Sapphire Vapor-X R9 290x 8GB Tri-X Video Card

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Head on over to Modders Inc. to see what they thought of the Sapphire Vapor-X R9 290x 8GB Tri-X. Does the added memory have any significant advantages over the 4GB model?

The Sapphire Vapor-X 290x is slightly different from other 290x’s as it houses 8 gigabytes of RAM vs. 4 Gigabytes on other models and offers Sapphires Tri-X cooler that claims to tame the heat beast that is the R9 290x. The Radeon R9 290x series is just over a year old and still has the horsepower to play the latest games at high quality settings.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
Head on over to Modders Inc. to see what they thought of the Sapphire Vapor-X R9 290x 8GB Tri-X. Does the added memory have any significant advantages over the 4GB model?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell with no games used that would use up more than 4GB at the resolutions used. Also 60 second playthroughs and built in benchmarks don't really make me count that review as credible. Show me that 8GB 290X at 4K resolutions with actual gameplay and let's see the results.
 
Simmonz said:
Hard to tell with no games used that would use up more than 4GB at the resolutions used. Also 60 second playthroughs and built in benchmarks don't really make me count that review as credible. Show me that 8GB 290X at 4K resolutions with actual gameplay and let's see the results.
Click to expand...
Or hell, at least include the 4GB 290X and a GTX980 and not just a GTX970 and a GTX770.
 
What a complete waste of space and time. That was a dreadfully poor article and you lessen [H]'s brand by linking to it. Please put that author on your do-not-link list.
 
Yeah, doodoo is doodoo.

PS - Shadow of Mordor tells the tale.
 
As stated above, what a waste of a review.
At least push the memory use, show how much memory is in use and put it up against a performance card that doesnt start falling over at 3.5GB memory use.
All I got from that review is that there is an 8GB 290x.

The bare minimum they should have done is put it up against a 4GB 290x, after all that is what it is different to.
 
8GB isn't going to kick in until you run multi-GPU at 4K or with Eyefinity/NV surround using 1440p monitors.
 
jfreund said:
8GB isn't going to kick in until you run multi-GPU at 4K or with Eyefinity/NV surround using 1440p monitors.
Click to expand...

I agree that 4K would be the best use of an 8GB card but there are several games that when maxed out with 4x or 8X AA can use more than 4GB.
 
The review even said all he had was 1080p monitors.

What a waste of my time...
 
lol, nice "review".

I am sure [H] will do one, but this card needs dual+ and 4k+ for proper testing. I bet the 290x gpu cannot even take real advantage of all of that ram.
 
schizrade said:
lol, nice "review".

I am sure [H] will do one, but this card needs dual+ and 4k+ for proper testing. I bet the 290x gpu cannot even take real advantage of all of that ram.
Click to expand...

Right, hence the massive performance improvements at 4k.
 
jedimasterben said:
Against what? The 970 and 770 like in the review?
Click to expand...

When [H] did proper 4K testing the 290X held it's own against the 970. That was the 4GB model, I would love to see what the 8GB model could do under circumstances that would push VRAM usage.
 
It will need 2 or 3 cards to showcase 4K with ultra quality and all the bells and whistles, and I'd really like to see [H] do it..
 
The price/performance doesn't make as much sense on the 8gb versions. Especially if it was compared to a 980. We do have the new line of 380 and 390's in the near future.

It seems like too much of a price hike for not enough of a jump in performance save it for a few games that takes advantage of all that extra memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top