R9 280x or r9 290 (non-x)

[the jolly roger]

So on my future build i plan in getting either of these cards, immediatly i will be playing single monitor 1080, but my plan on the long run is to get a triple 1080p surround setup. 

So which on of these should i get? i have read the the 290 is a bit overkill fot single monitor 1080p, but considering a surround setup, will it be able to run it? or ill i hvae to buy a second card to get buttery FPS?

 

Thanks

[themaniac]

So on my future build i plan in getting either of these cards, immediatly i will be playing single monitor 1080, but my plan on the long run is to get a triple 1080p surround setup. 

So which on of these should i get? i have read the the 290 is a bit overkill fot single monitor 1080p, but considering a surround setup, will it be able to run it? or ill i hvae to buy a second card to get buttery FPS?

 

Thanks

yeah a 290 will be fine but i would recomend spending a bit more for a 970 seeing its a bit better than a 290x for not much more than a 290

[TinoXtreme]

If you're going AMD, the 290 is what you should get. Got one myself

[the jolly roger]

yeah a 290 will be fine but i would recomend spending a bit more for a 970 seeing its a bit better than a 290x for not much more than a 290

running on a really tight budget here, cant spend more than 300$ on GPU and the 290 stits right there

[Frosty11]

running on a really tight budget here, cant spend more than 300$ on GPU and the 290 stits right there

This this this^

 

Because:

[themaniac]

running on a really tight budget here, cant spend more than 300$ on GPU and the 290 stits right there

ok i would go for the 280x because its better for the money but if you can find atleast 30$ more then get a 970

 

edit and you can overclock the 970 to be as powerful as a 980

[Frosty11]

running on a really tight budget here, cant spend more than 300$ on GPU and the 290 stits right there

Wait for some time... save for the GTX 970 and you will be glad that you got it. It performs better than the R9 290X, consumes less power, produces lesser heat, is easily overclockable.

[the jolly roger]

Wait for some time... save for the GTX 970 and you will be glad that you got it. It performs better than the R9 290X, consumes less power, produces lesser heat, is easily overclockable.

i fear the 970 will tear the shit out of my monitor at 1080p

[Frosty11]

i fear the 970 will tear the shit out of my monitor at 1080p

That's good for you... right...?!

[the jolly roger]

That's good for you... right...?!

in the long run where games will get moar and moar gpu hungry (and even cpu) yes its good, but for right now............ i fear

[the jolly roger]

That's good for you... right...?!

besides, the 970 is sold out everywhere

[Speedbird]

290.

[Frosty11]

in the long run where games will get moar and moar gpu hungry (and even cpu) yes its good, but for right now............ i fear

 

Its your choice but tell me if someone offered you a GTX 980 at the price of a GTX 970 would say no to it because it is way to good for what you intend to use it for? Its simple, get the card that gives you the best performance for the money you spend.

 

If you want to spend no more then what the R9 280X is available for then fine... in that case the only choice you have is the R9 280X. But if you want a GPU that is more future proof than the R9 280X then GTX 970 is the way to go.

[the jolly roger]

Its your choice but tell me if someone offered you a GTX 980 at the price of a GTX 970 would say no to it because it is way to good for what you intend to use it for? Its simple, get the card that gives you the best performance for the money you spend.

 

If you want to spend no more then what the R9 280X is available for then fine... in that case the only choice you have is the R9 280X. But if you want a GPU that is more future proof than the R9 280X then GTX 970 is the way to go.

r9 290 is at 300$, thats what i have to spend. gtx 970 is sold out everywhere, i mean everywhere (amazon, newegg, ncix) and everywhere else i can think of. the biggest reason i am i thinking of 280x over 290 is beacase the saphhire 280x tri-x has backplate, and the same cooler 290 does not (wtf sapphire?)

[Frosty11]

r9 290 is at 300$, thats what i have to spend. gtx 970 is sold out everywhere, i mean everywhere (amazon, newegg, ncix) and everywhere else i can think of. the biggest reason i am i thinking of 280x over 290 is beacase the saphhire 280x tri-x has backplate, and the same cooler 290 does not (wtf sapphire?)

