Is R9 290x overkill for 1080p gaming?

aestoyam

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2014
18
0
18,510
I am planning on building a pc very soon and have chosen my parts
i5 4670k
8 GB RAM
250 samsung ssd
Asus Z87 Pro Mother Board
Corsair CX 750w PSU

But when I went on some other threads and on videos people said that R9 290x is for 4k gaming or is overkill for 1080p. Is that true? I will be using one 1080p monitor and would like to play at highest possible settings on upcoming games like GTA 5, Battlefield Hardline without dropping below 30-40 FPS. Can I downgrade to a GTX 770 and get my targeted performance? Also, if I get R9 290x do I have to get a better case with better cooling to be safe (current planned case is Zalman Z11). Also, are my parts compatible with each other and reliable and do I really need a non stock CPU cooler because I dont want to spend an extra £50 on a Noctua cooler. Any help would be apreciated!
 
Solution
yes it is overkill. however not every gup with the same specs works as well in terms of fps for the same game. Every game is different. not just in terms of quality, the amount of rendering needed etc but actually how each game uses the cup and gpu. for example the elder scrolls online because it is cross platform (xbox 1 and ps4) as well as on pc, the game is optimised to use 2 cores of the gpu (as xbox 1 and ps4 only have 2 real cores). However stupid bethesda have placed 100% of the 3d model rendering for the elder scrolls online on one gpu core. they did this because the consoles have fast powerful cores designed for gaming. and the game runs fine for them. however this means that for pc, no matter if your gpu had 100 cores the game...
The r9 290x is for higher resolutions. The r9 280x/Gtx 770 would be enough for 1080p. They could both max games and give a fairly good frame rate. The r9 290 is cheaper and around the price of the gtx 770 4gb, if you want to consider that. It's still a tad bit overkill for 1080p gaming. If you do decide to get a r9 290, i'd suggest getting a tri-x or windforce cooler.
 

aestoyam

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2014
18
0
18,510
I was planning on getting the MSI Lightning edition but maybe i will change my mind thanks guys. Also I couldnt find any cheap (£200) 1440p monitors so no I would not be buying one unless any good suggestions...
Right now I am getting a BenQ XL2420TE Monitor for around £220
 

theomen131

Reputable
Jun 21, 2014
11
0
4,520
yes it is overkill. however not every gup with the same specs works as well in terms of fps for the same game. Every game is different. not just in terms of quality, the amount of rendering needed etc but actually how each game uses the cup and gpu. for example the elder scrolls online because it is cross platform (xbox 1 and ps4) as well as on pc, the game is optimised to use 2 cores of the gpu (as xbox 1 and ps4 only have 2 real cores). However stupid bethesda have placed 100% of the 3d model rendering for the elder scrolls online on one gpu core. they did this because the consoles have fast powerful cores designed for gaming. and the game runs fine for them. however this means that for pc, no matter if your gpu had 100 cores the game could only use 2. so if you had a hundred gpu cores that were weak as compared to 2 or 3 super powerful cores, you were stuffed. in big fights with a lot of players, there is a ton more pressure on the gpu to rendered things. this caused many beta testers for the elderscrolls to experience massive fps drops while in big fights, and it wasnt their gpu, it was the way the game was made.

in the same way, every game uses the gpu and cpu differently, and this ultimately affects the amount of fps your game will have. going back to your question, yes your gpu is killing it. it is hard to compare to how well it will work for every game because each game is made differently as seen with the elder scrolls example. but for 1080p gaming for GTA and battlefield 3 (not sure about hardline havent seen the benchmarks) you will get well above 30-40 fps. more like 80-90.

however your gpu isnt bottlenecked by your cpu as you have a very good one. you will be able to play almost every game with high fps. if you can afford the 290x definitely get it, as you are future proofing for the rapidly increasing demand that games are placing on computer tech.

what i mean by all this is, you have a great cpu. getting a lower model gpu is DEFINITELY fine for the games you want to play and certainly great for any other demanding game. however in heavy model high quality mmos particularly, or with first person shooters that have a lot of models, you will experience a drop. a drop to around 30-40 fps? probably not depending on the game, but a drop indeed.

get that gpu. it works well with your cpu and ram. you are set to go for almost any game you want. but you can definitely get away with a much cheaper gpu for those games at only 1080p

also with your part compatiability and cpu fan, yes you will need an aftermarket fan if you plan to overclock. and your cpu is designed to be overclocked (The k means the processor has an unlocked multiplier, meaning you can overclock the CPU in the bios by simply increasing the CPU multiplier). overclocking increases the cpu power, but also increases temperature, therefore the stock fan probably wont be able to keep it to nice temperatures if you want to overclock a lot.

hope i helped :D
 
Solution

t99

Honorable
Jul 16, 2014
756
1
11,215
I think it is overkill, but it changes everything if you upgrade past 1080p displays later. Did you look at the r9 290? The performance is close between them and 100$ price difference. 160 TAUs / 64 ROPs on the 290 and 176 / 64 on the 290x and exactly 10% difference in stream processors. the bf4 benchmarks with the 280x in 1920 x 1200 got 45fps with ultra preset and 4x AA. All of these R9 series cards I have seen have very close performance in each model betwen the X and non X versions. It also depends a bit on do your eyes really see the difference between high / ultra shadows... 2x / 4x AA and 8x / 16x.. the difference is small especially when you still have all the other detail and effects settings maxed. Some people say they notice these little things, so that will really depend on if you notice it or not. Those little things will make the difference of being able to use a lower card or not.

The 270x when in crossfire had the exact same performance in the bf4 benchmark as the 290x. That card might be a little close for higher AA settings, but if you were planning on upgrading the case and all later on you could add another 270x a while from now and it would still cost less than 1 290x. I would look into the 290 (non x) if your thinking of a 770, the price is like 40$ and the performance is a huge difference. even the 280x outperforms the 770 in most benchmarks.

I'm using a 270x for similar type games sitting right up on a 47" tv and it looks amazing being able to run x2 / x4 AA with everything maxed and shadows to high keeping 40-50fps so anything even a little higher would do well.
 

Gaidax

Distinguished
It may be an overkill now, but it's not really "OMGH UMAD BRO?" overkill, I am pretty sure that in one year we will get games that will make 290X work for it's money on Ultra settings in 1080p...

Even now, people mod games with extra effects that can easily tax 290X, all it takes is just another generation coming soon for devs to become bold enough to bump the quality levels in new games.
 

rocking9999

Reputable
Jul 28, 2014
1
0
4,510
Honestly if by highest possible setting you mean every in game setting to ultra including 8x MSAA and 60fps smooth gameplay than "NO" for games like crysis 3, metro last light and few others, we havent reached there yet in single card solutions atleast.
 

dsr07mm

Distinguished
I will assume that my GTX770 in 1080p will be doing great for some time with options like AA/AF not more then 2x, also I dont even care about texture mods after release dates neither for any option higher then very high aka utra :)
 

TRENDING THREADS