R9 290 or GTX780 ??

[ICDP]

I think it's a little soon to be going full defensive mode.

As opposed to what, full on condescending with comments like this?

"I don't want to scare you away, perhaps I could intentionally handicap myself?"

I never said easily, I simply said faster. I believe the 780 is overall faster than the R290, possibly even the 290x at commonly achieved clocks.

Fair enough, you said faster (others said easily faster). You are entitled to that opinion, though my results posted here would tend to prove otherwise.

Is it faster that it matters? Probably not so much, in the same way the R290x isn't fast enough to matter vs the R290.

On this we agree. The R9 290X is an overpriced waste of money compared to R9 290, the same applies to 780Ti and to a lesser extend GTX780 here in Europe. Even with the admittedly crap reference cooler I cannot fathom how the mainstream GTX780 is worth the extra £80. Classified GTX780, Lightnings and 780GHz cards are all ~£130 more expensive.

The banter there was directly related to 3DMark11 and score submissions by AMD users. Upon further review it is clear the 3DMark offical Hall of Fame doesn't accept user modified settings, which is why the R290 series isn't doing well - compared to places like hwbot which fully accept modified settings via control panel options such as but not limited to, tessellation.

Regardless of weather it was referring to 3DMark cheats or not, it can still be seen as an excuse to declare any AMD benchmarks results as suspicious.

I didn't choose TR. That was a R290 user who decided to actually post something. It's been over a month now and it's so rare to see any user results outside the few people getting golden R290 chips that do 1200+.

I didn't mean to imply you chose that particular game, I meant you chose to respond to Gloomy's post with your own results to "prove" GTX780 was far superior.

Again with the goalpost moving, now I am accused of owning a golden sample R9 290X because it can run at 1200 core. Another attempt to justify claiming my results are invalid and don't count anyway?

I look at individual games when making such a comment, compared to overall performance differences. I don't really care about TW or GE.

I put stock vs stock R290 about 6-7% ahead of stock 780. So when a title such as Metro shows a 13% difference I say that title favors AMD.

On the flip side when I look at say Crysis 3, BF3, Rome 2, Bioshock from the same review I say those titles slightly favor Nvidia.

It's not like we can run a single test and proclaim a winner. What I'm looking at are gains vs stock to basically add x to y from stock to try to figure out which card is gaining more from OC and thus either producing similar results to stock or perhaps slightly tipping the balance in the other direction.

How can you test for gains vs stock when you deliberately underclock your own card well below stock to prove your card overclocks 42%?

Stock is what your card runs at out of the box. Stock clocks on binned edition GTX780 GHz, or GTX780 Classified cards are going to be different to a reference GTX780 or more mainstream Custom cooled GTX780 and proves nothing as a general rule.

My point all along has been that GTX780, 780GHz, R9 290/X are all going to be very close as a general rule when the silicone lottery is taken into consideration.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If you can find R9 290 Tri-X for a similar price as 780, it's the better buy imo.

It beats 780 by 18% out of the box and has another 15-20% overclocking headroom from 1Ghz, which means the 780 won't be able to match it unless you get one that overclocks to 1.3Ghz+.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...-r9-290-tri-x-oc-im-test/3/#performancerating

You also get higher resale value on R9 290s right now, more VRAM for free in your case and the possibility of Mantle adding another 10-15% performance down the line.

Having said that if you play many games that favour NV (Blizzard, AC4) and care for features such as PhysX, 780 isn't a bad option either, especially since right now it comes with 3 free games.

If you're a gamer you'd want to list things like Shadow Play in there as well as the up coming G-Sync monitors.

I'd also be weary of basing my choices off websites that produce Nvidia performance levels below my 900MHz fixed clock performance.

Certainly don't need 1300MHz to beat a 290 as has been shown, 1300 will beat a 1200MHz 290x which is at the top of your 15-20% range and 6% slower per clock.

Mantle has a lot of user created hype, even AMD isn't mentioning actual graphics performance increases, only draw call overhead reduction.

 

[Pandamonia]

If you're a gamer you'd want to list things like Shadow Play in there as well as the up coming G-Sync monitors.

I'd also be weary of basing my choices off websites that produce Nvidia performance levels below my 900MHz fixed clock performance.

Certainly don't need 1300MHz to beat a 290 as has been shown, 1300 will beat a 1200MHz 290x which is at the top of your 15-20% range and 6% slower per clock.

Mantle has a lot of user created hype, even AMD isn't mentioning actual graphics performance increases, only draw call overhead reduction.

Hold on... 1300mhz 780 can beat a 290x at 1200mhz?

Where are those benchmarks?

 

[rtsurfer]

Hold on... 1300mhz 780 can beat a 290x at 1200mhz?

Where are those benchmarks?

Exactly.

I think he meant the 290 non-X.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hold on... 1300mhz 780 can beat a 290x at 1200mhz?

Where are those benchmarks?

Can't you tell? ICDP has the 1200MHz R290x and hasn't beat the 780 once.

Bioshock, if you guys want to ignore this one that's fine we already know who will win.

Simulated Stock 900/1500

1306/1785

 

[Silverforce11]

Why is there so much stutter and fps drop in your Metro LL on the OC 780, I would expect it being an NV game, to be optimized and run smoother??

 

[Pandamonia]

Can't you tell? ICDP has the 1200MHz R290x and hasn't beat the 780 once.

Bioshock, if you guys want to ignore this one that's fine we already know who will win.

Simulated Stock 900/1500

1306/1785

1080p? Seriously.... what serious gamer uses this resolution? Is this 2005?

Also Anand only had a 1228mhz boost clock at 1.2v How many will hit 1300 mhz?

We need to move to a serious resolution of at least 1200p or 1440p and have a few games not just one

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It's HDD spooling, and it's random some runs there will be none other it lowers your fps slightly.

I don't mind since it's just a benchmark of the final level and the game itself runs perfectly smooth.

1080p? Seriously.... what serious gamer uses this resolution? Is this 2005?

Also Anand only had a 1228mhz boost clock at 1.2v How many will hit 1300 mhz?

We need to move to a serious resolution of at least 1200p or 1440p and have a few games not just one

Probably those with 120/144hz monitors, with things like lightboost and now g-sync?

I think you mean what serious photo editor uses 1080p?

How many R290s will hit 1200? 1.2v is luck mine only does 1230 with 1.2, surely isn't some super binned chip considering some people hit 1300 on 1.21 to start with and I need 1.3v just to hit 1340.


Bioshock is the third game we've tested so far.

 

[Pandamonia]

It's HDD spooling, and it's random some runs there will be none other it lowers your fps slightly.

I don't mind since it's just a benchmark of the final level and the game itself runs perfectly smooth.



Probably those with 120/144hz monitors, with things like lightboost and now g-sync?

I think you mean what serious photo editor uses 1080p?

How many R290s with hit 1200? 1.2v is luck mine only does 1230 with 1.2, surely isn't some super binned chip considering some people hit 1300 on 1.21 to start with and I need 1.3v just to hit 1340.

120hz, lightboost, gsync.

All gimmicks almost no one uses. Only games that can hit 120hz without CPU bottlenecks are old engine based games.

1440p at 60 FPS is pretty much the desired resolution now for single monitor setups. Thanks to the cheap panels in the market.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Well of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

[Pandamonia]

Well of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

opinions aside, i want to know if there is any merit of this 780 world beating card that can topple the 290x

 

[ICDP]

Can't you tell? ICDP has the 1200MHz R290x and hasn't beat the 780 once.

Your 1300+ GTX780 hasn't beat my 1200 R9 290X either. I am not doing this to measure penis sizes, it is to prove a GTX780 max OC does not beat an R9 290/X reference max OC. I think I have done this already without me having to purchase Bioshock Infinite. A game that I am not remotely interested in.

I'm not trying to beat your score, just show that an OC R9 290/X can and does trade blows with a max OC GTX780. Ironic that you go on about how 1200 core on an R9 290 is somehow rare yet you act like reaching 1300+ on a GTX780 is standard.

You use a custom modded overvolted BIOS to reach 1300 (invalidating your warranty in the process) and act like this is standard for all GTX780s. Here's some news, it isn't, there are plenty of people who would never dream invalidating the warranty on their $500+ GPU. You even said yourself that your GTX780 only gets 1230 with the stock BIOS, that is just about average for a stock GTX780 IMHO

Really what this boils down to is you claiming GTX780 overclocked to the absolute max, with a modded, overvolted, warranty invalidating BIOS, is faster than a max OC reference R9 290/X with stock BIOS. You then have the gall to claim an R9 290X at 1200 core clock is somehow special, seems fair right? :whiste:

 

[Silverforce11]

Average 780 OC is 1170 core on hwbot with over 4,000 samples.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_780/

Boost would probably be in the 1230 to 1250 range, 780s are a good OC card.

 

[guskline]

I notice that Newegg has the EVGA GTX780 Classified for $549 while the Sapphire R9 290 Tri X OC, if in stock, is $499. Does anyone have either of these cards? If so your opinion?

 

[Keysplayr]

BallaTheFeared: "ICDP has the 1200MHz R290x and hasn't beat the 780 once."

IDCP: "Your 1300+ GTX780 hasn't beat my 1200 R9 290X either."

