory bus on the 7970Ghz very interesting. I wonder how they managed to do that.

Not to even mention that the R9 290X have 8 ACE now, while 7970 had only 2 ACE. The PS4 GPU also have 8 ACE so it looks like AMD used that experience with Sony to build the 290X. I wonder what that will do in terms of performance. If I remember correctly it have to do with computing capabilities, so the GPGPU performance might have gone up quite a bit now.

Also, WCCFTech was asked by AMD to take it down due to NDA 😀
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-290-hawaii-gpu-block-diagram-pictured-detailed/

 

[yacoub]

You were saying a couple of days ago that anything over 399$ is too much for a 290X - even for a card trading blows with Titan. I think you're just cheap, no offense or anything.

*shrug*

One man's cheap is another man's prudent.

Got one of the nicest 7970 models for ~$250. More than sufficient to run anything I'll be playing for the foreseeable future. And in two years when the 280X is that price, I'll consider getting one of those to replace it, if it's the best move at the time.

 

[Vesku]

This whole thread should just be tacked onto this other thread that was already up:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2346343

 

[blackened23]

*shrug*

One man's cheap is another man's prudent.

Got one of the nicest 7970 models for ~$250. More than sufficient to run anything I'll be playing for the foreseeable future. And in two years when the 280X is that price, I'll consider getting one of those to replace it, if it's the best move at the time.

I respect that, heck, I would love the 290X to be 399$. I just don't think it's realistic to state that it will "flop" if it's more than 499$. If the performance is as the leaks suggested, I think it will be fine below 600$ - hopefully 550$ or so. I will snub AMD in the strongest terms if the card is released at 700$+, though.

I think that dGPU prices are just going to go up due to iGPU and wafer prices increasing over time (with 20nm), it sucks but what can ya do, you know.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Anyhow, I too found that slide regarding 512bit bus taking less space than the memory bus on the 7970Ghz very interesting. I wonder how they managed to do that.

It is a weaker memory controller (per 64bit controller unit) based on Pitcairn instead of Tahiti.

By weaker it means if they widened the 384 bit bus of the Tahiti to 512 bit bus, we would see 6 to 7 GHz memory speeds instead of 5-6 GHz memory speeds.

But on the other hand it would probably end being a bigger chip than Titan.

 

[rgallant]

*shrug*

One man's cheap is another man's prudent.

Got one of the nicest 7970 models for ~$250. More than sufficient to run anything I'll be playing for the foreseeable future. And in two years when the 280X is that price, I'll consider getting one of those to replace it, if it's the best move at the time.

just have to say your $250 paradigm is some else's $2k's
gpu's are tools to play vid. games @ xxx res. more res./settings a more $$$.
maybe look at some benches.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Hawaii GPU have been tested by a user on Chiphell. He didn`t specify which (290 or 290X) but it was tested with i7 3930K.

He scored X4487.

He have attached his screenshot in his post, but unregistered users can`t see it. And they have blocked people from registering :/

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-875687-1-1.html

 

[Arkadrel]

Hawaii GPU have been tested by a user on Chiphell. He didn`t specify which (290 or 290X) but it was tested with i7 3930K.

He scored X4487.

He have attached his screenshot in his post, but unregistered users can`t see it. And they have blocked people from registering :/

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-875687-1-1.html

Im guessing thats probably a ES of a 290 (not a 290x).
With early drivers.

The 290 once sites review it will probably beat a stock 780,
and the 290x will probably beat the Titan by a few %'s.

Anyways looking forwards to the game benchmarks, the ones that matter.

 

[Grooveriding]

There are no pictures in that thread of Firestrike results for 290 or 290X, just a post saying a score. I took a look through it all, the only pictures in the thread were:

 

[Cloudfire777]

There are no pictures in that thread of Firestrike results for 290 or 290X, just a post saying a score. I took a look through it all, the only pictures in the thread were:

Because you have to register I think. He have hidden the photo to unregistered users perhaps.

Also he didn`t test Firestrike. He tested 3DMark 11 Extreme preset.

 

[Grooveriding]

Because you have to register I think. He have hidden the photo to unregistered users perhaps.

Also he didn`t test Firestrike. He tested 3DMark 11 Extreme preset.

I am registered there, I've had an account there for a while. It's how I got those above pictures from that thread. 🙂

 

[boxleitnerb]

A Titan does about 4800, a 7970 GHz about 3300 in the 3DMark 11 Extreme preset (although I could not find results with the most current drivers).

 

[blackened23]

They..............have some interesting emoticons over there at chiphell.

 

[RiDE]

Isn't there already a thread on this, with these slides.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2346753&page=11

Posted 3 hours before this one.

 

[Cloudfire777]

So, $530 for R9 290 without BF4, $599 with BF4, $699 for R9 290X with BF4?

http://www.shopblt.com/search/order_id=%2521ORDERID%2521&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=R9+290

 

[Abwx]

So, $530 for R9 290 without BF4, $599 with BF4, $699 for R9 290X with BF4?

http://www.shopblt.com/search/order_id=%21ORDERID%21&s_max=25&t_all=1&s_all=R9+290

That s for the Gigabyte GFXs , the Sapphire are 535 and 591$
respectively according to your link wich also show that HP
manage to make much more money out of about nothing...

 

[Cloudfire777]

Looks like the Sapphire is with BF4 too. The product code is the same as this one
http://www.netonnet.se/art/dator/komponenter/grafikkort/amd-pci-e/sapphire-r9290x4gb/194897.7064/

Same with XFX, but sadly no price.
http://www.netonnet.se/art/dator/komponenter/grafikkort/amd-pci-e/xfx-r9290x4gb/194855.7064/

Looks like all OEM versions get BF4 bundled.

 

[Elfear]

Hawaii GPU have been tested by a user on Chiphell. He didn`t specify which (290 or 290X) but it was tested with i7 3930K.

He scored X4487.

He have attached his screenshot in his post, but unregistered users can`t see it. And they have blocked people from registering :/

So about a 36% increase over 7970GE if true. That's actually faster than I was expecting.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

 

[Saylick]

So about a 36% increase over 7970GE if true. That's actually faster than I was expecting.

That's not bad for scaling, considering the 290X has 37.5% more shader and texture power, is 50 MHz slower, but only has ~10% more memory bandwidth.