[H] ASUS ROG Poseidon GTX 980 Platinum vs. AMD R9 295X2

[desprado]

When it works the AMD Radeon R9 295X2 video card will be faster than the overclocked ASUS ROG Poseidon GTX 980 Platinum video card. The most benefit will show through at 4K resolutions where the GPU demand needs dual-GPUs. At 1440p the overclocked ASUS ROG GTX 980 Platinum was fast enough in most games. However, at 4K the ASUS ROG GTX 980 Platinum isn't, and that is where the AMD Radeon R9 295X2 shines.

The real question comes down to price, and stock, which the Posedeidon has none as of writing this. The ASUS ROG Poseidon GTX 980 Platinum video card sells for $639, but you still need to buy a closed liquid loop system to benefit from the potential overclock. Whereas, with the AMD Radeon R9 295X2, at $639 after $30 MIR is only $30 more expensive, but comes with everything you need, no fuss. In that sense, the AMD Radeon R9 295X2 might be the better "value" since it is all ready to go, is liquid cooled already, and you don't have to spend more money.

Just keep in mind if a game doesn't have a CrossFire profile you will drop down to the performance of one AMD Radeon R9 290X GPU, which is a lot slower than a GTX 980. AMD has totally dropped the ball recently in terms of Radeon driver and CrossFire profile support and that is inexcusable. The benefit of the ASUS ROG Poseidon GTX 980 is that its performance is delivered 100% of the time.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...x_980_platinum_vs_amd_r9_295x2/3#.VRTgreGrEyc


Next time cite your source in the title, which is required per the forum rules.

-Rvenger

 

[Techhog]

Newsflash: Two 290X's are faster than one 980, but multi-GPU performance isn't always consistent. More at 11.

 

[flash-gordon]

AMD has totally dropped the ball recently in terms of Radeon driver and CrossFire profile support and that is inexcusable.

Yeah, right... AMD has the best dual GPU solution ever and now "some" games don't work with it.
Just find strange that we have 10.000 tech sites and none wants to go deeper into it.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah, right... AMD has the best dual GPU solution ever and now "some" games don't work with it.
Just find strange that we have 10.000 tech sites and none wants to go deeper into it.

Took them awhile to get CF working in Dying Light! I was expecting it to never happen.

[H] is giving AMD the beat-down with the GameWorks stick. It's not even funny anymore.

 

[desprado]

Took them awhile to get CF working in Dying Light! I was expecting it to never happen.

[H] is giving AMD the beat-down with the GameWorks stick. It's not even funny anymore.

Just look at BF4 benchmark that GTX 980 OC is so close to R9 295X2 dam that efficiency.

 

[wand3r3r]

It's a golden 980 at 1580 MHz (1455 is avg OC) vs. a "stock" and then barely OCed r9 295x2.

In bf4 they had problems with mantle which would have given a significant boost too, dx11 is noticeably weaker on the r9's.

For reference the 295x2 isn't even close at stock vs. stock with a solid 58% lead and I would like to see a wide range like TPU uses. (Not that I expect anyone to do that, just would be interesting)
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/images/perfrel_3840.gif

It would be more interesting to see a golden 290x vs. that golden 980. It's a nice 980 no doubt but not the complete picture.

 

[Headfoot]

Almost 1600 on the 980, that's an insane stock overclock. Plus the idea of switchable from water loop to air is really cool. I've had terrible experiences with asus so I wouldn't trust that it would ever get fixed in RMA if it broke, but that's a really cool card altogether. Would be a lot more interesting if it were a golden Titan X though...

 

[Creig]

[H] is giving AMD the beat-down with the GameWorks stick. It's not even funny anymore.

I agree. Read through their other Asus ROG Poseidon GTX 980 Platinum review.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/03/asus_rog_poseidon_gtx_980_platinum_video_card_review

AMD Radeon R9 290X Creamed

You don't have to look long at our results today to see that the AMD Radeon R9 290X is crying out for help.

it looks like the AMD Radeon R9 290X is lagging severely compared to what NVIDIA currently has on the table.

