videocardz AMD Radeon R9 290X Memory Bus: 512-bit

[raghu78]

Hold on, so now AA at high resolutions doesn't matter? Don't some of you realize if you remove MSAA, in many titles the performances goes up 30-50%? In that case, there is no point in getting a $650 GPU. A $280 1Ghz 7970 can play nearly every game smoothly at 1440P if you start removing MSAA. Regardless, the main point of flagship GPUs is to have the option to use MSAA. If you choose not to, that's each gamer's own prerogative. As games become even more memory bandwidth limited, it makes sense to test flagship GPUs with AA at 1440p/1600p.

512-bit bus is definitely a surprise. If the memory can hit 6300mhz, you are over 400GB/sec. If this card can beat the Titan out of the box and retains 1/4 DP similar to Tahiti, this is a huge turn-around for AMD to have a 420-430mm2 chip outperform a 561mm2 one in games and compute! One key ambiguity is 32 vs. 44/48? ROPs.

exactly. when it came to HD 7970 and Titan the most important comparison was 1440p and 1600p with 4x MSAA where the Titan's 50% higher ROP count widens the gap more than the avg 30%. now high res and high AA is not important. as usual its whatever suits their agenda.

 

[Final8ty]

You go ahead and run w/o AA. Just because you are fine with it doesn't mean it's a weak argument for anyone else. Just about everyone here uses AA, even with their hires screens. Unless they simply don't have the horsepower to push it.

no he is not. AA is required even at 1600p. do you think the tech websites are testing with MSAA at 1600p for no reason. "1600p does not need MSAA" is just misinformation. heck there are sites testing with SSAA at 1600p in few games which support it. SSAA is even more demanding than MSAA.

Been using 2560x1600 since 2006 and i still use loads of AA including Super Sample.

 

[gorobei]

fyi, amd will be streaming part of the presentation live on their investors page, facebook, and youtube channel.
http://techreport.com/news/25397/amd-to-stream-gpu-14-tech-day-event-live-next-week

hopefully it wont be the same time as valve's press event or the magical mystery reveal by nv.

 

[Final8ty]

Any news on whether a dual GPU version is planned as in 9990 or 290Xx2 as a pair of them would certainly be what's I'd like in my next build. If those benches are correct its going to be difficult to choose between two of them and two 7990's.

Hope so to, i want 2.

 

[Piotrsama]

Radeon R9 290X Vs. GTX Titan Review:

http://udteam.tistory.com/539

They pulled it down, it seems.
Besides... how credible is that site?

 

[imaheadcase]

no he is not. AA is required even at 1600p. do you think the tech websites are testing with MSAA at 1600p for no reason. "1600p does not need MSAA" is just misinformation. heck there are sites testing with SSAA at 1600p in few games which support it. SSAA is even more demanding than MSAA.

They do that to stress the cards. lol Not because people use it. I haven't use AA in years, I see no point or visual difference for it. Its the reason most games default with it disabled.

 

[Abwx]

They do that to stress the cards. lol Not because people use it. I haven't use AA in years, I see no point or visual difference for it. Its the reason most games default with it disabled.

Apparently not only GFX are stressed by such benchs...

It s disabled because most GFX will suffer fps penalties
that render the game less playable....

 

[Teizo]

They pulled it down, it seems.
Besides... how credible is that site?

I don't know, really. AMD said they were not targeting the $1000 gpu market...so having a gpu perform that well for so much less is interesting indeed. Granted an overclocked 780 can match a Titan already, as evidenced by Anantech's latest article, so it may be a possibility.

 

[Erenhardt]

I don't know, really. AMD said they were not targeting the $1000 gpu market...so having a gpu perform that well for so much less is interesting indeed. Granted an overclocked 780 can match a Titan already, as evidenced by Anantech's latest article, so it may be a possibility.

I can’t reveal a pricepoint but we’re looking at more traditional enthusiast GPU pricepoints. We’re not targeting a $999 single GPU solution like our competition because we believe not a lot of people have that $999. We normally address what we call the ultra-enthusiast segment with a dual-GPU offering like the 7990. So this next-generation line is targeting more of the enthusiast market versus the ultra-enthusiast one.

As always, ultra-enthusiasts will have dual gpu solution from AMD. Unfortunately, they will need to wait for it a bit.

 

[seitur]

Been using 2560x1600 since 2006 and i still use loads of AA including Super Sample.

Does not change a simple fact, that as resolution increase then need (and benefit) from AA decrease.

AT 4K AA will be largerly worthless in game with 4k textures.

