[HardOCP] Asus DC II 290X max overclock versus GTX 780ti max overclocking review:

[Silverforce11]

To be fair, its doing alright for them on the GPU department, getting to 40% discrete marketshare is not bad for a struggling company weighed down by an incompetent CPU division.

There's actually very few AMD CPU users these days, its undeniable its a crap product, ever since faildozer its a downhill ride.

This entire thread makes me disappointed at Asus and Gigabyte for releasing turds as custom R290/X. Why? Because now everyone and their dog who wants an R290 is trying to grab the Tri-X, making the backlog massive on it, retailers here don't even put it on stock when they receive it because they have preorders to fill. I have a few mining rigs I want to setup and can't get any Tri-X for the past two weeks.

 

[Elfear]

What's really sad is AMD resigned itself to second place on yet another node. How did second place workout for them in CPUs?

AMD has been running a close 2nd for the last few nodes, and while I'm sure they'd love to have the fastest GPU, it sure makes for some great deals on hardware.

 

[SiliconWars]

What's really sad is AMD resigned itself to second place on yet another node. How did second place workout for them in CPUs?

No new big cores and now their fans argue over trash APUs instead of high end performance, sad indeed.

Based on how far behind the 780 Ti is compared to Hawaii on perf/area it's pretty obvious that AMD would annihilate Nvidia at the same die size.

It's a sad indictment of how bad Nvidia's engineering talent is actually.

 

[blackened23]

This entire thread makes me disappointed at Asus and Gigabyte for releasing turds as custom R290/X. Why? Because now everyone and their dog who wants an R290 is trying to grab the Tri-X, making the backlog massive on it, retailers here don't even put it on stock when they receive it because they have preorders to fill. I have a few mining rigs I want to setup and can't get any Tri-X for the past two weeks.

Tri-X? I bet you do want it. I wonder why. I think I have an idea.

Anyway, both the gigabyte and asus cards tested by computerbase.de had pre-production BIOS' that were fixed with the production BIOS. Neither card throttles and both cards have fine temps.

Or you could just ignore that. It would be sad if AMD allowed AIB manufacturers to release duds, but I suspect asus and gigabyte aren't that stupid. You saw the post by SKYMTL didn't you? Computerbase tested with a pre-production BIOS which caused the problems for computerbase. I saw you posted about that like 5 posts ago, but now you suddenly forgot what you just posted earlier. Okay. Whatever.

 

[ams23]

What's really sad is AMD resigned itself to second place on yet another node. How did second place workout for them in CPUs?

No new big cores and now their fans argue over trash APUs instead of high end performance, sad indeed.

The crazy thing here is that R9 290X OC'd has 25% higher load power consumption than GTX 780 Ti OC'd. And even though 2 out of the 3 games tested were AMD-sponsored games, the GTX 780 Ti OC still comes out on top in performance.

Maxwell will take efficiency to yet another level beyond this.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Based on how far behind the 780 Ti is compared to Hawaii on perf/area it's pretty obvious that AMD would annihilate Nvidia at the same die size.

It's a sad indictment of how bad Nvidia's engineering talent is actually.

It's also pretty obvious they can't make one, cause they havent due to lack of talent. That lack of talent is also why 780 OC is faster than 290x, nvidia doesn't even need all their huge HPC die area or several of their SMX due to actually knowing how to make a card that earns money.

 

[blackened23]

The Hawaii is designed solely for gaming (and is worse than the Tahiti for compute) while a large portion of the GK110 die is designed for super computing and CUDA development. Those portions are disabled on the Geforce parts, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Hawaii, on the other hand, is a completely gaming-centric part. There will not be a Hawaii variant designed for super computing, it's a gaming and only gaming card. That is why GK110 is a larger die.

But who cares, really? Who goes and buys a video card based on die size. LOL. That's pretty funny. I suspect consumers only care about the end result and metrics - performance, software, and features. Nobody buys a video card based solely on die size, most consumers don't know or care.

