• 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.

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

Gregster said:
Ahhh yes but is the 290 the sensible choice? What is the point of all that bandwidth if it doesn't have enough VRAM to cope? I keep saying it and sounding like a broken record and I am tired of typing it but I used 4.6GB of VRAM at 5760x1080. Regardless of 3x290X costs the same as 2 Titans, I would rather have 2 Titans that will not run out of VRAM.

Just saying :p
Click to expand...

What AA settings Greg? To use the argument i always have put against me, caching. :p


uPYtf4M.png


If the 3gb vram buffer was limiting im sure the 7970/780 would be much slower no?
 
Gregster said:
No way I am getting dragged into another VRAM argument. Probably is caching Matt and I would never argue till someone shows me it is or isn't.
Click to expand...

Gregster said:
Ahhh yes but is the 290 the sensible choice? What is the point of all that bandwidth if it doesn't have enough VRAM to cope? I keep saying it and sounding like a broken record and I am tired of typing it but I used 4.6GB of VRAM at 5760x1080. Regardless of 3x290X costs the same as 2 Titans, I would rather have 2 Titans that will not run out of VRAM.

Just saying :p
Click to expand...

Well you need to stop saying 4gb isn't enough then. Just because you managed to breach the 4gb limit doesn't mean a card with less vram will. Your argument many other times in other threads has always been caching and that if there is vram spare the card will use it. Surely that applies here as well. :)

Until we can get some proper testing done on the card itself its bad advice to say the card won't be any good for 4k because of a lack of vram. There's also nothing to stop AMD releasing a card with more memory. They did it with the 7970 so its possible a 6gb/8gb version might come out at a later date when 4k gaming becomes anything more than a distant pipe dream.

I'm sure in a few rare circumstances, settings and silly AA levels it will be possible to breach 4gb. But those instances are always going to be rare. You can find such instances currently with 2gb/3gb cards at 1080/1440p depending on game played, settings used and AA level applied.
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
I feel like I'm in some kind of alternative universe here :D :p.

P.S. it's 'argument'

love you
Click to expand...

God dammit. Now i know how Quentin Hapsburg felt in Naked Gun when Frank Drebin said to him "But I warn you, so much as sneeze and I'll be there to wipe your nose."

EDIT

Speaking of which, you remind me of Quentin Hapsburg.


UvsTzmM.gif
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
I am down to one Titan and have only been gaming on 1 1080P screen and not missed the other 2. I still use 2 screens (one for gaming and the other for monitoring). The Mrs is using my other 1080P as her monitor is a crappy acer thing that doesn't even do 1080P.

I may well get another Titan when prices drop or xmas bonus but for now, I am not fussed and frames on one screen are more than acceptable.
Click to expand...

Ah i see. One of your titans croak it?

EDIT

Ignore just seen you sold it as per above.
 
Last edited:
Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen folks!

TL : DR- 290X wins in games, Titan wins in synthetic benchmarks. I know which i prefer, games. What about you?


QF86LkT.jpg


AMD Radeon R9-290X
Hawaii based on the graphics chip in 28nm production at TSMC
~ 439mm ² chip area (+20.2% compared to 7970 GHz)
GCN Architecture 2.0 (7970 GHz: 1.0 GCN)
DirectX 11.2 (such as 7970 GHz)
4 raster engines (+100% compared to 7970 GHz)
2816 shader units aka 44 shader clusters (+37.5% compared to 7970 GHz)
176 texture units (TMUs) (+37.5% compared to 7970 GHz)
44 raster operation units (ROPs) (+37.5% compared to 7970 GHz)
512-bit DDR memory interface (up 33.3% compared to 7970 GHz)
Chip clock: 920 MHz probably base clock and 1020 MHz Turbo clock (-8% and -2.9% compared to 7970 GHz)
Memory clock: 2500 MHz probably (-16.7% compared to 7970 GHz)
maximum computing performance: 5.74 teraflops (+33.6% compared to 7970 GHz)
Memory bandwidth of 320 GB / sec (+11.1% compared to 7970 GHz)
Temperature-controlled Turbo clock - the card can not play their full performance due to limits on temperature and power consumption regularly
DualBIOS with two differing PowerTune settings - setting the second set higher limits, thus enabling better utilization of the turbo clock
Presentation: 25 September 2013
For sale: probably mid / late October 2013
Price range: expect to 599-649 Dollar List Price
The most interesting source of information for today is of course the complete test the Radeon R9-290X at DG's nerdy story , which sent the card with a reasonable number of benchmarks and thus already make a pretty good performance assessment. Somewhat in limbo is currently only whether there may be a factory overclocked card in hand had not - which given the low memory clock of 2500 MHz is rather unlikely. However, efforts have been the second of the dual BIOS settings the Radeon R9-290X at DG's nerdy story and could thus enjoy on apparently continuous chip clock 1020 MHz in Turbo mode. There remains some residual uncertainty, how this setting is covered by the warranty - but if this is the case, then this should have course be based test in virtually every hardware test the Radeon R9-29X.
Click to expand...


As shown in the table and the summary already, it looks according to these values ​​really good for AMD, the Radeon R9-290X is compared to the GeForce GTX titanium to not use sufficiently fast on their second BIOS setting, the term "equivalent" to, but the AMD card to award the sole victory. Due to the new hardware data is also not a big doubt that this performance is possible - with the chances of a fake are now arg small and one can probably get used to the idea that AMD seems to create in fact, nVidia to beat a much smaller chip.

However, there are still some vacant points: The clock rates are not final yet confirmed - here also arise some uncertainty how the clock rate of the testing of DG's Story Nerdy comply with the official reference clock speeds. The operation of the dual-BIOS would need more detailed explanation as yet as a confirmation of the "uneven" number of 44 ROPs would not be wrong. And ultimately, of course, more serious power consumption measurements are still needed, because of DG's nerdy story on this custom built power measurement of the total system does not seem to fit properly. Nevertheless see the signs rarely favorable for AMD from the Hawaiian chip seems pretty clear at the top of all previous (28nm-based) speculation come out.
Click to expand...

Also seems to indicate the 290X has a second bios with faster clocks and better overclocking?

Source
http://www.3dcenter.org/news/genaue...enchmarks-zur-hawaii-basierten-radeon-r9-290x
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom