• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Radeon R9 290X Clock Speeds Surface

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,953
Location
Dalek flagship
Radeon R9 290X is looking increasingly good on paper. Most of its rumored specifications, and SEP pricing were reported late last week, but the ones that eluded us were clock speeds. A source that goes by the name Grant Kim, with access to a Radeon R9 290X sample, disclosed its clock speeds, and ran a few tests for us. To begin with, the GPU core is clocked at 800 MHz. There is no dynamic-overclocking feature, but the chip can lower its clocks, taking load and temperatures into account. The memory is clocked at 1125 MHz (4.50 GHz GDDR5-effective). At that speed, the chip churns out 288 GB/s of memory bandwidth, over its 512-bit wide memory interface. Those clock speeds were reported by the GPU-Z client to us, so we give it the benefit of our doubt, even if it goes against AMD's ">300 GB/s memory bandwidth" bullet-point in its presentation.

Among the tests run on the card include frame-rates and frame-latency for Aliens vs. Predators, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, GRID 2, Tomb Raider (2013), RAGE, and TESV: Skyrim, in no-antialiasing, FXAA, and MSAA modes; at 5760 x 1080 pixels resolution. An NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN was pitted against it, running the latest WHQL driver. We must remind you that at that resolution, AMD and NVIDIA GPUs tend to behave a little differently due to the way they handle multi-display, and so it may be an apples-to-coconuts comparison. In Tomb Raider (2013), the R9 290X romps ahead of the GTX TITAN, with higher average, maximum, and minimum frame rates in most tests.
Click to expand...

http://www.techpowerup.com/191768/radeon-r9-290x-clock-speeds-surface-benchmarked.html
 
I speculate those are the clocks of the 290 pro rather than the 290X. The reason for this is a few days ago the same website was telling us the 290X was only 384 bit. Grain of salt i think for now. Surprised it appears to roughly match a titan at those low clocks though.
 
It locking horns with a stock titan isn't that big of a surprise given a stock titan comes out the box only 76mhz faster, I think the oc results may be the ones to look out for, though without a doubt the 290x will represent far better value.

Memory at 4.5ghz, any idea what ic's are being used? If its the new Samsung stuff that could hit silly amounts of bandwidth :D
 
LtMatt said:
I speculate those are the clocks of the 290 pro rather than the 290X. The reason for this is a few days ago the same website was telling us the 290X was only 384 bit. Grain of salt i think for now. Surprised it appears to roughly match a titan at those low clocks though.
Click to expand...

Very big pinch of salt

If a HD 7970 @1200mhz can not beat a Titan I would be surprised if one of these cards @800mhz can beat a Titan.

Still it is news and we are on a need to know basis.:D:)
 
I am wondering why they have included a graph for Skyrim vram usage showing nearly 6gb when the R9 290X has only got 4gb, what's going on there.
 
LtMatt said:
I speculate those are the clocks of the 290 pro rather than the 290X. The reason for this is a few days ago the same website was telling us the 290X was only 384 bit. Grain of salt i think for now. Surprised it appears to roughly match a titan at those low clocks though.
Click to expand...

^^ This.
 
LtMatt said:
I speculate those are the clocks of the 290 pro rather than the 290X. The reason for this is a few days ago the same website was telling us the 290X was only 384 bit. Grain of salt i think for now. Surprised it appears to roughly match a titan at those low clocks though.
Click to expand...

12 days until we know for sure.
:)
 
If the 290 Pro is that fast then things are going to get real interesting round here. Salt for now though i think.
 
Hmm this is not good. I've only had my 670 for a year. Usually I hold on to a GPU for 2 years. However with the nerw consoles out, it looks like this is gona start a bit of a revolution.

If I can buy something between 200-300 which is twice as powerfull as my 670 then it would be tempting.
 
What's with the mental frame latency on Rage as well?

Also, on Tomb Raider the Titan has a minimum framerate higher than its average with FXAA and a minimum framerate the same as its average with MSAA 4xaa....doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
I haven’t been keeping up with the new AMD card rumours... just looking at it now.

Sounds like they have one 7870 replacement and a Titan rival.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There wont be anything double the 670's performance under £300! We will have to wait until 20nm for that.
 
Jono8 said:
What's with the mental frame latency on Rage as well?
Click to expand...

My guess is that its just an anomaly, it's the only OpenGL game I see on the list so it could simply be that the R9 drivers haven't had their OGL optimization finished yet as its not like its as popular as it used to be so prob not a priority. When RAGE first launched the were issues with it using OGL features not yet implemented in ATi drivers but that was fixed soon after with a beta driver, it should play fine on AMD today so this is most likely just something not yet optimized in the R9 beta drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom