Wednesday, October 9th 2013

Radeon R9 290X Features 64 ROPs

by
btarunr
 Discuss (130 Comments)
A leaked company slide by AMD confirmed that its high-end "Hawaii" silicon indeed features 64 raster operations units (ROPs). In reference to its predecessor, "Tahiti," the slide speaks of 2 times the ROPs (32 on "Tahiti") and 1.4 times the stream processors (2048 on "Tahiti," so 2816 on "Hawaii"). Other known specifications include up to 1 GHz GPU clock, up to 5.00 GHz memory clock, and a 512-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, holding 4 GB of memory. Reviews of Radeon R9 290X could surface around mid-October.
Source: WCCFTech

Related News

Add your own comment

130 Comments on Radeon R9 290X Features 64 ROPs

#101
TRWOV
d1nkywhats the conclusion on these cards??

been away and missed it all!
Nothing yet. We'll know on Monday.
Posted on Reply
#102
Fourstaff
HorruxI don't know, sometimes I think AMD has used up all of their "next time"s and yet, they keep coming up with more... :confused:
As long as they continue to provide value for money I will always consider them.
Posted on Reply
#103
DeadSkull
crazyeyesreaper290X = 2816 / 64 = 44 shaders per ROP
7970 = 2048 / 32 = 64 shaders per ROP
7870 = 1280 / 32 = 40 shaders per ROP

so in terms of the 7870 which when overclocked could take on a 7950 relatively easily

the 290x has a much better shader to ROP ratio and with the increased bus width should prove to be power hungry but well balanced in terms of Shaders / ROPs / TMUs / Bandwidth. the 290X looks to be shaping up nicely but final performance numbers will bring us the truth of the matter. Diminishing returns will still be a problem.
This.

I'm wonderng how well the 290x will do against 780 and Titan. Nvidia always has the Titan Ultra in reserve so even if 290x beats the Titan by a few percentages all nvidia has to do is release an fully unlocked Titan with more aggressive clockspeed boostin profile.
Posted on Reply
#104
NeoXF
DeadSkullThis.

I'm wonderng how well the 290x will do against 780 and Titan. Nvidia always has the Titan Ultra in reserve so even if 290x beats the Titan by a few percentages all nvidia has to do is release an fully unlocked Titan with more aggressive clockspeed boostin profile.
That will be 2-3% faster than the regular one and cost 25% more and use more power than a GTX690. Yeah, makes sense.

FYI, so could AMD release a beefier R9 290X, for one thing, the memories could sure be clocked a lot faster (512bit + 6,5GHz GDDR5s a-la R7 260X?).
Posted on Reply
#105
Horrux
NeoXFThat will be 2-3% faster than the regular one and cost 25% more and use more power than a GTX690. Yeah, makes sense.

FYI, so could AMD release a beefier R9 290X, for one thing, the memories could sure be clocked a lot faster (512bit + 6,5GHz GDDR5s a-la R7 260X?).
Oh, AMD are DEFINITELY giving themselves headroom with the series.

I would not be surprised to see R9 295 and 295X later on, after nV launches its upcoming GeForce 8xx series.

Either that, or OEMs will have parts to make "Platinum" and "Ultra" variants of their cards, with a lot more oomph under the hood.
Posted on Reply
#106
Kovoet
I have cash in hand but I am also an impatient old fart. They need to hurry man as I have a choice of 7990, R9 290x or the 780 but will not pay that much as the titan for a single GPU
Posted on Reply
#109
xorbe
TheGuruStudNice fakes, but numbers don't add up, eh?
Why don't they add up? Just curious.
Posted on Reply
#110
TheGuruStud
xorbeWhy don't they add up? Just curious.
If the 280x is slower than your 7970 GE, then I have to question your testing methology at the least.
Posted on Reply
#111
Mathragh
TheGuruStudIf the 280x is slower than your 7970 GE, then I have to question your testing methology at the least.
The 280x is about 5% slower though.
Posted on Reply
#112
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
MathraghThe 280x is about 5% slower though.
They are pretty evenly matched.
Posted on Reply
#113
TheGuruStud
MathraghThe 280x is about 5% slower though.
No, it's not lol. It scores about 1 fps faster in nearly everything. It's the same damn card.
Posted on Reply
#114
N3M3515
TheGuruStudIf the 280x is slower than your 7970 GE, then I have to question your testing methology at the least.
The stock R9 280x is a bit slower than 7970 GE :)
source
source
source
source
Posted on Reply
#115
Horrux
Isn't the R9 290 / 290X launch date today? We wants our reviews now! :x
Posted on Reply
#116
TheGuruStud
N3M3515The stock R9 280x is a bit slower than 7970 GE :)
source
source
source
source
Three of those are tools and hate AMD. Their results are automatically discounted. Eurogamer and Ten Syndicate off the top of my head show differently.

edit: And guru3D shows from 1-4 fps improvement on EVERY game. And that's not the OC versions, either.
Posted on Reply
#118
PopcornMachine
TheGuruStudNice fakes, but numbers don't add up, eh?

We'll have to wait.
TheGuruStudIf the 280x is slower than your 7970 GE, then I have to question your testing methology at the least.
The one place where a 7970 GE is compared to a 280x, it shows 130.6 to 127.3.

Could kind of call that margin of error, which makes sense since they basically are the same card.

I have no idea if these are accurate, but seems you are nit-picking in an effort to call it all fake.
Posted on Reply
#121
the54thvoid
Intoxicated Moderator
Now they look real. :-)
Posted on Reply
#122
N3M3515
Fricktpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_280X_Direct_Cu_II_TOP/images/perfrel.gif
TheGuruStudThree of those are tools and hate AMD. Their results are automatically discounted. Eurogamer and Ten Syndicate off the top of my head show differently.
Just because they differ from the results here or from other sites, doesn't automatically make them fake, and since those 5 sources seem to agree with the "fake" one i'll say it's legit.

Maybe the configuration is different, cpu, drivers, etc.
Posted on Reply
#123
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
N3M3515Just because they differ from the results here or from other sites, doesn't automatically make them fake, and since those 5 sources seem to agree with the "fake" one i'll say it's legit.

Maybe the configuration is different, cpu, drivers, etc.
Exactly. It could be either way really.
Posted on Reply
#125
Crap Daddy
MetalRacerpconline 290x review: diy.pconline.com.cn/363/3631256_all.html
These pretty much confirm all the various leaks. The only two new things are the alarming heat and power consumption of this reference card. It should be priced at $550 regardless of it coming close to Titan and besting by a few frames the 780. Price could be a determining factor if this is a success.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 26th, 2024 04:43 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts