videocardzFirst AMD Radeon R9 290X 1080p performance review

[csbin]

http://videocardz.com/46822/first-amd-radeon-r9-290x-1080p-performance-review-leaks

• R9 290X vs R9 280X: +37%
• R9 290X vs NVIDIA GTX780: +11%
• R9 290X vs NVIDIA GTX TITAN: 1%

Let me just start with an update on a launch date, according PCOnline more information will be released on October 24th, is this a final date? Hopefully.
UPDATE: This official R9 290X/BF4 document probably confirms that the launch date is set around October 24-25th.
The R9 290X is equipped with Hawaii GPU with 2816 Stream Processors, 176 TMUs and 64 ROPs. Card is running at 800/1000 MHz clocks for base and turbo mode respectively. The new AMD flagship is also equipped with 4GB GDDR5 memory across 512-bit interface, which is also a reason why memory is running only at 1250 MHz.
After looking at the charts you will notice that the performance of R9 290X is set between GTX TITAN and GTX 780, although the drivers used in this comparison are not officially supported (BETA).
AMD R9 290X looks like a good market replacement for GTX TITAN, especially considering the price.
Please note that this preview does not include 1600p performance, only 1080p (this could be a game changer for R9 290X’s 512-bit bus).

I’m quite surprised though by the Furmark part, where TDP higher than expected. Also the temperate chart doesn’t look very pleasing. Either way, reference cooling is not much different than HD 7970 GE’s, so I expect much better results on custom solutions.
Tests were performed on the following configuration: Intel i7 4770k with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz.
I did my best translating the titles and some additional information (like performance summary which has typos).

 

[Tweak155]

So not too far off from the leaks.

 

[Stuka87]

This was already posted in both 2xx threads that are currently going yesterday.

 

[AdamK47]

Did they aggregate the Furmark score in the final percentage tally? Furmark has very little bearing on real world usage.

 

[Silverforce11]

37% faster than the 7970 Ghz ed is actually pretty damn amazing, we were expecting around 30% only.

Knowing its that much faster than the R280X, its clearly faster than Titan, but it will come down to the list of games being tested per individual reviews, lots of games favour NV or AMD etc.

 

[AdamK47]

37% faster than the 7970 Ghz ed is actually pretty damn amazing, we were expecting around 30% only.

Knowing its that much faster than the R280X, its clearly faster than Titan, but it will come down to the list of games being tested per individual reviews, lots of games favour NV or AMD etc.

It's clearly not clearly clear that it's faster than a Titan. Clearly.

 

[Silverforce11]

How much faster is Titan than a R280X overall? Looking at TPU, Computerbase.de and other sites that have a massive range of games..

 

[DiogoDX]

How much faster is Titan than a R280X overall? Looking at TPU, Computerbase.de and other sites that have a massive range of games..

In 1080P:

TPU 18 games = 26% faster
Computerbase 15 games = 26% faster

 

[blackened23]

How much faster is Titan than a R280X overall? Looking at TPU, Computerbase.de and other sites that have a massive range of games..

I wouldn't characterize the 290X as being hands down faster than the Titan. I'd say that they trade blows with the Titan perhaps winning more - what percentage that boils down to i'm not quite sure yet, but it seems that it is roughly 60 to 40 in favor of Titan at stock clockspeeds. That means 290X is definitely faster than the 780 across the board while trading blows with Titan. Videocardz characterized it as:

stock 290X 11% faster than GTX 780 at stock
stock 290X 1% shy of Titan at stock
stock 290X ~35% faster than 7970GE at stock

It has to be said, some games favor one architecture over another so the percentage increase won't be linear across every game. You may see some AMD favored games that are 10% faster, or you may see NV favored games that are the same speed or slightly slower. Blizzard games are pretty safe on NV, then again, blizzard games are never graphically demanding either. As well, Ubisoft games tend to do really well on NV. So it will go back and forth between the Titan and 290X depending on the actual game; percentage performance increases are never linear - case in point, blizzard games favor NV while square-enix games heavily favor AMD. Across the board, though, i'd say that the 290X is roughly 11% faster than the GTX 780 averaged out while being pretty darn close to titan at stock speeds.

So if the 290X is sub 600$ as channel pricing indicates right now, I think that's an overall win for AMD in terms of creating a great GPU. I'm sure someone will bring power draw up, but I don't think AMD has furmark limiters - i'm interested in seeing actual games power consumption. I want to say that an early leak at chiphell indicated better than Titan power consumption in actual games, but i'm sure we'll find out more next week. (if the launch is indeed next week on the 24th)

Of course, this won't change the attitude of some of the more annoying NV diehards. They will find bad things to say no matter what, and i'm sure you'll see that now and next week. If anything is apparent on this forum, it is that there are diehards on both sides that won't be objective no matter what. Anyway - Personally, IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT, I think there is nothing to complain about. In other words, if it's 600$ or less, that's great. On the other hand, if it is 700$ or more i'd say screw that. It's going to be a great sub 600$ GPU. Not so great if it's higher than 700$. That's how I see it.

 

[XiandreX]

Anyway - Personally, IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT, I think there is nothing to complain about. In other words, if it's 600$ or less, that's great. On the other hand, if it is 700$ or more i'd say screw that. It's going to be a great sub 600$ GPU. Not so great if it's higher than 700$. That's how I see it.

From early reports its $650 for 290x and $500 for non... so where does that leave you if that holds true?

 

[OCGuy]

Repost...and I wouldn't read too much into any of those graphs, wait for AT, etc.

