Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC with 8 GB of memory in the test

Should it now be 4 GB of main memory for a graphics card, or maybe 8 GB? In all the hustle and bustle surrounding the GTX 970 scandal, some board partners from AMD are now encountering and presenting 8 GByte variants of the Radeon R9 290X. One of the favorites in the scene is Sapphire, which also comes with a revised circuit board layout and fan concept. Our test shows how well you are armed with a Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC with 8 GB.

Intro

There were times when graphics card manufacturers were completely free to attract buyers with great pack prints regarding memory expansion. Especially with small graphics cards, we were always able to clear turn outthat upgrading from 2 to 4 GB of memory offers no advantages. In particular, the window dressing represented there in the choice of memory chips - 4 GB DDR3 to 2 GB GDDR5 - we repeatedly stopped with tests.

At the moment, however, users in the forums are a little worried. This is once new game titles owed, which as offshoots of the new consoles (PlayStation 4 and Xbox One) rely on massively higher graphics card memory. Memory-hungry titles appear here, which is due to the lavish memory configuration on the new consoles - but not only, because again simple porting to the PC poses problems here GeForce GTX 970 debate which is about 3,5 instead of 4 GB of main memory (and how this is used). But even here the current ports in the young status shine into it.

So be it: The market smells like 8 GB of storage space, the market offers 8 GB. Sapphire has now sent us their latest offspring in the form of the R9 290X Tri-X OC including 8 GB of memory. In the second step, Sapphire, as the largest AMD board partner, also ensures that you can make your own optimizations. The Tri-X cooler design was revised, but the board was also updated, according to the manufacturer.

Today's article clarifies what users can actually expect from the Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC with 8 GB of main memory.

Bookmarks

Test environment

Hardware: graphics cards

The test candidate

  • Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC 8 GB

Firmware test pattern

Monitor resolutions and boost clock rates

Resolutions

We are currently testing in the resolutions 1.680 x 1.050, 1.920 x 1.080 and 2.560 x 1.440. While the former resolution is still the most widespread, the resolution of 1.920 x 1.080 pixels is currently emerging to permanently replace the lower resolution. The highest resolution of 2.560 x 1.440 pixels is currently only used by enthusiasts. Corresponding monitors that support this are still quite expensive. On the other hand, screens with 4K resolutions are slowly becoming affordable, but these are still not mainstream.

However, the resolutions have a demanding effect on the performance of the graphics cards. The higher the resolution, the slower the graphics cards are in displaying their images per second, and of course there are some representatives of the above graphics cards that are not able to display games in the highest resolution.

We have therefore divided the test candidates into three groups:

  • Ultra High Quality (up to 3840 x 2160)
  • High Quality (up to 2560 x 1440)
  • Quality (up to 1920 x 1080)
  • Low Quality (up to 1680 x 1050)

Only in the ultra and high quality group do we also allow runs with supersampling and / or eightfold anti-aliasing in the quality settings. These are mostly missing in the smaller groups. There are still a few exceptions.

In the ultra-high group, however, there are only absolute high-end graphics cards. So far, this segment has primarily been reserved for dual GPU solutions.

4K resolution and monitor

So far, there has always been talk of Full HD, which means the resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels on a display. 4K or Ultra HD gets its name from the pixels of the monitor's horizontal resolution of almost 4.000 pixels. An Ultra HD monitor correctly displays 3840 x 2160 pixels - 4.000 pixels horizontally are therefore a little rounded up.

While the technology is still quite new and has usually been launched with IPS displays so far, a few manufacturers are currently following in the PC sector, who rely on the cheaper TN panels, making this technology more affordable. However, some of the offers have their pitfalls! So we had ours Dell P2815Q* Discarded again very quickly, as only 30 Hertz operation was possible here, which can very quickly lead to symptoms of fatigue during daily work. It finally followed Samsung U28D59P*, which is able to guarantee operation at 60 Hz via a DisplayPort connection.

In addition, all common smaller resolutions are supported, which appeared to be ideal for our test purposes. Due to the panel used, this monitor (and others) can hardly be used by professional users in the graphics sector. The viewing angle, but especially the color accuracy, leave a lot to be desired in this area.

In the TV sector there are some expensive offers that rely on 4K, but so far there is no suitable image material on DVD or Blu-ray disc, let alone suitable devices among the players. Some boast upscale features, but that's just a consolation. In the PC area, the whole thing looks a little different. The 4K resolution brings - if the image material supports it - a significantly sharper image. Artifacts at edges should also be significantly reduced or even approach zero. We cannot fully confirm the latter. Our own tests in games show that the formation of stairs is significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated.

Tomb Raider at 4K resolution
However, with this resolution on the PC - at least with games - there is the unpleasant side effect that a really powerful graphics card has to be used. In our test runs, we found that even high-end single GPU graphics cards like the Radeon HD 290X or GeForce GTX 780 Ti are in principle overwhelmed if you want to play top titles with the maximum level of detail and anti-aliasing.

At that point the crux arises. Either cut corners, despite the expensive graphics card, or rely on a dual team that can overcome the hurdles. The current status quo is definitely that 4K monitors like dual GPU graphics cards fall into the absolute high-end segment, where they have their right to exist, but also have to struggle with certain weaknesses.

GPU clock

On the GPU boost gadgetswhich appear more and more and falsify benchmark results, we have so far gone into it often enough. We normally counteract this by intervening in the driver. In the current case, however, all test candidates run without any intervention on our part. For enthusiast products of this class, we assume that the user is familiar with topics such as PowerTune (AMD) or temperature and power limits (NVIDIA) and that the driver settings are made manually anyway.

Hardware: test system

Closed housing

A closed computer case is not representative, and we will go into this again in the following lines. In some cases, however, it is essential to be able to judge certain things. And these cases were almost exclusively triggered by new technologies such as Boost 2.0 from NVIDIA or AMD's new edition of PowerTune.

That is why we carried out additional measurements in a closed housing for this test. We decided on a player case from Cooler Master, namely that CM Storm Enforcer. The Enforcer showed its volume as the biggest drawback in our test. That is why we have the two rear fans with Silent Wings from be quiet! replaced (one in the back, one in the lid) and this together with the 200 mm fan in the front is connected to a fan control and operated at the lowest control level.

200 mm fan on the front
The case fans, including the CPU cooler, work as quiet as a whisper, and we also place our test candidates in such an image. At this point you can complain as you like, because in the end the background noise remains something subjective. The environment we have chosen can be accepted as whisper-quiet.

In addition, we have attached two quickly reacting temperature sensors. The first sensor is located in front of the housing at the height of the front fan and monitors the sucked in room temperature. The second sensor was attached directly below the graphics card fan and used it to monitor the fan intake temperature of the graphics card.

The measurements in the housing are made at the usual 21 ° C room temperature.

Typical test station

Here, too, we would like to add a few additional words to the following lists. We deliberately used the processor Intel Core i7 3820* the turbo function, but also hyper-threading deactivated. This is basically impractical, but it allows us to rule out possible sources of error in the tests. In our cases, the CPU or its clock rate usually only plays a very subordinate role, since the selected game scenes are very GPU-limiting and therefore the processor is usually only rarely used. It is therefore sufficient to use a smaller cooler model from Scythe* to be set as this is practically never required. In our tests, the processor's fan works practically inaudibly.

A word also applies to our open test stand. Since there is practically no PC case that could be representative of the home user in any way, we rely on an open test stand. Depending on the housing used at home, this can be an advantage or a disadvantage. In well thought-out case ventilation, some graphics card coolers should show themselves better in terms of noise behavior, in average concepts probably on the level of the open test stand, and in poorly ventilated cases with clear disadvantages. But that, in turn, is all dependent on many factors, which is why we see a sensible and reproducible way in our test stand. The aforementioned exception naturally applies in special cases that we know how to weigh.

Test station:

ASUS motherboard P9X79 Pro
Other hardware:

be quiet! Dark Power Pro power supply

Picture gallery Lian Li T60

Hardware: measuring devices

We like to use high-quality measuring devices in our tests. Volume measuring stations, thermographic cameras, infrared thermometers, clamp ammeters or simply voltage measuring devices (voltmeters) are used.

