AMD announced the next generation Volcanic Islands GPUs last month at their GPU14 Tech Day event in Hawaii. There were a couple of exciting announcements: a widely expected new flagship GPU, the R9-290X, that is meant to compete with Nvidia's GTX Titan, and there was also "Mantle," a new open-source API that at least on paper sounds like a great way to optimize games for the PC platform -- the fact that AMD is also powering Xbox One and PS4 graphics adds credibility to AMD's announcement, of course.
Unfortunately, we are not going to talk about either of those things today since the day hasn't come yet. We will get you up to speed about new Radeon graphics cards outside the R9 290X, however. AMD has done away with the Radeon 'HD' naming scheme that they have used for the past 6 years and replaced it with something a bit more complex.
Previous years have seen the release of a new GPU generation every year which makes the Radeon HD 7000's shelf life surprising, even more so considering the majority of the new RX 200 series cards rebadges from existing HD 7000 products. The RX 200 series will consist of the Radeon R7 240, R7 250, R7 260X, R9 270X, R9 280X and later this month the R9 290 and R9 290X. Confused yet? Well let us try and clear a few things up.
| GPU | Code-name | Price | Equivalent GPU* | Equivalent price at launch |
| Radeon R9 290X | Hawaii XT | ??? | -- | -- |
| Radeon R9 290 | Hawaii Pro | ??? | -- | -- |
| Radeon R9 280X | Tahiti XT | $299 | Radeon HD 7970 GHz | $499 |
| Radeon R9 270X | Tahiti LE | $199+ | Radeon HD 7870 | $349 |
| Radeon R7 260X | Bonaire XTX | $139 | Radeon HD 7790 | $149 |
| Radeon R7 250 | Oland XT | $89 | Radeon HD 8670/7730 | *OEM |
| Radeon R7 240 | Oland Pro | <$89 | Radeon HD 8570/7510 | *OEM |
The Radeon R7 240 is an overclocked version of the Radeon HD 7510 which was an OEM only part. The R7 250 is a new product that sits between the HD 7510 and HD 7570 (another OEM only part). Both are much slower than the Radeon HD 7750, so these shouldn’t be considered as gaming options.
The R7 260X is a rebadged Radeon HD 7790 that has been overclocked, with cards running at 1.1GHz opposed to 1GHz. Jumping up in speed we have the R9 270X which is a rebadged Radeon HD 7870 (more about these two in a second). Finally, the R9 280X which we'll eventually retest looks to be a direct copy of the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition.
So with almost nothing new to see here, what’s the point?
The specifications point to rehashed 7000 series parts and, well, so does the pricing. AMD has set the R9 280X at $300, the same price you can get 1GHz 7970 cards for, while the R9 270X is priced at $200, the exact same price as heavily overclocked 7870s. Meanwhile the R7 260X (rebadged HD 7790) will cost $140, while overclocked HD 7790 cards are currently selling for as little as $120.
Therefore it looks like we'll have to wait for the R9 290 series before we see anything truly new from AMD. Although we tend to keep you updated on how GPUs perform with the latest game releases, let this review serve as a guide if you're buying a mid-range GPU today and don't care to bother to read old reviews with old name schemes, and perhaps most importantly, older drivers and obsolete price points.
AMD Radeon R9 270X
The Radeon R9 270X, which has been given the codename ‘Curacao XT’, uses the 28nm design process comprised of 2800 million transistors in a 212mm2 die. Sound familiar? Well the Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition, which was codenamed ‘Pitcairn XT’, also used the 28nm process and featured 2800 million transistors in a 212mm2 die.
The core configuration of the Radeon HD 7870 allowed for 1280 SPU’s, 80 TAU’s and 32 ROP’s and this is the exact same configuration used by the R9 270X.
Where AMD has made some changes is in the core and memory clock speeds. The 7870 ran a core speed of 1GHz without a boost feature and a memory frequency of 4800MHz, the R9 270X is a bit faster. The standard operating specifications see a core clock speed of 1.05GHz (5% higher) with a memory frequency of 5.6GHz, 17% greater.
