Whic is a better investment: $400 AMD R9 290 vs $400 PS4?

Which means it is a 6950.

Why did you create this thread if your PC cannot handle it? unless you thought it could? i am happy with you thinking that, but it sadly cannot, the Phenom II x3 is pretty much as good as a high end intel Core 2 Duo CPU.

LMAO. How am I trolling? If you don't like the poll or thread don't post. You don't have to be a cry baby about it.

And how is my PC too weak to handle a R9 290? That's just downright IDIOTIC statement. I have my CPU overclocked BTW. Proves that you are CLUELESS about PC hardware. I will definitely see a FPS increase, maybe not as much as a 8 Core FX 8350 but will see a significant BOOST in FPS compared to my HD 6970.

So, to say that I won't get any FPS or my PC is too weak to handle is downright stupid.

I have no need to comment further.

"ASRock 780GXE MB AMD Phenom II X3 Black Editon (OC'ed 3.4 GHZ) XFX 2 GB HD 6950 BIOS FLASHED to HD 6970 (OC'ed 900 MHZ GPU 5.6 GHZ GDDR5 Memory) 4GB DDR2 Reaper RAM 120 GB Solid Stage HD 1 Terabyte HD Samsung DVD+/- RW Smilodon Raidmax Gaming Case PC Power & Cooling 610W PSU Windows 7 Ultimage 64 bit Samsung 23.3" HD 1080P LED monitor"

OK

In this case then, maybe stick with the gpu you have, it's no slouch, and go for the PS4.

Otherwise if you're unsure about ps4, I'd be thinking about a CPU upgrade, or maybe moving to socket 1150. i think amd655 is right, the potency of that r9 290 might be lost without a decent cpu to back it up.

For me, it's R9 290 since I can link it's purchase expense against my taxes.

No, it's not a 6950. A 6950 has 1408 Stream Processors, with 800 Mhz GPU clock and 1250 Mhz. A HD 6970 (which I was BIOS flashed too) has 1536 Stream Processors, 880 Mhz GPU Clock, and 1375 Mhz. Unless you are saying that 1408=1536, and 800=880, and 1250=1375 Mhz. LOL. I have the same specs as HD 6970, hence it's been BIOS flashed to a HD 6970.

And you comment that my PC cannot handle it? Cause that's really funny... because there are people who **COUGH** **COUGH** have weaker PC's than mine that have weaker GPU's like the HD 5870 that had no problems upgrading to a 290X:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-202-058&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=4

Just stop you are getting owned hard. You are proving yourself to be clueless about PC hardware when idiotic comments like your "PC can't handle".

Try trolling harder next time.

So a person with a Pentium 4 upgraded to a 290x?

No one mentioned a weak sauce CPU like yours.

I will state over and over again, YOUR PC cannot handle a R9 290.

Hell a CPU upgrade will give you higher frames as your current GPU is held back.

Want to see something funny?

This is my old GTX 480 pairs with a 4.5ghz i5 2500k.

BF4 loves a strong CPU, here the GPU matters less than you would normally assume, this is high preset.

Stop talking like a child and start listening, your PC is far too slow for a 290, you will not see a benefit.

I put a $320 card in my work PC and turned it into a gaming PC that is much more powerful than either console.

It depends on the game and how much of a cpu load there is, with gpu prone games which are most , Even an Athlon 2 X4 does not hold back a 7970 at 1080 enough to worry about.

That's if Sony are still around

This, but frames will remain low, a GPU upgrade will not really gain anything as his CPU is not strong enough to feed the GPU, unless you are stuck in 2005?

Uh..mines is not a P4, it's an overclocked Phenom II X3 Black Edition. No is arguing that you will see the R9 290 to it's potential. I will definitely see a SIGNIFICANT boost. Your argument that "will not see a benefit" or PC can't "handle it" proves that you are clueless when it comes to hardware. There are people who ugraded from weaker hardware than mine that got 2.5X performance imporvement. But to say that I won't see any benefit is truly a JOKE.

It really depends if you have a rig that is due for a video card upgrade.

