The Radeon R9 280X Review: Feat. Asus & XFX - Meet The Radeon 200 Series
by Ryan Smith on October 8, 2013 12:01 AM ESTThe Drivers, The Test & Our New Testbed
With the product introductions and specifications out of the way, let’s dive into the test.
The launch drivers for the 200 series sampled to the press are Catalyst 13.11 Beta 1, with a version number of 13.200.16, making them a newer build on the same branch as the current 13.10 Beta 2 drivers. As such there are no known functional differences between the current drivers for the 7000 series and the launch drivers for the 200 series. With that said we did encounter one specific bug in these drivers, which resulted in flickering lighting in Crysis 3 on high quality settings.
Note that this also means that these drivers also only contain Phase 1 of AMD’s Crossfire frame pacing fixes. This means frame pacing for Crossfire for single monitor displays is fully implemented, however frame pacing for multi monitor displays and 4K displays is not. Based on AMD’s most recent comments a fix is not expected until November, and while we don’t seriously see owners settling down to run Eyefinity or 4K displays off of 280X in CF – at least not until 290X arrives for evaluation – it’s unfortunate AMD wasn’t able to get this problem fixed in time for the 200 series launch.
| Catalyst 13.11B1 Frame Pacing | |||||
| Single Display | Eyefinity / 4K Tiled | ||||
| D3D11 | Y | N | |||
| D3D10 | Y | N | |||
| D3D9 | N | N | |||
| OpenGL | N | N | |||
Moving on, this article will mark the debut of our new testbed and benchmark suite. Both were due for a refresh so we’re doing so in conjunction with the launch of the 200 series.
For our testbed we have done a complete overhaul, the first one in 4 years. The trusty Thermaltake Spedo case that has been the skeleton of our testbed has been replaced with an NZXT Phantom 630. Similarly we’ve gone and replaced all of the internal components too; an IVB-E based 4960X operating at 4.2GHz for 40 lanes of validated PCIe 3.0 functionality, an ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional motherboard to operate our cards on, and 32GB of G.Skill’s lowest latency (CAS 9) DDR3-1866 RAM. Meanwhile storage is being backed by a Samsung 840 EVO 750GB, and power via a Corsair AX1200i PSU. Finally cooling is handled by a Corsair H110 closed loop cooler, and meanwhile the Phantom 630 leaves an open fan mount for us to tinker with closed loop GPU coolers (such as the Asus ARES II) in the future.
As for the new benchmark suite, we’ve gone through and appropriately updated our games list. New to the GPU 14 test suite are Company of Heroes 2, Total War: Rome 2, GRID 2, and Metro: Last Light (ed: Metro 2). With the holiday games season upon us, we expect to add at least one more game, along with swapping out Battlefield 3 for Battlefield 4 shortly after that is released.
Finally, though we won’t make use of its 4K capabilities in this review given the limited performance of R9 280X, Asus sent over one of their new PQ321 monitors for our testing needs. While still very much bleeding edge, we’ll be taking a look at 4K performance in the near future as appropriate cards arrive.
| CPU: | Intel Core i7-4960X @ 4.2GHz |
| Motherboard: | ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional |
| Power Supply: | Corsair AX1200i |
| Hard Disk: | Samsung SSD 840 EVO (750GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill RipjawZ DDR3-1866 4 x 8GB (9-10-9-26) |
| Case: | NZXT Phantom 630 |
| Monitor: | Asus PQ321 + Samsung 305T |
| Video Cards: |
XFX Radeon R9 280X Double Dissipation Asus Radeon R9 280X DirectCU II TOP AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition AMD Radeon HD 7970 AMD Radeon HD 7950 Boost NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 |
| Video Drivers: |
NVIDIA 331.40 Beta AMD Catalyst 13.11 Beta 1 |
| OS: | Windows 8.1 Pro |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
151 Comments
View All Comments
HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - link
Well, they did it for the Geforce 7xx series, so they probably had to do it for the new Radeons. That said, it's nice for users to see how little things changed. You know, for the people who didn't pay attention.I agree though it's kinda boring that we're gonna be stuck on the same Radeon series for another 6 months or year. At least nVidia seems vaguely on track with Maxwell, though unless something changes dramatically I think AMD is going to be putting 0 pressure on nVidia to release Maxwell.
Mantle could put pressure if they manage to get it into the gaming engines like they want. If so, they could force nVidia to 1) release their own API (and pay to be put in the same engines) or 2) put out better and better hardware to stay in the high level API with better performance.
Or they could do option 3) and do both.
IUU - Thursday, October 17, 2013 - link
"These aren't new cards. They are basically the same GPU's AMD has been shipping for almost 2 years now and it looks like they are going to try and pass them off again for another year. Why was this treated as some big new thing with a long article and a bunch of benchmarks? This whole thing could have been done in a little 2 paragraph news blurb."Of course they are not new cards. I feel your frustration, but why would they be new?
They render crysis at 43 frames per second at a freaking 2560x1440 resolution, not to mention battlefield and other games. There is simply " no need" for new hardware because there are not p new games to justify stronger hardware. A stagnation in gaming industry would more appropriately describe the situation.
Not that there is nothing to add to improve visual quality of the games, they just won't do anything about it, at keast for now.
jasonelmore - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
disappointing to say the least. People were thinking this would perform at 780 levels are going to be dissapointed. i feel sorry for those that pre-ordered last week for $650+EzioAs - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
This is the 280X not the 290X....jasonelmore - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
ahh ok, i wouldnt have even bothered with this detailed of a review on rebadges with new firmware.EzioAs - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
We don't need you to bother anything when you don't even read the title much less the review itself.RyuDeshi - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
Well seeing as you didn't even bother reading the first page I can see that.It's still worth reviewing so that when people are trying to compare current GPUs, they have updated benchmarks with newer firmware to support those purchase decisions. This goes for both the AMD and Nvidia cards. The worst part about looking up old reviews of say the 7970 (which this is a rebadge of) is that most of them are with older firmware, and AMD had a pretty nice boost a few months after their release which this review more accurately reflects.
jasonelmore - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
well i tried to edit my post literally 10 seconds after i posted but nope, looks like were still browsing 1999 websites that dont let you edit or delete your comments. anyways, yes i should have read the whole article to make any sort of comment at all. sorry.jasonelmore - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
btw the 1st page wasnt up yet, only the charts were posted when i read. this is the problem with posting reviews before they are done, and stuff.Morawka - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
yeah that was annoying