AMD R9 290 VS 290X - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

AMD R9 290 VS 290X

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 04:32 AM
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladcrooks View Post

290 all the way - its like the 7970 vs 7950 - 5870 - 5850 battle all over again except, i think amd has given more with the 290 thumb.gif
I think the 512 bit bus is why they have so close a performance level, beyond that they are way more than you need today compared to the previous 7970.


Durquavian is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 04:32 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Matt-Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,804
Rep: 224 (Unique: 176)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas22550 View Post

At the moment, there's only a £40 difference between the 290 and 290X. The question is, should I spend the extra £40 for the 290X?

40 Euros is quite a bit.. I mean if you have it to spend I don't see why not if it's 40 quid, i mean it's a bit but not heaps. If it was only $50 difference I'd have gotten a 290x over a 290 but it wasn't. More like $500 to $780+ here haha.

Though honestly you won't notice the difference in games heaps, all the benchmarks are within 1FPS really as I mentioned.
Matt-Matt is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 04:34 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
ladcrooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: 10 drowning st
Posts: 4,918
Rep: 166 (Unique: 132)
get the cheapest one you can get and watercool - not my cup of tea though, air and always air biggrin.gif

There are 2 kinds of people I really admire in this world. Ones that say they are going to do something and do it! And ones that do something, and then say they have done it!
ladcrooks is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 07:11 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
thomas22550's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Rep: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

No. The difference in performance is few and there are a bit cheaper r9 290 at overclockers uk or amazon uk

But there's only a £40 to £60 difference between the two on the MSI models. Is the 290X really not worth the extra £40/£60?
thomas22550 is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 07:22 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
PureBlackFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 7,406
Rep: 429 (Unique: 316)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas22550 View Post


But there's only a £40 to £60 difference between the two on the MSI models. Is the 290X really not worth the extra £40/£60?

the 290X is not worth the extra cost. the 290/290X have everything in common except 9% shaders. the 7970 was a better card than the 7950 due to it's pcb and other things involved in how it could overclock. the Titan/Titan black have advantages over the 780/780Ti. the gtx580 had some strong advantages over the gtx570. the 290/290X would be the equivalent of gtx670 windforce vs gtx680 windforce (for example) where the ONLY difference is a small amount of shader performance that comes at a huge premium and doesn't even show itself in actual use.

PureBlackFire is offline  
post #16 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 07:28 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
thomas22550's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Rep: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureBlackFire View Post

the 290X is not worth the extra cost. the 290/290X have everything in common except 9% shaders. the 7970 was a better card than the 7950 due to it's pcb and other things involved in how it could overclock. the Titan/Titan black have advantages over the 780/780Ti. the gtx580 had some strong advantages over the gtx570. the 290/290X would be the equivalent of gtx670 windforce vs gtx680 windforce (for example) where the ONLY difference is a small amount of shader performance that comes at a huge premium and doesn't even show itself in actual use.

So in other words, the 290X is overkill?
thomas22550 is offline  
post #17 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 08:12 AM
new to OCN?
 
PontiacGTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Venezuela
Posts: 26,368
Rep: 1536 (Unique: 924)
A r9 290x would be a waste when the other has very similar performance for 100usd less.and also some r9 290 can unlock to r9 290x
PontiacGTX is offline  
post #18 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 08:49 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Goin back to Cali
Posts: 21,556
Reads like some ppl have never done a clock for clock comparison first hand. The 290 will always be slower, even in the best conditions for the 290. For ex. a super gold 290 (1340/1700mhz) will be at least 5% slower than a regular gold 290x (1300/1600mhz). At the same clocks the gap is closer to 10% obviously which is closer to the core % differences.

In respect to single card setups, for the money spent the 290 is the clear budget winner. However when taken to the other extreme in multi gpu setups, what's the difference of (in terms of quads) $400 when one is spending $2000 anyways? Not much and you might as well go for broke anyways since you're already 95% of the way there.

Thus it really depends on what you want. Getting the better things in life always comes with higher cost. And in this respect the 290x is actually not a huge premium when compared in context with the competition.


tsm106 is offline  
post #19 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 11:09 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
PureBlackFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 7,406
Rep: 429 (Unique: 316)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas22550 View Post


So in other words, the 290X is overkill?

not overkill. the performance gap will always be <10% clock for clock. since both cards clock the same it's a case of the 290X being one of the biggest diminishing returns purchases one can make, as long as the 290 exists. simply put, the extra cash isn't getting you anything a 290 can't do. not getting better compute performance, not getting more vram, not getting better clocks, not getting a better made card. only you can decide if 9% more shaders is worth £40 to £60 to you. here are some reviews of the cards that show what the 9% more shaders gives you in the form of actual performance.

Tom's

here the referencee 290/290x start off at 100/107 respectively on the gaming performance index and with the same watercooler end up at 122/127 respectively. the % difference in the non reference versions are even smaller.

TPU

Anandtech

Bit-Tech

PureBlackFire is offline  
post #20 of 30 (permalink) Old 03-05-2014, 12:17 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,920
Rep: 64 (Unique: 58)
I also like to think that generally the 290X's overclock better than 290s from binning. I'm hoping that the average overclock is around 1130mhz for 290Xs and something like 1080mhz for 290s.

I have no numbers to back this up...im just trying to justify the cost of the 290X's over them tongue.gif

jerrolds is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off