While the memory is faster, the R9 270X still uses a 256-bit wide memory bus and by default comes with a 2GB memory buffer, though 4GB will be an option on some cards despite being pointless for this GPU.
The TDP rating is 180 watt which is slightly higher than the 175 watt rating of the 7870. Perhaps the most significant changes have been made to the API support which sees the R9 270X support DirectX 11.2 along with AMD’s Mantle. Pricing is set at $200 which matches the current retail value of a Radeon HD 7870 graphics card, so not a lot to get excited about here.
AMD Radeon R7 260X
The R7 260X is a budget card, though for some reason the new flamboyant name seems to suggest otherwise to us. Codenamed ‘Bonaire XTX’, it is an updated version of the ‘Bonaire XT’ aka Radeon HD 7790. Like the Radeon HD 7790 the R7 260X features the same 896 SPU’s, 56 TAU’s and 16 ROP’s, all of which fit in the same 160mm2 die area.
Again what we have here is an overclocked card which operates at 1.1GHz opposed to the 1GHz clock speed of the 7790. The memory has also been boosted from 6.0GHz to 6.5GHz. The end result is a core overclock of 10% and a memory overclock of 8%.
This has increased the TDP rating to 115 watts from 85 watts, a 35% increase in load consumption according to AMD’s figures. Despite the increased power consumption the card still only requires a single 6-pin PCIe power connector.
Like the R9 270X the R7 260X also received updated API support for DirectX 11.2 along with Mantle.
Testing Methodology
As usual we've tested each graphics card with Fraps, which lets us record the average frame rate in seconds over a set amount of time. Typically, we run our tests for 60 seconds. Reporting the average fps (frames per second) is how things have been done for... well, forever. It's a fantastic metric in the sense that it's easy to record and easy to understand. But it doesn't tell the whole story, as The Tech Report and others have shown.
To get a fuller picture, it's increasingly apparent that you need to factor in a card's frame latency, which looks at how quickly each frame is delivered. Regardless of how many frames a graphics card produces on average in 60 seconds, if it can't deliver them all at roughly the same speed, you might see more brief jittery points with one GPU over another -- something we've witnessed but didn't fully understand.
Assuming two cards deliver equal average frame rates, the one with lowest stable frame latency is going to offer the smoothest picture, and that's a pretty important detail to consider if you're about to drop a wad of cash. As such, we'll be including this information from now on by measuring how long in milliseconds it takes cards to render each frame individually and then graphing that in a digestible way.
We'll be using the latency-focused 99th percentile metric, which looks at 99% of results recorded within X milliseconds, and the lower that number is, the faster and smoother the performance is overall. By removing 1% of the most extreme results, it's possible to filter anomalies that might have been caused by other components. Again, kudos to The Tech Report and other sites like PC Per for shining a light on this issue.
Test System Specs
- Intel Core i7-4770K (3.50GHz)
- x2 4GB Crucial DDR3-2400 (CAS 11-13-13-28)
- Asrock Z87 Extreme9/ac (Intel Z87)
- OCZ ZX Series (1250W)
- Crucial m4 512GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 660 Ti (2048MB)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 660 (2048MB)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (2048MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650 Ti (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7950 (3072MB)
- AMD Radeon R9 270X (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7870 (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7850 (2048MB)
- AMD Radeon R7 260X (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7770 (2048MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7790 (1024MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 7750 (1024MB)
- Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
- Nvidia GeForce 331.40
- AMD Catalyst 13.10 (Beta 2)
- AMD Catalyst 13.11 (Beta 1)
Benchmarks: Battlefield 3, Crysis 3
Here we see that the Radeon R9 270X is just 1% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 while it was 14% faster than the GTX 660 and just 1% slower than the GTX 660 Ti. The Radeon R7 260X was just 5% faster than the Radeon HD 7790, 5% slower than the GTX 650 Ti and 15% slower than the Radeon HD 7850.
Although we see a 21% increase in performance for the Radeon R9 270X when compared to the Radeon HD 7870 in Crysis 3 at 1920x1200, keep in mind this is just 5 fps more. The R9 270X was also 16% faster than the GeForce GTX 660.
