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
Hitman: Absolution
The second-to-last game in our lineup is Hitman: Absolution. The latest game in Square Enix’s stealth-action series, Hitman: Absolution is a DirectX 11 based title that though a bit heavy on the CPU, can give most GPUs a run for their money. Furthermore it has a built-in benchmark, which gives it a level of standardization that fewer and fewer benchmarks possess.
Hitman is another game that makes the 290X shine, with the 290X taking a 16% lead over the GTX 780. In fact we’re getting very close to being CPU limited here, which may be limiting just how far ahead the 290X can pull. However this also means there’s plenty of GPU headroom for enabling MSAA, which we don’t use in this benchmark.
Moving on to 4K, the 290X once again extends its lead, this time by among the largest such leads to 30% over the GTX 780. This is actually good enough for 43fps even at Ultra quality, but for better than that you’ll need multiple GPUs.
To that end we’re CPU limited at 2560, though for some reason the GTX 780 SLI fares a bit better regardless. Otherwise at 4K the GTX 780 SLI achieves better scaling than the 290X CF – 64% versus 56% –so while it can’t take the lead it does at least close the gap some. Though enough of a gap remains that the GTX 780 SLI will still come a bit short of 60fps at 4K Ultra settings, which makes the 290X CF the only setup capable of achieving that goal.
When it comes to minimum framerates the 290X is able to build on its lead just a bit more here at both 2560 and 4K. In both cases the performance advantage over the GTX 780 grows by a further 3%.
Finally, for our delta percentages we can see that unfortunately for AMD they are regressing a bit here. The variance for the 290X CF at 2560 is 24%, which is greater than what the 280X CF was already seeing, and significantly greater than the GTX 780 SLI. Consequently Hitman is a good example of how although AMD’s CF frame pacing situation is generally quite good, there are going to be games where they need to buckle down a bit more and get it under control, as evidenced by what NVIDIA has been able to achieve. Though it is interesting to note that AMD’s frame pacing at 4K improves over 2K, by over 8%. AMD would seem to have an easier time keeping frame times under control when they’re outright longer, which isn’t wholly surprising since it means there’s more absolute time to resolve the matter.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
396 Comments
View All Comments
DMCalloway - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Once again, against the Titan it's $450 cheaper, not $100. Against the gtx 780 it is a wash on performance at a cheaper price point. Eight months late to the game I'll agree on, however it took time to get in bed with Sony and Micro$oft which was needed if they (AMD) ever hope to get to the point of being able to release 'at a competitive time'. I'm amazed that they are still viable after the financial losses they suffered with the whole Intel paying OEM's to not release their current cpu gen. along side AMD's business . Sure, AMD won the law suit but the financial losses in market share was in the billions , Intel jumped ahead a gen. and the damage was done. Realistically, I believe AMD chose wisely to focus on the console market because the 7970ghz pushed hard wasn't really that far behind a stock gtx780.Bloodcalibur - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Ever wonder why the TItan costs $350 more than their own GTX 780 while having only a small margin of improvement?Oh, right, compute performance.
anubis44 - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
and in some cases, the R9 290X is as much as 23% faster in 4K resolution than the Titan, or in the words of HardOCP: : "at Ultra HD 4K it (R9 290X) just owns the GeForce GTX TITAN."Bloodcalibur - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Once again, Titan is a gaming/workstation hybrid, that's why it costs $350 more than their own GTX 780 with only a small FPS improvement in gaming.TheJian - Friday, October 25, 2013 - link
Depends on the games chosen. For instance All 4K:Guru3d:
Tombraider tied 4k 40fps (they consider this BARELY playable-though advise 60fps)
MOH Warfighter Titan wins 7%
Bioshock Infinite Titan wins 10% (33fps to 30, but again not going to be playable min in teens?)
BF3 TIE (32fps, again avg, so not playable)
The only victory at 4K is Hitman absolution here. So clearly it depends on what your settings are and what games you play. Also note the fps at 4K at hardocp. They can't max settings and every game is a sacrifice of some stuff (or a lot). Even at 2560 Kyle notes all were unplayable with everything on with avg's at 22fps and mins 12fps for all 3 basically...ROFL. How useful is it to win (or even lose) at a res you can't play at?
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/24....
Techpowerup tests all the way to 5760x1080, quoting that unless not tested. Here we go again...LOL
World of Warcraft domination for 780 & Titan (over 20% faster on titan 5760!)