Depending on the area and purpose, we sometimes rely on well-known manufacturers such as Fluke or Tenma, in other cases also on Conrad's own Voltcraft brand. When it comes to noise emissions, we use special equipment from ulteeaudiotechnikwhich enable us to carry out sone measurements in addition to dB (A). Further details on the measurement technology we use can be found here.

Software: driver

  • Windows 7 64-bit, including all updates up to February 2014
  • Intel chipset driver 9.2.3.1022
  • DirectX 9.0c (June 2010 Update)
  • Intel LAN Driver V. 16.6.0.0
  • Audio driver: Realtek (Windows 7 integrated)
  • Marvell SATA 6GB / s V. 1.2.0.1014
  • ASMedia USB 3.0 V. 1.14.3.0
  • ASUS AI Center II driver for Marvell caching function

Graphics card driver

Driver under test

  • AMD Catalyst 14.12/XNUMX Omega
  • NVIDIA GeForce / ION driver version 344.11 WHQL

Software: testing philosophy

Of course we revise our test course here and there. New game titles are added and some benchmarks are dropped. New additions are, for example:

While Thief is a typically new PC title with a DirectX 11 interface, we see Wolfenstein as a rarer title that uses an OpenGL API.

When selecting the titles, one of our ambitions is that we can offer a healthy mix of DirectX 9, DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 titles as well as OpenGL, which covers different game genres or game engines. However, the past 18 months have shown us more than clearly that the graphic tidbits meanwhile appear almost exclusively with DirectX 11 API - a fact that will probably continue to progress.

What remains to be said is that you can work as hard as you want: no benchmark course is consistently fair. There are far too many applications on the market for that, which turn out to one side or the other. And if we were to follow AMD or NVIDIA with the recommendations in the selection, one or the other product from the respective manufacturer would always win in every test. This means that the status quo remains that we derive our conclusions and findings from the applications that we consulted in these tests.

Software: the benchmarks

Game benchmarks

The two new titles Thief and Wolfenstein: The New Order had to give way to two older representatives. The choice fell on Alan Wake and Sleeping Dogs.

The revised benchmark course is geared towards new blockbusters, but remains with popular titles or representatives of their genre. Under no circumstances should one assume, however, that a strategy game like Anno 2070 may be considered representative of this genre. In most cases, for example, strategy games are mostly designed to be CPU-heavy. Anno and our chosen game sequence represent the opposite. This also applies to other applications. While Sleeping Dogs may show great similarities with GTA, this should not mean that the results of the game can be transferred to GTA.

We are only making a cut over the selected applications and the scenes used for them. We try to make sure that the selected scene corresponds to what the game entails. If we encounter worst-case scenarios, we prefer to choose such a scene, because that is what makes the game flow.

Further software in the test:

  • Tom Clancy's HAWX (Power Consumption Games)
  • Furmark 1.6.5 (power consumption simulated full load)
  • PowerDVD 9 Ultra V. 9.0.4105.51 (power consumption Blu-ray playback)
  • MSI Afterburner

The test candidate at a glance

Key data and scope of delivery

Key data / scope of delivery Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8 GB
chipset Hawaii
GPU clock rate (maximum) 1.020 MHz
Clock rate memory 1.375 MHz
main memory 8 GB GDDR5
Monitor outputs 2 x DVI
1 x DisplayPort
1 x HDMI
Features Own cooling solution, own PCB
Measurements and weight:
Picture: Gigabyte GV-R585OC-1GD - overclocked Radeon HD 5850
Weight: 1.045 grams
Length of PCB (including slot plate) 26,8 cm
Length of PCB (including cooler) 30,3 cm
PCB height (from slot plate) 12,6 cm
PCB height (incl. Cooler) 13,6 cm
- -
Scope of delivery hardware HDMI extension cable
Quick install guide
Mouse pad
Scope of delivery software Drivers and Tools CD
Street price (as of 20.02.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX) 422 Euros

Sapphire has also made changes to the previous Tri-X variant in the course of the 8 GB variant. According to the manufacturer, there have been optimizations in the area of ​​the fans used, but also in the components on the PCB. However, these effects can be determined using the key data for original variant hardly matter. The slightly higher weight of a few grams is simply due to the number of memory chips, which now provide a total of 8 GB of main memory.

We didn't meet any surprises with the I / O shield either. There are also two DVI connections, one full HDMI and one DisplayPort connection. That is also enough to control all current monitors. The manufacturer has not included an analog adapter for older monitors - it can hardly be assumed that a user will purchase this product in order to then operate it on an old monitor.

There is also a mouse pad and an HDMI extension cable, so that the Sapphire is relatively clean when it comes to the scope of delivery. Power adapters for the second 8-pin connection would have been desirable at best.

The price surcharge for the 8 GB version is steep. If the normal version with 4 GB is already available at prices of just under 350 euros, 420 euros are immediately required for the four GB of additional memory. Our benchmarks have to show whether this surcharge makes sense.

Impressions

Sapphire's R9 290X Tri-X is and will remain a heavyweight that weighs over 1.000 grams. There are initially no visual differences in the new variant - apart from the power connections. Two 8-pin sockets are used here, which means that the graphics card is theoretically equipped for a power consumption of 375 watts.

The cooler housing has remained the same, made of plastic and offers space for the three fans that are used. According to Sapphire, the fans have been revised. These should now work a little quieter.

Otherwise there is still a dual BIOS, which is available from Sapphire as a push button. The two BIOS versions are identical in terms of clock rates, but Sapphire has stored a UEFI BIOS which, in conjunction with Windows 8, should contribute to a faster boot behavior.

The cooler itself is the highlight of this Sapphire work and was praised by us in its first presentation. It relies on a two-part radiator, which houses a total of five heat pipes. One of them is kept in the rare 10 mm standard, two are 8 mm in diameter and the last two are based on the usual 6 mm standard. The main cooling surface is implemented by a copper base plate in which the five tubes are soldered. We have not yet come across a better cooling solution on a Radeon R9-290X graphics card.

It remains at 18 memory chips, despite the larger memory expansion. For this purpose, chips with a higher storage density had to be produced - in the case of the Sapphire Tri-X 8 GB, Elpidia chips are used, which are approved for up to 1.500 MHz clock frequency.

There are now also changes to the internal power supply. Our current test candidate still only uses a 1-phase power supply for the memory, but a 6-phase power supply for the GPU. Sapphire also used other chokes for this, whereby those of the GPU power supply leave a higher quality impression than in the last design. For the GPU, however, and some other additional components, cheaper material is used.

Practical experience

Voltages and clock rates

As is well known, essential details of our articles consist in the use special measuring equipment from different areas. Especially when there is tension, the past has taught us that monitoring tools can provide clues, but their display often does not correspond to reality. So we make sure of this at this point. Different devices are used - depending on the area of ​​application.

In the case of this test area, we primarily rely on our MS-9160 measuring station or the Fluke Clampmeter 345. The Voltcraft measuring station was adjusted to the six-digit voltmeter slot of a calibrated Hewlett-Packard HP5328B and a calibrated BBC-MA5D voltmeter - the measured values ​​of our devices were then identical to those of the references to two decimal places. With the appropriate software, we are of course also able to create recordings of the measurements.

We see typical AMD clock rates in load-free operation: 300 MHz for the GPU and 150 MHz for the memory. Under full 3D load, the result is 1.020 MHz and 1.375 MHz in the same order. This means that our "OC version" only clocks 20 MHz higher for the GPU.

We have determined the other clock stages and the voltages applied as follows (real measured values, no tool readout):

Clock rates / voltages Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC 8GB GPU clock rate (MHz) Clock memory (MHz) GPU voltage (volts) Voltage storage (volts)
Load-free operation 300 150 0,854 to 0,888 1,500
Blu-ray playback 418 to 479 1.375 0,962 to 0,999 1,512
Multi-monitor operation (2 identical devices) 300 150 0,860 1,500
Multi-monitor operation (3 devices) 300 1.375 0,863 1,512
ATiTool 1.020 1.375 1,184 1,525
Furmark load (maximum) 1.020 1.375 1,180 1,525

The voltage fluctuations in idle mode were immediately noticeable, which we also found confirmed when observing the actual power consumption. The Sapphire card didn't stop there. When a second monitor was connected, however, the “fidgeting” set in - we couldn't clarify where it came from.