And there are many more like that in the article. It's completely filled with them. Yet if you actually crunch the numbers in their apples-to-apples comparisons, the 290X is putting out anywhere from 70%-90% of the performance of the 980, and is doing it at 50% of the cost!

One of the most telling remarks from the article in my opinion was:

The R9 290X, even when overclocked insanely high, is just barely playable at 4X MSAA in this game averaging right at the 60 FPS mark.

So even when the AMD R9 290X can put out 60 FPS in a game, it suddenly becomes "just barely playable" to [H]? What would it take for AMD to have "acceptable" framerates, 100 FPS?

I really don't understand how they can so unflinchingly praise the 980 Poseidon and at the same time malign the R9 290X when the R9 290X (by their own benchmarks) delivers a high percentage of the 980's performance at half its cost.

 

[RussianSensation]

[H] has lost its freaken mind during Maxwell generation. The spin in that article is remarkable. First of all, how can you conclude much of anything by testing 4-5 games, of which nearly half are GW titles? Second of all, why don't they compare R9 295X2 OC vs. Titan X OC and conclude that the performance is similar but the former costs $350 less, but I guess that would make the Titan X look overpriced. Alternatively, why didn't they test 970 SLI vs. R9 295X2? The article is so skewed towards making NV's 980 look great, it's not even funny.

Also, we all know that cards like 295X2 start to show their 'worth' at higher resolutions, especially so for AMD due to a greater CPU driver overhead at lower resolutions such as 1080P and even 1440P. Let's see R9 295X2 OC vs. 980 OC / 970 SLI at 4K in 10+ games! It's unbelievable that a site like [H] can throw away years and years of reputation by posting such low quality reviews like the one in the OP.

I guess if all you do is play GW titles on a 1.6Ghz 980, then R9 295X2 is garbage but most gamers don't just play 5 average to mediocre GW games. Finally, they need to test R9 295X2 with the latest drivers from AMD that have better CF profiles.

 

[AnandThenMan]

[H] has lost its freaken mind during Maxwell generation.

It's mostly Brent Justice, I don't find his stuff anywhere near impartial at all. He actually thinks open initiatives like TressFX are the same as GameWorks and beats AMD over the head because they don't have Xfire profiles in said games and don't have driver optimizations out of the gate. This is utterly ridiculous he's failing to properly inform readers as to WHY GW titles are crippled on AMD hardware.

Terrible :thumbsdown:

 

[Silverforce11]

It's mostly Brent Justice, I don't find his stuff anywhere near impartial at all. He actually thinks open initiatives like TressFX are the same as GameWorks and beats AMD over the head because they don't have Xfire profiles in said games and don't have driver optimizations out of the gate. This is utterly ridiculous he's failing to properly inform readers as to WHY GW titles are crippled on AMD hardware.

Terrible :thumbsdown:

The guy has *lost* the plot, I read his forum comments in response to readers asking why they are piling on the GameWorks in their small list of games..

He actually thinks GameWorks is no different than in the past or against AMD GE. Specifically he doesn't even notice that NV is as fast or faster in BF4 (GE), FC3 (GE), Crysis 3 (GE) and tie in Tomb Raider (GE) while in their own tests, ACU, Dying Light and FC4, GameWorks smacks down on AMD hard. If you cannot notice a trend, then don't be in a position where you have to apply critical thinking.

Even when its on the public record from NV themselves, that game devs on GameWorks cannot share their optimizations with AMD, [H] thinks its totally fair and its fine to bash AMD for lacking performance or CF for GameWorks titles.

Actually this latest test has shown a lot of improvements than a month ago, CF is working in Dying Light, working in FC4 of late.. it just takes AMD a long time to go through the GameWorks obfuscation or requiring developers to update their game to patch in CF support. Is it AMD's fault? You could argue they can be quicker, but then if its open source, they could be wholly blamed.. but it's not, so in this case, the blame lies solely on the developers (where they need actual patches) or GameWorks.

