Radeon R9 290X Features 64 ROPs

[Nordic]

(90+30+30+90+20+24+5)/7= 41.28%
I wonder if it will go there

 

[TRWOV]

whats the conclusion on these cards??

been away and missed it all!

Nothing yet. We'll know on Monday.

 

[Fourstaff]

I don't know, sometimes I think AMD has used up all of their "next time"s and yet, they keep coming up with more...

As long as they continue to provide value for money I will always consider them.

 

[DeadSkull]

290X = 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.

 

[NeoXF]

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.

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?).

 

[Horrux]

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?).

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.

 

[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

 

[N3M3515]

The latest:
overclocked titan and gtx 780 vs r9 290x an r9 290

 

[TheGuruStud]

The latest:
overclocked titan and gtx 780 vs r9 290x an r9 290

Nice fakes, but numbers don't add up, eh?

We'll have to wait.

 

[xorbe]

Nice fakes, but numbers don't add up, eh?

Why don't they add up? Just curious.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Why 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.

 

[Mathragh]

If 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.

 

[Frick]

The 280x is about 5% slower though.

They are pretty evenly matched.

 

[TheGuruStud]

The 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.

 

[N3M3515]

If 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

 

[Horrux]

Isn't the R9 290 / 290X launch date today? We wants our reviews now! :x

 

[TheGuruStud]

The 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.

 

[Frick]

The stock R9 280x is a bit slower than 7970 GE
source
source
source
source

 

[PopcornMachine]

Nice fakes, but numbers don't add up, eh?

We'll have to wait.

If 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.

 

[Horrux]

This is saying October 24 now:

http://www.hardware-360.com/amd-radeon-r9-290x-possibly-delayed-until-october-24th/

 

[MetalRacer]

pconline 290x review: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/363/3631256_all.html

 

[the54thvoid]

Now they look real.

 

[N3M3515]

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_280X_Direct_Cu_II_TOP/images/perfrel.gif

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.

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.

 

[Frick]

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.

Exactly. It could be either way really.

 

[xorbe]

pconline 290x review: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/363/3631256_all.html

That lists Titan as 3GB! Fake!!! (Just kidding, typos happen.) So Titan has competition, that's good.