An interesting phenomenon: when connecting our two identical 27-inch Dell monitors via DVI, in connection with our 4k monitor from Samsung, the clock rates (and power consumption) remained in idle mode. We have not yet received any feedback from AMD on our request. The connection of three different displays, however, led to the usual power intermediate stage.

There are no other special features in this chapter.

References

Clock rates / voltages Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC GPU clock rate (MHz) Clock memory (MHz) GPU voltage (volts) Voltage storage (volts)
Load-free operation 300 150 0,856 1,506
Blu-ray playback 433-475 1.300 0,956-0,986 1,506
Multi-monitor operation (2 devices) 300 150 0,856 1,506
Multi-monitor operation (3 devices) 300 1.300 0,860 1,509
ATiTool 1.040 1.300 1,160 1,516
Furmark load (maximum) 993 1.300 1,051 1,522
Clock rates / voltages AMD R9 290 GPU clock rate (MHz) Clock memory (MHz) GPU voltage (volts) Voltage storage (volts)
Load-free operation 300 150 0,854 1,510
Blu-ray playback 417 to 480 1.250 0,991 to 1,019 1,517
Multi-monitor operation (2 devices) 300 1.250 0,868 1,517
Multi-monitor operation (3 devices) 300 1.250 0,874 1,517
ATiTool 947 1.250 1,209 1,525
Furmark load (maximum) 662 1.250 1,118 1,537
Clock rates / voltages AMD R9 290 (sample 2) GPU clock rate (MHz) Clock memory (MHz) GPU voltage (volts) Voltage storage (volts)
Load-free operation 300 150 0,8543 1,505
Blu-ray playback 414-470 1.250 0,995 to 1,026 1,512
Multi-monitor operation (2 devices) * 300 150 0,859 1,505
Multi-monitor operation (3 devices) 300 1.250 0,861 1,510
ATiTool 947 1.250 1,212 1,519
Furmark load (maximum) 662-808 1.250 1,139-1,160 1,532
Clock rates / voltages AMD R9 290X GPU clock rate (MHz) Clock memory (MHz) GPU voltage (volts) Voltage storage (volts)
Load-free operation 300 150 0,864 1,507
Blu-ray playback 426-470 1.250 0,949 1,515
Multi-monitor operation (2 devices) 300 1.250 0,951 1,515
Multi-monitor operation (3 devices) 300 1.250 0,951 1,515
ATiTool 1.000 1.250 1,182 1,522
Furmark load (maximum) [Via BIOS] to 930 1.250 1,12-1,182 1,536
Furmark load (maximum) [Quiet BIOS] to 727 1.250 0,980 1,533

Temperature behavior

The inventory is taken here using monitoring tools such as the MSI Afterburner or GPU-Z. The idle values ​​are recorded after a certain load and cooling phase, which can result in measurement tolerances.

We emulate 3D gaming load using Tom Clancy's HAWX, which behaves similarly to aliens vs. Predator or The Witcher 2. We understand this measurement as a worst-case scenario for games, although our test scene from Anno 2070 currently puts more load on the graphics cards.

Finally, in this chapter it should be pointed out that, at the request of many readers, we have thinned out the comparison tables in order to provide a better overview. More comprehensive comparisons can be found in the appendix of the article.

Idle desktop

Temperatures

Idle

Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

47,00
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

43,00
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

41,00
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

40,00
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

40,00
AMD Radeon R9 290

40,00
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

39,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

37,00
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

36,00
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

35,00
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

35,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Default]

34,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[BaseClock]

34,00
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

32,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

31,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

31,00
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

31,00
° C

We do not experience any real surprises here. Whether 39 or 25 ° C in idle mode is of little importance here. In this case, the background noise remains more interesting. And this is absolutely convincing. We experience a whisper-quiet graphics card, which cannot be perceived from a closed system.

Games (HAWX)

Temperatures

Last games

AMD Radeon R9 290

94,00
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

93,00
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

83,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

82,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Default]

81,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

80,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

80,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[BaseClock]

80,00
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

80,00
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

79,00
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

75,00
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

75,00
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

75,00
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

74,00
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

73,00
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

72,00
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

68,00
° C

Sapphire is also impressive in the next comparison. The revision of the cooler / fan structure, in connection with the new PCB, seems to have certain effects. We only see 74 ° C here, which is a clearly better value than the early first sample of the Tri-X R9 290X delivered 4 GB. Of course, the quality of the GPU used also plays a role.

However, the background noise is not so commendable in this state. The Sapphire representative is clearly perceptible from a closed case, but there can be no talk of noise here.

Furmark as a worst-case scenario demands even higher temperatures and speeds of the fans. Here we reach 77 ° C and a further increase in the background noise, which we will deal with in detail in the following chapter.

Converter temperatures

We use a thermal imaging camera to determine the possible critical areas on the PCB. We use it to scan the back of the circuit board and take a closer look at possible hotspots, which usually occur primarily in the area of ​​the components of the power supply. Previous empirical values ​​for comparisons with internal temperature diodes, which are possible in some cases, show measurement differences in the range of 5 to 10 ° C - even less in particularly “hot” situations. However, this procedure also gives us an insight into the entire heat distribution, in particular on the surrounding component groups, which is not possible by reading internal diodes or laser thermometers.

Temperatures

Converter temperatures

AMD Radeon R9 295X2

106,40
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

100,50
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

98,50
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

96,30
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

93,10
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

91,30
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

90,50
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

89,20
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

84,80
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

82,30
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

81,30
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

79,60
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

78,90
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

73,50
AMD Radeon R9 290

73,10
° C

Here, too, the test candidate surprised us. At just 80 ° C, the new board creation is 10 ° C lower than the 4 GB version of the Tri-X, which we tested months ago. The values ​​determined can be described as absolutely harmless.

background noise

Volume measurement - This is how HT4U.net measures

Anyone who has read our articles for a while knows that we do not take the issue of volume lightly, but rather investigate this area very intensively. We have currently expanded our previous test station to include another current device from ulteeaudiotechnik in the form of the new DAASUSB, which has also been expanded with a subsonic function to meet our needs.

The calibrated device allows us to take measurements in the dB (A) and sone range and, as usual, we give the measurement results standardized, which corresponds to a distance of 1 meter. The spectral analyzes also give an impression of the fan behavior of the individual test candidates.

After we have just looked at the temperature behavior, in the next step we of course want to take a closer look at the background noise, because after all, both go hand in hand in behavior.

As usual, let's start with load-free operation on the dormant desktop. Sapphire has stated that the fans have been optimized, and they also work here, because we only see 12,5 dBA in idle mode. This is another improvement over the first Tri-X solution, which we measured at around 14 dBA. This value can be described as absolutely quiet and can no longer be perceived from a closed case.

However, another circumstance welcomed us with this silence, because under low load we could hear slight coil whine here and there - not very loud, not really annoying, but on the open test stand it was noticeable, but not from the case.

Even under load, the results are slightly better than we recorded 9 GB with the Tri-X R290 4X OC at the time. However, our worst-case gaming scenario still produces a sound pressure level of 32,1 dBA. This does not represent any real noise, but the three fans can now be clearly heard from the closed housing.

We then reached almost 35 dBA under Furmark load, which can be described as annoying for our taste, but is of course miles away from the presentation of a reference cooling by AMD.

In view of the temperatures (74 ° C maximum while playing games in our case / 77 ° C under Furmark), Sapphire would have had options in the area of ​​the fan curve to improve the noise behavior.

Brief comparison [dBA]

Since we have recently received repeated comments about the length of our comparison diagrams, we have now put the complete comparison, also with older graphics cards, in the appendix at the end of the article and show "thinned out" comparisons below.