 

[ams23]

Based on how far behind the 780 Ti is compared to Hawaii on perf/area it's pretty obvious that AMD would annihilate Nvidia at the same die size.

Actually that is not true at all. For the same level of power consumption when OC'd, and using games that are not AMD-sponsored, Big Kepler would likely have equal or even higher perf. per mm^2 than Hawaii! And Maxwell will take efficiency to yet another level beyond this.

At the end of the day, the perf. per watt of Big Kepler is significantly better than Hawaii in most cases, especially when both are OC'd.

 

[Silverforce11]

Tri-X? I bet you do want it. I wonder why. I think I have an idea.

Anyway, both the gigabyte and asus cards tested by computerbase.de had pre-production BIOS' that were fixed with the production BIOS. Neither card throttles and both cards have fine temps.

Or you could just ignore that. It would be sad if AMD allowed AIB manufacturers to release duds, but I suspect asus and gigabyte aren't that stupid. You saw the post by SKYMTL didn't you? Computerbase tested with a pre-production BIOS which caused the problems for computerbase. I saw you posted about that like 5 posts ago, but now you suddenly forgot what you just posted earlier. Okay. Whatever.

You saw the fact Gigabyte admitted they released a batch of bad cards? How does that bode for their design, when the "fix", is to put a copper shim on the heatpipes, because 2 of the pipes have no contact as it wasn't designed for Hawaii.

That ain't a fix, it's ghetto, and worse. Because now the WF3 runs absurdly noisy. Nowhere did [H] mention anything about bioses, his sample was flawed, 90C at 75% fan speed when elsewhere its 50% fan for much less temps.

 

[Elfear]

It's also pretty obvious they can't make one, cause they havent due to lack of talent. That lack of talent is also why 780 OC is faster than 290x, nvidia doesn't even need all their huge HPC die area or several of their SMX due to actually knowing how to make a card that earns money.

That's not really surprising though. An overclocked 290 will also beat a stock 780. An overclocked 760 will beat a stock 7970. An overclocked 780 can beat a stock Titan. And on and on. That doesn't mean the maker of the stock card has untalented engineers.

 

[blackened23]

You keep posting non-factual statements over and over, let me correct you again:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_radeon_r9_290x_windforce_3x_oc_review,4.html

Gigabyte did not admit to production consumer cards having problems. It was mis-reported by tomshardware.de. The problem was only with pre-production cards and was limited to 30 cards at that. These cards only went to reviewers - when the problems were discovered, reviewers were notified. None of these cards made it to retail because they were all pre-production. Despite this, some reviewers didn't get the memo in time apparently. Tomshardware.de being one, and Computerbase saw fit to test the card anyway despite the pre production nature. Hence what happened. But no consumer cards have problems.

I don't see the allure of the WF3 290X. It's a reference card for crying out loud, with a windforce cooler. But the card is not defective like you suggested. Neither is the Asus DC II. Both coolers are fine, and the H test proved it with the DC II being able to cool the Hawaii chip at a massive 1.35V. You should try 1.35V on your reference card. Let us know what happens.

You do seem to keep suggesting the Tri-X over and over for some reason, though.

 

[Silverforce11]

You keep posting non-factual statements over and over, SF, let me correct you again:

What you posted confirmed that Gigabyte did sent out a bad batch. It was raw heatpipes, 2 without contact and it performed crap. Their fix for the retail samples? Add a copper shim. That isn't a fix. A fix would be to use a redesigned heatpipe cooler for the R290/X.

They aren't defective, they just perform badly. Needing high fans to maintain reasonable temperatures. Compared to their competitors, it may as well be defective because it's not in the same league.

Re: [H], do you think its acceptable for a custom card with an open design to perform with 75% fan speed for 90C? If that sample is legit and nothing wrong with it, then no, I will advise users to steer clear of that crap.