 

[ozzy702]

290X should pull away at higher resolutions with AA. I game at 2560x1440 so 1080p performance is meaningless to me.

 

[Erenhardt]

290X should pull away at higher resolutions with AA. I game at 2560x1440 so 1080p performance is meaningless to me.

I game at 1280x1024 so 1080p performance is meaningless to me aswell... ohh wait! :hmm:

 

[Slomo4shO]

Here is the full review.

 

[Grooveriding]

Here is the full review.

That's the 280X review, not the 290 & 290X review. It looks like they took down the 290 / 290X review. It's not on their site any more. Guess someone at AMD got to them.

 

[Slomo4shO]

That's the 280X review, not the 290 & 290X review. It looks like they took down the 290 / 290X review. It's not on their site any more. Guess someone at AMD got to them.

Seems you are right. Odd that it has the same URL

 

[exar333]

Why does everyone keep bringing-up the 512-bit memory bus? The only thing that matters is effective bandwidth. We know what a Titan often can OC to, we don't know about the 290x (yet). All we DO know is that it has about 10% more bandwidth by default (not a game-changer IMHO).

 

[smackababy]

I am a bit disappointed at only 11% increase over the 780, especially if they are priced the same.

 

[Slomo4shO]

I am a bit disappointed at only 11% increase over the 780, especially if they are priced the same.

Priced the same?

http://www.antarespro.com/8054900-item-SAPPHIRE-21226-00-40G.aspx

http://www.shopblt.com/item/sapphire-technology-21226-00-40g-radeon-r9-290x/u150_212260040g.html

http://www.provantage.com/sapphire-technology-21226-00-40g~7SAPP085.htm

http://www.macmall.com/p/Sapphire-Video-Cards/product~dpno~9807094~pdp.iecchhd

http://www.aztekcomputers.com/212260040G-SAPPHIRE-4173919.html

http://www.applied-computer.com/Inventories/TechnoteDetail.aspx?Acpn=000000&GroupID=6978559

 

[Erenhardt]

I am a bit disappointed at only 11% increase over the 780, especially if they are priced the same.

I just don't... I can't... what? Where is the logic here? Even if price is the same, 11% increase is half of what 780 had over 7970. Despite costing nearly 2 times more 780 was called a champ, best deal, and over the top card.

Now 290X looks to be quite a bit faster (even more so in >1080p) and cheaper aswell.

I just give up... enough! I give up!

 

[Arzachel]

I just don't... I can't... what? Where is the logic here? Even if price is the same, 11% increase is half of what 780 had over 7970. Despite costing nearly 2 times more 780 was called a champ, best deal, and over the top card.

Now 290X looks to be quite a bit faster (even more so in >1080p) and cheaper aswell.

I just give up... enough! I give up!

This card that I never intend to buy is worse than this other card that I never intend to buy because it's clearly being made by the wrong company!

 

[smackababy]

I just don't... I can't... what? Where is the logic here? Even if price is the same, 11% increase is half of what 780 had over 7970. Despite costing nearly 2 times more 780 was called a champ, best deal, and over the top card.

Now 290X looks to be quite a bit faster (even more so in >1080p) and cheaper aswell.

I just give up... enough! I give up!

I never said the 780 was a champ. It was overpriced. But, for a GPU that is trying to compete with it, being almost 6 months late (it has almost been 5, and who knows when this card is actually launching and at what price) if it is anywhere near the same price, it is a failure. AMD has neither the brand "value" nor the power (11% isn't huge) to compete with Nvidia in this space.

Now, if this card was ~$500, it would be great. But, the pricing "leaks" are all over the place. Until official pricing is announced, I am sticking with a just an 11% increase 5 months late for the same price, it isn't much.

 

[Erenhardt]

I never said the 780 was a champ. It was overpriced. But, for a GPU that is trying to compete with it, being almost 6 months late (it has almost been 5, and who knows when this card is actually launching and at what price) if it is anywhere near the same price, it is a failure. AMD has neither the brand "value" nor the power (11% isn't huge) to compete with Nvidia in this space.

Now, if this card was ~$500, it would be great. But, the pricing "leaks" are all over the place. Until official pricing is announced, I am sticking with a just an 11% increase 5 months late for the same price, it isn't much.

Just a tip. Try to avoid bolded part if you don't want to be called "fanboy".

 

[Sohaltang]

I never said the 780 was a champ. It was overpriced. But, for a GPU that is trying to compete with it, being almost 6 months late (it has almost been 5, and who knows when this card is actually launching and at what price) if it is anywhere near the same price, it is a failure. AMD has neither the brand "value" nor the power (11% isn't huge) to compete with Nvidia in this space.

Now, if this card was ~$500, it would be great. But, the pricing "leaks" are all over the place. Until official pricing is announced, I am sticking with a just an 11% increase 5 months late for the same price, it isn't much.

I heard that AMD strategy was to make this card an overclocking beast. What you said is true and I agree. If this thing overclocks like the 7950's do then these will be a bargain. If they put better memory on it this card could really shine

 

[smackababy]

Just a tip. Try to avoid bolded part if you don't want to be called "fanboy".

Why would I avoid a fact? Nvidia cards are perceived, whether it should be or not, as being worth more money than AMD cards. If you try and deny this, you aren't paying attention. AMD couldn't get away with releasing a Titan for $1000. Nvidia has done it and other things of the sort repeatedly.

If people want to think I'm a fanboy, go right ahead. I've had both red and green cards for quite a long time. My favorite card is still the 5870.