290 will definitely have longer legs. The strongest console of this generation is rocking only a 7870 class gpu and the wii U which launched first is rocking a who knows what weak ass gpu. Nintendo will surely be forced to launch next gen in like 4 years(if they do decide to stay in it). Never have the consoles ever launched so outdated compared to what is available on PC. GPU technology is moving faster than ever as is the APU technology in the consoles and 4k is around the corner

Everything points to this being the shortest console generation ever.

@Xtasy26 Yes they upgraded their GPU's, none of them have mentioned what CPU they are using.

Your CPU is far too weak, i know this is a fruitless argument with you, as sense is not your strong point.

You see the FPS i was getting in that video? yours would be roughly 30-50FPS just because you neglect your PC with a old slow CPU.

A 290 does not stop hardware bottlenecks.

tough choice. I have Titan SC and contemplating on getting the 290x

For nowgaming, I guess 290x is the best choice, there are lots of already available impressive catalog (and new indie catalog) that is very affordable that could last a gamer a life time of gaming. Plus all the new titles this upcoming gen seems to include PCs (due to perhaps the similarities with consoles architecture)

Mantle API is going to be a game changer for PC gaming (pushes the envelope in terms of how far your video card will last and still deliver few years down the line).

However, if you have to have the potential PS4 exclusives, and don't mind waiting for the catalog to slowly build up over the years with genres you like, and also don't mind the $60 per game concept (or alternatively wait even further for price drops), then go for PS4.

290X has slightly better specs than 290, what's the price difference there?

theres no invested intrest in a peice of tech like these hahahah..you will lose money on all of them..

just buy the damn thing that intrests you instead of ivestment lol

Again where did I say there won't be any bottlenecks? I have said that it won't reach it's true potential. I have seen guys with CPU's like mine that got great performance at 1080P and above. To say that there won't be any benefit is truly idiotic I will easily see a significant boost in framerates. And mind you I have my CPU overclocked. You clearly ignore people who have posted reviews on newegg that shows otherwise (as proof), who have weaker hardware than mine. I only showed one example, there are others. While you keep on claiming your argument about there will be "no benefit" or your PC "can't handle it" when multiple examples on the net of people upgrading from weaker hardware than mines have shown significant improvements.

And just for the fun of it here are more examples:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1436497/official-amd-r9-290x-290-owners-club/4960

Try harder next time.

what's the best evidence to solve this?

In the case of a GTX Titan & Company of Heroes 2, we can see the scaling of FPS with different CPUs.

We are not talking about someone using an ancient cpu, A Phenom 2 X3 going from a 6950 to a 290 will see massive boost in performance now granted while that cpu may not allow the gpu to reach its full ability with a more cpu prone game however stating that the X3 wouldnt feed the 290 enough to allow an good improvement is false.

A real bottleneck would be if he would go from a 6950 to a 290 and see no difference

No one on newegg has a CPU like yours.

Please post a single person with a weak CPU who added a 290, or even a GPU close to a 290.

Significant? the only improvement you will find is in games that are dated back to 2005 era, or are easy on PC hardware in the first place, and judging by your Steam library, you seem to steer clear of games requiring powerful components.

As i stated, post a single person who added a card like that to a Phenom II x3 or lower CPU.

Then, tell me they know what they are talking about.

Which is exactly what will happen, unless he sticks to 2005 era games, or games not requiring good components.

That will not happen.... Unless games *require* quad cores.

Considering i cannot talk sense into a biased person (Xtasy26), and you are just siding, let us see shall we?

http://www.overclock.net/f/67/amd-ati

Please..... your an idiot if you think someone wouldn't see gains going from a 6950 to 290 with an X3.

"

the 6970 may already be botlenecking a chip that weak. I suspect he will put the new card in and see almost no gain at all. Even that 8350 would need to be overclocked to get max performance out of that card.

He will probably wee more performance gain by upgrading his CPU and keeping his old card than he will by gettig anew GPU. The difference between the fx 8 cores and the athalon 2s is more than more cores. They are quite a bit faster clock for clock as well.

For the price of the 290x he could upgrade his chip, and buy a second 6970, which will give him performance on par with a 270x. Probably much more than he has now."

