Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R9 280x (Sapphire Dual - X) in Crossfire vs R9 290 (Sapphire Tri -X)

Tags:
  • Sapphire
  • Crossfire
  • Dual
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

R9 280x (Sapphire Dual - X) in Crossfire vs R9 290 (Sapphire Tri -X)

  •  
  •  
See results
April 6, 2014 8:14:56 AM

I really want to know which one would give me more performance, the first option is 100 USD more expensive than the second. I do know the performance will be better, or atleast I think it will. If I crossfire them, but what about future proofing and support, i.e is there anything I should be afraid of while running in crossifire? Is it better simply to get the newer generation (since the older gen is older for a reason)?
I want to be able to run all the latest games at 1080p or 1440p resolutions, at max settings and 2 - 4x AA for the next 4 years, after which I will definitely upgrade.
Which one do you think is better?
Also, benchmarks where available would be good.

More about : 280x sapphire dual crossfire 290 sapphire tri

April 6, 2014 8:54:09 AM

Nathan Willis said:
I would go with the 1x R9 290. You will have less problems with 1 good card vs. 2 cheaper cards.

The R9 has a better benchmark.

http://videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+R9+290...

R9 280X

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD...

The R9 290 is better then the 280x.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-290-vs-Radeon-R9-280X

Having 2 cards is less stable then having a one good card.
I would go with one good card.


They are actually right up there, with the best in class, so they aren't way cheaper cards.
Related resources
April 6, 2014 8:58:25 AM

I know they are not bad, but it is generally better to run 1 cards vs 2.
A common misconception among new builders is that having 2 cards will give you twice the speed/power but that's not how it works out. You get maybe 1.4 or 1.5x the speed/power. Definitely go for the good single card. Especially if your monitor is 22" or less. Not only does SLI/Crossfire produce more heat, you also need a heftier power supply than you would if you were running a single card. Overclocking is an identical experience both ways really, since both cards will be linked, the OC program will OC them simultaneously.

http://lifehacker.com/5994276/is-it-worth-it-to-run-two...

April 6, 2014 9:18:25 AM

Nathan Willis said:
I know they are not bad, but it is generally better to run 1 cards vs 2.
A common misconception among new builders is that having 2 cards will give you twice the speed/power but that's not how it works out. You get maybe 1.4 or 1.5x the speed/power. Definitely go for the good single card. Especially if your monitor is 22" or less. Not only does SLI/Crossfire produce more heat, you also need a heftier power supply than you would if you were running a single card. Overclocking is an identical experience both ways really, since both cards will be linked, the OC program will OC them simultaneously.

http://lifehacker.com/5994276/is-it-worth-it-to-run-two...



I've checked the scaling on these, and they hover between 75% and 90%, and that is pretty high end, premium performance. The overclocking comment is much appreciated, and I was wondering about that.
I plan on getting an 850W power supply, since I do plan on upgrading to a Crossfire setup within the next 4 years, and MOAR power is better. (I hope... Do I draw power I'm not actually using?)

April 6, 2014 1:52:00 PM

neither will run games at max for the next 4 years, maybe the next 2 at best. in 4 years you will need the equivalent of sli 780s or cfx 290s to run games at their max at 1080p. also in 4 years high quality 60hz 4k 28"-ish monitors will only cost us a few hundred bucks and that will be the standard.

just get a single 290 or 780. the sapphire tri-x 290 is a great card and very fast.
!