Are these real AMD R9-290X Benchmarks ?

#4666090

Pill Monster

2013-10-01 09:33

I'm guessing someone pulled those clock speeds out out of a hat, they are very low.

#4666167

Darren Hodgson

2013-10-01 11:12

I'm colour blind and I can barely see which card is supposed to be which on those line graph screenshots as both lines look almost the same colour to me! The Tomb Raider bar graph is perfectly fine though.

#4666217

Anarion

2013-10-01 12:05

How on earth they managed to use msaa in tomb raider?

#4666219

Neo Cyrus

2013-10-01 12:07

I'm guessing someone pulled those clock speeds out out of a hat, they are very low.

I'd guess that those are just ES clock speeds, the final thing will likely be above 800MHz unless they are having some serious production problems... which both nVidia and AMD are always having. They'll make sure to mention that right before telling us that trollolol video cards are now $700-$1000 and not $300-$500 anymore, oh wait... I honestly can't believe I'm looking forward to the PS4, thanks nVidia and AMD.

#4666228

Loobyluggs

2013-10-01 12:20

Why the high res? The percentile of people using a res like that must be less than two decimal places.

#4666272

Robbo9999

2013-10-01 12:57

Why the high res? The percentile of people using a res like that must be less than two decimal places.

Haha, probably because a similar percentile of people will own said videocards! Those cards are more suited to uber high screen res anyway, that's what most people would buy them for I would think.

#4666274

CPC_RedDawn

2013-10-01 12:58

How the hell can a TITAN have a min frame rate of 35.0 but an avg or 29.1?????? That does not make any sense the avg should be higher than the min!! I call fake on these!

#4666297

Extraordinary

2013-10-01 13:19

I'm colour blind and I can barely see which card is supposed to be which on those line graph screenshots as both lines look almost the same colour to me! The Tomb Raider bar graph is perfectly fine though.

You should be able to follow which line is which using this: Screen 1: green lowest Screen 2: Red starts and finishes lowest Screen 3: Red lowest Screen 4: Green lowest Screen 5: Red starts and finishes lowest Screen 6: Red is higest in the middle Screen 7: Red starts and finishes highest Screen 8: Red finishes highest

#4666304

xafier

2013-10-01 13:30

I suppose, if pharmaceutical drug producers started to test in general, random populations rather than using a control mechanism, that would also be more realistic.

Actually they do test in different population types, and also they use simulation tools like what I develop at Simcyp to simulate different populations including paediatrics which are generally not ethical to test (unless its terminal patients and then its sometimes done)

#4666306

Rich_Guy

2013-10-01 13:38

If its beating Titan at those clocks, and they are real*, there will be no need to flick the switch 😀 *big bucket of salt in hand :P

#4666312

Darren Hodgson

2013-10-01 13:46

You should be able to follow which line is which using this: Screen 1: green lowest Screen 2: Red starts and finishes lowest Screen 3: Red lowest Screen 4: Green lowest Screen 5: Red starts and finishes lowest Screen 6: Red is higest in the middle Screen 7: Red starts and finishes highest Screen 8: Red finishes highest

Thanks for that.

#4666323

Anarion

2013-10-01 14:07

I'm not saying that they're fake or not, just that the graph labels are poorly chosen 🙂 The graph is actually made up of two components, FXAA and MSAA 4x. FXAA is represented by the top 3, and MSAA 4x is represented by the bottom 3. For each set, the minimum is less than the average.

Well, those have to be pretty damn ****ed up graphs then. No matter how I read it, FXAA AVG is smaller than FXAA min. Tomb Raider doesn't even support MSAA so I wonder where those numbers come from. I also wonder how it is possible to have same min and average framerate in that "MSAA" test. It is impossible when max framerate is higher than min.

#4666338

mitzi76

2013-10-01 14:20

min framerates better on titan plus why the odd resolution? (well seems odd).

#4666365

Lane

2013-10-01 14:59

Dunno if they are fake or not, but thoses clock speed ( both core and memory ) look to dont even fit the presentation done by AMD.. - You need 885mhz at min for got 5Tflops ( 2816SP ). ( slide say > of 5Tflops ) - You dont match the triangle rate given by AMD at thoses clock - You dont match the bandwith of >300GB/s given by AMD ( 288GB/s = 7970ghz )

#4666424

Rich_Guy

2013-10-01 16:10

Didn't have the dynamic clock either, but aren't they supposed to have ?

#4666501

Lane

2013-10-01 17:46

Wizzard have correct some information, now it starting to be interesting:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2989138&postcount=16 Corrected the GPU clock to 1050 MHz. The ES card the benches were run on has two BIOSes, one with 800/1125 and the other with 1050/1125. The benches were run at 1050/1125

Quite different indeed ..

#4666517

Rich_Guy

2013-10-01 18:04

That explains it then, nice 😀

#4666655

reno_skychaser

2013-10-01 21:06

Anyone else wondering why in the world anyone would include Rage on a benchmark comparison?

#4666850

Noufel

2013-10-02 01:36

few weeks to wait & i'll know if i change my 7950 cf or not 🙂

#4666963

Pill Monster

2013-10-02 07:46

Dunno if they are fake or not, but thoses clock speed ( both core and memory ) look to dont even fit the presentation done by AMD.. - You need 885mhz at min for got 5Tflops ( 2816SP ). ( slide say > of 5Tflops ) - You dont match the triangle rate given by AMD at thoses clock - You dont match the bandwith of >300GB/s given by AMD ( 288GB/s = 7970ghz )

1125mhz can't be right, afaik nobody makes 1125 GDDR5 IC's. Either that figure is wrong and the real number is 1250mhz/320GB/s, or else AMD have underclocked the memory which means; a) the 290X has a crapload of vram overclocking headroom and b) there will be a higher spec'd card released with more bandwidth. Sure, buswidth>bandwidth (generally)...but still I just can't see a 512bit card being released that has less bandwidth available than it's 256bit predecessor. (duh I mean 384). Guess we'll know in 14 days, speculation is fun but kinda pointless really. Btw Rage was obviously tested with vsync enabled -wtf? :3eyes: