R260/270/280/290/290x Review thread

[SiliconWars]

Why should it have titan beat at 1600p? Titan is formidable at higher res.

The 290X should be even more formidable. I'm not saying it'll be a clean win but I expect to see 4-5% anyway.

Also dont know why they would use 1920x1080 benches with these cards. If anyone buys these cards for this sort of res, they would probably be newbs.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous.

 

[blackened23]

Just assuming that the expected price of $650 for the 290x is accurate, do timelines matter if it offers the same performance as the current $1000 card? Isn't that how most technology works? Insanely expensive (think large screen LCD TVs a decade ago) at the initial offering and then lowered as the manufacturing process matures.

The fact is I can not - or perhaps choose not to - spend $1000 on a video card. Even $650 is beyond what I spend on cards. But if AMD can reduce the price of a performance tier by 35%, that's a huge win in my book.

I'll just say this on a general basis, not specific. The 290X all hinges on price. Channel pricing seems to indicate sub 600$ pricing, which would be most excellent. This will not, however, stop NV diehards from taking a dump on the 290X with the most silly arguments possible. It's just how fanboyism works. 600$ matches 1000$ card and OC's very well on air? That = NV diehard argument "it's too little too late blah blah blah" You see this type of fanboy-ism in the CPU forum every day too, it's actually pretty hilarious there. Unfortunately, there really isn't any competition in the CPU realm since AMD is just getting smacked around, there's nothing good objectively to be stated about AMD CPUs ever. But it's a different story with GPUs. They're competitive in GPUs. So I think it's going to be a good card IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT.

If the card costs 700$, though, I would also be negative about it. But 600$? And it overclocks well on air with good OC headroom? Don't expect the live or die for NV fans to say anything good, but I think that will be a heck of a card. You can't really say anything bad about such a card trading blows with the Titan, can OC well on air, and is priced much lower (preferably less than 600$), but those other guys...will find bad things to say. As I said, such is how fanboy-ism works. I'm saying this because...I guess I don't understand it. If it's priced right, as in, LESS THAN THE GTX 780, I don't see anything to complain about.

Needless to say, i'm most interested in seeing all of the final benchmarks. I hope the 290X does well, because everyone benefits if so regardless of which brand they like. Here's what it boils down to IMHO:

Scenario A: 290X = 550-600$? Heck of a card for a good price. Especially if it OC's well in air.

Scenario B: 290X = 700$+? Excuse me while I laugh, and let's all sit back and wait a month for AMD to be forced to do price cuts because it isn't selling. Really, 700$+ will just steer most consumers to pre-overclocked GTX 780 cards. 700$+ would be a truly stupid move from AMD, and I would join many in snubbing them if they do this. This is also aside from the fact that AMD isn't on NV's level in terms of software just yet, which in my eyes prevents AMD from pricing with NV premiums. 700$+ is just a no go for the 290X, period.

 

[LegSWAT]

My problems with this launch aren't pinned on 1 thing in particular.

It's a bunch of things all together.

1. Nearly the entire GPU line up is nothing more than rebadges
2. It's been how long since AMD released the 7 series?
3. The Hawaii Press event disaster
3. a. The epic ball drop that was the live stream.
3. b. The presentation was about a entertaining as getting fired from a job.
3. c. AMD is now an audio company too? Atleast that's what I got from the bulk of the presentation
4. What happened to the pre order on the 3rd? Not that t was a good idea to begin with.

Sure this NDA thing was/is based on rumor and leaked slides but come one.......... what momentum does this launch have going?

Take it easy, AMD isn't made up of marketing whizzes as the other remaining companies in that business. Doesn't prevent them from engineering great products though. Granted, their live-stream was entertaining as a documentary on limestone propagation where the only emotion arisen was anger for more-than-casual streaming errors; hint: save your beer and popcorn next time; optionally: call Rory and demand he adds a disclaimer next time that warns of serious boredom, loss of appetite and other symptoms related to watching technical presentations.

 

[imaheadcase]

Also dont know why they would use 1920x1080 benches with these cards. If anyone buys these cards for this sort of res, they would probably be newbs.

Because they like to play with everything maxed out with modern games? Yes you need faster cards for that.

Try BF4 at %200 scaling everything on Ultra and come back. People with Titans will only get almost 30fps.

 

[lavaheadache]

Take it easy, AMD isn't made up of marketing whizzes as the other remaining companies in that business. Doesn't prevent them from engineering great products though. Granted, their live-stream was entertaining as a documentary on limestone propagation where the only emotion arisen was anger for more-than-casual streaming errors; hint: save your beer and popcorn next time; optionally: call Rory and demand he adds a disclaimer next time that warns of serious boredom, loss of appetite and other symptoms related to watching technical presentations.