Conclusion: Either one of you is lying, or you are just comparing benchmarks that were not obtained the same way. So, I say get yourselves coordinated and aligned, and cut this BS out already. Only one card can be overall faster. NOT BOTH. Find the answer and both of you MUST accept the outcome. Finished.

 

[IEC]

opinions aside, i want to know if there is any merit of this 780 world beating card that can topple the 290x

An OC'd Sapphire Tri-X 290 can beat a 290X. That's why people OC, is because you can get more bang for the buck (if you can manage the heat). Balla clearly has a golden chip and is squeezing every last drop of performance out of it with a modded bios and voltmods.

Of course, as with all OCs, YMMV. I have Elpida GDDR5 on a 7950 that can hit 1700 MHz stable, and Hynix GDDR5 that can only hit 1340 MHz. This when Hynix is generally considered the superior RAM for OCing.

 

[ICDP]

I notice that Newegg has the EVGA GTX780 Classified for $549 while the Sapphire R9 290 Tri X OC, if in stock, is $499. Does anyone have either of these cards? If so your opinion?

$50 cheaper and similar speeds. IMHO the price difference is enough to warrant going with the R9 290 Tri X. Though if you are used to Nvidia and prefer or are used to their CP then go with the Classy.

 

[blackened23]

edit: dp

 

[Keysplayr]

$50 cheaper and similar speeds. IMHO the price difference is enough to warrant going with the R9 290 Tri X. Though if you are used to Nvidia and prefer or are used to their CP then go with the Classy.

Is that a 290 or a 290X?

 

[blackened23]

opinions aside, i want to know if there is any merit of this 780 world beating card that can topple the 290x

1) 290X stock is tied with Titan stock

2) Many GTX 780 overclocked aftermarket cards, as measured by techpowerup, hardwarecanucks, guru3d, among others, have measured overclocked GTX 780 to be 15-20% faster than Titan.

3) If any overclocked GTX 780 is 15-20% faster than Titan, then it is 15-20% faster than stock 290X.

Examples to follow

 

[ICDP]

Average 780 OC is 1170 core on hwbot with over 4,000 samples.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_780/

Boost would probably be in the 1230 to 1250 range, 780s are a good OC card.

Agreed.

 

[IEC]

I notice that Newegg has the EVGA GTX780 Classified for $549 while the Sapphire R9 290 Tri X OC, if in stock, is $499. Does anyone have either of these cards? If so your opinion?

I have two of the Sapphire R9 290 Tri X OC on the way (should be here shortly after New Year's), and will be posting a review thread no later than mid-January. I'll include a reference XFX 290 modded with a Gelid cooler so people can determine if Sapphire's premium is worth it or not.

That said, at only $50 delta you likely will get better bang for the buck with the 780 Classified as those are designed to OC like crazy (again, YMMV)

 

[blackened23]

1) 290X stock is tied with Titan stock

2) Many GTX 780 overclocked aftermarket cards, as measured by techpowerup, hardwarecanucks, guru3d, among others, have measured overclocked GTX 780 to be 15-20% faster than Titan.

3) If any overclocked GTX 780 is 15-20% faster than Titan, then it is 15-20% faster than stock 290X.

4) Meanwhile, 290X is overclocking with 6-10% headroom, per TPU. That is less than an overclocked GTX 780.

20.2% faster than Titan, 20.2% faster than stock 290X:

15% faster than Titan, 15% faster than stock 290X:

21% faster than Titan, 21% faster than stock 290X

16% faster than Titan, 16% faster than stock 290X

 

[ICDP]

1) 290X stock is tied with Titan stock

2) Many GTX 780 overclocked aftermarket cards, as measured by techpowerup, hardwarecanucks, guru3d, among others, have measured overclocked GTX 780 to be 15-20% faster than Titan.

3) If any overclocked GTX 780 is 15-20% faster than Titan, then it is 15-20% faster than stock 290X.

Examples to follow

Don't forget folks, the R9 290 Tri-X will not overclock at all. So what blackened says here is absolute fact.

TPU 6%-10% OC on the R9 290X was done without adding extra volts. With stock volts my R9 290X only gets 1060 core clock, to achieve 1200 core I need to (shock horror) increase the voltage.

Form the article linked below.
"The overclocking results listed in this section were achieved with the default fan and voltage settings as defined in the VGA BIOS"

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/31.html

My own testing showed an increase of 18% over stock in Tomb Raider with my R9 290X at 1200/1400.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Don't forget folks, the R9 290 Tri-X will not overclock at all. So what blackened says here is absolute fact.

Hopefully it OC's more than yours though right?

I mean it's giving up 6% per clock and you're already losing to a 780.