Ultra HD presents us with some interesting challenges. To begin, while DisplayPort is the most logical interface between your graphics card and a tiled display, there is no way for us to use FCAT and DP for analyzing performance. The workaround is two HDMI inputs, one of which gets routed through a DVI splitter and into a capture card. But while Nvidia says this works fine, AMD is insistent that its controller doesn't support this configuration due to timing issues. That leaves us with Fraps. And of course, there’s no way for us to pick up dropped and runt frame using Fraps. So, we immediately shed the dual-GPU solutions from our charts.

What we’re left with, then, are five single-GPU boards at a dialed-down High detail preset in Arma III. The Ultra configuration we used on the previous page is simply too demanding. Even set to High, we see averages under 40 FPS at best.

Using the Quiet mode firmware, AMD’s Radeon R9 290X maintains more than 30 FPS, beating GeForce GTX Titan.
With that said, I can’t believe that anyone willing to spend $3500 on an Ultra HD screen today would compromise game settings to make a single-card gaming box playable. Calling R9 290X the best solution for a smooth experience at 3840x2160 is a red herring. In Gaming At 3840x2160: Is Your PC Ready For A 4K Display?, I concluded that you’d want at least two GeForce GTX 780s for 4K. And although the R9 290X is faster than even the $1000 Titan, I maintain that you need a pair in order to crank your settings up to where they should be.

Average frame time variance isn’t bad, but the AMD cards encounter less consistent delivery in worst-case measurements, which could manifest as more stutter when the going gets tough.
- Hawaii: A 6.2 Billion Transistor GPU For Gaming
- CrossFire: Farewell Bridge Connector; Hello DMA
- TrueAudio: Dedicated Resources For Sound Processing
- PowerTune: Balancing Performance And Acoustics
- Overclocking: PowerTune Changes Things
- The Radeon R9 290X
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Results: Arma III At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: Arma III At 3840x2160
- Results: Battlefield 3 At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: Battlefield 3 At 3840x2160
- Results: BioShock Infinite At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: BioShock Infinite At 3840x2160
- Results: Crysis 3 At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: Crysis 3 At 3840x2160
- Results: Metro: Last Light At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: Metro: Last Light At 3840x2160
- Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim At 3840x2160
- Results: Tomb Raider At 1920x1080 And 2560x1440
- Results: Tomb Raider At 3840x2160
- CrossFire: Arma III At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: Battlefield 3 At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: BioShock Infinite At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: Crysis 3 At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: Metro: Last Light At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim At 7680x1440
- CrossFire: Tomb Raider At 7680x1440
- Power Consumption
- Noise
- CAD: AutoCAD 2013
- CAD: Autodesk Inventor 2013
- OpenGL: Maya 2013 And LightWave
- OpenCL: Bitmining, LuxMark, And RatGPU
- R9 290X: A Taste Of Paradise That Won’t Break The Bank
This is win-win-win for everyone (except maybe Nvidia).
Hope we never have to deal with a $1000 single GPU fiasco again. Good riddance.
- AMD: We're not aiming for the ultra high end.
I think Nvidia just got trolled.
- AMD: We're not aiming for the ultra high end.
I think Nvidia just got trolled.
Most of the higher resolution gaming wins come from the larger memory bandwidth and of course more vs the 780.
That's a good sign. Maybe NVidia will drop prices and push this to $400-$450 and I will pick one up when there is a Vapor-X version of course,
This is win-win-win for everyone (except maybe Nvidia).
Hope we never have to deal with a $1000 single GPU fiasco again. Good riddance.