• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

R9 290 is fast..

Also, those benches were done over a week ago, without the new supposedly faster driver that AMD extended the review embargo for.
 
:D

Well this makes me very glad I've waited so far, but it's getting tough!!!!
 
AMD should have called this card the 285...this 290x vs 290 non x business is corny and potentially confusing for un-enthusiasts
 
fanboy said:
Here is the homerun card for AMD as it should sell very well as I may be buying one myself.

http://videocardz.com/47256/amd-radeon-r9-290-performance-revealed
Click to expand...

makes me glad I resisted the impulse to buy a GTX 780 recently...

"it will cost much less than GTX 780 while offering very close performance..."

much less means at least $100 right?...so a 290 at $400 would be great...plus this might cause Nvidia to drop prices even further on the 780...780 for $450?
 
problem is Bf4 is boring
need a game that is fun and demanding.

but the 290 rocks.
 
I want to see some leaked Mantle benchmarks as well as a list of developers supporting it...that's the final wildcard in all this for me
 
Some more fake benchmarks. Really pissing me off how all these AMD card reviews have lower scores than what 780/Titan actually perform at. AMD paying reviewers off or what. Reference 780 clocks to 993/6008. Here is my card underclocked to 980/6008.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7421228
Heaven scores are pretty much dead on tho. I got like 99.3 at same clocks as above. Still higher score at lower clocks but within margin of error.
 
Last edited:
R9 290 with aftermarket cooling is really going to step on peoples toes, I can already hear the impending shit storm to come lol. The MSI Twin Frozr and Sapphire Dual X cards are never much more than reference....
 
HOODedDutchman said:
Some more fake benchmarks. Really pissing me off how all these AMD card reviews have lower scores than what 780/Titan actually perform at. AMD paying reviewers off or what. Reference 780 clocks to 993/6008. Here is my card underclocked to 980/6008.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7421228
Heaven scores are pretty much dead on tho. I got like 99.3 at same clocks as above. Still higher score at lower clocks but within margin of error.
Click to expand...

Why is it pissing you off. You trying to justify your purchase?

You buy what you like. It doesn't matter what other people buy unless you want everyone to have a 780 like you.
 
No it just makes no sense. N its making tons of people think the 290x/290 are much more % faster than 780/titan when they are actually very close. They are faster but only slightly and it makes no sense. Seams like everytime a card is released it goes this way. Like trying to push it down peoples throats because its new so falsifying the information a bit will make it seam that much better. I dont know but it is stupid. That or they are bringing graphs forward from release of 780 instead of using current drivers and current level performance. Which would be heavily bias thing to do to say the least. I'd love to do some real benchmarks with another member with a close system. Very likely to that reviewers are using 780 at stock settings and auto fan which will run up to 80C and throttle causing significantly less performance. Another thing that could be going on is they are reviewing 780 on auto fan and allowing it to throttle then putting 290x on uber mode. Just little tricks probably but makes everything lean towards the new and improved. Funny how that works.
 
Last edited:
maboblivion said:
sweet nvidia tears! :D
Click to expand...

LOL people on these forums are so obnoxious sometimes. If 290x didn't run at 95C I would have bought 1. Didn't wait till this week to buy a card for no reason. I've done comparisons with my 780 at reference clocks. MOST reviews are not showing true 780 performance.
 
so will the 290 non-x run just as hot as the 290x or is there some secret sauce applied?
 
HOODedDutchman said:
No it just makes no sense. N its making tons of people think the 290x/290 are much more % faster than 780/titan when they are actually very close. They are faster but only slightly and it makes no sense. Seams like everytime a card is released it goes this way. Like trying to push it down peoples throats because its new so falsifying the information a bit will make it seam that much better. I dont know but it is stupid. That or they are bringing graphs forward from release of 780 instead of using current drivers and current level performance. Which would be heavily bias thing to do to say the least. I'd love to do some real benchmarks with another member with a close system. Very likely to that reviewers are using 780 at stock settings and auto fan which will run up to 80C and throttle causing significantly less performance. Another thing that could be going on is they are reviewing 780 on auto fan and allowing it to throttle then putting 290x on uber mode. Just little tricks probably but makes everything lean towards the new and improved. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

You mean like how many 680/770/780 owners would use the shitty release 7970/Ghz drivers when justifying how much "better" their Nvidia card was?:rolleyes:..Sure Fan boys might, but I highly doubt Kyle and Crew are so [H]ard up for money all of a sudden they have to resort to taking payments from AMD like that tiny ass PC builder did from Nvidia..:p
 
ccityinstaller said:
You mean like how many 680/770/780 owners would use the shitty release 7970/Ghz drivers when justifying how much "better" their Nvidia card was?:rolleyes:..Sure Fan boys might, but I highly doubt Kyle and Crew are so [H]ard up for money all of a sudden they have to resort to taking payments from AMD like that tiny ass PC builder did from Nvidia..:p
Click to expand...

