HELP! September 2014 and R9 290 is still a gamble purchase?!

Hello,

For the AMD top graphics cards you will need a much better PSU than for NVidia ones, that's the main reason for their failures (more than 50Amps at +12V) . The reference cooler is another complain reason, being very loud, keeping the graphics chips very hot and therefore throttling down the speed. Of course, the renowned manufacturers have developed custom cooling solutions, but that comes with a premium, so a Nvidia card with the reference cooler will be the better choice.

Well, it all depends what he have done before with his PSU, if it was a newly bought PSU, a newer or an older generation of PSUs, if he used CF and have done some overclocking on the cards while using the stock cooler. These cards have a very agressive way to consume power (in less than 1/100 second they can go from idle to full throttle and then back in idle, so the PSU must cope with these power spikes); Tom's have done a nice analysis regarding the power consumption:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728.html

Add also the lies AMD has served to enthusiast community, such as the card was engineered to work all the time close to its thermal limits (95Celsius), when all tests showed that the cards began throttling down the speed well before that threshold, and when using aftermarket coolers the cards were running very happy with no throttling whatsoever and having much higher performance, matching the 780/780Ti cards for less money.

What PSU do you have? In most cases, the total power is not what counts, but how the power is delivered. For example, a 290 sports 1x6-pin and 1x8-pin auxiliary power connectors, so a maximum of 300W. Tests showed that the card consumes up to 255W in full load, so 21.25 Amps for +12V rail. The PSU: at least 40Amps for the same +12V rail, or 2x25 Amps for a dual-rail one. Also, the bigger the efficiency the better (a Silver certified PSU or better), because of the quality of the electronic components used (especially the main input capacitor and the output capacitors: the less voltage ripple the better).

If you are willing to wait a little bit longer (a few weeks, for allowing the pricing to settle), you could buy an GTX970; performance-wise, it ducks between 780 and 780Ti, so it is more powerful in many situations than an R9-290X and consumes way less power (around 150W from the first tests around the www, so about half of an 290X, which pushes the 300W envelope).

I decided to give AMD another go a couple months ago, and had nothing but black screen issues unfortunately. I had it replaced a few times but still the same issue. Eventually I sold it for cheap to my friend, and it was working completely fine on his PC?! In fact, it is still working great now lol

We tried again in my PC for lols, still black screen all day long >_> Have absolutely no clue what is causing it, since it was working great for 2 weeks prior to the black screens but who knows..

For me their R9 series are hit and miss and I would not purchase in your situation - I live in NZ, we are tiny and all our warranties have to be sent overseas which cost a fortune. I pretty much spent close to $300 for shipping the 'non-functional' cards back for replacement / repair before I gave up lol

I have since moved on to the GTX 770 and am waiting for the (hopefully) 980TI or AMDs next line of cards before I upgrade.

Do NOT buy an r9 290. I just got mine, (Saphire Tri X) and I get nothing but black screens. I can't even get into a game at all. And this is on a fresh windows install, brand new computer, and attempted with 2 different decent quality power supplies. One 750 watt, and one 850 watt. I am probably going to smash the thing and light it on fire, but that's a different story.

Only buy an r9 290 if you want to be ripped off hard or if you just like taking it up the ass.

Get a GTX 970. End of story. I really wish I waited the extra week from when I ordered my piece of shit r9 290, and did so.

I cannot comment on the specific specifications of these cards and how they affect gaming performance, but I was reading an indepth technical article on the GTX 970/980, and it seemed that the way they process information is so efficient that it doesn't need the larger memory bus, more shader units, etc.

Actually I just looked up the article in another tab, and it was an article done here on tom's hardware. I'll link it.

"Regardless of Maxwell’s more efficient graphics architecture, the GeForce GTX 980 suffers a 33% drop in peak memory bandwidth compared to the GeForce GTX 780 Ti. Nvidia mitigates this deficit by implementing an improved memory compression scheme. GM204 sports an improved third-generation delta color compression mode that provides more options to the hardware. Using 8x8 blocks of 64 pixels, compression analysis is performed on 2x4 blocks in order to achieve the best compression possible in 8:1, 4:1, and 2:1 steps. If 2:1 compression isn't doable, that block isn't compressed. Successfully compressed blocks save even more bandwidth every time the memory is read. Nvidia claims that this increases effective memory bandwidth from 224 GB/s to approximately 300 GB/s compared to the GeForce GTX 680 Kepler-class cards. We'll see if this is enough to allow GeForce GTX 980 to stay competitive with the formidable GeForce GTX 780 Ti."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941.html

I'm fairly sure this bit is referencing how despite the GTX 780 Ti having a 33% larger memory bus (384 bit vs 256 bit), because of the way its designed and how it processes information it actually doesn't matter. The above snippet is referencing the GTX 980's maxwell chip, but the GTX 970 has the same one so it shouldn't be any different.

Sure that's just a 256 vs a 384 and not a 512, and I'm not sure how that would match up, but I think it might help explain how the GTX 970 can get away with just 256 bit.

Also as far as performance goes, despite having lesser specs in certain areas, all the benchmarks I've seen between the R9 290 vs the GTX970 have the GTX 970 in the lead. Add that to its lower power consumption (by a significant amount) which itself gives you another bonus with lower temps (less power = less heat) means its easier to cool, it may last longer, and since its running cooler the fans won't run as fast and therefore be more quiet. Add even more onto that the better reviews the Nvidia cards seem to get over the r9 series and it seems like a safer bet. Also, it should be cheaper (at least as of now). Now with as new as it is the GTX 970 might have issues with some of its drivers (I don't have a clue, some experts can weigh in on that). But that's an issue that's easily worked out with future updates.

Personally I'd either get the GTX 970 or wait. If you want the r9 290, the price should come down soon seeing as the GTX 970 seems to best it in pretty much every way. So by waiting you could get it cheaper. If all the r9 series drops in price, perhaps the r9 290x will be in your price range if you still want to go with that line up. Just stuff to think about. I went with the GTX 970 but I can't give you any opinions yet. I won't know until it arrives and I build my PC which will likely be for another 5-7 days. If you're still thinking it over I'll come back and post my experience. Just crossing my fingers all my items are delivered in good condition and all work. You never know