Saying all of this, GameWorks is doing its job. It's there to give NV an advantage, it's not there to make life easier for AMD. This is one of the reasons for paying the NV tax, because if you enjoy GW titles, its almost guaranteed to run poorly on AMD hardware for a few months from release.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Saying all of this, GameWorks is doing its job. It's there to give NV an advantage, it's not there to make life easier for AMD. This is one of the reasons for paying the NV tax, because if you enjoy GW titles, its almost guaranteed to run poorly on AMD hardware for a few months from release.

People were warning way back when that these "dev relations" will be very bad in the long run for gaming. But many didn't listen or claimed they will do no harm. Well we are at the point where the proof is there, it IS harming PC gaming. When review sites are using GW titiles and blaming AMD for poor performance then the damage has already been done.

What's unbelievable to me is how hypocritical [H] has become, remember DiRT? [H] went on a rant how unfair AMD optimized code was, but now bad perf in GW titles is AMD fault. Unbelievable.

 

[BrentJ]

AMD should be held accountable for CrossFire support and performance of its hardware in any game, period.

NVIDIA should be held accountable for SLI support and performance of its hardware in any game, period.

If AMD or NVIDIA lack a multi-GPU profile for a game that is newly released, that should certainly concern owners of CrossFire or SLI hardware.

For over 4 months FC4 had no CrossFire support. Any owner who has spent the extra money to build a CrossFire system should be angry that for 4 months their hardware was not being utilized to its full advantage and the money they spent had gone to waste. Gamer's will not wait 4 months to play a game, gamer's demand their games work on day 1 of game launch with proper support and performance optimizations.

NVIDIA does not get a pass here, SLI was broken at FC4 launch, fixed later on, and was just recently broken again with patch 1.9.0. Any user of multi-GPU performance should be upset about this kind of support. FC4 is not the only game experiencing multi-GPU issues as of late, it is just one I am using as an example.

I don't want to see CrossFire or SLI die, proper game support is needed on day 1. As a gamer, you should want your video cards, all of them, to be supported, working, scaling well and optimized for said game On Day 1 Game Launch, period.

On the topic of GameWorks, GameWork's features utilized in games and the overall impact on a game's performance between AMD and NVIDIA is over exaggerated. The usage of a GameWorks feature does not create a bias between AMD and NVIDIA hardware.

I have tested many games where GameWorks features demand the same amount of performance out of either equivalent AMD or NVIDIA GPU. There are some specific features that work more efficiently on one GPU over the other, and we point that out when we find it. The outright usage of a GameWork feature again does not create a bias between hardware. Some game's don't even use that many GameWorks features, Dying Light for example only uses 2, yes just 2, GameWorks features. These features work the same on AMD and NVIDIA GPUs since they are DX11 calls. That hardly creates bias.

AMD has every opportunity to optimize for any game they wish to invest resources in. Granted, NVIDIA's game relations and game testing and optimization labs are generally recieved as bigger with larger budgets than AMD. This is probably the most compelling reason for why NVIDIA has faster support of SLI/optimization in games than AMD does. We are constantly on both NVIDIA's and AMD's backs to optimize for new games.

In the end, our concern is for the gamer and owner of GPU hardware. Prompt support for CrossFire and SLI with good scaling and game optimizations is important for PC gamers. As a gamer, you too should be concerned about such things, afterall, you have invested your hard earned dollars into these hardware environments. You don't want your investment wasted.

 

[AnandThenMan]

On the topic of GameWorks, GameWork's features utilized in games and the overall impact on a game's performance between AMD and NVIDIA is over exaggerated. The usage of a GameWorks feature does not create a bias between AMD and NVIDIA hardware

This is flat out false. Several times it has been posted how GW operates and how the encrypted, supplied NV code makes it impossible for any other vendor to work with the game dev to bring out features like X-fire in a timely manner.