My thread.....

http://www.overclock.net/t/1442809/phenom-ii-x3-720-bottleneck-r9-290

I was ranked Expert on Tom's Hardware, i just stopped posting for a good while.

I know much more than your average joe who thinks his PC is boss.

Sure in some games you will see a massive performance benefits, even close to the capabilities of the R9 290, but in the overwhelming majority of games the performance benefit will be too little or even NONE. Also your minimoum fps is most games will be the same. Also in what resolution you are playing?

FX series clock per clock are slower then Phenom 2/Athlon 2's hence the reason why Phenom 2's X4's beat the FX 4000's, it takes a 3.8 ghz fx 4300 to be on par with a 3.2 ghz P2 955.

Getting a 290 then upgrading cpu after word would yield more performance both times. With BF4 as an example a 6970 only averages 23 fps even with a i7 3790x at 1080, while with a titan with a Phenom 2 X2 got 36 fps average at 1080

Both are unplayable in multiplayer.

And Vishera is in every shape and form better than Phenom II.

PS4 because I'd rather wait for one of the 20nm GPUs before upgrading, for a bigger upgrade in performance, and hopefully they'll consume less power.

False, unless your going with a 6 or 8 core and that those cores are being used that's the only way FX series actually beats out the Phenom 2's. clock per clock FX's are slower.

As an example with BF4 FX 4300 at 3.8 ghz min fps 47 average 67 vs Phenom 2 X4 955 at 3.2 ghz min:44 average 71. If we were have both at same clocks Phenom would beat the four core Vishera.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1442807/will-a-phenom-ii-x3-720-bottleneck-r9-290#post_21194583

http://www.overclock.net/t/1442809/phenom-ii-x3-720-bottleneck-r9-290#post_21194587

Bottlenecks.......... you must love them.

36 fps, that's pretty awful. Doesn't make sense to pay $400+ for barely 30fps

I hope you guys are keeping track of the threads in a dedicated HW forum, over at OCN.

"This guy fails to understand that he is doing the equivalent of putting $2,000 on his rims on a jalopi. NO."

"

Motherboard, RAM, and processor ALL need to be upgraded in that rig, just to make full use out of his existing 6970. Adding in a card that's 3-4x as powerful as the 6970 is honestly just a waste of money.

Tell this person to upgrade board, CPU, and RAM first. Sell his old equipment (and even his old GPU), then use that money to upgrade the graphics card. Maybe a 280x or a 290 if budget permits at that point.

EDIT:

My old Phenom II x4 at 3.85GHz that I used to run (2.75GHz NB) was bottlenecking my HD4890, and even worse my GTX470."

http://www.overclock.net/t/1442809/phenom-ii-x3-720-bottleneck-r9-290/10#post_21194606

his opinion is usually pretty reliable

I'll be getting an upgrade for my PC before I get a PS4. I'll probably wait for a redesigned PS4 because by then the hardware will be much cheaper and there will be more games available.

Consoles didn't keep up with PC's rising GPU TDP levels..

Lolz @ Desktop PC's !

Only if one doesn't use R9-290 for work.

I dont understand. Uncharted 4, The Order 1886, Killzone SF, Second Son, all are 1080p.

R290 runs them at 0p @ 0fps

Who would pay 400 bucks for a GPU? What for? GPUs that cost 200 bucks can max out anything on the market right now.

With Mantle, a FX-8350 under clocked to 2.0ghz remained GPU limited.

With a Phenom II x3 overclocked, the 290 remains starved.

I agree, that's well out of the range of what i'd pay for a graphics card, especially with UK prices.

I'd say neither.

The PS4 hasn't proven itself to be a good system yet, and for a video card as powerful as the R9290 I'd rather just wait until next years models at least that'll probably be quieter, cooler, and have more features. Plus, by then there might be a game or two to utilize the power.

I don't like the idea of buying PC hardware right when new consoles launch. Just imagine the people who bought the 7800gtx when the 360 launched. Those people got left with an outdated card while the people who waited, and got the 8800gtx, got a card that would still be able to play games today.

This is excellent information, 10 brownies for you.