Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGH] Quadfire test R9 295x2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[PCGH] Quadfire test R9 295x2 - Page 2

post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcg75 View Post

Actually, it would be 78-91 mhz and I made no claim that it would be so much faster.

But my point was that all the other reviews do the test as they come out of the box and this one does not.

Got it.

This review shows what all other reviews concluded... R9 295x2 > Sli 780ti
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Got it.

This review shows what all other reviews concluded... R9 295x2 > Sli 780ti

No


http://techreport.com/review/26279/amd-radeon-r9-295-x2-graphics-card-reviewed/7

"Conclusions
Let's sum up our performance results—and factor in price—using our world-famous scatter plots. These overall performance results are a geometric mean of the outcomes on the preceding pages. We left Thief out of the first couple of plots since we tested it differently, but we've added it to a third plot to see how it affects things.

As usual, the best values will tend toward the top left of the plot, where performance is high and price is low, while the worst values will gravitate toward the bottom right.




As you can see, the 295 X2 doesn't fare well in our latency-sensitive 99th percentile FPS metric (which is just frame times converted to higher-is-better FPS). You've seen the reasons why in the test results: frame time spikes in AC4 and Arkham Origins, struggles in a portion of our Call of Duty: Ghosts test session, and negative performance scaling for multi-GPU in Guild Wars 2. These problems push the R9 295 X2 below even a single GeForce GTX 780 Ti in the overall score.

AMD's multi-GPU struggles aren't confined to the 295 X2, either. The Radeon HD 7990 is, on paper, substantially more powerful than the R9 290X, but its 99th percentile FPS score is lower than a single 290X card's.

The 295 X2 does somewhat better if you're looking at the FPS average, and the addition of Thief makes the Radeons a little more competitive overall. Still, two GTX 780 Ti cards in SLI are substantially faster even in raw FPS terms. And we know that the 295 X2 struggles to produce consistently the sort of gaming experience that its hardware ought to provide.


Source: AMD

I've gotta say, I find this outcome incredibly frustrating and disappointing. I believe AMD's hardware engineers have produced probably the most powerful graphics card we've ever seen. The move to water cooling has granted it a massive 500W power envelope, and it has a 1GB-per-GPU advantage in memory capacity over the GeForce GTX 780 Ti SLI setup. Given that we tested exclusively in 4K, where memory size is most likely to be an issue, I fully expected the 295 X2 to assert its dominance. We saw flashes of its potential in Crysis 3 and BF4. Clearly the hardware is capable.

At the end of the day, though, a PC graphics card requires a combination of hardware and software in order to perform well—that's especially true for a multi-GPU product. Looks to me like the R9 295 X2 has been let down by its software, and by AMD's apparent (and, if true, bizarre) decision not to optimize for games that don't wear the Gaming Evolved logo in their opening titles. You know, little franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. It's possible AMD could fix these problems in time, but one has to ask how long, exactly, owners of the R9 295 X2 should expect to wait for software to unlock the performance of their hardware. Recently, Nvidia has accelerated its practice of having driver updates ready for major games before they launch, after all. That seems like the right way to do it. AMD is evidently a long way from that goal.

I dunno. Here's hoping that our selection of games and test scenarios somehow just happened to be particularly difficult for the R9 295 X2, for whatever reason. Perhaps we can vary some of the test scenarios next time around and get a markedly better result. There's certainly more work to be done to verify consistent frame delivery to the display, anyhow. Right now, though, the 295 X2 is difficult to recommend, even to those folks who would happily pony up $1500 for a graphics card"

___________________________________________________________________________________
hardwarekanucks:






http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/65973-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-performance-review-20.html

___________________________________________________________________________________
Computerbase:




http://www.computerbase.de/2014-04/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-benchmark-test/5/
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by NABBO View Post

No


http://techreport.com/review/26279/amd-radeon-r9-295-x2-graphics-card-reviewed/7

"Conclusions
Let's sum up our performance results—and factor in price—using our world-famous scatter plots. These overall performance results are a geometric mean of the outcomes on the preceding pages. We left Thief out of the first couple of plots since we tested it differently, but we've added it to a third plot to see how it affects things.

As usual, the best values will tend toward the top left of the plot, where performance is high and price is low, while the worst values will gravitate toward the bottom right.




