[H] AMD Radeon R9 290X CrossFire Video Card Review

Final8y · 1 Nov 2013 at 06:23

Move aside TITAN SLI, Radeon R9 290X CrossFire just took over as the fastest 2-way video card performance in gaming across the board, period. For the price of one TITAN Radeon R9 290X CrossFire provides the most impressive performance we've seen to date, and beats not just one, but two TITANs.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...90x_crossfire_video_card_review/#.UnNIZBBOoxc

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:11

Final8y said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...90x_crossfire_video_card_review/#.UnNIZBBOoxc

Good find. H seem to be getting better by the day. Who was it who said the 290X will be useless at 4K vs a titan? Cos the titan just got its ass handed to it at 4k. Even at 5760x1200 the 290X wins at all situations. In all the tests when you go apples to apply the 290X has the biggest margin of victory. I guess this is why the 780TI is coming.

Azrael1 · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:19

I am very impressed.Now to see the price of the 780ti and the price of custom cooled r9 290x and to make my choice. Decisions decisions.

Rusty0611 · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:33

LtMatt said:
Good find. H seem to be getting better by the day. Who was it who said the 290X will be useless at 4K vs a titan? Cos the titan just got its ass handed to it at 4k. Even at 5760x1200 the 290X wins at all situations. In all the tests when you go apples to apply the 290X has the biggest margin of victory. I guess this is why the 780TI is coming.

Calm down love - they're just GPUs

.

Gripen90 · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:36

But why can't [H] use the same graphical setting for every setup ? It makes comparing results skewed

can't even bother to read the rest of the review.

Ian Evey · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:50

Its funny that i dont see any temperatures for xfire, in an open air bench i bet it only gets to 110 degrees, But of course thats acceptable now :rolleyes:

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:51

Gripen90 said:
But why can't [H] use the same graphical setting for every setup ? It makes comparing results skewed can't even bother to read the rest of the review.

Check the results at the bottom of the page for apples to apples (same settings) setup. What you find at the top results is the 290X running higher details but still holding a lead. At the bottom the settings are matched and the 290X pulls clear, dramatically in some cases.

Gripen90 · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:53

LtMatt said:
Check the results at the bottom of the page for apples to apples (same settings) setup. What you find at the top results is the 290X running higher details but still holding a lead. At the bottom the settings are matched and the 290X pulls clear, dramatically in some cases.

I just noticed ... I don't think my eyes are quite awake yet

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 07:55

Gripen90 said:
I just noticed ... I don't think my eyes are quite awake yet

Its all about the 512bit bus at high resolution. Just need the AIB 290's to come out now.

Kaapstad · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:16

I think a more realistic test @4k would be 4 card setups so they can turn the settings up.

I think if they did this those graphs would look very different.

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:21

Kaapstad said:
I think a more realistic test @4k would be 4 card setups so they can turn the settings up.

I think if they did this those graphs would look very different.

I'm sure if you tried hard enough to exceed the 4gb limit you could. However in reality its not practical to do so at such high res. What this does show is that the 290X is very much a capable card at 4k res in all but the worst situation. It remains to be seen if by using up all that vram you'd even have the grunt to power the fps at 4k.

RavenXXX2 · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:25

The Radeon R9 290X CrossFire configuration owned GTX TITAN SLI

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:30

RavenXXX2 said:

That's going to ruffle some feathers. Mark my words.

Gripen90 · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:41

Kaapstad said:
I think a more realistic test @4k would be 4 card setups so they can turn the settings up.

I think if they did this those graphs would look very different.

If they'd try doing QuadFire testing with R9-290X they'd need one of these afterwards.

Kaapstad · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:47

LtMatt said:
I'm sure if you tried hard enough to exceed the 4gb limit you could. However in reality its not practical to do so at such high res. What this does show is that the 290X is very much a capable card at 4k res in all but the worst situation. It remains to be seen if by using up all that vram you'd even have the grunt to power the fps at 4k.

I think my Titans would have very little trouble running Crysis 3 maxed @4k, the 290Xs on the other hand would not even get started.

I think all these benches @4k are very naughty as they are not running maxed settings. 4k is all about image quality, what is the point if you turn the settings down ?

Kaapstad · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:50

Gripen90 said:
If they'd try doing QuadFire testing with R9-290X they'd need one of these afterwards.

I have a remedy for that, OCUK have dispatched my waterblocks.

I will also be using more rad space than most cars have for my new toys.

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 08:55

Kaapstad said:
I think my Titans would have very little trouble running Crysis 3 maxed @4k, the 290Xs on the other hand would not even get started.

I think all these benches @4k are very naughty as they are not running maxed settings. 4k is all about image quality, what is the point if you turn the settings down ?

The amount of people able to afford 4k and 4x titans vs the amount of people able to afford 4k and 2x290X's. Not everyone will have as much disposable income as you to spend on these things Kaap. You need to see it from the other side as well.

Some people upgrade from 720/1080P to 1600P or higher and make do with lower settings. Just because someone upgrades their screen does not suddenly mean that they have to run the absolute highest settings or its pointless. I bet not everyone who upgrades to 4k will do so on 4x titans. Some people who finally do make the jump to 4k might be looking for other cheaper gpu solutions that still allow them to run with max game settings but maybe with a bit of AA sacrificed, which is not needed at 4k anway. Those people will be interested in a 290X at £430 or so.

Gripen90 · 1 Nov 2013 at 09:08

This caught me eye in the conclusion of the review:

"It is safe to say, from a real-world gaming perspective, stuttering is no longer an issue one has to worry about. Low framerates don't feel "stuttery" anymore, you no longer have to achieve the highest framerates to get a smooth experience."

I hear some lonely 3Dfx worker shouting from the abyss; "We had the hardware T-Buffer, it made low frame rates feel smooth".

LtMatt · 1 Nov 2013 at 09:14

Gripen90 said:
This caught me eye in the conclusion of the review:

"It is safe to say, from a real-world gaming perspective, stuttering is no longer an issue one has to worry about. Low framerates don't feel "stuttery" anymore, you no longer have to achieve the highest framerates to get a smooth experience."

I hear some lonely 3Dfx worker shouting from the abyss; "We had the hardware T-Buffer, it made low frame rates feel smooth".

Frame pacing is coming on leaps and bounds. Here we have 7970 crossfire software frame pacing providing smoother and lower frame variance than hardware 690 frame pacing.

Still plenty of work to be done, but they're heading in the right direction.

Kaapstad · 1 Nov 2013 at 09:15

LtMatt said:
The amount of people able to afford 4k and 4x titans vs the amount of people able to afford 4k and 2x290X's. Not everyone will have as much disposable income as you to spend on these things Kaap. You need to see it from the other side as well.

Some people upgrade from 720/1080P to 1600P or higher and make do with lower settings. Just because someone upgrades their screen does not suddenly mean that they have to run the absolute highest settings or its pointless. I bet not everyone who upgrades to 4k will do so on 4x titans. Some people who finally do make the jump to 4k might be looking for other cheaper gpu solutions that still allow them to run with max game settings but maybe with a bit of AA sacrificed, which is not needed at 4k anway. Those people will be interested in a 290X at £430 or so.

My point is a 4k monitor is about 32" and a 1600p monitor is 30"

If you are going to run with reduced settings @4k, would it not be better to use 1600p maxed out instead.