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

RavenXXX2 · 11 Oct 2013 at 15:47

40% faster = 100% more expensive than a 280x? That's not good VFM in my book, same goes for titan and 780.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 15:51

humbug said:
To be fair to AMD, this is a brand new GPU Chip designed from the ground up.

How's this any different to like the last 3 flagships from AMD on a new generation?

Silent_Scone · 11 Oct 2013 at 15:51

Truth is most people in here wouldn't be happy unless the 290X was £250 inc vat.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 15:54

MjFrosty said:
Truth is most people in here wouldn't be happy unless the 290X was £250 inc vat.

I don't think anyone could reasonably expect that.
The 290 maybe (Throw back to the 6950 and 5850)

Suarez7 · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:05

benjii said:
At OCUK, the difference between the cheapest 7970 and 780 is £260, £240 and £500 respectively.

Think me meant performance not price lol.

Phixsator · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:09

MjFrosty said:
Truth is most people in here wouldn't be happy unless the 290X was £250 inc vat.

I dont mind if the flagship 290x is priced at the 450£ mark and the 290 at 400£. Thats not to excessive if the performance does match the titan and the 780 which i will bet my old hat on it does(within a 5% margin) in non-mantle games.

Silent_Scone · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:13

Phixsator said:
I dont mind if the flagship 290x is priced at the 450£ mark and the 290 at 400£. Thats not to excessive if the performance does match the titan and the 780 which i will bet my old hat on it does(within a 5% margin) in non-mantle games.

add tax and you're close.

Kaapstad · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:17

Whether the R9 290X matches/beats the Titan is not really the question.

It should come down to which card plays your games better. For example it does not matter to me if the 290X is way better @BF4 as I am never going to play the game (apart from short runs to keep LtMatt amused with my lack of ability).

Silent_Scone · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:31

Well I'll be keeping my Titans for Batman...

Can't be playing it without all the smoke and capes. Would be like eating steak without apple sauce

MOOGLEYS · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:31

The Batman games do look a lot better with Physx enabled.

Suarez7 · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:32

Same with Borderlands 2

Buckster · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:37

I was fairly either way on Batman - but do admit the particle effects on Borderlands 2 are nice

I guess for next-gen stuff - we'lll be seeing lots of particle, physics effects but not tied to a specific GPU

VincentHanna · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:40

Suarez7 said:
Same with Borderlands 2

You can use CPU processing to see physx in Borderlands 2.

Doesn't work in the Batman games though.

Suarez7 · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:44

VincentHanna said:
You can use CPU processing to see physx in Borderlands 2.

LOL is all I will say to this.

benjii · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:51

VincentHanna said:
You can use CPU processing to see physx in Borderlands 2.

Doesn't work in the Batman games though.

It worked for me in Batman Arkham City.

Rusty0611 · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:52

Easy on the rumour mill folks. I remember the "Titan faster than 690" rumours close to release. Expectations in check and all.

ubersonic · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:52

Suarez7 said:
LOL is all I will say to this.

Agreed, BL2 was the first title I played where I considered Physx to make a "night and day" difference.

Yaayuh! · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:55

VincentHanna said:
You can use CPU processing to see physx in Borderlands 2.

Suarez7 said:
LOL is all I will say to this.

Indeed!!!!! HAhaha!

Buckster · 11 Oct 2013 at 16:55

I loved all the particles as you fired a variety of guns

Suarez7 · 11 Oct 2013 at 17:02

benjii said:
It worked for me in Batman Arkham City.

If you can run full PhysX effects from your CPU you may want to give nvidia a call and tell them their GPU's aren't needed anymore then.