As you can see, the 295 X2 doesn't fare well in our latency-sensitive 99th percentile FPS metric (which is just frame times converted to higher-is-better FPS). You've seen the reasons why in the test results: frame time spikes in AC4 and Arkham Origins, struggles in a portion of our Call of Duty: Ghosts test session, and negative performance scaling for multi-GPU in Guild Wars 2. These problems push the R9 295 X2 below even a single GeForce GTX 780 Ti in the overall score.

AMD's multi-GPU struggles aren't confined to the 295 X2, either. The Radeon HD 7990 is, on paper, substantially more powerful than the R9 290X, but its 99th percentile FPS score is lower than a single 290X card's.

The 295 X2 does somewhat better if you're looking at the FPS average, and the addition of Thief makes the Radeons a little more competitive overall. Still, two GTX 780 Ti cards in SLI are substantially faster even in raw FPS terms. And we know that the 295 X2 struggles to produce consistently the sort of gaming experience that its hardware ought to provide.


Source: AMD

I've gotta say, I find this outcome incredibly frustrating and disappointing. I believe AMD's hardware engineers have produced probably the most powerful graphics card we've ever seen. The move to water cooling has granted it a massive 500W power envelope, and it has a 1GB-per-GPU advantage in memory capacity over the GeForce GTX 780 Ti SLI setup. Given that we tested exclusively in 4K, where memory size is most likely to be an issue, I fully expected the 295 X2 to assert its dominance. We saw flashes of its potential in Crysis 3 and BF4. Clearly the hardware is capable.

At the end of the day, though, a PC graphics card requires a combination of hardware and software in order to perform well—that's especially true for a multi-GPU product. Looks to me like the R9 295 X2 has been let down by its software, and by AMD's apparent (and, if true, bizarre) decision not to optimize for games that don't wear the Gaming Evolved logo in their opening titles. You know, little franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. It's possible AMD could fix these problems in time, but one has to ask how long, exactly, owners of the R9 295 X2 should expect to wait for software to unlock the performance of their hardware. Recently, Nvidia has accelerated its practice of having driver updates ready for major games before they launch, after all. That seems like the right way to do it. AMD is evidently a long way from that goal.

I dunno. Here's hoping that our selection of games and test scenarios somehow just happened to be particularly difficult for the R9 295 X2, for whatever reason. Perhaps we can vary some of the test scenarios next time around and get a markedly better result. There's certainly more work to be done to verify consistent frame delivery to the display, anyhow. Right now, though, the 295 X2 is difficult to recommend, even to those folks who would happily pony up $1500 for a graphics card"

___________________________________________________________________________________
hardwarekanucks:






http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/65973-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-performance-review-20.html

___________________________________________________________________________________
Computerbase:




http://www.computerbase.de/2014-04/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-benchmark-test/5/

Yeah I am not gonna play the cherry picking benchmark game. Lets agree to disagree.
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavDigitalStorm View Post

Here are my scores if anyone wants to cross-referenece.

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/4-way-quad-crossfire-amd-r9-295x2-benchmarks-at-4k-idnum228/

Never knew about DS Unlocked - thanks for posting!
Project Arch
(16 items)
 
BigByte
(8 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x @ 4.8ghz Asus X99-E WS 2 x Nvidia Quadro K6000 Corsair Dominator Platinum 64gb 2666 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2 x Samsung 850 Pro 512gb {RAID 0} Swiftech H320 w/ Noctua NF-F12 iPPC Arch Linux w/ OpenBox 2 x LG 31MU97 Cinema 4K 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Vortex KBC Poker II PBT EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 Corsair Obsidian 450D Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Steelseries QCK+ Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80Ω Audioengine D1 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Avoton C2750 Octa-Core ASRock C2750D4I Samsung 64gb ECC 1600mhz 8 x Samsung 850 Pro 1TB 
OSPowerCaseOther
FreeNAS SilverStone ST45SF-G 450w SilverStone DS380 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4960HQ Intel Iris 5200 Pro NVIDIA GT 750M 2gb 16gb (2x8gb) 1600mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorMouseMouse Pad
1tb PCIe SSD 15.4" {2880x1800} IPS SteelSeries Sensei [RAW] SteelSeries QcK Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
Project Arch
(16 items)
 
