Is the R9 295x2 still worth it?

[Sanderman135]

Say i found an XFX R9 295x2 for about $450 usd, would it be worth buying? I heard about some issues it was having with crossfire on the crimson software. Should i wait for the RX 490(X), which should be about the same price or would the 295X2 be a better value? 

[Majestic]

No because that PSU of yours will go up in flames. Meaning you need to also buy a 850W+ 70A+ power supply.

And it never was a really good value anyway, it's a bit of an engineering disaster.

 

There won't be a 490X anytime soon (VEGA is not due soon).

 

480 should be a decent upgrade from that 380 though.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

No because that PSU of yours will go up in flames. Meaning you need to also buy a 850W+ 70A+ power supply.

 

And it never was a really good value anyway, it's a bit of an engineering disaster.

Engineering disaster? Erm, you may want to rethink that - lots of people have then and run them fine. Still the most powerful single PCB IIRC.

 

3 minutes ago, Sanderman135 said:

Say i found an XFX R9 295x2 for about $450 usd, would it be worth buying? I heard about some issues it was having with crossfire on the crimson software. Should i wait for the RX 490(X), which should be about the same price or would the 295X2 be a better value? 

@Prysin has one, feel free to ask him

[Sanderman135]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

No because that PSU of yours will go up in flames. Meaning you need to also buy a 850W+ 70A+ power supply.

 

And it never was a really good value anyway, it's a bit of an engineering disaster.

Obviously the PSU would be replaced but i also just found another one at about $350. If i bought a nice PSU with it, would it be worth the money then?

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Sanderman135 said:

Obviously the PSU would be replaced but i also just found another one at about $350. If i bought a nice PSU with it, would it be worth the money then?

The 295X2 performs like a 1080 when CF is supported ingame so yes, value-wise it's good.

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Engineering disaster? Erm, you may want to rethink that - lots of people have then and run them fine. Still the most powerful single PCB IIRC.

Sorry, squeezing 500-600W out of what is designed for 375W is really good engineering. Not providing any instructions for power supplies and got people to fry their PSU cords is really good on AMD's part.

 

VRM's also didn't run at the point of overheating and it was really, really quiet.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Sorry, squeezing 500-600W out of what is designed for 375W is really good engineering. Not providing any instructions for power supplies and got people to fry their PSU cords is really good on AMD's part.

 

VRM's also didn't run at the point of overheating and it was really, really quiet.

1 - 600W? No? it requires around 450W of power
2 - frying PSUs? Did you by any chance READ the manual or are your reading skills still not that advanced so as to understand basic safety warnings
3 - VRMs are fine for the most part, unless you decide to OC it for some reason. The noise was actually low - due to the large rad and water cooling.

[Vode]

7 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Sorry, squeezing 500-600W out of what is designed for 375W is really good engineering. Not providing any instructions for power supplies and got people to fry their PSU cords is really good on AMD's part.

 

VRM's also didn't run at the point of overheating and it was really, really quiet.

If you buy an enthusiast card like this you should be able to read the manual and check if you got the right PSU.

 

That's like buying a race car and not being able use stick shift. lolol

 

But yeah on topic if you can get one relatively cheap and don't mind a little tinkering, your PSU and case can handle it why not, it's a beast of a card.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Vode
added something

[Majestic]

10 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

1 - 600W? No? it requires around 450W of power
2 - frying PSUs? Did you by any chance READ the manual or are your reading skills still not that advanced so as to understand basic safety warnings
3 - VRMs are fine for the most part, unless you decide to OC it for some reason. The noise was actually low - due to the large rad and water cooling.

1-  It can peak out at a lot more. 

2- There is no such thing as a 295X manual, only from board partners which came only after the fact.

3- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDnQomkkaI

 

Also

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-295X2-8GB-Graphics-Card-Review/Card-Installation-Power-Consider

 

I quote: 

AMD told us, early in our communications about the Radeon R9 295X2, that this card "was not for everyone". At first I was just assuming this meant we were going to see a limited edition style pricing or that availability itself would be limited. It also turns out they were referring the knowledge necessary to actually purchase and install it.