I am taking it easy. *IF* I could truly voice my opinion on here about this launch I would be vacationed.

I've got about 25 years of pc gaming hobbyist in my blood and there haven't been too many times I've gotten upset about hardware. Too me, only was the HD 2900 delay more painful to see unfold. Even the x1800 delay wasn't so bad since we saw new high end cards every 6 months or so back then. This is over a year and a half post 7970 and they don't even have their act together.

As a AMD share holder with thousands of shares, if I could smack somebody I would for playing with my money like fools.

 

[Demoralized]

I agree, everything hinges on price. I'm a fanboy of neither company, I like value and performance. If it beats a 780 and is within a couple % of titan at sub $600, then it is clearly a winner, for everyone. Other cards will come down in price and we have a competitive market. If it's overpriced, most people will buy other cards. AMD/NV fans are gonna say whatever to support their camp, but this should be good for everyone.

 

[blackened23]

I agree, everything hinges on price. I'm a fanboy of neither company, I like value and performance. If it beats a 780 and is within a couple % of titan at sub $600, then it is clearly a winner, for everyone. Other cards will come down in price and we have a competitive market. If it's overpriced, most people will buy other cards. AMD/NV fans are gonna say whatever to support their camp, but this should be good for everyone.

Thank you, this is the abridged version of what I was saying all along - If it is sub 600$, it's going to be a hell of a card. Period. Don't expect the extreme NV fanboys to say anything good about it, ever, but I think such a card will do fine on the market.

If it's 700$? Yeah, eff that. AMD just isn't as good in terms of software compared to NV to command that type of pricing yet IMHO. They're making progress on the software front but they're not at parity yet. SO - Here's hoping it's sub 600$, and if so i'll certainly praise the card assuming the performance ends up as rumored.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Battlefield 3:
290X is 10% faster than GTX 780

Crysis 3:
290X is 5% faster than GTX 780

Metro Last Light:
290X is 12% faster than GTX 780

Splinter Cell:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Tomb Raider:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Far Cry 3:
290X and GTX 780 is equal.

Summary: 27/6 = 4.5 = 5%

R9 290X is 5% in average faster than GTX 780.

GTX 780 cost $649 today. R9 290X is rumored (few webpages list them) at $599-$699.

Really, I`m trying hard to understand what is so impressive about a card that is released 5 months after GTX 780, only to beat it by petty 5%. Can anyone explain to me why anyone should not be disappointed about AMD? What is their strategy here? Hope that the AMD fans have refused to buy GTX 780 and instead will buy 290X now that it is out? That people will give up GTX 780 for the promises that Mantle will be amazing?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Can anyone explain to me why anyone should not be disappointed about AMD?

Probably not, no. Anything AMD does is considered a failure in your view.

 

[wand3r3r]

Battlefield 3:
290X is 10% faster than GTX 780

Crysis 3:
290X is 5% faster than GTX 780

Metro Last Light:
290X is 12% faster than GTX 780

Splinter Cell:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Tomb Raider:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Far Cry 3:
290X and GTX 780 is equal.

Summary: 27/6 = 4.5 = 5%

R9 290X is 5% in average faster than GTX 780.

GTX 780 cost $649 today. R9 290X is rumored (few webpages list them) at $599-$699.

Really, I`m trying hard to understand what is so impressive about a card that is released 5 months after GTX 780, only to beat it by petty 5%. Can anyone explain to me why anyone should not be disappointed about AMD? What is their strategy here? Hope that the AMD fans have refused to buy GTX 780 and instead will buy 290X? That people will give up GTX 780 for the promises that Mantle will be some amazing?

Not to burst this little bubble but were you complaining about the 680 at release?

 

[Grooveriding]

Probably not, no. Anything AMD does is considered a failure in your view.

 

[blackened23]

Actually, you've revised those figures quite a bit there cloud. The 290X was 1% shy of Titan and 10% faster than the GTX 780 overall, and you have some errors in the figures that you posted. Despite being 1% shy of Titan, you mysteriously gleaned 5% faster than the 780 when it was actually 10% faster at stock clockspeeds. The 290X was faster in every game and was also equal to Titan in Splinter Cell: Blacklist, (you said it was equal to the 780.). The 290X was also well ahead of the 780 in Far Cry 3.

If you average the figures out, which as luck would have it, videocardz.com DID, it is 10% faster than the 780. Pricing is yet to be determined but channel pricing is now sub 600$ for the 290X.

