AMD Radeon R9 290X with Hawaii GPU pictured, has 512-bit 4GB Memory

Silent_Scone · 10 Oct 2013 at 16:51

I've had all sorts Rroff, I'm a GPU ****.

5870 might of launched at a competative rate, but they had some serious underlying hardware level problems with the idle clocks (Power Play). They basically refused to admit there was a problem and I ended up with two bricks essentially. Sapphire released a 'fix' BIOS though. More of a work around. Just not a pleasant experience.

I know things have come along way since though.

Suarez7 · 10 Oct 2013 at 16:54

Gregster said:
Post your results then for the 290X or are you under NDA?

Although this is sarcasm you do have a point, even though the new gen is very similar to the 7 series it doesn't mean drivers will work the same on both. I'd imagine though AMD have learnt their lesson now and the launch drivers will be good with the odd few hiccups.

Gregster · 10 Oct 2013 at 16:58

Suarez7 said:
Although this is sarcasm you do have a point, even though the new gen is very similar to the 7 series it doesn't mean drivers will work the same on both. I'd imagine though AMD have learnt their lesson now and the launch drivers will be good with the odd few hiccups.

In truth, I expect they have as well but this is AMD we are talking about who miss the opportunity to miss the opportunity at times.

Tonester0011 · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:00

If AMD are actually launching the 290X @£550....then it's gotta beat the Titan to stand a chance, surely? Same for the 290, for £440 it has to compete with the 780. I honestly thought the 290X was going to be 780 perf, the 290 was going to be the inbetween 770 and 780 gap as nothing really exists atm.

Flying_Hellfish · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:02

Given the Toxic 280x review, the 290x is going to have to be some card to warrant the premium - irrespective of Titan.

I'm really looking forward to the reviews..

Suarez7 · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:09

Tonester0011 said:
If AMD are actually launching the 290X @£550....then it's gotta beat the Titan to stand a chance, surely? Same for the 290, for £440 it has to compete with the 780. I honestly thought the 290X was going to be 780 perf, the 290 was going to be the inbetween 770 and 780 gap as nothing really exists atm.

The 290X is aimed at beating a 780 but will probably beat the TITAN as well doing so, TITAN was something else entirely, it isn't really the top end of any series, it sits in its own category. That's how I see it anyway.

On pricing AMD could quite easily sell a 290X at £400 I'd imagine and still make money but as I think you explained before the market allows for much higher pricing now as people will still buy.

Nelly · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:13

Flying_Hellfish said:
Given the Toxic 280x review, the 290x is going to have to be some card to warrant the premium - irrespective of Titan.

I'm really looking forward to the reviews..

Just think...Sapphire may release a Toxic version of the R9 290X in 2 months time, imagine how much faster it could possibly be over the stock version.

If so Nvidia would be screwed, they might be anyway, and who cares I'll buy whatevers faster lol.

Kaapstad · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:14

Flying_Hellfish said:
Given the Toxic 280x review, the 290x is going to have to be some card to warrant the premium - irrespective of Titan.

I'm really looking forward to the reviews..

The Toxic 280x review would look a bit different if they compared it to a MSI lightning and Matrix Platinum 7970s on the same drivers.

Suarez7 · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:18

Kaapstad said:
The Toxic 280x review would look a bit different if they compared it to a MSI lightning and Matrix Platinum 7970s on the same drivers.

Yeah I've never understood reviews of highly clocked cards being compared to stock versions of others. They should have threw a 780 lightning in there as well.

Flying_Hellfish · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:19

Shame we have wait even longer for the non-ref 290x models. I'm holding off (in hope more than expectation) that one of these can compare favourably to my current solution.

humbug · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:24

LtMatt said:
I require 1.194V for 1125/1500. Any less and i crash after a short while. I will test that theory using 1.188v I hope you're correct. If you're not i will be expecting compensation.

I'm running stock volts (1.25v) as i can't be bothered forcing constant volts, before @ 1150 it was around 75c, now its around 72c @ 1200.

Gregster · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:34

Kaapstad said:
The Toxic 280x review would look a bit different if they compared it to a MSI lightning and Matrix Platinum 7970s on the same drivers.

Suarez7 said:
Yeah I've never understood reviews of highly clocked cards being compared to stock versions of others. They should have threw a 780 lightning in there as well.

Agreed and it is like comparing Vega's Titan against Jrodga's 7990 in the Heaven thread and then claiming a Titan is faster than a 7990. You just can't compare like that.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18489026

Probably a bad example but you know what I mean

Avenged7Fold · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:39

I need the R9-290 price NAOOOO.

I was aiming for the 290x but with all this scary price speculation, i have set my sights on the next best thing.

Randomface74 · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:44

lol @ u guys talking about the 5870 in the past tense

plays BF4 just fine

LtMatt · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:44

LtMatt said:
I require 1.194V for 1125/1500. Any less and i crash after a short while. I will test that theory using 1.188v I hope you're correct. If you're not i will be expecting compensation.

Well ill be damned. He's right folks. He's god damned right. Passed a 45 minute round of BF4 at lower voltage. Now to go one notch lower. :cool:

humbug · 10 Oct 2013 at 17:57

LtMatt said:
Well ill be damned. He's right folks. He's god damned right. Passed a 45 minute round of BF4 at lower voltage. Now to go one notch lower.

told ya.... ye have little faith in me

Marine-RX179 · 10 Oct 2013 at 18:02

mmj_uk said:
Why don't AMD just release at the normal price point instead of trying to rip people off? NVidia will soon drop their prices in order to compete. Are they both price fixing or what? GPU prices are becoming ridiculous.

Like people are saying the NVidia GPU is more expensive to manufacture so NVidia have a valid reason for charging more.

Well, that certainly doesn't apply to 7950/7970 vs GTX670/GTX680 back then. Their memory bandwidth was a bit of a joke, comparing what their competition had on offer (not to mention nearly at £100 less plus free games).

Nvidia has made more than enough money milking the GK104 based cards marketing and selling them as high-end anyway...it's about time they give back a little starting by dropping the price on the GTX780 to reasonable level.

LtMatt · 10 Oct 2013 at 18:03

humbug said:
told ya.... ye have little faith in me

Now about to try 1.181v. If i can get it down 2 notches ill be delighted. Three notches and im going to praise the lord.

Suarez7 · 10 Oct 2013 at 18:07

LtMatt said:
Now about to try 1.181v. If i can get it down 2 notches ill be delighted. Three notches and im going to praise the lord.

Are you only testing it in one game? You might find it works fine for one game but will crash in others.

I remember before when I thought drivers had improved my overclocks but eventually they would crash in certain games.

LtMatt · 10 Oct 2013 at 18:08

Suarez7 said:
Are you only testing it in one game? You might find it works fine for one game but will crash in others.

I remember before when I thought drivers had improved my overclocks but eventually they would crash in certain games.

I tested the same voltage on previous drivers the day before and it crashed after 5 minutes so i think this has some merit. I have to say this is the first driver revision ive seen actually alter my voltage required. Up until now i always wrote it off as PEBKAC but maybe ill have to rethink that. Two notches and im sold on the theory.