Unfortunately, AMD didn’t send reference R9 280X cards to either our U.S. or German offices. Instead, we have a number of board partner designs running at different clock rates and with varying cooling solutions. We’re getting as close as possible to the reference specs, but be advised that the power consumption values might not match the model coming straight from AMD.
Here’s the thing, though: when you compare the new cards’ power consumption to their predecessors, you notice that there’s hardly any difference at all. Some of the newer boards technically enjoy higher peak clock rates, though this contributes little to the power story, as our test cases don’t allow for sustained operation at those frequencies.
Let's take a closer look at this situation and the resulting power consumption of these graphics cards:
The MSI R9 280X Gaming at $299 appears to outperform the GTX 770 at 1600P and is within margin of error at 1080P according to Techpowerup. Not a bad value at $100 less and still overclocks well:
Best to hold out till the reviews on the R9-290X I guess. But considering the specs I hope for at least 20% performance increases over a 7970.
Are the days of (nearly) annual simultaneous full line GPU launches from $100-500 with a dual GPU chip to follow at $750-1000 really over?
I wrote one of the least flattering GTX 780 stories out there. I only identified a couple of situations where a Titan made any sense at all. And although the 760 *did* change the balance at $250, that card still didn't get an award. I liked the 770 for the simple fact that it delivered better-than-680 performance for close to $100 less.
The rest of AMD's new line-up is a lot like what exists already. Again, the 7870 is a better value than 270X. So what are you getting worked up over? The fact that I'm pointing out these aren't new GPUs? They're not. ;)
That goes to you too Mr. NVIDIA