 

[lavaheadache]

Does not change a simple fact, that as resolution increase then need (and benefit) from AA decrease.

AT 4K AA will be largerly worthless in game with 4k textures.

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

 

[bunnyfubbles]

grrr, can't even look at AMD until there's an alternative to Lightboost

 

[Skurge]

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

Absolutely true.

 

[Haserath]

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

Was wondering when someone would say this.

 

[Black Octagon]

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

Fair enough, very true. However, PPI is higher and dot pitch tighter on a 27-inch 2560x1440 screen compared to a 30-inch 2560x1600 screen. And don't forget about all the peeps gaming at 1920x1080 not on a 23-inch but a 24 or even 27-inch screen

 

[Gloomy]

I have to use AA on a 27" 2560x1440 panel. It still makes a noticeable difference.

The best thing about a huge display that can still match a smaller display's DPI is that you can sit much further away. Like this, the pixel size:viewing distance of the display is much better, and jaggies are much less noticeable.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Years ago all i used to care about was making sure i had as much AA as possible,guess as i have gotten older suddenly i don't even care for applying it as items can look sharper sure but some games look blurred out with fxaa and others tank your cards if you use something like msaa.

If i jumped around worrying about what performance a game offers fps wise cause i crave applying msaa,i would be upgrading my card every week if upgrades came out weekly lol.

 

[seitur]

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

Oh, I thought that was kinda obvious, given why AA is 'needed' in first place.
Anyway you're right of course.

 

[ICDP]

Does not change a simple fact, that as resolution increase then need (and benefit) from AA decrease.

AT 4K AA will be largerly worthless in game with 4k textures.

As pointed out already Pixel Per Inch (PPI) is what matters, not resolution. A 1920x1080 23" monitor has a PPI density of ~96. A 2560x1600 30" monitor has a PPI of ~101. If 2560x1440 was possible on a 23" display then it would make a substantial difference. Of course the opposite gives substantially worse results, going from a 22" 1920x1200 monitor to a 27" 1920x1200 monitor produces horrendous aliasing.

 

[ElFenix]

As resolution increases, need for AA diminishes. Personally I got zero need for AA at 2560*1440.

that may have been true when you could run your 19" monitor at 1600x1200 instead of a 17" at 1280x024, but with LCDs the DPI hasn't been increasing that much as you move up. a 30" screen certainly has better DPI than a 24" 1080p screen, but it's the same as a 22" 1080p screen.

i run AA at 2560x1440 because you can see lines crawl and AA reduces that.


edit: bah i see i'm well behind the convo

 

[caswow]

grrr, can't even look at AMD until there's an alternative to Lightboost

afaik lightboost does work on amd cards.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Mmmmmm, excited to see how these guys overclock. Hope AMD still gives us voltage control.

Depending on the performance advantage over the 7970 @ 1440p, and the overclocking questions, I might be in for 2 and slap some water blocks on them

 

[Kenmitch]

grrr, can't even look at AMD until there's an alternative to Lightboost

Lightboost looks to be working on AMD cards also.

http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Strobelight-LightBoost-Utility-for-AMD-ATI-and-NVIDIA

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654625588484476/

Unable to try it as I don't have a monitor that the feature is functional on.

 

[Rezist]

If I had a 23" 2560x1440p screen you likely wouldn't need AA but it seems the the size increases with resolution putting the need for AA back in.

 

[blackened23]

The need for AA does not decrease with higher resolution. It decreases with PPI. So many people don't realize this. 2560x1600 across a 30 inch display is only marginally more dense than a 1920x1080 23". So maybe you go from "needing" 2x AA rather than 4x....

I agree with this completely. Aliasing is still very obvious at the highest resolutions. That said, i'm not a stickler for MSAA and don't mind using FXAA, but the point still stands. There is still a need for AA at 1600p.

Also, gaming on a 22 inch? Whatever suits someone I guess. The difference in terms of immersion between a 30 inch (which is simply gigantic, anyone who has used one will attest) and a 22 inch is unbelievable. The size difference is unbelievable. The level of immersion is much better and the high 1600p resolution brings out a lot of details. PPI is a rather worthless metric because it takes a lot of things into account such as screen size and viewing distance, but anyone who has actually gamed 2 feet from a 1600p monitor will attest to what a great experience it is. Conversely, gaming on a cheap 22 inch TN panel with color shifting and bad viewing angles? Not to mention the puny size. Yeah, thanks but no thanks. Gaming on a tiny cheap trash wal-mart 22" TN panel, I don't find that experience to be fun at all.