The Radeon R9 295X2 has a TDP of 500 watts. If you do some simple math based on the PCIE specifications of power delivery, a PCI Express graphics card with two 8-pin power connectors issupposed to be limited to just 375 watts of power draw: 75 watts from the PCIe slot, 150 watts from each power connection. AMD has, as they put it, used some discretion with the standards.

 

May I also add that this information is, to this date, still not disclosed on the official website.

[Coaxialgamer]

5 minutes ago, Majestic said:

 

i wouldn't call the 295x2 an engineering disaster , in fact , it's quite impressive what they've managed to pull off , considering most dual gpu cards use cut down chips ( radeon pro duo is 2*r9 nano= 2*175w ; gtx 690 and hd 7990 used slower chips). Amd managed  to put two full hawaii chips ( not power efficient by any means ) AND have them running at higher clocks than reference , while using quite a bit less power than 290x CF . You also have to remember that the hawaii die is significantly smaller than gk 110 used in titan , so it will will hotter . 

 

@Prysin owns one , he'll tell you about the card

[ivan134]

No, don't buy a 295x2. If you want a $400 card from AMD, wait for Vega.

[Majestic]

3 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

i wouldn't call the 295x2 an engineering disaster , in fact , it's quite impressive what they've managed to pull off , considering most dual gpu cards use cut down chips ( radeon pro duo is 2*r9 nano= 2*175w ; gtx 690 and hd 7990 used slower chips). Amd managed  to put two full hawaii chips ( not power efficient by any means ) AND have them running at higher clocks than reference , while using quite a bit less power than 290x CF . You also have to remember that the hawaii die is significantly smaller than gk 110 used in titan , so it will will hotter . 

 

@Prysin owns one , he'll tell you about the card

It's not impressive to violate ATX specifications and hope board partners will inform customers of the dangers and hope Power supplies are sturdy enough to take the hit. It would've been impressive had they pulled it off under ATX specifications and regulations.

 

Seriously, the 295X is not an interesting recommendation. You have to either know what you're buying, or don't bother. It's not great value by any stretch of the imagination. As AMD put it, it's not for everyone.

 

 

[Sanderman135]

So what I'm getting from this argument is that the 295X2 gets good performance as long as my power supply doesn't explode in a massive inferno. 

[Majestic]

It's not a card for the layman, that's all i'm saying. Prysin might be fine, but despite me disagreeing with him allot he know's what he's doing. He's aware of the risks involved and knows what to do in case of issues. 

 

It's like running a high performance car (as the analogy was made earlier). They don't factory tune a family car to run the maximum power out of the engine because a lot can go wrong, the driver has to drive accordinly and adequate steps have to be taken to not have things break.

 

Crossfire and SLI support isn't a given lately and power supply constraints make it unjustifyable. You'll be spending atleast $120 on a power supply, on top of the money you'll be spending on the card. And I'm doubtful the life expectancy of cards running such power consumptions is any good.

 

However, the more pressing concern if the fact you're running an 8320. Which makes the entire discussion moot, because that is woefully inadequate to run this anywhere near it's potential. 

[Sanderman135]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

It's not a card for the layman, that's all i'm saying. 

 

Crossfire and SLI support isn't a given lately and power supply constraints make it unjustifyable. You'll be spending atleast $120 on a power supply, on top of the money you'll be spending on the card. And I'm doubtful the life expectancy of cards running such power consumptions is any good.

 

However, the more pressing concern if the fact you're running an 8320. Which makes the entire discussion moot, because that is woefully inadequate to run this anywhere near it's potential. 

The 8320 probably isn't going to be replaced any time soon and I'm guessing it'd bottleneck the 295X2?

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Sanderman135 said:

The 8320 probably isn't going to be replaced any time soon and I'm guessing it'd bottleneck the 295X2?