Anyway, this goes back to my post earlier in this thread. Speaking on a general and non specfic basis, not directing this at anyone - live or die for nvidia fanboys will find bad things to say no matter what. You can look at some of the post history of these folks and find 50+ pages of nothing but bad-mouthing AMD. Will the 290X change that? Hell no. They will find bad things to say even if it's sub 600$ and 10% faster than the GTX 780.

It's whatever. Some people aren't objective, period. Personally i'm waiting to see - the performance is pretty much finalized as far as I can tell as being faster than the 780 and trading with Titan. EVERYTHING NOW hinges on the price. If it's 600$, I will consider the 290X to be a great card. If it's 700$, I won't.

 

[Kenmitch]

Battlefield 3:
290X is 10% faster than GTX 780

Crysis 3:
290X is 5% faster than GTX 780

Metro Last Light:
290X is 12% faster than GTX 780

Splinter Cell:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Tomb Raider:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Far Cry 3:
290X and GTX 780 is equal.

Summary: 27/6 = 4.5 = 5%

R9 290X is 5% in average faster than GTX 780.

GTX 780 cost $649 today. R9 290X is rumored (few webpages list them) at $599-$699.

Really, I`m trying hard to understand what is so impressive about a card that is released 5 months after GTX 780, only to beat it by petty 5%. Can anyone explain to me why anyone should not be disappointed about AMD? What is their strategy here? Hope that the AMD fans have refused to buy GTX 780 and instead will buy 290X now that it is out? That people will give up GTX 780 for the promises that Mantle will be amazing?

We need some official reviews with current drivers to pass judgment on the 290/290x cards. Without knowing this and the real price how can a person crunch the numbers and make a informed decision as to the value of the card.

 

[blackened23]

We need some official reviews with current drivers to pass judgment on the 290/290x cards. Without knowing this and the real price how can a person crunch the numbers and make a informed decision as to the value of the card.

His figures are flat out wrong too. Here's the source:

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

It was 1% shy of Titan and 10% faster than the GTX 780.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Not to burst this little bubble but were you complaining about the 680 at release?

For starters, it was only 2 months after 7970 was released.
Second, it was their first Kepler card. A brand new architecture on a brand new node. Hawaii is still GCN and its still 28nm. Comparing that launch with this is like comparing apple and oranges.

We need some official reviews with current drivers to pass judgment on the 290/290x cards. Without knowing this and the real price how can a person crunch the numbers and make a informed decision as to the value of the card.

True,
I really hope, for AMDs sake, that it will fare better than the slides show. Because the only customers that will buy them at the rumored price, is people who haven`t bought GTX 780. And among them is a lot of people who would rather wait until 20nm cards are here.

 

[SiliconWars]

Battlefield 3:
290X is 10% faster than GTX 780

Crysis 3:
290X is 5% faster than GTX 780

Metro Last Light:
290X is 12% faster than GTX 780

Splinter Cell:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Tomb Raider:
290X and GTX 780 is equal

Far Cry 3:
290X and GTX 780 is equal.

Summary: 27/6 = 4.5 = 5%

R9 290X is 5% in average faster than GTX 780.

GTX 780 cost $649 today. R9 290X is rumored (few webpages list them) at $599-$699.

Really, I`m trying hard to understand what is so impressive about a card that is released 5 months after GTX 780, only to beat it by petty 5%. Can anyone explain to me why anyone should not be disappointed about AMD? What is their strategy here? Hope that the AMD fans have refused to buy GTX 780 and instead will buy 290X now that it is out? That people will give up GTX 780 for the promises that Mantle will be amazing?

Maybe you should count all the games instead of your favourite 5? The 290X beats the 780 by 11% over 8 games.

That's at 1080p, judging by the Splinter Cell 1600p result it's going to be a massacre at higher resolution.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Maybe you should count all the games instead of your favourite 5? The 290X beats the 780 by 11% over 8 games.

That's at 1080p, judging by the Splinter Cell 1600p result it's going to be a massacre at higher resolution.

There are 2 synthetic scores there. Total score. Very far from accurate. And they are benchmarks.
Looking at the 1080p games, 6 not 5, its a 5-6% difference.
I will wait until the higher resolutions are there. They better be more impressive than the 1080p

I`m actually hoping believe it or not, because this is getting boring to watch.

EDIT: Oh, there are actually 8 games there. Sorry

 

[Grooveriding]

If those benches are an accurate gauge it really looks like the 780 is not even in the same class at the 290X. Albeit there was never a large performance difference between the 780 and the Titan, but it's the Titan that is trying to compete with the 290X.

 

[Erenhardt]

For starters, it was only 2 months after 7970 was released.
Second, it was their first Kepler card. A brand new architecture on a brand new node. Hawaii is still GCN and its still 28nm. Comparing that launch with this is like comparing apple and oranges.

Kepler is not more different from fermi than hawaii from GCN. Funny, looking now through your post history to same the same about hd7000 series. You know, first GCN, drivers... I'm sure you were cheering for AMD then.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Ok whoever used the calculator that works for videocardz need to revisit their math.

(2.6 + 12.9 + 5 + 3.6 + 4.7 + 11.5 + 0 + 11.8)/8 = 6.5%

In average, from the 8 games tested, R9 290X is 6.5% faster than GTX 780 in 1080p.


BTW, did you guys notice the power consumption and temperatures? Yikes

 

[Erenhardt]

BTW, did you guys notice the power consumption and temperatures? Yikes

Yep. Lack of drivers. Furmark is a power virus. Drivers try to prevent unnecessary work to be done which leads to lower power consumption = lower temps

 

[blackened23]

You're not doing the percentages properly, your math is off. You can view the review yourself through google translate. The review was posted at EXPreview, and I quote:

Graphics performance summary:

In just eight games in the test, we used a 1080P full HD resolution, 4MSAA anti-aliasing, the highest quality testing, performance results summarized below.

R9 290X (tested only represents 6 games)
R9 290X PK R9 280X
+37%
R9 270X PK NVIDIA GTX780
+11%
R9 270X PK NVIDIA GTX TITAN
1%

GTX TITAN and R9 290X outcome of each game on the number of the former leader, the latter in a single game ahead of even larger, the two sides reached a total statistical difference is almost negligible, can be identified as the same level. Therefore, according to the choice of different games, one of them will be very prone to a slight lead in the case.

In addition, this test is 1920x1080 resolution, higher Qing 2560x1600 us first to leave a suspense. Also note that once again, this time testing, NVIDIA and AMD graphics cards are used the beta driver, does not represent the performance of the official version of the driver for reference purposes only.

Note that the 11% figure is from the 6 games and the 6 games alone. Does not include synthetics, as noted in the review itself. Link to review:

http://www.google.com/translate?hl=...nline.com.cn/x/363/3631256_all.html&sandbox=1

 

[Cloudfire777]

]You're not doing the percentages properly, your math is off[/B]. You can view the review yourself through google translate. The review was posted at EXPreview, and I quote:



Note that the 11% figure is from the 6 games and the 6 games alone. Does not include synthetics, as noted in the review itself. Link to review:

http://www.google.com/translate?hl=...nline.com.cn/x/363/3631256_all.html&sandbox=1

Err,

I`m not going to google average. I know how its calculated. You clearly don`t. And why use 6 games when they tested 8 games? The more games, the better average calculation you get.

6.5% is correct.

Yep. Lack of drivers. Furmark is a power virus. Drivers try to prevent unnecessary work to be done which leads to lower power consumption = lower temps

True, and not exactly representative to what Mr Average Joe will be doing with his card. Hope gaming with correct drivers will be better. Because frankly, I`m not seeing the socalled efficiency AMD talked about earlier.

----------------------------------

Anyhow, I`m out. Hope to see more slides tomorrow. Hope they are better than this.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Another bench blurb

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-290x-radeon-r9-290-hawaii-gpus-gaming-synthetic-benchmarks-exposed/

As expected, once you turn up the resolution, the R9 290X slaughters the competition
Considering AMD themselves said the card was made with 4K in mind, testing it at 1080p is retarded

Im not sure how people can possibly be disappointed? Hello? This is a 550-600$ card beating a 1000$ card... Wtf more do you want?
How many people even consider Titan seriously? Its a complete joke unless you are filthy rich and have nothing better to do with your money... This R9 290X looks like its finally bringing that kind of performance into the usual high end budget, and thats what you should be excited for

Still blows my mind how people complained about the 7970 being 550$, but Titan being 1000$ is fine, lol

 

[SiliconWars]

http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fg.pconline.com.cn%2Fx%2F363%2F3631256_all.html&sandbox=1

Splinter Cell - 290X is 4% faster (57/55)
Metro - 290X is 26% faster (78/62) *note the 290X is the RED BAR at the top*
Tomb Raider - 290X is 3% faster (78/76)
Crysis 3 - 290X is 5% faster (42/40)
Black Ops 2 - 290X is 5% faster (135/129)
Sleeping Dogs - 290X is 12% faster (57/51)
Farcry 3 - 290X is 31% faster (68/52)
Battlefield 3 - Draw (108/108)

8 games - Overall the 290X is 11% faster than the 780, and looking at most of the games where the 780 keeps up, it'll not be anything like as close at 1600p. It gets destroyed in the really tough games like Metro and FC3.