 

[blackened23]

Oh. It happened yet again. You seem to have forgotten that the Asus card H tested was over-volted to 1.35V. That was the reason for the fan level and high temps. BECAUSE the card was operating WELL past stock voltage. This has been stated in this thread like 30 times.

 

[Silverforce11]

Tri-X? I bet you do want it. I wonder why. I think I have an idea.

Yes, I want to get a bunch of Tri-X for my mining rigs. Why? Because they are currently the best custom cards.

Guru3d shoved +100mV (therefore 1.35vcore) into their card, its fan speed was 50%. Likewise,
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_r9_290x_directcuii_oc_review,28.html

HC ran it at 1.337vcore, 60% fan speed. Temps? 76C.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...94-asus-r9-290x-directcu-ii-oc-review-11.html

So which card is representative for ASUS R290?

 

[f1sherman]

The Hawaii is designed solely for gaming (and is worse than the Tahiti for compute) while a large portion of the GK110 die is designed for super computing and CUDA development. Those portions are disabled on the Geforce parts, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Hawaii, on the other hand, is a completely gaming-centric part. There will not be a Hawaii variant designed for super computing, it's a gaming and only gaming card. That is why GK110 is a larger die.

The main reason for bigger die is power envelope. Bigger, faster and less power hungry is unheard on same GPU node.
And yet all these huge die NV monsters run under 250W in server/workstation/HPC.

AMD OTOH went berserk with power trying to compete on perf. basis.
I mean my 290 can hit 90C, undervolted and @70fan.
And AMD's latest server card(S10000, dual Tahiti) is designed for, wait for this... 375W :ninja:

It's time to rethink your engineering/designing principles once 95C and 375W become NORMAL.
What good is few % and fps in games (well its good for me, love my 290 performance), when you cant deliver viable pro market strategy.

GCN was supposed to do this.
I remember watching Eric Demers GCN presentation 2011, and it sounded so impressive and natural that AMD should turn to general computing, servers, workstation and HPC
(and even more so than Mantle) yet here we are 2 years later with no market penetration.

 

[SiliconWars]

Actually that is not true at all. For the same level of power consumption when OC'd, and using games that are not AMD-sponsored, Big Kepler would likely have equal or even higher perf. per mm^2 than Hawaii!

Bigger dies generally make for higher energy efficiency, not lower. As for the AMD-sponsored games, Nvidia's best win of 2013 was Far Cry 3. Crysis 3 wasn't far behind either so just forget about the biased title nonsense.

At the end of the day, the perf. per watt of Big Kepler is significantly better than Hawaii in most cases, especially when both are OC'd.

I believe they are similar at stock actually. There's not much question that big Kepler is better when OC'd to the max - but that's because Hawaii has a much lower ceiling due to it's smaller size. The perf/W efficiency goes out the window at max overclocks because more volts are needed...simply because of the smaller area. It's not magic, it's just physics.

 

[Silverforce11]

AMD OTOH went berserk with power trying to compete on perf. basis.
I mean my 290 can hit 90C, undervolted and @70fan.
And AMD's latest server card(S10000, dual Tahiti) is designed for, wait for this... 375W :ninja:

Mining load != gaming load. Put a GK110 to mining and see what happens.

 

[f1sherman]

Mining load != gaming load. Put a GK110 to mining and see what happens.

True, but that's mostly due to GPU waiting for CPU

If Mantle delivers -> Mining load = gaming load ()

 

[ams23]

Bigger dies generally make for higher energy efficiency, not lower.

That is not necessarily true. Little Kepler is generally more energy efficient than Tahiti, even though it has a significantly smaller die size in comparison.

There's not much question that big Kepler is better when OC'd to the max

Perf. per mm^2 is not a fixed number based on one particular implementation! Perf. per mm^2 obviously goes up as GPU clock operating frequency goes up (all else equal), and the GTX 780 Ti obviously becomes more and more efficient in this metric as it is OC'd. If one overvolts and overclocks a GTX 780 Ti to match the power consumption of an overclocked R9 290X, the GTX Ti will absolutely dominate in performance when looking at a wide variety of games, and the perf. per mm^2 will be exceptionally good (relatively speaking).