Yes. Anyway, wait a bit and get RX 480(s) - better thermals and power requirements as each of them only needs about 125W

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Yes. Anyway, wait a bit and get RX 480(s) - better thermals and power requirements as each of them only needs about 125W

I'd much rather say, wait for the 480 to drop, 970's becoming dirt cheap and picking one up. 8320 should fair better under nvidia's driver and get better performance. 

 

480 will be nice, but polaris hasn't resolved AMD's driver overhead at all.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

I'd much rather say, wait for the 480 to drop, 970's becoming dirt cheap and picking one up. 8320 should fair better under nvidia's driver and get better performance. 

 

480 will be nice, but polaris hasn't resolved AMD's driver overhead at all.

A LOT of that overhead is actually gone. Quite a few of the recent drivers have addressed bits and pieces of that.

[Majestic]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

A LOT of that overhead is actually gone. Quite a few of the recent drivers have addressed bits and pieces of that.

Problem is a lack of verification of said driver enhancements. Nobody tests for this. 

 

http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html This test from 15th February 2016 shows there's still a chunk remaining.

 

 

I mean look at the jump in performance from 390 + 9590 to 970 + 9590. I haven't been able to find a more recent test which pits the GPU's this way.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Problem is a lack of verification of said driver enhancements. Nobody tests for this. 

 

http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html This test from 15th February 2016 shows there's still a chunk remaining.

 

 

I mean look at the jump in performance from 390 + 9590 to 970 + 9590. 

Thing is,

1 - that is old
2 - that source has been proven biased
3 - it will still perform better than a 970 as the 480 is above the 980 from the looks of it

[Sanderman135]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

I'd much rather say, wait for the 480 to drop, 970's becoming dirt cheap and picking one up. 8320 should fair better under nvidia's driver and get better performance. 

 

480 will be nice, but polaris hasn't resolved AMD's driver overhead at all.

I don't have anything against nVidia but I've been refraining from buying their cards lately. I used to have a 750ti that I ordered twice and the first one was DOA so i had it replaced and the second one had so many driver issues it was unplayable sometimes. I'd consider buying a 970 though if I could find one at a good price. 

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Sanderman135 said:

I don't have anything against nVidia but I've been refraining from buying their cards lately. I used to have a 750ti that I ordered twice and the first one was DOA so i had it replaced and the second one had so many driver issues it was unplayable sometimes. I'd consider buying a 970 though if I could find one at a good price. 

Don't. Maxwell's DX12 performance is terrible. Furthermore, 3.5GB of VRAM won't get you anywhere as almost all the mid-range cards coming out are 8GB cards. VRAM is a factor

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Thing is,

1 - that is old
2 - that source has been proven biased
3 - it will still perform better than a 970 as the 480 is above the 980 from the looks of it

1 - I specifically listed the date, said the issue is the lack of testing and the comment of not being able to find anything more recent. Atleast attempt to read my posts please.

2 - No, it has been continuously marked as biased, without arguments. It's labelled biased because it doesn't conform the cognitive biases. It's in fact the only website that even comes close to, for example, DigitalFoundry's results. Or is that channel biased now aswell? This more seems like religious zealotry, regressive left behaviour instead of objective empirical debate.

3 -  On a CPU that is fast. The 8320 isn't fast.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

1 - I specifically listed the date, said the issue is the lack of testing and the comment of not being able to find anything more recent. Atleast attempt to read my posts please.

2 - No, it has been continuously marked as biased, without arguments. It's labelled biased because it doesn't conform the cognitive biases. It's in fact the only website that even comes close to, for example, DigitalFoundry's results. Or is that channel biased now aswell? This more seems like religious zealotry, regressive left behaviour instead of objective empirical debate.

3 -  On a CPU that is fast. The 8320 isn't fast.

Might want to recheck. Under DX12 8350s are on par with i5s

[Simon771]

That card is power hungry and it's basicly 2 cards in crossfire.

Price seems kinda low, so it seems like good value, but make sure that your game support CF