The AMD Radeon R9 290X Review
by Ryan Smith on October 24, 2013 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- AMD
- Radeon
- Hawaii
- Radeon 200
Crysis 3
Still one of our most punishing benchmarks, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers and still holds “most punishing shooter” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and that’s still without AA. Crysis 1 was an excellent template for the kind of performance required to drive games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2013.
Much like Battlefield 3, at 2560 it’s a neck and neck race between the 290X and the GTX 780. At 52fps neither card stands apart, and in traditional Crysis fashion neither card is fast enough to pull off 60fps here – never mind the fact that we’re not even at the highest quality levels.
Meanwhile if we bump up the resolution to 4K, things get ugly, both in the literal and figurative senses. Even at the game’s lowest quality settings neither card can get out of the 40s, though as usual the 290X pulls ahead in performance at this resolution.
As such, for 60fps+ on Crysis 3 we’ll have to resort to AFR, which gives us some interesting results depending on which resolution we’re looking at. For 2560 it’s actually the GTX 780 SLI that pulls ahead, beating the 290X in scaling. However at 4K it’s the 290X CF that pulls ahead, enjoying a 53% scaling factor to the GTX 780’s 40%. Interestingly both cards see a reduction in scaling factors here versus 2560, despite the fact that both cards are having no problem reaching full utilization. Something about Crysis 3, most likely the sheer workload the game throws out at our GPUs, is really bogging things down at 4K. Though to AMD’s credit despite the poorer scaling factor at 4K the 290X CF in uber mode is just fast enough to hit 60fps at Medium quality, and not a frame more.
Moving on to our look at delta percentages, all of our AFR setups are acceptable here, but nothing is doing well. 20-21% variance is the order of the day, a far cry from the 1-2% variance of single card setups. This is one of those games where both vendors need to do their homework, as we’re going to be seeing a lot more of CryEngine 3 over the coming years.
As for 4K, things are no better but at least they’re no worse.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
396 Comments
View All Comments
Blamcore - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
Wow, I was just remarking yesterday that NV fanbois had sunk to the level of apple fanbois, when I was seeing the argument "you just like AMD because you can't afford NV" on a few boards. Now here is apple fanbois famous argument "my company is better because they have a higher profit margin" Gratz your unreasonable bias just went up a level!I know, you aren't a fanboy, you are really a business expert here to recommend that a company should gain market share by releasing a card roughly equal to what it's competitor had out for months and pricing it the same as they do! Maybe the could have asked 650 if they released it last January
puppies - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
R+D costs come from the sale price of the card. Are you tring to claim a $300 GPU costs $300 in materials? R+D costs also come from the fact that shrinking the process enables the manufacturer to get more cards per die each time.Look at Intel and AMD their chips don't go up in price each time they get faster, they stay at the same price point. The last 2 cards I have bought have been Nvidia but the next one will be AMD at this rate. I expect a 660TI to be faster and more energy efficient than a 560TI and at the same price point WHEN IT IS RELEASED and I think a lot of people are in the same boat. Nvidia is trying to push people into spending more each time they release a new model line up and it stinks.
I don't care if a 660 is faster than a 560TI, forcing people to move down the GPU lineup just smacks of NVIDIA price gouging.
Samus - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
I have to disagree with you Berzerker. Although his post clearly "overpromotes" the 290, it is incredible value when you consider it is faster and cheaper (by hundreds of dollars) than the Titan.-Geforce 660TI owner
Laststop311 - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
For people that value a quiet computer, this card is trashSpunjji - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
For people that value a quiet computer, all stock coolers are useless.People that value a truly quiet computer won't even be playing at this end of the GPU market.
Samus - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
This card is a great candidate for water cooling since the back of the PCB is essentially empty. Water cooling the face side is cheaper/easier, and this card can clearly use it.HisDivineOrder - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
He didn't say "silent." He said "quiet." I'd argue the Titan/780/690 coolers were all "quiet," but not "silent."Since he said quiet, I don't think his expectation is unreasonable to expect a certain level of "quiet" at the $500+ range of discrete cards.
Nenad - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
780 with stock cooler is not useless, and it IS quiet (it is not 'silent')BTW, going by posted numbers it seems 290x will be TWICE as noisy as GTX780 ?
ballfeeler - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Methinks Berzerker7 is just salty and perhaps partial to nvidia. Nothing itchy wrote is inaccurate, including the $550 price that Salty-Berzerker7 claimed was $600.- Fastest card ? - yup
- Free game ? – yup
- Pooped all over titan ? –yup
Do not be salty mr. Berzerker7. AMD just roundhouse kicked nvidia square in the gonads with performance above Titan for half the price.
Shark321 - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
At 1080p it's actually slower than Titan if you average all reviews across the sites. With some reviews even slightly slower than the 780. It's also the loudest card ever produced after 30 minutes of playing (9,6 Sone in Battlefield 3 according to PCGamesExtreme). With this noise it's not acceptable and there will be no other coolers for the time being.