• 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:
Not meaning to state the obvious and apologies to those who tut and say we know but there may be the odd person who doesn't.

The 290X is being touted as a 4K card. Now you try playing Crysis 3 at 4K on a 290X, the same for BF3/FarCry3/MetroLL in fact any modern AAA title and regardless of the memory being 512 Bit, you are still going to see 20fps or below with max settings (which you will want if you have splashed the cash on a 4K screen). You will be needing 3 of these at a minimum for any 4K gaming at decent settings.
Click to expand...

Nvidia also push the Titan as a 4K card, i would like to see it do any better in your scenario, i put it to you that it can't.

Dirt3 on 3x 4K (12K) 2x R9 290X CF.

The truth is Gregster you / we don't know how it performs at all, your using one random guy claiming to have one as gospel for the card, even using it to predict how it will perform in situations this random guy has not even tested.

It has 3 times as many ACE units as the 7970, from 2 to 8, do you know what that will do to performance at very high resolution?

The only real test we have at 4K is two 290X running three 4K screens, 12K in total, i think thats pretty impressive.


Lets not get ahead of ourselves, wait for actual reviews.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
Sorry but it's the first time I see you saying that so I was not aware. I was under the impression that vram would not be an issue, since loads of people saying 2GB is fine even for 5760x1080? So may be even I got brain-washed by them without knowing /facepalm :/
Click to expand...

2GB is only not enough when the situation suits. :D :p
 
There are no minimum frames in that graph Matt. Although I'd imagine they'd be largely the same, I think the issues in Crysis arrise when you actually want to use all the ultra pre sets :D.
 
All of You are forgetting about 3D gaming... those new cards should be a winner cause of memory speed. Its basically like gaming at 2160p :)

And remember Oculus rift is like one year away so :]
 
humbug said:
Nvidia also push the Titan as a 4K card, i would like to see it do any better in your scenario, i put it to you that it can't.

Dirt3 on 3x 4K (12K) 2x R9 290X CF.

The truth is Gregster you / we don't know how it performs at all, your using one random guy claiming to have one as gospel for the card, even using it to predict how it will perform in situations this random guy has not even tested.

It has 3 times as many ACE units as the 7970, from 2 to 8, do you know what that will do to performance at very high resolution?

The only real test we have at 4K is two 290X running three 4K screens, 12K in total, i think thats pretty impressive.


Lets not get ahead of ourselves, wait for actual reviews.
Click to expand...

As impressive as that is, Dirt 3 is such a weak representation. At 1440P it uses less than 1GB VRAM. Although the fact it's running at seemingly a decent frame rate is impressive in itself.
 
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.

Edit:

And you do realise that 4K is another 2 million pixels over 5760x1080 Marine?
 
Last edited:
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:
That's the key Matt. Nobody has shown me any difference to compare, so should I keep quiet in the hope that somebody finds out the hard way or let them ***** their cash to find out. I would rather a reviewer tells us and the guy looking to buy for a 4K is aware of what is what and not just my take on it.
 
Gregster said:
lmao it doesn't work like that :D
Click to expand...

It quite obviusly does, i'm surprised you can't see it, a 4K screen consists of 3840 'just short of four thousand' (4K) Pixels across 2160 lines on a 16:9 screen, multiply it by three and you have three times 3840 Pixels across 2160 lines amounting to 11520 pixels, or just short of twelve thousand (12K)

3840 Pixels x3 = 11520 (11.52K)
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Sorry but it's the first time I see you saying that so I was not aware. I was under the impression that vram would not be an issue, since loads of people saying 2GB is fine even for 5760x1080? So may be even I got brain-washed by them without knowing /facepalm :/
Click to expand...

It isn't enough in terms of max settings but in terms of the grunt available on 2GB cards, you don't have enough to push playable frame rates to use anything in excess of 2GB really.

Actually in the games I tested, my usage was closer to 1.5GB in most games on the settings I was using to get playable frame rates. That was with two OC 680s as well :).
 
LtMatt said:
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 arguement 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.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm in some kind of alternative universe here :D :p.

P.S. it's 'argument'

love you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom