is r9 290 tri x overkill for 1080p single monitor?
- Thread starter SoulGrant
- Start date
If you're going to do video recording, encoding, 3D gaming or a Gsync monitor, get the 770.
Otherwise the 280x Toxic will probably perform better in general with more vram and better performance scaling with the overclock.
For 770 get the asus or evga.
Trustdesa
Distinguished
- Nov 2, 2013
- 314
- 0
- 18,810
I had AMD recently (R9 270X) and before my 5 years with Xbox360 I had AMD too.....
I have recently bought a Geforce GTX 670.... well can't compare the two the quality of Nvidia is far superior and temperature far better... I am really happy with the change! So I would go for a Geforce R280 R290 are hot and more noisy....
I have recently bought a Geforce GTX 670.... well can't compare the two the quality of Nvidia is far superior and temperature far better... I am really happy with the change! So I would go for a Geforce R280 R290 are hot and more noisy....
houldendub
Distinguished
- Dec 19, 2011
- 470
- 0
- 18,960
I'd say that a 290 is just fine for a 1080p setup. Hell, if you're going to be sticking with that 1080p screen for a while, it'll be just fine. Games will get more and more demanding, especially with the new generation of consoles out, so getting a 280X (a 3 year old graphics card) is just not enough, even more so if you plan to get a higher resolution monitor.
There's no harm dedicating towards maximum 1080p performance. Hell, everyone says to me "yeah a single 760 will be just fine, two are overkill for 1080p", but I'll still be able to run decent framerates at 1080p for god knows how long, especially as I can push massive framerates on titles such as The Witcher 2, at max settings, downsampled from 2560x1440, so going into the next generation games will run better than if I'd stuck with a single 760.
Don't compromise if you can get the best.
There's no harm dedicating towards maximum 1080p performance. Hell, everyone says to me "yeah a single 760 will be just fine, two are overkill for 1080p", but I'll still be able to run decent framerates at 1080p for god knows how long, especially as I can push massive framerates on titles such as The Witcher 2, at max settings, downsampled from 2560x1440, so going into the next generation games will run better than if I'd stuck with a single 760.
Don't compromise if you can get the best.
BlankInsanity
Honorable
- Oct 14, 2013
- 936
- 1
- 11,360
290 is a complete waste of money for 1080p, its made for multi monitor setups.
The GTX 770 outperforms the 280X by 5-10fps depending on the game, and is cheaper(if you live in the US) than the 280X. A gtx 770 or 280X is more than enough for 1080p, the 290 will just give you 20-35fps+, not to mention the price hike of the amd cards. A GTX 780 would be more ideal, however that is also a waste of money if your doing 1080p gaming.
My suggestion, don't waste your money. Get a GTX 770, preferably MSI, EVGA and Gigabyte. I didn't mention ASUS for several reasons
The GTX 770 outperforms the 280X by 5-10fps depending on the game, and is cheaper(if you live in the US) than the 280X. A gtx 770 or 280X is more than enough for 1080p, the 290 will just give you 20-35fps+, not to mention the price hike of the amd cards. A GTX 780 would be more ideal, however that is also a waste of money if your doing 1080p gaming.
My suggestion, don't waste your money. Get a GTX 770, preferably MSI, EVGA and Gigabyte. I didn't mention ASUS for several reasons
AlexanderHUN
Honorable
- Dec 9, 2013
- 73
- 0
- 10,640
azzazel_99
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 4,015
- 0
- 23,460
I would not say the 290 is a waste. You might later on want a 120hz or 1440p monitor and if you want to actually hold the 120fps consistently then the 290 would be a great choice. Its always better to have to much rather than not enough. For this reason i got the 780ti classified because i play on getting a 120hz monitor and i want to actually be able to hold 120 for most of the time i play.
houldendub
Distinguished
- Dec 19, 2011
- 470
- 0
- 18,960
How is a 290 a waste of money? It'll keep on going for much longer than a 280X, meaning you won't have to upgrade for much longer. How are people not seeing this? In a year or two's time high end games will start to chug on a 280X, especially if you want higher graphics options. If the guy's already looking at a 290, then he can afford a 290, so why not go for a 290?
It's like looking at an i7 4930k, knowing you have enough money to buy it, and then being suggested to get an FX 8350 because games currently work OK on it. Anything to extend the time in having to upgrade helps massively, there's a reason some people still use things like the 5970 and 590, even after around 4 and a half years of being released.
azzazel_99
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 4,015
- 0
- 23,460
BlankInsanity
Honorable
- Oct 14, 2013
- 936
- 1
- 11,360
GPU selection and CPU selection are very different. You can buy a core i7 and itll last you ten years or so. GPU is a complete different thing. This is 1080p we're talking about. Even if games do advanced it requirments, there will be a set maximum amount of VRAM and core utilized at 1080p, so getting a 290 for 1080p when you can get a 770 for cheaper and have money for other goodies. One or the other wont last longer when at this resolution because they both perform excellent. The 290 has 4GB VRAM for a reason it wasn't made for 1080p gaming nor was the 280X.
azzazel_99
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 4,015
- 0
- 23,460
crysis 3 at 1080p runs completely different than bf4 at 1080p. My gpu will run differently on each regardless of 1080p or not. The 290 has more horsepower than a 770 or 280x.
houldendub
Distinguished
- Dec 19, 2011
- 470
- 0
- 18,960
The CPU analogy was just that, nothing more. What are you on about saying there's a maximum amount of VRAM utilised at 1080p? Having more VRAM means you can load higher resolution textures and use more anti-aliasing (there's a reason why 2GB cards have VRAM problems in BF4 at Ultra with 4xMSAA), as well as yes, being able to use higher display resolutions. AMD didn't release 3GB cards back in 2012 for the express purpose of only playing 2560x1440 resolutions.
Here's the only thing that matters in this thread:
290 > 280X
azzazel_99
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 4,015
- 0
- 23,460
Pr3di
Honorable
- Sep 18, 2013
- 2,141
- 1
- 12,460
If you afford the R9 290, just get it.
However, make sure to get a non-refference one if you can find available. This will fix the heat and noise issue. I don`t think you can get the same horsepower at the same price with the R9 290 non-ref.
However, make sure to get a non-refference one if you can find available. This will fix the heat and noise issue. I don`t think you can get the same horsepower at the same price with the R9 290 non-ref.
azzazel_99
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 4,015
- 0
- 23,460
290 = better performance for a longer period of time..........cant argue that......If the prices are still hiked though I'd grab a 780 or something but if you find a 290 at a good price from gigabyte or msi or asus I'd get it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram