So much for a Titan Killer

sixer9682

sixer9682

Registered User
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
11,115
A review was posted of the 290 and 290X today and what I take away from this is just:

AMD finally has a GPU that equals the 780. Is it a Titan killer-most definitely not. And it runs at 94C under load and draws a whopping 404W of power doing so.

We'll wait for more reviews, but so far this looks like a lot of hype surrounding a good card, not a great one.

AMD Radeon R9 290X and Radeon R9 290 'Hawaii' GPUs Gaming and Synthetic Benchmarks Exposed
 
I take issue with their testing methods and how they calculate results. But either way definitely no titan killer.
 
which is overall better in your opinions...

who is greater for all around distance?
 
I usually take issue with the testing methods, and here is no exception. Most of the time the reviewer invalidates their work by doing something stupid like testing all the cards at different resolutions or different settings at the same resolution. Anyway, nothing to see here unless they break the price down lower than the 780 as far as I"m concerned.
 
fuck man! I am glad I do not have to make a decision right now! Hopefully, in a month or so time, there will be some more solid grounds for comparable benchmarks.

Six, I agree with you on testing methods. No way to tell for sure unless you are the one doing the testing
 
As to which one is better?
That depends; the AMD is good if you're running multi-monitors but so far, and this is the only review we've seen, one's just as good as the other.
 
I dont plan on running multiple monitors....Just one big one. Quality not quantity an old truancy officer once told me
 
No wonder I didn't like the results lol. Just got home looked at it on a desktop. Shit was ripped from more than one source.

@Snake. AMD seems to do better at higher than 1080P resolutions. Between their support for multimonitor and the existance of 2560x1440 monitors they have a deffinite place at the top end. However at 1080P the brands are back and forth as usual. If you have a less than 1080P resolution like 1600x900 or 1680x1050 especially at 120hz the higher end Nvidia options would be choice. AT 1080P it might come down to budget. I am an nvidia guy and would love to grab a 4GB GTX 770 since this is my last upgrade anytime soon and am scared by BF3's past vram usage and BF4's potential vram usage as well as next gen. But the 300 dollar price tag on a 3GB R9 280X is appetizing.
 
I dont plan on upgrading GPU for a while, I have a 27" monitor, and it is going to be the only monitor i use in my setup. Price is not an issue, I have been saving for a while and this deployment has helped me put aside some extra funds.....I am looking for lots of bang for my buck with some longevity
 
What Titan killers may look like...

battle2142pc_005-large.jpg
 
Hopefully DICE will stop catering to console and make a 2143 within the next couple years! That would be awesome!
 
Well Furmark is not really realistic as nothing will push it out like that, plus Nvidia limits furmark so will never see wattage pulled that high from that utility (plus it was only full system draw not card specific - Where are the gaming loads?). (Don't get me wrong I like Nvidia)

I would like to see 1600p and 1440p results ;) I just think lots of salt needed with these pre-launch reviews that's all.
 
I bet the 290x destroys at BF4 with mantle enabled. At the end of the day buy a card you can afford and call it a day...
Really curious as to how this AMD API thing is going to play out. It has to catch on. Just for the simple fact that consoles are using AMD APUs.
And every fucking game caters to consoles these days. Nvidia will probably have to eat it and adopt the API.

It does seem like AMD is usually a close enough second best to their competition though. ie.Nvidia and Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top