SKYRIM - Both Titan and 780 win 5760
Starcraft2 only went to 2560 but again clean sweep for 780/Titan bot over 10%
Splintercell blacklist clean sweep at 2560 & 5760 for Titan AND 780 (>20% for titan both res)
Farcry3 (titan and 780 wins at 5760 but at 22fps who cares...LOL but 10% faster than 290x)
black ops 2 (only went to 2560, but titan wins all res)
Metro TIE (26fps, again neither playable)
Crysis 3 Titan over 10% win (25fps vs. 22, but neither playable...LOL)
At hardocp, metro, tombraider, bf3, and crysis 3 were all UNDER 25fps min on both cards with most coming in at 22fps or so on both. I wish they would benchmark at what they find is PLAYABLE, but even then I'm against 4K if I have to turn all kinds of stuff off in the first place. Only farcry3 was tested at above 30fps...LOL. You need TWO cards for 4K gaming. PERIOD. If you have the money to buy a 4K monitor or two monitors you probably have the cash to do it right and buy 2 cards. Steampowered survey shows this as most have 2 cards above 1920x1200! Bragging about 4K gaming on this card (or even titan) is ridiculous as it just ends up in an exercise of turning crap off that devs wanted me to SEE. I wouldn't care if 290x was 50% faster than Titan if you're running 22fps who cares? Neither is playable. You've proven NOTHING. If we jump off a 100 story building I'll beat you to the bottom...Yeah but umm...We're both still dead right? So what's the point no matter who wins that game?
Funfact: techspot.com tombraider comment (2560/1080p both tested-4xSSAA+16af)
"We expected AMD to do better in Tomb Raider since they supported the title's development, but the R9 290X was 12% slower than the GTX Titan and 3% slower than the GTX 780"
LOL. I hope they do better with BF4 AMD enhancements. Resident Evil 6 shows titan win also.
http://www.techspot.com/review/727-radeon-r9-290x/...
Tomshardware 4K quote:
"In Gaming At 3840x2160: Is Your PC Ready For A 4K Display?, I concluded that you’d want at least two GeForce GTX 780s for 4K. And although the R9 290X is faster than even the $1000 Titan, I maintain that you need a pair in order to crank your settings up to where they should be."
That was their ARMA quote...But it applies to all 4K...TWO CARDS. But their benchmarks are really low compared to everyone else for Titan in the same games. It's like took 10-15% off Titan's scores. IE, Bioshock infinite at guru3d shows titan winning 10%, but at toms losing by 20% same game, same res...WTF? That's odd right? Skyrim shows NV domination at 4k (780 also). Almost 20% faster for Titan & 780 (they tied) over Uber. Of course they turned off ALL AA modes to get it playable. Again, you can't just judge 4K by one site's games. Clearly you can find the exact opposite at 4K and come back down to reality (a res you can actually play at above 30fps) and titan is smacking them in a ton of games (far more wins than losses). I could find a ton more if needed but you should get the point. TITAN isn't OWNED at 4K and usually when it is as toms says of Metro "the win is largely symbolic though", yeah at 30fps avg it is pointless even turned down!
bronopoly - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Why shouldn't one of the cards you mentioned be bought for 1080p? I don't know about you, but I prefer to get 120 FPS in games so it matches my monitor w/ lightboost enabled.Bloodcalibur - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Except the Titan is a gaming/workstation hybrid due to its computing ability. Anyone who bought a Titan just for gaming is retarded and paid $350 more than they would have on a 780. Titan shouldn t be compared to 290X for gaming. Its a good card for those who do both gaming and a little bit of computing.looncraz - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Install a new cooler and the last two of those problems vanish... and you've saved hundreds... you could afford to build a stand-alone water-cooling loop just for the 290x and still have money to spare for a nice dinner.teiglin - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
I haven't finished reading the article yet, but isn't that more than a little hyperbolic? It just means NVIDIA will have to cut back on the amount it gouges for GK110. The fact that it was able to leave the price high for so long is nearly all good for them--it's just a matter of how quickly they adjust their pricing to match.It will be nice to have a fair fight again at the high-end for a single card.
bill5 - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
Heh, I'm the biggest AMD fanboy around, but these top two comments almost smell like marketing.It's a great card, and the Titan was deffo highly overpriced, but Nvidia can just make some adjustments on price and compete. That 780 Ti they showed will surely be something in that vein.