Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

r9 280 (nonX) and r9 290 (nonX) compared!

Tags:
  • Battlefield
  • Hot Deals
  • Games
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 12, 2014 8:35:59 PM

I ordered both these cards from MSI and from what I can tell, based on the 3 games I tested them on (borderlands 2, battlefield 2 and Crysis 3) The only advantage the 290 is going to give you at 1080p is AA. So you will be paying 200+ more for the ability to use AA in games. In battlefield 4 for example, the frame averages between the r9 280 with no AA and a r9 290 with 4x AA was 4 FPS lower on the 280. Seeing how I had got the r9 290 for 450 and the 280 for 180 on newegg, the r9 280 is a drastically better deal if you will be playing bf4 at 1080p. Plus, getting a second 280 would still be cheaper then a 290 and be quite a bit more powerful. I would suspect a 280x would then have higher FPS with no AA then a 290 with AA at 1080p. So I would say, based on the my personal testing, there is no point in getting a 290 if (A) you have no care for AA or (B) have a single 1080p screen or (C) both.

More about : 280 nonx 290 nonx compared

June 12, 2014 8:56:45 PM

well, for a LONG time, the gtx 660ti/760 or HD 7950/r9-280 were the go to cards for 1080p. Basically the number of games those cards CANT max in 1080p can be counted on one hand. Of course no one likes knowing their card can't max EVERYTHING in 1080p... so, since the price of the 290 came down so much recently, people started to suggest it as THE CARD to have at almost any resolution.

But you're right, in 1080p, you're wasting a lot of horse power going with a 290... or titan... or 780...

I am looking at a 290 because i want 3 1080p monitors... and i know a 290 should be able to drive that pretty comfortably for the most part. if that wasn't my future plan, i'd be all over a r9-280 or gtx 760, because those cards basically are good enough for 1080p
m
0
l
June 13, 2014 3:03:09 AM

I love my hd7950, I've been able to completely max out anything I want on 1080p and maintain smooth gameplay, sure it's not constant 60fps on Metro Last Light or BF4 multiplayer(which dips to 40s average with lots of stuff going on). But it's good enough for me.

My bro has the similar gtx660ti superclocked 2gb version and he has been able to play anything on 1080p ultra as well, and he has the much worse (in comparison to mine) cpu, he only has the a10 5800k which is essentially the athlon x4 750k

I guess I just don't care about 60fps constant since I was a lifelong console gamer and still want one when the Master Chief Collection comes out in Nov.

I always thought it was weird and wasteful for people to blow all that money on sli gtx780s or 780tis when all they have is a single 1080p monitor. I turn off MSAA completely in BF4 and I honestly can't tell a difference, I only did that to smooth out the FPS a little but said screw it and leave it on MSAA x4 now. I'm so used to playing at ~30s-40s FPS that 60fps to me feels "too" smooth and actually makes my head hurt sometimes and makes me miss my shots because it seems that with a really high fps the mouse aiming sensitivity seems higher


Considering you can get an hd7950 very cheap used now it's a great card. Hell even the cheap 750ti can play BF4 multiplayer on ultra maxed out at 30s-40s fps and with tweaks could easily run it at 60fps, it really doesn't take that much to run games on ultra at 1080p, contrary to what all the bleeding edge elitists like to project.

I'm perfectly content with my pc and will stay with it for years until it completely breaks lol....I'm perfectly fine with gaming on 1080p forever too. If the cheap 750ti can play stuff on ultra now pretty good, imagine in a few years how cheap a GPU will cost that can max out 1080p stuff. Like for example now a cheap GPU can max out 720p like the hd7770ghz or even 7750 is decent for 720p


I grew up playing SNES on a black and white small tv via RF adapter, even 720p I'd be content with. It really doesn't even take that good of a cpu to play stuff on 1080p either, as evidenced by my bro's cheaper cpu keeping up in modern games. Barring super cpu intensive stuff like massive Starcraft 2 or RTS battles or MMOs (which I really am not into) a cheaper CPU would be good for the majority of users. I just mostly play console ports very cheap on sale and crank them up to 1080p ultra and enjoy :p  my pc has more than paid for itself due to all the cheap game sales.
m
0
l
June 13, 2014 5:52:41 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
Hell even the cheap 750ti can play BF4 multiplayer on ultra maxed out at 30s-40s fps and with tweaks could easily run it at 60fps, it really doesn't take that much to run games on ultra at 1080p, contrary to what all the bleeding edge elitists like to project.


I have a HD 7770, and a single 1080p monitor... this little card can max "most" games in 1080p. so you're 100% right. it doesn't take a LOT of horsepower for most games. there are a handful of games that require much much more, but i'm not so much of a gamer that is much of an issue with me.

But as i said. Eyeing the move to 3 monitors right now... and all the horses under the hood of the r9-290 is looking pretty attractive to me.
m
0
l
!