Volume measurements: sound pressure [dB (A)]

Idle

EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC

28,4
Palit GeForce GTX 670

26,1
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified

22,7
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

22,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

22,4
ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DCU II TOP

22,1
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

20,4
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

18,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690

17,2
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

17,1
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

17,1
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

17,1
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

17,1
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

16,1
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

15,9
Sparkle Caliber X670 Captain

15,8
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

15,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

15,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

15,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

15,4
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

15,2
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

14,9
MSI 680 GTX OC TwinFrozr III

14,9
Gainward GeForce GTX 670 Phantom

14,6
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

14,1
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

14,1
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

13,6
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

13,4
MSI R9 280X OC

13,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

12,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

12,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

12,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

12,6
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

12,5
XFX R9 280X Black DD OC

12,3
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 Windforce

11,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

11,4
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

0,0
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

0,0
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

0,0
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

0,0
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

0,0
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

0,0
dB (A)
Volume measurements: sound pressure [dB (A)]

Load (games)

AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

46,0
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

41,4
Palit GeForce GTX 670

36,3
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

36,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

35,4
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

35,0
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

35,0
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified

34,9
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

34,3
EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC

34,0
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

33,5
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

33,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690

32,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

32,9
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

32,2
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

32,1
XFX R9 280X Black DD OC

31,9
MSI 680 GTX OC TwinFrozr III

31,9
Gainward GeForce GTX 670 Phantom

31,1
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

31,1
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

31,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

30,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

30,9
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

30,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

30,4
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

30,4
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

29,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

28,7
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

26,9
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

26,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

25,9
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

25,0
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

24,7
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 Windforce

24,6
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

24,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

24,5
Sparkle Caliber X670 Captain

24,1
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

24,1
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

23,9
ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DCU II TOP

22,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

17,7
MSI R9 280X OC

16,0
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

15,9
dB (A)

Brief comparison [sone]

Volume measurements: Loudness (sone)

Idle

Palit GeForce GTX 670

1,79
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

1,76
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

1,54
EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC

1,48
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

1,41
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified

1,35
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690

1,19
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

1,11
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

1,11
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

1,11
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

1,11
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

1,07
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

1,07
Sparkle Caliber X670 Captain

1,03
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

0,97
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

0,97
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

0,97
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

0,97
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

0,94
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

0,94
MSI N680 GTX OC TwinFrozr III

0,94
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

0,94
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

0,91
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

0,88
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

0,88
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

0,85
Gainward GeForce GTX 670 Phantom

0,85
MSI R9 280X OC

0,81
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

0,81
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

0,78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

0,78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

0,78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

0,78
XFX R9 280X Black DD OC

0,75
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 Windforce

0,72
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

0,69
ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DCU II TOP

0,66
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

0,00
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

0,00
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

0,00
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

0,00
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

0,00
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

0,00
sonnet
Volume measurements: Loudness (sone)

Load (games)

AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

7,40
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

5,22
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

4,34
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

4,03
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

4,00
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

4,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690

3,82
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

3,74
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

3,68
Palit GeForce GTX 670

3,65
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

3,55
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

3,49
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

3,37
MSI N680 GTX OC TwinFrozr III

3,25
XFX R9 280X Black DD OC

3,15
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified

3,11
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

3,08
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

3,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

3,05
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

3,05
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

3,05
Gainward GeForce GTX 670 Phantom

3,02
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

2,96
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

2,96
EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC

2,92
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

2,80
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

2,80
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

2,48
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

2,44
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

2,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

2,17
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

2,17
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

2,11
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

2,11
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

2,04
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 Windforce

2,04
Sparkle Caliber X670 Captain

2,01
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

2,01
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

1,89
ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DCU II TOP

1,60
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

1,19
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

1,07
MSI R9 280X OC

1,03
sonnet

PowerTune limits, zero core power and abnormalities

There has been news about PowerTune since the introduction of the R9 290 and 290X, which also applies to the R9 285 because the Tonga GPU uses the same techniqueswho also use the Hawaii chips. According to AMD, in addition to the typical PowerTune technologies, there is now also a temperature target, which should be set to 94 ° C, which we did not find on any graphics card in our R9-285 tests.

Image: AMD's Tonga GPU - Radeon R9 285 in the test
However, the AMD board partners also have leeway, and so we have not yet found such high preselected temperatures in the custom solutions of an R9 290X. The better coolers that are used by the partners prevent the GPU from even getting close to such temperatures. Of course, this also has a positive effect on power consumption.

This is the next chapter, in which Sapphire surprised us with the revised version of the R9 290X with Tri-X cooling and 8 GB of main memory.

AMD PowerTune limits

We couldn't find out the maximum power consumption of the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC 8 GB. Even when it was massively overclocked and at "PT 0", the card did not throttle its clock either in games or in Furmark, and below Furmark the values ​​were a maximum of 280 watts when overclocked and under voltage!

In the normal operating state, the test candidate reached a maximum of 251 watts in games and thus again clearly separates itself from the presentation of the previous version of the Tri-X graphics card. This also applies to the Furmark load, which increased to a maximum of 262 watts - we were able to tease out up to a maximum of 350 watts from the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC in the test at that time.

So it seems clear that Sapphire's optimizations to the PCB and cooler have taken hold. To what extent the GPU quality of the currently manufactured R9-290X chips plays a role here, we cannot finally answer; However, this factor is not unlikely.

AMD zero-core power

With the introduction of the Radeon HD 7000 series, AMD advertises the Zero core power technology - a praiseworthy feature, which should significantly reduce the power consumption of PCs when idle. As soon as the Windows power options send the monitor to sleep, the graphics card deactivates itself except for the necessary standby voltages and should therefore consume less than 3 watts of power.

The highly praised AMD feature, however, has its quirks and pitfalls and continues to function our experiences currently not if the monitor is connected directly via HDMI or DisplayPort. Unfortunately, AMD has so far failed to provide us with answers to the problems.

The problems outlined were repeated in today's test. After a restart, zero-core power on the DVI connection unfortunately did not work either, which in this case we attribute to the driver.

Power consumption: idle - games - full load

Graphics card power consumption - This is how HT4U.net measures

We determine the power consumption of the graphics card using a PCI Express adapter modified for this purpose in our laboratory. The values ​​determined therefore only correspond to the consumption of the graphics card itself and not to the power consumption of the overall system. The power consumption via the PCI Express slot, as well as that via the 12-volt power supply cables, are measured at the same time using a clamp ammeter. The (constant) power consumption of the 3,3 volt rail is determined separately and is included in the overall result shown. Further details and background information on the measurements can be found in our initial article on the subject of power consumption of graphics cards.

Power consumption - graphics card

Idle

MSI N580GTX Twin Frozr II OC

32,45
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

31,17
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

31,12
AMD Radeon HD 7990

29,60
MSI N580 GTX Lightning

29,19
MSI R7970 Lightning

25,34
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

21,31
ASUS ROG Matrix GTX 580 Platinum

20,28
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

20,04
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

20,02
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

19,71
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

18,55
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

16,83
MSI R9 280X OC

16,25
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

15,33
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

14,81
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

13,96
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

13,19
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

13,06
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

12,98
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

12,92
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

12,84
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

11,96
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

11,94
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

11,92
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

11,16
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[BaseClock]

11,16
Watt

As described in the chapter on voltages and clock rates, the GPU voltage floundered up and down in idle desktop mode for unclear reasons. This resulted in a power consumption of almost 15 watts, which is not a bad value and at least represents a considerable improvement compared to the predecessor version from Sapphire and the reference solutions from AMD.

Power consumption - graphics card

Load (games)

AMD Radeon R9 295X2

565,00
AMD Radeon HD 7990

375,00
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

306,88
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

298,14
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

289,39
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

270,42
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

260,00
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

251,18
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

246,85
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

238,72
MSI N580GTX Twin Frozr II OC

238,24
MSI N580 GTX Lightning

237,62
ASUS ROG Matrix GTX 580 Platinum

236,81
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

231,05
MSI R9 280X OC

228,55
MSI R7970 Lightning

224,97
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

211,28
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

198,92
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

198,10
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

198,00
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

195,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

180,00
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

180,00
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

180,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[BaseClock]

160,00
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

160,00
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

159,30
Watt

 

The new Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC 8 GB also clearly stands out from its classmates with the same GPU under gaming load. We only see 251 watts - this corresponds to the TDP that AMD actually intended for this GPU, but only through limitations through PowerTune. We see the first 290X graphics card unchecked, which is in this area when it comes to games.