I will post this again seeing you ignored the first few times

According to Nvidia, developers can, under certain licensing circumstances, gain access to (and optimize) the GameWorks code, but cannot share that code with AMD for optimization purposes.

So don't try and tell us GW creates no bias, Nvidia admits it does.

 

[Silverforce11]

@BrentJ
Why do you automatically assume AMD has full control in the Gameworks titles to implement CF immediately?

Did you NOT notice Dying Light required the LATEST patch from the developer themselves, so that finally CF support is added.

The same also applies for FC4!

These developers are intentionally not adding CF support into their games. AMD has publicly said for some of these GW titles, they actually require developers to patch it so that CF can work. It turns out to be 100% true in these cases. Yet you lay the blame solely on AMD and are beyond overtly biased with your bagging of AMD in every recent review.

Hardware reviewers should be held accountable for bias (and hypocritical stances, re: Global Illumination in Dirt, which NV actually fixed via a driver update, not requiring developer patches!) unless such hardware sites are so flagrant as to be known shills.

"As a gamer, you should want your video cards, all of them, to be supported, working, scaling well and optimized for said game On Day 1 Game Launch, period." Yes, we can all agree to that. Thus, the spirit of open source should be the norm. Did you not notice AMD frequently presents its features at GDC and how best to optimize it, with source code available? Can you find examples of NV doing the same for GameWorks?? So instead of bagging AMD in your crusade "for gamers", how about you mention these specific scenarios, or mention that developers who sign to GameWorks have let down gamers by not including support for CF or optimize performance on AMD.

 

[BrentJ]

AMD can still optimize its drivers for any game, no one can stop them from doing that. No one can stop them from creating CrossFire profiles, of which it is up to the IHV, NVIDIA and AMD to create said profiles, for any game, the responsibility lies on them.

 

[Silverforce11]

AMD can still optimize its drivers for any game, no one can stop them from doing that. No one can stop them from creating CrossFire profiles, of which it is up to the IHV, NVIDIA and AMD to create said profiles, for any game, the responsibility lies on them.

Sure they can be stopped. Just like AA was stopped from working in Batman. Just like HBAO was stopped from working on AMD in The Crew, which you guys even said so yourself! This believe that drivers are where its all at and NV/AMD are ultimately responsible is wrong. Game developers are equally responsible.

We've already seen what has occurred:

AMD said they needed developers to update their games so they can support CF. You think they lie?

It turns out after these developers patched their games, CF works just fine. Wow, a coincidence?

 

[BrentJ]

The burden still lies on AMD/NVIDIA to work with the developers to get its own hardware like CrossFire or SLI working in a game at launch.

People invest money into these ecosystems, do you want your investment of money wasted? Of course not. Gamer's should demand proper support/optimizations, at game launch. I personally cannot accept any less.

 

[AnandThenMan]

No one can stop them from creating CrossFire profiles...

No one DOES stop AMD (well usually not but it has happened) but it takes longer because they can't work with the dev, due to the GW agreement. How is this point escaping you exactly? Yet you still blame blame blame and blame AMD some more. If Nvidia had the same barriers as AMD on a given game it would likely take them just as long to bring out driver tweaks and multi-GPU profiles. This is in part how GW is designed:

In Nvidia’s GameWorks program, though, the libraries are effectively black boxes. Nvidia has clarified that developers can see the code under certain licensing restrictions, but they cannot share that code with AMD — which means AMD can’t optimize its own drivers to optimally run the functions or make suggestions to the developer that would improve the library’s performance on GCN hardware

Now you're still going to tell us, "AMD can still optimize its drivers for any game, no one can stop them from doing that."

 

[Silverforce11]

The burden still lies on AMD/NVIDIA to work with the developers to get its own hardware like CrossFire or SLI working in a game at launch.

People invest money into these ecosystems, do you want your investment of money wasted? Of course not. Gamer's should demand proper support/optimizations, at game launch. I personally cannot accept any less.

