Didn't the reviewers show that the 290X is now 'smoother' in delivering frames than Nvidia's cards? Notice how suddenly those who were so loud about that before are no longer bringing it up?
Yea, we have a new metric. [Performance*smoothness/equalized_noise*Watt]*%of_industral_design
That's golden. If I had room in my sig it would go there.Yea, we have a new metric. [Performance*smoothness/equalized_noise*Watt]*%of_industral_design
Didn't the reviewers show that the 290X is now 'smoother' in delivering frames than Nvidia's cards? Notice how suddenly those who were so loud about that before are no longer bringing it up?
I'm really impressed from what I've read so far. I expected the 290 not to be noteworthy. or for the cooling to not help at all and you are left with a leafblower.
I'm also kinda anxious about gsync. However for the prices that AMD is pushing compared to nvidia for this level of performance, with the possibilities of mantle, its position in nextgen consoles, and! its advances in XFIRE [need to look into that more], I think an aftermarket 490 is in my immediate future. I suppose gsync could always be licensed. I'm still wondering if gsync will make GPU upgrades much less needed when 30fps feels like 60fps, effectively allowing you to upgrade half as much.
I listened to one of the aftermarket coolers they put on and its nothing compared to the reference even at full load. I couldn't even hear it. Whereas the reference was screaming.
I think this is the most exciting GPU launch I've seen in years.
How about the most configurable GPU?
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-290X-Hawaii-Configurable-GPU
How about the most configurable GPU?
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-290X-Hawaii-Configurable-GPU
Any performance numbers to go with those most dynamic of clock speeds vs the not so dynamic?
Just read the original pcper review of the R9 290X.
The conclusion as usual is:
If noise is a concern wait for AIB custom cards or do it yourself - that will reduce the noise, the temperature, maybe even some power reduction. Or just let you OC quite a bit.
PCPer ran the numbers hot vs cold and surprise surprise you need 50-60% fan speed to prevent the hot run from sinking in performance.
I guess people who don't like messing with manual overclocks/volts might be ok with R9 290-series cards. Especially if they game with headphones. But for those of us who liked doing it ourselves, these GPUs are basically pre-oc/ov'd leaving virtually no headroom with reference cooler. Maybe you get back a few percent with good air coolers, but that's a far cry from cards like GTX 460 and HD 7950 that could oc 25%+ even with modest air coolers.
I don't see the surprise.
The original reviews already talked about this.
And look at tomshardware or computerbase.de.
The drop in temperatures are significant.
There was one site (forgot which one) that strapped the HIS ICEQ X2 from a 280X and saw significant drops.
1150-1200 should normal with a decent air cooler. That is 15-20%, and we are already talking of performance similar to the 780.
Are those hot runs or cold runs? Because I game for more than 5-7 minutes as a time.
Do you really want to know, or are you just trolling? Because if you are interested, go look it up. Otherwise, just stop.
Are those hot runs or cold runs? Because I game for more than 5-7 minutes as a time.
I don't know that a GPU that runs at ~800MHz is really pre-overclocked. Aren't people already running these at 1+GHz? I think we'll see a lot more headroom on these than some think. Just keeping the GPU from throttling will give you 25% more clock speed than the ~800MHz or so they seem to settle at! And only 5Gbps memory on the reference card? I think we'll see some very fast non-reference boards with ~1050MHz+ clocks and 6Gbps or higher memory. From what I've seen simply keeping these GPU's cool gives you massive boosts on the reference boards, and that's not even touching the factory clock settings.
I don't know that a GPU that runs at ~800MHz is really pre-overclocked. Aren't people already running these at 1+GHz? I think we'll see a lot more headroom on these than some think. Just keeping the GPU from throttling will give you 25% more clock speed than the ~800MHz or so they seem to settle at! And only 5Gbps memory on the reference card? I think we'll see some very fast non-reference boards with ~1050MHz+ clocks and 6Gbps or higher memory. From what I've seen simply keeping these GPU's cool gives you massive boosts on the reference boards, and that's not even touching the factory clock settings.
Hot runs.
Some of the reviewers clearly mention that they warm up the cards.
BrentJ for [H] also confirmed that in his play the cards at uber stick at 1000 MHz, maybe with the exception of FC3.
That's golden. If I had room in my sig it would go there.
The constant garbage the nvidia fanclub puts out in this subforum is nothing short of astounding.
Didn't the reviewers show that the 290X is now 'smoother' in delivering frames than Nvidia's cards? Notice how suddenly those who were so loud about that before are no longer bringing it up?
Yes, there is a trend. I even pointed it out during the "smoothness" blip. An interesting. but questionable on whether it is user impacting, difference between the brands shows up on a website then it gets immediately blown up by concerted posting on enthusiast forums. I'm sure AMD does it too, I'd be shocked if their marketing didn't latch onto the "Fermi Oven" opportunity. But imo the Nvidia propaganda is much more plentiful and hyperbolic, which makes it more annoying to me.
It wouldn't even bug me that much if the forum identities would be consistent and do such things as give occasional kudos to a company that actually improves what they've been criticizing. Would at least make PC tech forums a tad more civil.
Ok, time will tell I guess. I'm still disappointed in oc headroom and have doubts that 1200 would be stable on anything other than water. I've seen so many people claim this or that for benching and stability but then it turns out less than stable if I try it on my cards. I can't just keep getting dog samples either given how many cards I go through, so I think my standards for stability may be higher than for most.
I think AMD need commended for their improvements here. But by the tone of these statements, it almost sounds like an attempt at starting drama more than a thumbs up to AMD. I think AMD deserves praise for their improvement, without all that other mess.
I do believe that some my be forgetting where all this came from. It didnt start with the graphs but reviewers. Reviewers who where noticing hitching and inconsistent pacing. The frame charts came after to try to represent the hitching and compare the data in a meaning full way. There was a huge backlash from very vocal groups that said if you couldnt perceive the pacing issues then what is the problem. Well here we are full turn and it would be quite funny if those same people were now starting a fuss over frame times that are for the most part undetectable. I am not saying that any of those quoted are now making a fuss over something they once disregarded, just that it would be funny.
See, it can go both ways. But behind all the games and bickering there was a real perceivable frame pacing issues. There was pacing issues and studder that was noted. It took complicated measures to attempt to chart these variances in a meaningful way. In the beginning there was huge differences and massive issues in pacing frames. AMD has really done an extremely well job at correcting these issues, i would be the first to commend them for their work. As far as the charts go, AMD frame times look as good and even better than Nvidia's. But now we are talking about differences so small that it takes charts to see a difference. It is no longer studder that is noticed and a chart trying to represent that studder. We are past all that. Many people said if it is not perceivable then whats the big deal, the difference between the camps is so small now there is no big deal. Unless, all of a sudden these people want to try to make one out of it.
I, for one am glad to see the improvement. I am also glad to see that attention is still on smoothness to keep everyone in check. I think once there is a case where frame times gets choppy again, people will notice and it will be corrected. No matter which company or what card it is. This is good for everyone, no?
Big chips tend to run slower even if using same process as smaller chips, IIRC. Where is IDC when you need someone to explain chip physics?
One thing I do appreciate is that we are (FINALLY) back up to 512-bit memory bandwidth, something that hasn't happened in ages. Since, what, the GTX 285 I think? Something like that? And ROPs finally went up too, though current-gen games aren't exactly geometry bound most of the time. But maybe AMD knows something about next-gen console ports that we don't, so they preemptively beefed up memory and ROPs.
The GK110 is a bigger chip than Hawaii though.
Hawaii has a higher density of xtors - that also increases speed but also power consumption.