Robert Rodriguez2 said:+1 Is that measly 2-5% performance bump actually worth jumping from the R9 290 to the R9 290 x? Honestly, I don't think so. For the extra cash you'd be throwing away, you can already find an R9 290 x sitting on a shelf right next to a gtx 970. It just doesn't make sense.
Based on what users are reporting, you can often overclock a standard R9 290 x enough to actually outperform an R9 290 Tri-x.
A quick 50 MHz overclock on the GPU easily covers that entire gap. Look at it this way: if you’re clocking an R9 290 x at 1150MHz and an R9 290 Tri-x at 1100MHz, you've essentially hit the sweet spot.
So, it looks like we're back to the same old story: it’s all just a total lottery when it comes to GPU silicon.
Before I even touched that Asusica (290X), I had the chance to test out an R9 290 Tri-x. That card was a breeze to push to 1200MHz, requiring only some minor voltage adjustments to stay stable.
That would imply the R9 290 x was actually faster than this current R9 290 x, since its clock speed is already sitting just north of 1100MHz. It reminds me exactly of my old HD7950; I had that thing overclocked to over 1200MHz, and it absolutely smoked an HD7970.
I'm of the same opinion—factory overclocked models are generally the smarter buy. The price premium rarely reflects the actual performance gap, and once you start pushing the limits yourself, things change. Depending on how lucky you get with the silicon lottery and where that specific GPU hits its ceiling, the overclocked card can actually end up pulling ahead.
Why bother upgrading to an R9 290 x when you could just stick with the standard 290 you already own for $25? There is virtually zero difference in performance between these two GPUs; the R9 290 x simply isn't worth the extra cash.
According to the Guru3d review, the MSI R9 390 x pulls less power than the R9 290 x, whereas Hardcore and Tom's Hardware both report that it consumes significantly more energy 🤷
We’ll need to wait for the dust to settle before we can judge the actual price point, but if you ask me, bumping it up to 8GB was a total waste. It just drives the MSRP through the roof. They should have stuck with 4GB and used those savings to undercut the competition instead. Back when the R9 290 and R9 390 first dropped, they would have been an absolute steal at $733, especially considering they were sitting around $767 for a while .
They’re actually identical. It turns out the performance gap comes down to different clock speeds and the fact that current drivers only support the 3xx series—which explains why you're seeing about 40% better tessellation in The Witcher 3.
Thomas Diaz53, first things first: tell me exactly which power supply you're running.
Another thing—those GPUs you're looking at are going to be heavily bottlenecked by your CPU in modern titles (though maybe not if you're just playing FIFA or Madden).
User123
Grab an R9 290 for $833 while they're still out there.
Gary Anderson38
Those rebrands aren't even flagship models. We've got the R9 Fury and Fury x dropping any day now, followed by the Fury Nano and the dual Fury.
It’s hard to believe that none of the retailers listed have what you're looking for in stock. If you want to be 100% certain, just shoot them an email. Here it says it's available.
Yeah, looks like there's a Tahiti dual fan version link. If $233 grab it. A dual fan setup is perfectly fine. Honestly, that GTX 660 is weaker, and its cooler isn't exactly top-tier either (that single fan Gainward one)
cosmicmoose2
When you're spending this kind of cash, three specific cards really matter here:
R9 280 R9 285 (which is basically just the same GPU rebranded as the R9 380 in a few days) GTX 960
Performance-wise, they're all sitting in a similar ballpark; here’s a model that comes with a 3-year warranty
You might as well toss that power supply straight into the trash. Your best bet is just to use the process of elimination to figure out what else died along with it—assuming you can find someone with a compatible motherboard to test things with.
This GPU actually outperforms the GTX 660—it’s stronger in standard usage, and you’re getting that Tahiti chip found in the HD 7950 too. The only catch is this specific model doesn't have the cooler shown in the photo; it uses a single fan setup instead. It should function just fine, though you might see slightly higher temperatures. Most people end up swapping in aftermarket coolers anyway if they want to push the overclocking potential.
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 is perfectly fine for $267. Where exactly are you finding an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 for $467? Honestly, even that would be a fantastic upgrade for a new . EDIT
Ah, okay—it's a used Phantom card with one year of warranty left. To be fair, considering it's secondhand, that price isn't actually crazy.
Basically, we're seeing the 285s starting to pop up at the $250 mark following the release of the Pro and Sapphire models. This is likely that window everyone anticipates during a generational shift, where rebranded versions might end up retailing for around $275-$$600 😬
But let’s be real, new GPUs are always overpriced. This could just be a sign that eventually everything will settle down to $500. And we're talking about Strix and Link models here! Some of the priciest hardware out there from one of the most expensive retailers
You did a great job coordinating that black and red theme (case, RAM, and SSD). Did the SSD just happen to match, or were you specifically hunting for those colors?