BigByte
(8 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5960x @ 4.8ghz Asus X99-E WS 2 x Nvidia Quadro K6000 Corsair Dominator Platinum 64gb 2666 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2 x Samsung 850 Pro 512gb {RAID 0} Swiftech H320 w/ Noctua NF-F12 iPPC Arch Linux w/ OpenBox 2 x LG 31MU97 Cinema 4K 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Vortex KBC Poker II PBT EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 Corsair Obsidian 450D Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Steelseries QCK+ Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 80Ω Audioengine D1 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Avoton C2750 Octa-Core ASRock C2750D4I Samsung 64gb ECC 1600mhz 8 x Samsung 850 Pro 1TB 
OSPowerCaseOther
FreeNAS SilverStone ST45SF-G 450w SilverStone DS380 Intel X540-T2 NIC 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4960HQ Intel Iris 5200 Pro NVIDIA GT 750M 2gb 16gb (2x8gb) 1600mhz 
Hard DriveMonitorMouseMouse Pad
1tb PCIe SSD 15.4" {2880x1800} IPS SteelSeries Sensei [RAW] SteelSeries QcK Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Got it.

This review shows what all other reviews concluded... R9 295x2 > Sli 780ti

The outcome was not in question at any time.

As long as the test reflects what end users can expect when they decide to buy the card with their hard earned money, it's irrelevant who wins.
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Yes 60mhz would make it so much faster.... lachen.gif

That is some poor scaling in Anno.

Well, 928mhz is not very competitive with 1300 biggrin.gif

that's 1.4x clocks
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Yeah I am not gonna play the cherry picking benchmark game. Lets agree to disagree.

But didn't you just say :
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Got it.

This review shows what all other reviews concluded... R9 295x2 > Sli 780ti


Also if you look at other reviews like guru3d, anandtech, and others you will clearly see that the 295x2 isn't on top as you claim it to be.
You don't need to "cherry picking" anything. Just use sites which are not known to screw up with cards speeds.

Going by extremely false generalisation to prove a false point, gives out false results.

I'm not saying the 295x2 isn't good. Its not as good as you make it look.
Especially if you look at fps variations. The margin there is absolutely huge and shows more than a bit about why the "average" fps is so high on the AMD side.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizZz View Post


Never knew about DS Unlocked - thanks for posting!

Something i've been working on, thank you!

Aventum II
(9 items)
 
Bolt II
(9 items)
 
Personal Rig
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4960X ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition 4x NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780Ti 32GB Corsair Platinum 1866 MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Corsair Neutron 480GB 3x 420mm water cooling ASUS 32" 4K 2x Corsair 1200i ATX 
Case
Digital Storm Aventum II 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4790K ASUS Maximus VI Impact NVIDIA GTX Titan Z 16 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 1866 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1TB Samsung SSD Slim Blu-Ray 240MM AIO Water Cooling windows 8.1 
Power
Custom 700W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4960X at 4.6GHz ASUS Rampage IV Gene AMD Radeon R9 295X2 32GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
480GB Corsair Corsair H110i windows 8.1 ASUS PQ321Q 4K IGZO Panel 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
FUNC KB 460 Corsair AX1200i Corsair 650D Razer Taipan 
Mouse PadAudio
EVGA GTX 590 Classified Mousepad Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
Aventum II
(9 items)
 
Bolt II
(9 items)
 
Personal Rig
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4960X ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition 4x NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780Ti 32GB Corsair Platinum 1866 MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Corsair Neutron 480GB 3x 420mm water cooling ASUS 32" 4K 2x Corsair 1200i ATX 
Case
Digital Storm Aventum II 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4790K ASUS Maximus VI Impact NVIDIA GTX Titan Z 16 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 1866 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1TB Samsung SSD Slim Blu-Ray 240MM AIO Water Cooling windows 8.1 
Power
Custom 700W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 4960X at 4.6GHz ASUS Rampage IV Gene AMD Radeon R9 295X2 32GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
480GB Corsair Corsair H110i windows 8.1 ASUS PQ321Q 4K IGZO Panel 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
FUNC KB 460 Corsair AX1200i Corsair 650D Razer Taipan 
Mouse PadAudio
EVGA GTX 590 Classified Mousepad Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 28
So what were seeing here is that 4K on Ultra requires roughly 3 x Highest end GPU's to get 60fps on ultra and x4 to get near 120fps

i think il stick with 21:9 3440x1440
post #20 of 28
Do read this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7981/best-video-cards-april-2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGH] Quadfire test R9 295x2