FRONTPAGE AMD Launches R9 290 Series Graphics Cards

[wagex]

I just want to clarify and make sure I am not confusing myself. When I refer to the R9 290 I am talking about a completely separate card from the 290x at the $549 price point. AMD is still releasing two separate cards, 290 and 290x, correct?

yessssir

 

[hokiealumnus]

Yes, that is correct. The 290 hasn't released yet. Only the 290X came out today.

 

[Ivy]

Hmm is it true that the 290X is probably priced at around 600 $/500 EUR? Lower than expected (had in mind it would be up to 700 $/590 EUR). The 290 is probably 100 $ lower than that, so that means around 500 $/ 400 EUR? In that term its priced lower than a 780, but comes with better performance. Although as long as not sold in high quantitys, Nvidia doesnt feel the threat and wont react.

There is some confusion related to the pricing of 290 +290X, two different cards but sometimes they talk about the price of 290X and sometimes just 290.

550$ at Newegg for the 290X? Hmm this is shockingly cheap for a card of those specs, many people may consider a CF. Although i think in Europe it wont be lower than 500 EUR, prehaps even up to 550 EUR.

 

[EarthDog]

read the reviews.. like the one we linked this morning. 290x is out.. $550+.. 290 is not.. no price yet. See hokies post above.

 

[Ivy]

As for price, AMD is shooting for ultra-competitive versus the GTX 780

(assuming the rumors are correct and the R9 290X is able to beat it). MSRP for
the reference R9 290 is $549

= confusing, the reference 290 is a non X i assume. So i worry some people are mixing up 290 with 290X. A 290X for 550 $ is almost to good to be true... a monster at such a price is almost a bargain.




Regarding the first "reviews" (unfortunately from other sources): Seems like strongest spot of 290X is the 4k performance in CF. At 1080P a GTX 780 sometimes is able to keep pace (even beat) but in CF and/or at high resolutions (up to 4K) its totaly demolished, by a clear margin. A SLI 780 wont even scratch it... its truly demolished on 4k. So the most important of all questions is, how well the drivers are dealing with CF so far. Microstudder issue had some strong fix related to GCN, so i think it wont be much of a problem anymore. Of course, a single card cant realistically handle 4k for future games but a CF/SLI is totaly capable of. At least the pricing seems like CF is affordable for many of the enthusiasts, so 4k gaming may become realistic, at least to the high end gamers (a clear minority).

Aftermarket cooler is a must have it seems, the 290X is running very hot, 10 C above 780, so thats probably its weakest spot.

 

[doz]

I noticed that as well. I thought that was strange. The only thing I can say to that is, this card is not really for people who are just playing at 1080. But seeing this card priced at this level makes me want to wait on seeing what the 290 comes out at.

Getting tired of seeing people say this card isnt for 1080p. BF4 is 5 days away. Do you honestly believe BF4 wont tax this card? I saw a good drop in FPS in BF4 compared to BF3 and had to run lower settings during the beta, and they said that all the eye candy wasnt available yet.

Upcoming games WILL utilize the card @ 1080p and a game coming out next week will be sure to. Id almost bet money you will pull 60-70 FPS w/ max settings in BF4 @ 1080, which is right where you want to be.

Now, if you are happy with playing on lesser settings, then by all means its overkill but why use a PC to play at lesser settings. Might as well go buy a console.

 

[Janus67]

Getting tired of seeing people say this card isnt for 1080p. BF4 is 5 days away. Do you honestly believe BF4 wont tax this card? I saw a good drop in FPS in BF4 compared to BF3 and had to run lower settings during the beta, and they said that all the eye candy wasnt available yet.

Upcoming games WILL utilize the card @ 1080p and a game coming out next week will be sure to. Id almost bet money you will pull 60-70 FPS w/ max settings in BF4 @ 1080, which is right where you want to be.

Now, if you are happy with playing on lesser settings, then by all means its overkill but why use a PC to play at lesser settings. Might as well go buy a console.

I think it is more than it is better than the competition at resolutions higher than 1080p, not that it doesn't work well at 1080p.

 

[doz]

Better than the competition @ 1080p as well. Not sure why everyone is disappointed. $100 cheaper than a 780 and slightly edging it out? Thats a win in my book. And the fact that it competes with a $1000 card at higher resolutions is good as well.

Im really not sure what everyone was expecting. They wanted a cheaper than NV card that smoked Titan. They didnt get it and now are disgruntled. Get over it.

 

[watchthisspace]

Better than the competition @ 1080p as well. Not sure why everyone is disappointed. $100 cheaper than a 780 and slightly edging it out? Thats a win in my book. And the fact that it competes with a $1000 card at higher resolutions is good as well.

Im really not sure what everyone was expecting. They wanted a cheaper than NV card that smoked Titan. They didnt get it and now are disgruntled. Get over it.

For the price, I think AMD has a winner here. I will probably be ordering two so I can game with some comfort at 1440p

 

[Ivy]

The tests arnt fully realistic anyway when it comes to 1080P. In term i use a huge 1080P TV or another monitor im gonna use 8x AA (or comparable modes) at least and when using such settings, Nvidias scaling is weaker compared to AMD because the 290X got incredible GPIX performance. 4x may still create some edges when screen is huge (around 50 inch) and some review sites are using 4x only. Certainly, at max settings, new games will be very taxing and a single 290X is performing good at 1080P (for example BF4) but not "to good", the demand keeps rising.

 

[GatorChamp]

Getting tired of seeing people say this card isnt for 1080p. BF4 is 5 days away. Do you honestly believe BF4 wont tax this card? I saw a good drop in FPS in BF4 compared to BF3 and had to run lower settings during the beta, and they said that all the eye candy wasnt available yet.

Upcoming games WILL utilize the card @ 1080p and a game coming out next week will be sure to. Id almost bet money you will pull 60-70 FPS w/ max settings in BF4 @ 1080, which is right where you want to be.

Now, if you are happy with playing on lesser settings, then by all means its overkill but why use a PC to play at lesser settings. Might as well go buy a console.

My entire point in saying this, was that the card shines at resolutions above 1080. Therefore I think the card is more of a 1440 and up card. Now yes you can buy this card and play at 1080 - no issues there. But it really flexes its stuff at 1440 and above.

 

[Ivy]

Thats AMDs intention, so the upgrade on ressources was tuned in a way benefiting higher res the hard way, for example the high GPIX, advantage at high AA and high res but not useful for low res and low AA. To some extend, the muscles on higher res was paid by weakening some of the "lower res attributes". Needless to say that the card at very high res, especially at 4k res, is totaly demolishing any competition.

 

[EarthDog]

Seems like my post was part of that little doz rant. Lol! But my sentiment is reflected accurately with gator's post. Most certainly you can buy one and use it at that res! But again, it flexes its muscle at the higher resolutions. One can get away with a lesser card both horsepower wise and money wise was my underlying point. Unless you are spoiled with not wanting less than, I don't know, 75 fps in 95% of titles, you can do your wallet a favor and get the lesser card.

Hope that cleared things up.

 

[doz]

Regardless, noone can buy one. Short supply on launch as always. If NV drops the 780 price before AMD gets stock, Id buy that. All this hype and yet most people cant even obtain a card. Stupid.

BTW, I have a 1440p monitor but I do see how this card will let those with 1080p enjoy the eye candy and full settings. If I wanted to look at a game with poor graphics, Id save alot of money building PC's and upgrading and stick with a XB or PS.

I REALLY dont understand your logic as this being a high resolution card. There are alot of people who enjoy gaming w/ 780s on 1080p. I never heard how bad the 780 was at 1080p and how it was not really a 1080p card even though they both are neck and neck at 1080p. This is $100 cheaper slightly better performance at 1080p. In my eyes, this would be the card to go with at all resolutions.

I guess the 780 is a worthless card (or maybe appealing to a 1024x768 user?).

 

[EarthDog]

Its not like that at all. If people want to shell out $550+ for this card at 1080p, have at it. You can just save money and get the same experience (ultra everything sans crysis 3) for hundreds less in a 280x with perhaps fps dropping in the 40s at worst on most modern titles instead of holding in the 60s/70s with a 290x/780. If you need those fps at those settings, grab the 290x and push your cpu up so it can stretch its legs.

You know I'm a proponent of the 'get the best you can afford' mantra. But realistically a 280x/7970 is a beast for the money and would please most enthusiasts with little to no sacrfices (certainly not look terrible).

 

[doz]

You are getting soft on me ED....

 

[SeeThruHead]

These high end cards are so disappointing for someone running 2560 or higher. They still haven't come out with a single GPU solution that averages above 60fps. So we rely on SLI/CFX, but sli/CFX of these top cards are overkill, and overpriced when compared to the performance of dual 770 or 7970 so they don't even matter.

 

[Janus67]

/shrug, I personally have no problem averaging between 40-60 fps. I don't need a huge FPS average for the most part, and if I did I would likely go xfire and average over 100fps.


@doz, I will have one on Tuesday (ish). Got it from TigerDirect.

 

[SeeThruHead]

As a person who plays with v-sync or adaptive vsync, averageing below 60 fps isn't really acceptable. Dropping to 30fps are having screen tearing ruins the whole thing. That's just my personal opinion on the matter though. But 2560x1440 with G-Sync should remedy that completely, making a single card viable at 2560x1440 but not an AMD card.

 

[doz]

/shrug, I personally have no problem averaging between 40-60 fps. I don't need a huge FPS average for the most part, and if I did I would likely go xfire and average over 100fps.


@Doz, I will have one on Tuesday (ish). Got it from TigerDirect.

Do you play FPS games Janus? I cant handle being below about 50 FPS and even then I dont really like it. I can see in other games its not as important but in FPS titles, I feel its important to have 60+.