By the time you save up for the GTX 980, it will probably be back in stock. And it does not make sense to buy the R9 280X over the R9 290 just because it has a backplate if you are looking for a better performing card, unless you are giving first priority to looks.

[MehRepublic]

if u can get 970 below 350 usd, get that instead,

and 290 is better (15-30) fps more than 280x,(i get my 290 for 265$ including postage)

 

i know right, 290 tri x didnt have a backplate im kindda sad looking trough my side panel looking at my bare 290 tri x

 

but dont worry, the card didnt bent at all, and backplate not helping performance in any way, and since 290 tri x is using a reference board, u can have a custom backplate like this

 

 

[the jolly roger]

if u can get 970 below 350 usd, get that instead,

and 290 is better (15-30) fps more than 280x,(i get my 290 for 265$ including postage)

 

i know right, 290 tri x didnt have a backplate im kindda sad looking trough my side panel looking at my bare 290 tri x

 

but dont worry, the card didnt bent at all, and backplate not helping performance in any way, and since 290 tri x is using a reference board, u can have a custom backplate like this

are there any cards with non-reference PCB?

[MehRepublic]

are there any cards with non-reference PCB?

im not sure about 290, what can i remember most of it is reference board

for 290x i can only remember a few,

 

but dont worry, reference vs non reference on amd card is a different story than nvidia card

 

u sound too scare buying a 290 , im in a hot season here and my 290 never go over 79c(33c-40c room temperature) and still remain quiet

[deathjester]

So on my future build i plan in getting either of these cards, immediatly i will be playing single monitor 1080, but my plan on the long run is to get a triple 1080p surround setup. 

So which on of these should i get? i have read the the 290 is a bit overkill fot single monitor 1080p, but considering a surround setup, will it be able to run it? or ill i hvae to buy a second card to get buttery FPS?

 

Thanks

 

Grab the Sapphire 290 if it is still on sale at newegg for $289.99. Even if you have a 1080p monitor or play on a 1080p TV downsampling is a thing now and becoming more popular and there is no such thing as overkill at 1080p on these new titles. Shadows of Mordor has a 6 gig texture pack (more VRAM on the 290) and you can choose a downsampled resolution inside the game. You can do this on other games as well, but the in game menu is awesome.

 

I can play at a near 60 FPS with no hitching (important part) mesh set 2 settings down at 150 percent downsample with the 6GB textures. Also have ambient occlusion down one setting and shadows down one setting. Game looks like this on my TV/1080p monitor. GTX 970 beats the R9 290 at 1080p native. Downsampling and above that they are very even and at 4 k the R9 290 wins due to memory bandwidth. Important thing is getting a R9 290 that has good temps. Only affordable one atm in U.S. is the Sapphire Tr-X. The PCS + is also an outstanding card and even better and so is the Vapor-X but they are still WAY more money than the Tri-x atm. Those three are the best models on the R9 290.

 

 

I can run the game at 4k at around 30 FPS and only high textures with this card (Linus tested them all and the 290/290x are fastest at it) but I just can't stand 30 FPS. 2K and Ultra textures seems to be the sweet spot on my one card. Maybe when I grab a 4k TV/monitor I will get 2. I don't think Ultra textures is doable on 4 gigs of ram and 4k though without hitching.  The benchmark scores appear perfect, but when you are actually in the game the game can hitch from time to time. Higher resolution, more ram you need for the ultra pack.

 

Edit. This is not a depth of field combat shot which looks all fancy. This is what the game actually looks like running around. The depth of field shots are kind of misleading. Game doesn't look like that except on finishers. Even the PS4 can look decent on the depth of field shots.

[the jolly roger]

Grab the Sapphire 290 if it is still on sale at newegg for $289.99. Even if you have a 1080p monitor or play on a 1080p TV downsampling is a thing now and becoming more popular and there is no such thing as overkill at 1080p on these new titles. Shadows of Mordor has a 6 gig texture pack (more VRAM on the 290) and you can choose a downsampled resolution inside the game. You can do this on other games as well, but the in game menu is awesome.