Using Furmark, we were able to increase the power consumption to a worst case of 262 watts. That is also a very moderate value.

Power consumption: Blu-ray playback - multi-monitor operation

Blu-ray playback

We use the Blu-ray "Die Hard 4.0" from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment for these measurements. Blu-ray uses the H.264 codec, also known as MPEG4-AVC, which is now used in most films. PowerDVD from Cyberlink is used as software; for version details, please refer to the test environment of the article.

Power consumption - graphics card

Blu-ray playback

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

90,76
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

89,76
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 1 & old driver]

86,63
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

84,49
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

76,57
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Quiet BIOS after 15 min]

75,34
AMD Radeon R9 290X
[Performance BIOS]

75,34
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

74,57
AMD Radeon HD 7990

63,52
MSI R7970 Lightning

60,23
MSI R9 280X OC

52,27
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

49,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

22,48
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

20,54
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

18,86
MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G

17,67
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

16,17
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

15,79
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

15,32
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

15,26
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

14,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

13,93
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[BaseClock]

13,93
Watt

No question about it: In this test area even NVIDIA's high-end graphics cards outclass the mainstream segment from AMD. The reason for this is simple: AMD obviously doesn't bother itself at this point and keeps clock rates and voltages higher, which leads to such results.

In Tonga we don't see anything new here either. As already announced in the chapter "Voltages and clock rates", the new PowerTune 2.0 ensures fidgeting clock and voltages. With this, the power consumption increases, of course, so that the new GPU looks worse in this test.

Multi-monitor operation

While the GPU manufacturers are now very careful to reduce the power consumption in idle mode as much as possible, the operation of multiple screens is often left out of these optimizations. According to the manufacturers, the clock drop in the memory in particular can lead to picture flickering, which is why a drop is often omitted there and a separate power level with different voltages and clock rates is used.

We noticed at least one minor change with NVIDIA's GTX 600 family. If only two monitors are operated (even with different resolutions), the card works with the idle power level, and only when using three monitors you switch to a multi-monitor power level. With three monitors, the power consumption of NVIDIA is very similar to that of the AMD models.

Power consumption graphics card multi-monitor operation

Idle (2 devices)

AMD Radeon HD 7990

61,65
ASUS Matrix HD 7970 Platinum

60,64
AMD Radeon HD 7870

48,90
XFX Radeon HD 7870 Black Edtition

43,87
AMD Radeon HD 7870 Tahiti LE
[VTX3D Radeon HD 7870 Black]

37,54
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

37,30
Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 Dual-X 1GB

33,40
AMD Radeon R9 270X

32,94
PowerColor HD 7850 PCS +

32,20
Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 XT with Boost

32,06
PowerColor Radeon HD 7870 PCS +

31,49
XFX Radeon HD 7850 Black Edition

30,86
AMD Radeon HD 7850

26,17
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

25,19
Sapphire HD 7790 Dual-X OC

24,87
Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic

24,19
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

22,97
Sapphire HD 7790 Dual-X OC

22,73
AMD Radeon R7 260X

22,49
MSI R7790 OC Edition

22,44
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

21,94
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

21,60
MSI R7790 OC Edition

21,27
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

21,10
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

21,06
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

20,31
XFX Radeon HD 7770 Black Edition

19,97
ASUS R9 270 DCU II OC

19,85
Sapphire Radeon HD 7770 Vapor-X

19,68
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

18,86
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

18,83
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

16,96
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

16,83
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

16,77
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

16,36
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

16,17
XFX R9 270X Black Edition DD

15,93
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

15,83
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

15,79
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

15,61
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan Black

15,48
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

15,32
ASUS Radeon R7 250X

15,14
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

14,69
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

14,62
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

14,51
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

13,53
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

12,65
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

12,23
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

12,05
MSI GTX 650 Ti Boost TwinFrozr OC

11,85
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

11,70
Sapphire Radeon R7 265 Dual-X

11,28
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

10,73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

10,15
AMD Radeon R7 260

8,42
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

8,13
Watt

Editor's note: In this case we have again simulated a third identical monitor (connection of the same monitor with a different connection point). AMD's Catalyst Control Center also reacts by indicating that another monitor has been detected. But the clock rates stayed at idle level here as well. AMD continues to provide no clear information on the connection constellations. So far they have only confirmed the low clock rates with two identical monitors or similar monitors with the same resolution and the same timings.

Power consumption graphics card multi-monitor operation

Idle (3 devices)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan Black

79,21
AMD Radeon R9 295X2

79,10
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti

76,87
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB

64,73
AMD Radeon HD 7990

62,99
ASUS Matrix HD 7970 Platinum

61,84
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

59,21
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC

59,13
AMD Radeon R9 290
[Pattern 2]

55,46
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan
[875 MHz]

54,63
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

51,85
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Toxic

51,73
MSI GTX 970 Gaming

49,87
Zotac GeForce GTX 680

47,30
EVGA GeForce GTX 680

46,70
XFX R9 270X Black Edition DD

46,60
ASUS GTX 970 Strix

46,29
ASUS GTX 980 Strix

45,74
Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

44,75
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X

44,15
MSI GTX 770 Lightning

44,14
Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic

44,13
Palit GTX 970 Jetstream

44,03
Inno3D GeForce GTX 970 Herculez X2

44,01
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
[1084 MHz]

43,52
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0
[Max 1418 MHz]

42,08
Sparkle Caliber X680 Captain

41,25
Club3D Radeon R9 285 CoolStream

41,07
ASUS R9 270 DCU II OC

40,97
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

40,60
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
[1033 MHz]

39,97
XFX Radeon R9 285 Black OC Edition

38,34
Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact

36,68
MSI GTX 650 Ti Boost TwinFrozr OC

34,19
AMD Radeon R9 270X

33,78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

32,13
Sapphire Radeon R7 265 Dual-X

29,72
MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G

27,64
Sapphire HD 7790 Dual-X OC

26,17
AMD Radeon R7 260X

23,11
MSI R7790 OC Edition

22,73
AMD Radeon R7 260

22,70
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

16,24
ASUS Radeon R7 250X

15,99
Watt

An innovation in AMD graphics cards has now appeared with the R series. If two (or, according to our tests, three) the same devices with the same resolution and the same timing are used, the new GPUs can keep the clock rates and voltages at the idle level and thus clearly require less energy than before.

NVIDIA had already presented something similar with the GTX 500 series, but has since refined it. Since the GTX 600 series, NVIDIA has been able to control two different displays with idle clock levels and voltages, which has certain advantages in this test. Only with three monitors then does NVIDIA also switch to a different power level and require more energy.

With the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB, however, we also experienced a little surprise here. The use of our two identical Dell monitors with 1440p resolution in conjunction with our Samsung 4K monitor did not result in any change in the clock rates - we saw the idle clock and could only measure idle voltages. So we brought in a third monitor - a 1080p device - and replaced one of the two Dell monitors. Then the system automatically jumped to the intermediate power level and showed a not inconsiderable increase in power consumption.

overclocking

Overclocking doesn't just depend on cooling solutions. You have to realize that the overclockability of graphics cards - be it GPU or memory - depends on many factors and the individual components. In addition, of course, there is the fact that manual intervention in the clock rates immediately occurs Loss of warranty could lead.

Experience with today's test candidate basically proves that the R9-290X GPU with 1.000 MHz is already operating relatively close to the edge of its possibilities. Here, too, we managed to increase the GPU clock steadily by 100 MHz. An increase to 1.150 MHz immediately caused image errors, which we couldn't get under control by increasing the voltage.

We reached 1.450 MHz with the memory clock without any image errors. In principle, we were also able to perform benchmarks at 1.500 MHz. In between, however, errors flashed in the picture again and again, which is why we reduced the clock.

The manual overclocking leads - depending on the application - to an increase in performance of 4 to 8 percent. The power consumption increased moderately, from 251 watts to 259 watts (without adding voltage).