Have you seen a situation where a GameWorks title is also a GE title, where AMD can actively work with developers?

I've seen the reverse. DICE, when they built Frostbite, they were supported by AMD GE, but NV was also invited to join and they offered FXAA optimizations.

Maybe all the public statements which indicate exclusivity once devs go with GameWorks cannot persuade you, but its quite clear to us.

I've been vocal here regarding how open AMD GE is, it hurts AMD in the long run competing against the closed NV GW, because its quite easy for NV to optimize for GE games when AMD release source code and don't restrict developers from sharing optimizations with NV.

 

[BrentJ]

I still maintain that gamer's demand, from both NVIDIA and AMD, proper support of SLI/CrossFire at game launch, with support, scaling, and game optimizations.

Anything less from either, is not acceptable to me. I will continue to evaluate new games, and look specifically for SLI/CrossFire support and good performance. When I find there isn't, I will come down hard on whoever has let us gamer's down.

 

[Silverforce11]

I still maintain that gamer's demand, from both NVIDIA and AMD, proper support of SLI/CrossFire at game launch, with support, scaling, and game optimizations.

Anything less from either, is not acceptable to me. I will continue to evaluate new games, and look specifically for SLI/CrossFire support and good performance. When I find there isn't, I will come down hard on whoever has let us gamer's down.

You don't seem to come down very hard against Ubisoft, when they release broken games with messed up bugs, no CF, broken SLI. Maybe patches later, some of them are still broken.

Some may even think you are validating their actions by including their games (FC4, Watch Dogs, it seems you left out ACU?) in your suite. Do you see where this perception can come from, looking at it from the outside?

I do agree as gamers, we should expect better. Either that, or just buy NV GPUs, so we can play AMD GE games fine, as well as enjoy NV GW games fully (when Ubisoft doesn't fail hard)!

 

[BrentJ]

You don't seem to come down very hard against Ubisoft, when they release broken games with messed up bugs, no CF, broken SLI. Maybe patches later, some of them are still broken.

Some may even think you are validating their actions by including their games (FC4, Watch Dogs, it seems you left out ACU?) in your suite. Do you see where this perception can come from, looking at it from the outside?

I do agree as gamers, we should expect better. Either that, or just buy NV GPUs, so we can play AMD GE games fine, as well as enjoy NV GW games fully (when Ubisoft doesn't fail hard)!

Perhaps you missed a couple of articles

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/12/22/assassins_creed_unity_performance_video_card_review/7

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/11/06/alien_isolation_video_card_performance_review/8

We call it like we see it, on both ends.

 

[3DVagabond]

The burden still lies on AMD/NVIDIA to work with the developers to get its own hardware like CrossFire or SLI working in a game at launch.

People invest money into these ecosystems, do you want your investment of money wasted? Of course not. Gamer's should demand proper support/optimizations, at game launch. I personally cannot accept any less.

You are choosing to ignore every point and rebuttal for your position and simply restating the same position again.

You mention AMD needing better dev relations. There's not much they can do once a dev accept nVidia's support, sign the NDA, and lock AMD out of the loop. Maybe the truth really is that AMD needs to improve their reviewer relations?

 

[Elixer]

We call it like we see it, on both ends.

That would be great, if it was true, but it is not, unless you/your site have a severe case of selective amnesia.
The bias is pretty ]-[eavy as can be seen here in this thread, as well as your site. Heck, Steve is about the only reason people visit the site anymore.

The ]-[ solution to this is to blame AMD since they aren't a GW partner (as if Nvidia would ever let them have access) in order to be able to access the same code base to be able to optimize their hardware on launch day.
AMD must work around it (if possible) or get the developers to code in alternate routines, which isn't always easy or financially viable, and takes much longer.

]-[ just wants to say it doesn't matter what happens or what goes on behind the scenes, all we care about is how it plays, and everything else is unimportant.