 

I can play at a near 60 FPS with no hitching (important part) mesh set 2 settings down at 150 percent downsample with the 6GB textures. Also have ambient occlusion down one setting and shadows down one setting. Game looks like this on my TV/1080p monitor. GTX 970 beats the R9 290 at 1080p native. Downsampling and above that they are very even and at 4 k the R9 290 wins due to memory bandwidth. Important thing is getting a R9 290 that has good temps. Only affordable one atm in U.S. is the Sapphire Tr-X. The PCS + is also an outstanding card and even better and so is the Vapor-X but they are still WAY more money than the Tri-x atm. Those three are the best models on the R9 290.

 

 

I can run the game at 4k at around 30 FPS and only high textures with this card (Linus tested them all and the 290/290x are fastest at it) but I just can't stand 30 FPS. 2K and Ultra textures seems to be the sweet spot on my one card. Maybe when I grab a 4k TV/monitor I will get 2. I don't think Ultra textures is doable on 4 gigs of ram and 4k though without hitching.  The benchmark scores appear perfect, but when you are actually in the game the game can hitch from time to time. Higher resolution, more ram you need for the ultra pack.

 

Edit. This is not a depth of field combat shot which looks all fancy. This is what the game actually looks like running around. The depth of field shots are kind of misleading. Game doesn't look like that except on finishers. Even the PS4 can look decent on the depth of field shots.

i thought only the new nvidia 900 series had downsampling..... is this a thing with amd cards? and how

[deathjester]

i thought only the new nvidia 900 series had downsampling..... is this a thing with amd cards? and how

 

Nah downsampling has been around for ages. We have done it a few ways and it can be done on both GPU's. Shadows of Mordor actually has it in the game menu (which kicks ass). You can bump to 2 k/4k on a 1080p screen. Won't look as good as native but will still look very good. I think "Ubersampling" was the same thing in Witcher 2.

 

Gedosato tool from Durante was often used for games like Mass Effect series, Dark Souls 2. Can also do it from the Nvidia control Panel (set up a custom resolution). The ATI way there is a program. You basically enter a custom resolution at a certain hz and it is like a really good form of anti aliasing.

 

Nvidia used Dark Souls 2 in their Nvidia DSR demo, cus we had all used it, cus the game looked very mediocre without downsampling. I imagine AMD will add the same thing to catalyst soon. It is not hardware specific at all. Nvidia could put it on their lower series immediately, but they are using it as a way to entice people to the 900 series.

 

Not new, but very cool, and can make a OLD game like Mass Effects look absolutely outstanding at 4k. 

[the jolly roger]

Nah downsampling has been around for ages. We have done it a few ways and it can be done on both GPU's. Shadows of Mordor actually has it in the game menu (which kicks ass). You can bump to 2 k/4k on a 1080p screen. Won't look as good as native but will still look very good. I think "Ubersampling" was the same thing in Witcher 2.

 

Gedosato tool from Durante was often used for games like Mass Effect series, Dark Souls 2. Can also do it from the Nvidia control Panel (set up a custom resolution). The ATI way there is a program. You basically enter a custom resolution at a certain hz and it is like a really good form of anti aliasing.

 

Nvidia used Dark Souls 2 in there Nvidia DSR demo, cus we had all used it, cus the game looked very mediocre without downsampling. I imagine AMD will add the same thing to catalyst soon. It is not hardware specific at all. Nvidia could put it on their lower series immediately, but they are using it as a way to entice people to the 900 series.

 

Not new, but very cool, and can make a OLD game like Mass Effects look absolutely outstanding at 4k. 

and what program could i use when get my new rig built?

[deathjester]

and what program could i use when get my new rig built?

 

Gedosato is what I used on my 770, but you could also do it through nvidia control panel.

 

Gedosato also works with AMD cards. youtube search Gedosato tool. Sure there are a bunch of guides explaining it better than I could . Like I said it will prob be added to catalyst soon. Gonna give them some feedback to add it .