OC benchmarks 2560 × 1440 (with anti-aliasing)

Crysis 3

Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB
[1100/1450 MHz]

62,48
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

58,02
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

56,94
AMD R9 290X

56,57
FPS
OC benchmarks 2560 × 1440 (with anti-aliasing)

Max Payne 3

Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB
[1100/1450 MHz]

66,37
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

63,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

62,19
AMD R9 290X

60,44
FPS
OC benchmarks 2560 × 1440 (with anti-aliasing)

Bioshock: Infinte

Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB
[1100/1450 MHz]

64,50
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

62,05
AMD R9 290X

60,11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

58,05
FPS
OC benchmarks 2560 × 1440 (with anti-aliasing)

Metro: Last Light

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

35,67
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB
[1100/1450 MHz]

33,14
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

31,20
AMD R9 290X

29,59
FPS
OC benchmarks 2560 × 1440 (with anti-aliasing)

tomb raider

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

27,72
Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X 8GB
[1100/1450 MHz]

27,31
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

25,20
AMD R9 290X

24,62
FPS

Game benchmarks (OpenGL)

BRINK

Game BRINK
Developer Splash damage
Publisher Bethesda Softworks
publication 13. May 2011
Gender Ego shooter
Graphics engine modified idTech 4
DirectX path / API OpenGL
Age rating USK 16 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Hostage rescue
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail
Order from Amazon

Brink

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

194,65
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

181,15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

164,55
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

155,80
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

155,37
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

153,85
AMD R9 290X

153,35
FPS
Brink

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

100%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

93%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

79%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

78%
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

75%
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

75%
AMD R9 290X

74%
FPS
Brink

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

41,96
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

38,87
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

33,07
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

33,05
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

32,91
AMD R9 290X

32,45
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,97
FPS

Wolfenstein: The new order

Game Wolfenstein: The new order
Developer Machine Games
Publisher Bethesda
publication May 2014
Gender Ego shooter
Age rating 18 years
Graphics engine id Tech 5
DirectX path OpenGL
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Chapter 9 intro
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail
HT4U test
Find on Amazon*

Image: AMD's Tonga GPU - Radeon R9 285 in the test
Test scene of the game

Wolfenstein: The New Order

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

55,06
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

53,47
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

50,48
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

44,74
AMD R9 290X

42,81
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

41,11
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

41,08
FPS
Wolfenstein: The New Order

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

37,76
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

34,74
AMD R9 290X

30,90
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

30,51
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

30,37
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

30,12
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

27,53
FPS
Wolfenstein: The New Order

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD R9 290X

19,72
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

19,11
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

19,09
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

18,82
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

16,46
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

15,79
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

15,61
FPS

Game benchmarks (DirectX 9)

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

Game The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Developer Bethesda Game Studios
Publisher Bethesda Softworks
publication March 2012
Gender role playing game
Age rating 16 years
Graphics engine Creation Engine
DirectX path DirectX 9
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Steinhübel
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail, FXAA, High Resolution Texture Pack
Order from Amazon*

Image: Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 Dual-X OC - AMD's Bonaire GPU is here
Benchmark scene in the test

TES V - Skyrim

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

132,05
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

130,53
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

128,63
AMD R9 290X

123,23
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

122,77
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

118,58
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

117,03
FPS
TES V - Skyrim

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

112,06
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

110,89
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

105,65
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

96,70
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

96,50
AMD R9 290X

94,34
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

92,74
FPS
TES V - Skyrim

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

64,68
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

64,60
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

60,68
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

58,57
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

57,50
AMD R9 290X

56,97
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

52,56
FPS
TES V - Skyrim

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

123,66
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

121,65
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

121,60
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

117,76
AMD R9 290X

117,46
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

116,82
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

116,73
FPS
TES V - Skyrim

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

102,47
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

98,69
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

96,85
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

92,07
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

91,49
AMD R9 290X

89,69
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

84,19
FPS
TES V - Skyrim

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

58,28
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

57,15
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

55,84
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

54,69
AMD R9 290X

54,19
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

53,98
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,23
FPS

The Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

Game The Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings
Developer CD Projekt RED
Publisher CD project, Atari
publication 17. May 2011
Gender RPG, fantasy
Graphics engine RED engine
DirectX path DirectX 9
Age rating USK 16 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area barricade
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail

Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

145,65
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

142,70
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

140,78
AMD R9 290X

137,84
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

137,21
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

125,66
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

121,47
FPS
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

90,49
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

89,28
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

88,16
AMD R9 290X

86,23
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

82,71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

77,67
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

72,47
FPS
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

42,61
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

42,12
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

41,90
AMD R9 290X

41,11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

38,33
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

37,06
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

33,41
FPS
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

1920 x 1080 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

65,06
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

64,27
AMD R9 290X

62,85
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

60,76
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

57,90
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

55,18
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

50,77
FPS
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

40,81
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

40,36
AMD R9 290X

39,38
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

37,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

35,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

33,68
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

30,31
FPS
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings

3840 x 2160 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

19,74
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

19,56
AMD R9 290X

19,03
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

17,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

16,51
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

16,20
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

14,02
FPS

Game benchmarks (DirectX 11)

Year 2070

Game Year 2070
Developer Related Designs / Ubisoft Blue Byte
Publisher Ubisoft
publication 17. November 2011
Gender strategy game
Age rating 6 years
Graphics engine InitEngine
DirectX path DirectX 9 / DirectX 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area On the trail of the truth
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail
Order from Amazon

Year 2070

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

94,41
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

89,11
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

85,87
AMD R9 290X

85,56
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

85,40
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

82,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

78,02
FPS
Year 2070

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

59,60
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

59,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

59,31
AMD R9 290X

57,99
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

53,65
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

49,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,58
FPS
Year 2070

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

29,32
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

29,28
AMD R9 290X

28,31
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

28,10
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

25,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

23,74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

21,77
FPS

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

Game Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Developer Ubisoft
Publisher Ubisoft
publication November 2013 (PC)
Gender Action adventure
Age rating USK: 16 years
Graphics engine AnvilNext
DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Sequence 4 - Reminder 2
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, DirectX 11; PhysX: Off
HT4U test Order from Amazon*

Picture: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti in the test
 

In-game test scene

Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

54,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

54,1
AMD R9 290X

53,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

53,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

51,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

51,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,4
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

40,2
AMD R9 290X

39,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

39,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

37,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

36,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,9
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

40,2
AMD R9 290X

39,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

39,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

37,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

36,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,9
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

23,2
AMD R9 290X

23,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

23,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

21,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

20,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

19,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

17,2
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

53,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

51,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

39,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

38,0
AMD R9 290X

37,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

37,7
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

37,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

35,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

27,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

27,0
AMD R9 290X

26,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

26,8
FPS
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

20,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

19,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

16,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

15,2
AMD R9 290X

15,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

14,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

10,1
FPS

Battlefield 4

Game Battlefield 4
Developer EA Digital Illusions CE
Publisher Electronic Arts
publication October 2013
Gender Ego shooter
Age rating USK: 18 years
Graphics engine Frostbite 3
DirectX path DirectX 10 / DirectX 11 / Mantle
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Level 6: Tashgar - Checkpoint 5
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, DX 11
HT4U test Order from Amazon

Picture: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti in the test
In-game test scene

Battlefield 4

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

97,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

91,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

87,1
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

85,3
AMD R9 290X

85,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

81,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

81,3
FPS
Battlefield 4

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

62,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

58,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

57,4
AMD R9 290X

56,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

55,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

52,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

50,5
FPS
Battlefield 4

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

26,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

26,3
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

25,8
AMD R9 290X

24,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

24,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

24,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

19,8
FPS
Battlefield 4

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

79,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

74,1
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

71,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

69,1
AMD R9 290X

67,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

64,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

63,5
FPS
Battlefield 4

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

49,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

45,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

45,5
AMD R9 290X

43,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

43,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

40,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

39,4
FPS
Battlefield 4

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

25,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

22,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

22,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

22,3
AMD R9 290X

20,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

19,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

18,9
FPS

Bioshock: Infinite

 

