• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

290 vs 290x for 4k

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

G3ck092

New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
My 7970's just aren't cutting it for 4k, so I want to upgrade. Looking at these benchmarks, there barely seems to be a difference between the power of the 290 and the 290x? Where I live I'm looking at an extra $170 for the 290x, and I'm willing to pay it if the difference is worthwhile. It looks like it's not though... am I correct?

 
For 4K? You want whatever you can throw at it honestly.

+1. I have a pair of MSI R9 290X Lightning cards and I bought them specifically with 4K gaming in mind. OP: Get the fastest GPUs you can get your hands on, because you are going to need rendering power for 4K...
 
Okay, I think I might go for the 290x. It might be $150 more, but money isn't that much of an issue really.

I'm looking at the Sapphire Tri-X, as it's over $100 cheaper than the MSI, the cheapest 290x that isn't a reference. Is it a good buy? Is there a 290x that is by far the best to buy? Thanks.
 
290's are dropping in price ive seen some for 440 $ already they should go backdown to 399.99 eventually id immagine.. the 290x has a few more cores about 5% performance increase from those cores.

but the 290x's are over 600$ still which always has seemed to me like alot of extra money for 5% difference.

Id def get a non reference 290 rather then a 290x because of those things. most all non refrence models have been overclocking well enough also.

with the near 200 you save if you need a 2nd card which you would have needed anyways if thats the case because 5% isnt going to change that fact you will be able to crossfire two 290's for 200$ more then a single 290x.

good luck.
 
Well here the 290X is $700, whereas the same 290 is $550. So it's an extra $150 per card, $300 for two. Benchmarks at 4k really don't seem to show much difference, 1-2 frames, but I'm still worried it'll be noticeably weaker. About half the benchmarks show the 290 and 290x about the same, with the 780ti the same too. Then others show the 290x as having a 5-10 frame advantage, and others show the 780ti with up to a 20-30 frame advantage (two cards). It's confusing and I'm worried I won't have enough power with a 290 :/
 
I don't think it will be noticeable at all tbh you have to remember a stock 290 has much lower clocks aswell and when you see those benchmarks you need to take that into account aswell.

the 290 is the same in every way as the 290x accept for unlocked cores infact as you may know many 290's unlocked to 290x's like mine did for instance.

other than that the buss speeds the memory amounts ect are all the same. so with similar clock speeds inputted you should see very close performance margins.

and at 4k the 290/290x's out perform the 780TI's pretty much always so your ahead in the game on that front already.

if your getting two cards to crossire i think two 290's are much much better options.
 
Looked at some benchmarks that were directly comparable (same site etc), and the 290x is usually 1-2 frames faster than the 290, sometimes 4-5 in certain games. Barely worth mentioning, especially as I'll be running two and will probably have 60FPS anyway. 290 it is!
 
Yea and tbh im not sure its even 4-5 when the clocks are set identical. Now if they dropped the price of 290x to 50$ higher then a 290 then it would be a tuffer decision.
 
Going by FPS is not a good measure... 4-5 makes a difference in actual playability if you are coming from 30 to 35... however 100 to 105 makes no difference at all...

% difference is what you should be going by, and for the most part, that is 10% give or take depending on the title and settings. At 4K, the more horsepower (and vram) the better really. 2 290's should be fine, but, I will bet that 10% is warranted sooner rather than later. I mean, you buy a 4K tv, spend the 'meager' $300 for the best cards out to push it is my take...
 
Unlocking from a 290 to a 290x clock for clock is a documented 4% performance difference actually but the 290x in uber has inherently higher clocks off the hop that's where you get the. Other 3-4% in benches.

It's not as big a dif as you might think.
 
My apologies SF101, I did not know you tested the unlock at 4K resolutions... sorry!

When I looked I saw it all over the map, depending on the title, I saw anywhere from around 5-12% difference leaning closer to the 10% value.

You are welcome to look at the front page review I did on the 290 gaming and 290x Lightning, both overclocked cards and see the difference there (varies as well up to 10%). Granted it was all at 1080p though.
 
Last edited:
your right about the % but part of it just comes from the 947 vs 1000+ clock speeds

its too bad they fixed the unlocking of these cards :p i could use another one.

but i have a real hard time justifying the differences in price between the two considering its nearly identical.
 
Sorry, I made a typo. That is a 290, not a 290x. 50Mhz core makes a couple % difference at best in FPS on the same card at those clocks.

Anyway, if one could afford a QUALITY 4k monitor, you could pony up the $300 for the superior card is my take and get several % points better performance. I normally would not take that route, but in this case, I would if I was in his shoes. As always, to each their own. :)

How much did you pay for your 4k monitor?
 
Last edited:
How much did you pay for your 4k monitor?

Tested with a Samsung U28D590D were selling through work for 650$
was pretty but everything is far too small on such a small screen.

not sure ill make the switch for just desktop monitor use triple screens seems more appropriate for the real estate available.

i guess if you were getting a 50" monitor it would be worth it though but sub 30" its extremely small at 4k.
 
Back