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's not really surprising though. An overclocked 290 will also beat a stock 780. An overclocked 760 will beat a stock 7970. An overclocked 780 can beat a stock Titan. And on and on. That doesn't mean the maker of the stock card has untalented engineers.

Given the discussion, I meant OC 290x.

Ti is only 10% faster than 780 c4c.

This review:

http://fcenter.ru/online/hardarticles

From the previous thread puts a R290x @ 1130 2% faster than the 780 @ 1162 at 1080 and 4% at 1600.

A 780 at the Ti clocks in the [H] review would have been just as quick as the R290x, and 780 after months now has proven to clock higher on reference, aftermarket, and soon most likely elite aftermarket because instead of 1300 780s it will be 1400 as you pointed out.

 

[thilanliyan]

The crazy thing here is that R9 290X OC'd has 25% higher load power consumption than GTX 780 Ti OC'd.

In ONE review. Lol, one site gets that result and now we have several people trumpeting that like it is gospel. In this same thread there was the Overclockers link that showed a different result. Who is correct then?

Try reading more than review to come to a proper conclusion.

 

[Elfear]

Given the discussion, I meant OC 290x.

Ti is only 10% faster than 780 c4c.

This review:

http://fcenter.ru/online/hardarticles

From the previous thread puts a R290x @ 1130 2% faster than the 780 @ 1162 at 1080 and 4% at 1600.

A 780 at the Ti clocks in the [H] review would have been just as quick as the R290x, and 780 after months now has proven to clock higher on reference, aftermarket, and soon most likely elite aftermarket because instead of 1300 780s it will be 1400 as you pointed out.

We're really rehashing this again? If you can find evidence as conclusive as 20+ reviews showing an oced 780 is faster than an oced 290X, maybe your statements will have more credibility. As is the average oced 780 is 8-9% faster than a Titan and the average oced 290X is 15-23% faster, so...

 

[IEC]

You're all splitting hairs anyways. I'm not going to notice a major difference between 108 FPS with my CF 2x 290s versus 115 FPS with SLI 2x 780 Ti I am seeing in the Valley benchmark thread.

Then again, seeing as how I've sunk $960 into the pair versus the $1400+ 2x 780 Ti would run me, I'm not going to sweat it.

 

[blastingcap]

We're really rehashing this again? If you can find evidence as conclusive as 20+ reviews showing an oced 780 is faster than an oced 290X, maybe you're statements will have more credibility. As is the average oced 780 is 8-9% faster than a Titan and the average oced 290X is 15-23% faster, so...

To be fair some of those tests are suspect, the R9 290X's don't like heat and may throttle down if you run them longer than just for benchmarks. The counterargument of course being that you can simply crank up the fan speed, but that can be loud depending on the card, case, cooling, ambient temps, etc. and how much voltage you are adding to achieve an overclock. So I have difficulty taking the 15-23% number at face value. ~15% I think is more accurate. But as someone said, this is splitting hairs, they are both very quick cards.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

We're really rehashing this again? If you can find evidence as conclusive as 20+ reviews showing an oced 780 is faster than an oced 290X, maybe you're statements will have more credibility. As is the average oced 780 is 8-9% faster than a Titan and the average oced 290X is 15-23% faster, so...

Your own shootout had the 780 beating a water cooled 290, and let's not forget your Lightning was hamstrung.

1692 @ 1440 in Heaven?

I got 1638 @ 1254 in a cheese run.

3270 @ 1440 in Valley?

I got 3307 @ 1330...

I'm not trying to bag, but come on your 1300MHz Elpida Lightning beat your 1265MHz 290 and considering 1.4v I imagine only one of those was a 24/7 clock.

I mean what do you want me to say? Benchoff?