Game Bioshock: Infinite
Developer Irrational Games, 2K Marin, Human Head Studios
Publisher 2K Games
publication 26. March 2013
Gender First person shooter with fantasy elements
Graphics engine U
DirectX path DirectX 10 and 11
Age rating USK 18 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Finkton Proper
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings System settings Maximum & FXAA
HT4U test
Order from Amazon*

Image: NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan from ASUS and Gigabyte in the test
Benchmark scene in the test

Bioshock: Infinite

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

96,78
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

96,03
AMD R9 290X

95,89
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

92,31
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

85,29
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

83,03
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

77,20
FPS
Bioshock: Infinite

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

62,05
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

60,12
AMD R9 290X

60,11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

58,06
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

53,41
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

50,18
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

47,00
FPS
Bioshock: Infinite

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

30,33
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

29,86
AMD R9 290X

29,77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

27,95
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

25,76
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

23,28
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

21,73
FPS

Call of Duty: Ghosts

Game Call of Duty: Ghosts
Developer Infinity Ward
Publisher Activision
publication November 2013
Gender Ego shooter
Age rating USK: 18 years
Graphics engine IW Engine / Havok
DirectX path DirectX 9/11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Level: The Hunted - Checkpoint 3
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, DX 11
HT4U test Order from Amazon

Picture: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti in the test
In-game test scene

Call of Duty: Ghosts

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

74,90
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

69,91
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

67,31
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

63,73
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

63,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

62,31
AMD R9 290X

62,28
FPS
Call of Duty: Ghosts

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

54,84
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

52,36
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

51,26
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

47,99
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

47,89
AMD R9 290X

46,70
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

44,92
FPS
Call of Duty: Ghosts

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

31,25
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

30,53
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

29,25
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

29,22
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

29,02
AMD R9 290X

28,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

24,53
FPS
Call of Duty: Ghosts

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

51,40
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

51,40
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

48,61
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

43,13
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

43,02
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

42,71
AMD R9 290X

41,95
FPS
Call of Duty: Ghosts

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

38,75
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

36,32
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

34,68
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

32,74
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

32,43
AMD R9 290X

31,54
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

29,81
FPS
Call of Duty: Ghosts

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

21,04
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

20,69
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

19,87
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

19,56
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

19,49
AMD R9 290X

19,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

16,24
FPS

Crysis 3

Game Crysis 3
Developer Crytek
Publisher Electronic Arts
publication 21. February 2013
Gender Ego shooter
Graphics engine CryENGINE 3
DirectX path DirectX 9 and 11
Age rating USK 18 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Mission 5: River - Red Star Rising
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Default system and textures: high
Order from Amazon*

Image: Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 Dual-X OC - AMD's Bonaire GPU is here
In-game test scene
In the following diagrams, 1 x AA stands for deactivated antialiasing and the post-processing filter FXAA. 2 x AA stands for the special level 4 x SMAA. The game relies on double, regular anti-aliasing (MSAA) and additional filters. The designation 4 x AA corresponds to the usual quadruple anti-aliasing (MSAA).

Crysis 3

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

100,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

100,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

100,00
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

100,00
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

99,90
AMD R9 290X

99,89
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

99,82
FPS
Crysis 3

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

78,66
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

77,04
AMD R9 290X

76,89
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

76,66
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

74,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

72,50
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

64,96
FPS
Crysis 3

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

78,66
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

77,04
AMD R9 290X

76,89
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

76,66
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

74,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

72,50
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

64,96
FPS
Crysis 3

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

40,37
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

39,40
AMD R9 290X

39,11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,10
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

35,92
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

35,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,76
FPS
Crysis 3

1920 x 1080 [2xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

90,43
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

86,76
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

85,68
AMD R9 290X

84,69
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

84,46
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

83,61
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

75,42
FPS
Crysis 3

2560 x 1440 [2xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

58,02
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

56,94
AMD R9 290X

56,57
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

56,34
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

53,90
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

53,51
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,77
FPS
Crysis 3

3840 x 2160 [2xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

29,02
AMD R9 290X

28,29
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

28,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

27,46
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

25,83
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

25,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

22,62
FPS
Crysis 3

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

81,06
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

79,68
AMD R9 290X

79,54
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

79,51
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

78,17
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

75,81
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

66,78
FPS
Crysis 3

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

54,47
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

53,33
AMD R9 290X

53,13
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

50,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

49,50
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

47,95
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

41,44
FPS
Crysis 3

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

27,82
AMD R9 290X

27,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

27,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

24,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

23,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

21,42
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

20,39
FPS

Far Cry 3

Game Far Cry 3
Developer Ubisoft
Publisher Ubisoft
publication November 2012
Gender Ego shooter
Age rating 16 years
Graphics engine Dunia Engine 2 and Havok Physics
DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Fruits of the jungle
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail (Ultra), SSAO: SSAO, DirectX 11
Order from Amazon*

Image: 50 DirectX 11 graphics cards in the test

Far Cry 3

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

75,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

75,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

74,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

74,1
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

67,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

66,0
AMD R9 290X

65,3
FPS
Far Cry 3

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

69,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

65,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

61,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

61,9
AMD R9 290X

60,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

59,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

57,9
FPS
Far Cry 3

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

35,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

34,3
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

34,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

33,4
AMD R9 290X

33,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

30,7
FPS
Far Cry 3

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

68,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

65,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

61,1
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

59,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

59,2
AMD R9 290X

58,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

57,3
FPS
Far Cry 3

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

45,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

43,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

42,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

42,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

41,7
AMD R9 290X

40,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

37,3
FPS
Far Cry 3

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

25,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

25,1
AMD R9 290X

24,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

24,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

23,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

22,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

19,6
FPS
Far Cry 3

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

51,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

49,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

46,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

44,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

43,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

42,9
AMD R9 290X

42,6
FPS
Far Cry 3

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

33,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

31,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

31,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

30,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

30,5
AMD R9 290X

29,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

27,5
FPS
Far Cry 3

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

16,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

16,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

15,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

14,4
AMD R9 290X

14,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

12,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

2,7
FPS

DiRT: Showdown

Game DiRT: Showdown
Developer Codemasters southam
Publisher Codemasters
publication May 2012
Gender Racing simulation
Age rating 7 years
Graphics engine EGO engine
DirectX path DirectX 9, 10, 11
Benchmark measurement Integrated benchmark
Test area Miami Routes
Runtime benchmark 85 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, DirectX 11
Order from Amazon

dirt_showdown

Dirt: Showdown

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

135,75
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

127,89
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

125,16
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

124,66
AMD R9 290X

124,03
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

115,50
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

114,70
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

100,42
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

100,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

98,93
AMD R9 290X

98,82
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

93,28
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

83,55
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

83,13
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

100,42
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

100,27
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

98,93
AMD R9 290X

98,82
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

93,28
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

83,55
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

83,13
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

60,41
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

60,21
AMD R9 290X

59,05
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

56,98
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

53,22
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

47,34
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,86
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

124,34
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

123,60
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

122,83
AMD R9 290X

121,63
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

117,84
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

107,98
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

106,67
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

97,76
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

97,36
AMD R9 290X

94,62
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

91,84
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

86,98
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

79,16
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

77,66
FPS
Dirt: Showdown

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

58,59
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

58,26
AMD R9 290X

57,16
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

53,33
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

49,35
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

44,79
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

43,70
FPS

Hitman: Absolution

Game Hitman: Absolution
Developer IO Interactive / Nixxes software
Publisher Square Enix
publication November 2012
Gender Action shooter
Age rating 18 years
Graphics engine Glacier 2
DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Rock slope
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings DirectX 11; Highest levels of detail
Post-processing filter FXAA
Anti-aliasing 4 x / 8 x MSAA
Find on Amazon*