7970ghz release drivers were 12.11. A great driver with huge performance gains for AMD. I know what you mean tho. Anything below a 780 I wouldn't even touch in the nvidia camp. 2gb 256 bit is not going to cut it. neither is 4gb of crippled 256 bit. Anything less than a 780 I would of just kept my 7950. Overclocks to exceed the gap between it and 7970ghz and 770 anyways. You are right tho. Notice the [H] review performance is VERY close between 290x, Titan, 780. But TONS of other sites are showing HUGE differences. I suppose its probably what I said, them using release benchmarks for the nvidia cards. [H] must of put in the work. 4K resolution its obviously faster. But still not as big of a gap and many other sites are showing.
 
For me it was between the 290(non-x) and the 780 and I went with the EVGA 780 SC, which I think is a better buy considering I got it for $475 from Newegg after rebates and coupon, and also 3 free games that I'll be able to sell for total of around $60. I hate the reference cooler on the 290s and I didn't want to wait for non-reference cards to come out and I've always had awesome experiences with EVGA. I also plan on picking up a 144hz Asus monitor and I'll be able to use Lightboost with it, so I think the 780 was a lot better purchase for me. I have no allegiance to AMD or Nvidia, I go with the option that makes the most sense.
 
Last edited:
HOODedDutchman said:
LOL people on these forums are so obnoxious sometimes. If 290x didn't run at 95C I would have bought 1. Didn't wait till this week to buy a card for no reason. I've done comparisons with my 780 at reference clocks. MOST reviews are not showing true 780 performance.
Click to expand...

New in the thread, so sorry if I say something that's already been discussed.

The 290X running at 95° is just for noise control with the (cheap) reference cooler. Thing is, they could have spent the same kind of money nVidia did designing the Titan cooler, but it's not really money well spent. Given the option (which AMD will do) people won't even buy reference coolers. They buy the Lightning, Matrix, Toxic, etc. All a more expensive reference cooler would have done is set the release price higher. The $550 reference price is why we have $500 GTX 780's. It's also why we'll have custom cards from the AIB's for <$600.

As far as the 780 performance looking to low, keep in mind all of the cards are tested the same way in the same system. The gross scores aren't as important as the relative comparison. I doubt reviewers are purposely trying to make the 780 look worse than what it really is.
 
I'm planning on replacing my 7870 with the r9 290. Not much longer to wait, I will be waiting for 3rd party's though :)
 
maboblivion said:
sweet nvidia tears! :D
Click to expand...

cartman-tears-o.gif
 
HOODedDutchman said:
7970ghz release drivers were 12.11. A great driver with huge performance gains for AMD. I know what you mean tho. Anything below a 780 I wouldn't even touch in the nvidia camp. 2gb 256 bit is not going to cut it. neither is 4gb of crippled 256 bit. Anything less than a 780 I would of just kept my 7950. Overclocks to exceed the gap between it and 7970ghz and 770 anyways. You are right tho. Notice the [H] review performance is VERY close between 290x, Titan, 780. But TONS of other sites are showing HUGE differences. I suppose its probably what I said, them using release benchmarks for the nvidia cards. [H] must of put in the work. 4K resolution its obviously faster. But still not as big of a gap and many other sites are showing.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The 12.6 drivers were the release drivers for the ghz edition cards. That's because that was around the time the "ghz edition" unofficial flasher came out, and when the 12.6 and 12.7 drivers would cause original non ghz reference cards to "Black screen with 100% fan", because the 2d voltage was changed to 0.804 instead of 0.850, while the ghz edition cards still used 0.850, and this was causing 3D speeds (or even light 3D load on the desktop aka internet explorer) to sometimes kick in with 0.798 volts instead of 1.175v, which would crash the card.

That problem (which was later fixed) is one reason why many people flashed with the ghz edition flasher, or had to go back to 12.5 betas.
 
fanboy said:
The rumor is $449 ..
Click to expand...

If thats the case I'm not bothered that I jumped on 290x. If its any less I'll have a little buyers remorse.

I would be willing to bet that its $450 as well. That would fit the original Tahiti launch prices.
 
HOODedDutchman said:
Some more fake benchmarks. Really pissing me off how all these AMD card reviews have lower scores than what 780/Titan actually perform at. AMD paying reviewers off or what. Reference 780 clocks to 993/6008. Here is my card underclocked to 980/6008.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7421228
Heaven scores are pretty much dead on tho. I got like 99.3 at same clocks as above. Still higher score at lower clocks but within margin of error.
Click to expand...
The difference is 164 points (3dmark11), because he used better CPU -> 4770k, and probably RAM too -> 2600MHz memory (Corsair), so I really don't see your point.
 
grean said:
The difference is 164 points (3dmark11), because he used better CPU -> 4770k, and probably RAM too -> 2600MHz memory (Corsair), so I really don't see your point.
Click to expand...

So your saying he got lower score then me with a better cpu. Ya that makes sense :rolleyes: Im making the assumption those are graphics score not total score. As a 780 just being an HOF with same cpu does not make total scire go up by around 3000 point like in that graph. The between between mine and the link posted is 1068 score if its graphics score.
 
Oye, I usually just skip over the trolling in threads, but I have to say the trolling seems to be reaching new heights lately.

Byproduct of the gpu market being really shaken up I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top