Picture: VTX3D Radeon HD 7870 Black Edition in the test
In-game test scene

Hitman: Absolution

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

93,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

90,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

88,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

88,2
AMD R9 290X

88,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

87,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

74,3
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

65,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

65,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

64,9
AMD R9 290X

64,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

63,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

60,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

51,7
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

65,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

65,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

64,9
AMD R9 290X

64,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

63,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

60,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

51,7
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

65,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

65,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

64,9
AMD R9 290X

64,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

63,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

60,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

51,7
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

38,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

37,8
AMD R9 290X

36,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

35,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

33,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

32,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

26,7
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

74,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

72,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

71,2
AMD R9 290X

69,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

67,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

64,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

55,9
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

51,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

50,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

49,9
AMD R9 290X

48,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

45,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

43,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

37,1
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

27,3
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

27,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

26,4
AMD R9 290X

26,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

23,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

23,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

19,1
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

60,1
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

57,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

57,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

57,2
AMD R9 290X

55,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

55,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

46,9
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

39,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

38,9
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

38,6
AMD R9 290X

37,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

37,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

35,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

30,4
FPS
Hitman: Absolution

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

20,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

20,1
AMD R9 290X

19,5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

19,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

18,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

15,1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

6,2
FPS

Max Payne 3

Game Max Payne 3
Developer Rockstar studios
Publisher Rockstar Games
publication May 2012
Gender Action shooter
Age rating 18 years
Graphics engine Rage (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine)
DirectX path DirectX 9, 10, 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Chapter V - Control Point 10
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail, FXAA high
Order from Amazon*

Image: Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 Dual-X OC - AMD's Bonaire GPU is here
In-game test scene

Max Payne 3

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

101,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

96,5
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

95,7
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

94,2
AMD R9 290X

92,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

89,6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

84,8
FPS
Max Payne 3

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

63,3
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

62,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

61,3
AMD R9 290X

60,4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

60,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

54,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

52,2
FPS
Max Payne 3

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

31,0
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

30,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

30,4
AMD R9 290X

30,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

28,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

26,2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

24,9
FPS
Max Payne 3

1920 x 1080 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

63,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

59,7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

54,2
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

52,4
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

52,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

51,7
AMD R9 290X

51,3
FPS
Max Payne 3

2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

36,3
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

32,8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

32,6
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

32,3
AMD R9 290X

32,0
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,3
FPS
Max Payne 3

3840 x 2160 [8xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

17,9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

16,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

15,8
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

15,5
AMD R9 290X

15,3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

14,3
FPS

Note: Our game scene in Max Payne 3, in connection with the highest levels of detail that are set in the game, is so demanding for the graphics cards that, for example, models with 1 GB of memory or less are no longer able to load the title . The same problem applies to missing graphics cards below 4K resolution. The memory is so overloaded that the level is no longer loaded and the game is in an endless loop in the loading screen.

Metro: Last Light

Game Metro: Last Light
Developer 4A Games
Publisher Deep Silver
publication 17. May 2013
Gender Ego shooter
Graphics engine 4A engine
DirectX path DirectX 10 and 11
Age rating USK 18 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Chapter infection
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings System settings: Very high - Tess: High
Find it on Amazon*

Picture: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 in the test
In-game test scene

Metro: Last Light

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

108,45
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

100,88
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

89,85
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

89,73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

89,69
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

88,42
AMD R9 290X

86,83
FPS
Metro: Last Light

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

67,55
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

62,31
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

57,08
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

56,61
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

56,46
AMD R9 290X

55,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

55,00
FPS
Metro: Last Light

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

32,57
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

29,76
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

28,92
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

28,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

27,53
AMD R9 290X

27,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

26,32
FPS
Metro: Last Light

1920 x 1080 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

60,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

55,61
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

52,80
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

51,49
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

51,11
AMD R9 290X

50,04
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

48,68
FPS
Metro: Last Light

2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

35,57
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

33,07
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

31,21
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

30,82
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

30,58
AMD R9 290X

29,60
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

29,12
FPS
Metro: Last Light

3840 x 2160 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

16,08
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

15,20
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

14,22
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

14,18
AMD R9 290X

13,40
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

13,37
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

13,20
FPS

Splinter Cell: Blacklist

Game Splinter Cell: Blacklist
Developer Ubisoft Toronto, Montreal, Shanghai
Publisher Ubisoft
publication August 2013
Gender Schleich game, action adventure
Age rating USK: 18 years
Graphics engine Unreal Engine 2.5 / LEAD / Havok Physics
DirectX path DirectX 9/11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Level: Benghazi - Libya - Mission 1
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, DX 11
HT4U test Order from Amazon*
Picture: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti in the test
In-game test scene

Splinter Cell: Blacklist

1920 x 1080 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

73,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

69,97
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

63,37
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

63,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

63,17
AMD R9 290X

61,09
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

60,97
FPS
Splinter Cell: Blacklist

2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

48,09
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

45,70
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

43,54
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

43,50
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

42,34
AMD R9 290X

41,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

39,21
FPS
Splinter Cell: Blacklist

3840 x 2160 [4xAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

25,04
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

23,69
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

23,62
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

23,29
AMD R9 290X

22,52
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

21,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

20,29
FPS
Splinter Cell: Blacklist

1920 x 1080 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

44,24
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

41,63
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

41,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

41,08
AMD R9 290X

39,85
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

38,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

36,15
FPS
Splinter Cell: Blacklist

2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

27,50
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

26,44
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

26,13
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

25,66
AMD R9 290X

25,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

23,15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

21,91
FPS
Splinter Cell: Blacklist

3840 x 2160 [4xSSAA / 16xAF]

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

12,79
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

12,51
AMD R9 290X

12,28
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

12,17
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

11,86
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

10,04
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

7,34
FPS

Thief (2014)

Game Thief (2014)
Developer Eidos
Publisher Square Enix
publication February 2014
Gender Action adventure / stealth game
Age rating 16 years
Graphics engine Unreal 3
DirectX path DirectX 9 / DirectX 11
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area Stone Market
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest levels of detail
HT4U test
Find it on Amazon*

Image: AMD's Tonga GPU - Radeon R9 285 in the test
In-game test scene

Thief

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

104,12
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

100,67
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

99,48
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

88,22
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

84,77
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

84,54
AMD R9 290X

82,06
FPS
Thief

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

73,44
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

70,11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

69,15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

61,74
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

59,55
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

59,48
AMD R9 290X

57,95
FPS
Thief

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

41,55
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

38,93
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

37,63
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

34,90
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

34,78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

34,29
AMD R9 290X

33,97
FPS
Thief

1920 x 1080 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

74,89
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

72,90
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

70,87
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

62,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

62,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

61,56
AMD R9 290X

61,06
FPS
Thief

2560 x 1440 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

51,21
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

49,34
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

48,91
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

43,86
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

43,54
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

43,44
AMD R9 290X

42,58
FPS
Thief

3840 x 2160 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

29,46
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

28,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

28,00
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

24,99
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

24,91
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

24,54
AMD R9 290X

24,27
FPS

Tomb Raider (2013)

Game tomb raider
Developer Crystal Dynamics & Eidos Montreal
Publisher Square Enix
publication 5. March 2013
Gender Action-Adventure
Graphics engine Crystal engine
DirectX path DirectX 9 and 11
Age rating USK 18 years
Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
Test area at about 26 percent of the game
Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
Benchmark settings Highest level of detail, TressFX, shadow: Ultra
HT4U test Order from Amazon*

Image: Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 Dual-X OC - AMD's Bonaire GPU is here
In-game test scene

Tomb Raider (2013)

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

88,52
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

81,37
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

77,18
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

75,55
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

74,28
AMD R9 290X

72,93
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

72,79
FPS
Tomb Raider (2013)

2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

59,21
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

55,59
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

54,38
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

53,97
AMD R9 290X

53,23
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

50,92
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

49,07
FPS
Tomb Raider (2013)

3840 x 2160 [No AA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

31,23
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

29,26
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

29,01
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

29,01
AMD R9 290X

28,15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

26,87
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

24,66
FPS
Tomb Raider (2013)

1920 x 1080 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

61,39
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

56,41
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

53,85
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

53,38
AMD R9 290X

52,56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

49,85
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

49,85
FPS
Tomb Raider (2013)

2560 x 1440 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

38,58
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB

36,35
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[1126 MHz]

36,30
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB
[1000 - 1250 MHz]

35,61
AMD R9 290X

34,52
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
[928 MHz]

32,63
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
[1187 MHz]

31,72
FPS
Tomb Raider (2013)

3840 x 2160 [2xSSAA / 16xAF]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
[Max 1240 MHz]

19,10
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 8 GB