The Radeon R7 260X was 14% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 at 1920x1200 and 11% faster than the GTX 650 Ti.
Benchmarks: DiRT 3, Far Cry 3
The Radeon R9 270X was 6% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 in DiRT 3 at 1920x1200 while it was 27% faster than the GTX 660 and 5% faster than the GTX 660 Ti. The Radeon R7 260X was just 4% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 but 23% faster than the GTX 650 Ti.
Again we see that the Radeon R9 270X is 6% faster than the Radeon HD 7870, this time in Far Cry 3. The Radeon R7 260X on the other hand was 11% faster than the Radeon HD 7790.
Benchmarks: Max Payne 3, Sleeping Dogs
When testing Max Payne 3 at 1920x1200 the Radeon R9 270X was just 2% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 but 44% faster than the GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X was 5% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 and 20% faster than the GTX 650 Ti.
Here the Radeon R9 270X was 7% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 and 26% faster than the GeForce GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X was 9% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 and 20% faster than the GTX 650 Ti.
Benchmarks: Medal of Honor, Hitman
When testing Medal of Honor the Radeon R9 270X was 5% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 and 16% faster than the GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X on the other hand was 5% faster than the 7790 and 7% faster than the GTX 650 Ti.
Here we see just a 3% increase in performance for the Radeon R9 270X when compared to the Radeon HD 7870. The Radeon R7 260X on the other hand was 19% faster than the 7790 in this test.
Benchmarks: Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 6
The Radeon R9 270X was just 5% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 in Tomb Raider and 2% faster than the GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X was also 5% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 but 10% slower than the GeForce GTX 650 Ti.
When testing Resident Evil 6 we found that the Radeon R9 270X was 4% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 and 8% faster than the GeForce GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X was 11% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 but 1% slower than the GTX 650 Ti.
Benchmarks: BioShock Infinite, Metro Last Light
Bioshock was another rare case where the Radeon R9 270X was considerably faster than the Radeon HD 7870 though that could be down to the new drivers. With a 16% performance boost over the Radeon HD 7870 the R9 270X was 3% faster than the GeForce GTX 660. The Radeon R7 260X was also 16% faster than the Radeon HD 7790 but 5% slower than the GeForce GTX 650 Ti.
Finally we have Metro Last Light and here the Radeon R9 270X was just 3% faster than the Radeon HD 7870 while the Radeon R7 260X was 2% faster than the Radeon HD 7790.
Overclocking, Power Consumption
By overclocking the Radeon R9 270X and Radeon R7 260X we wanted to see if they could be pushed further than the Radeon HD 7870 and HD 7790, respectively. Short answer is, they cannot.
The R9 270X core was boosted by 14% to 1.2GHz while the memory was pushed just 2.1% higher to 5720MHz. The Radeon R9 270X also made a core frequency of 1.2GHz which was a 9% increase and the memory also overclocked by 2.1% to 6640MHz.
As you can see the performance gains from our overclock were slim at best as we saw just 1-2 fps more in most cases.
Power Consumption
Unsurprisingly the Radeon R9 270X and Radeon HD 7870 consumed virtually the same amount of power under load. This was also the case with the Radeon R7 260X and Radeon HD 7790.
Ahem, Old Is New Again
Having spent the last 24 hours furiously benchmaking GPUs to get this article ready, as I neared the end it occurred to me that we should have just rebadged our previous Radeon HD 7870 and 7790 reviews.
In all seriousness though, this release from AMD is disappointing to put it mildly. Essentially anyone who has purchased the Radeon HD 7870 or 7790 graphics cards basically already has the Radeon R9 270X or R7 260X. For over a year it's been possible to purchase a factory overclocked 1.1GHz Radeon HD 7870, while 7790 cards running at 1075MHz have been around for the better part of 6 months.
Only later this month we'll get to the R7 290 and 290X which are true new products, even if only a fraction of gamers will set aside $700 to buy one.
As before, we hope this review serves the purpose of refreshing where mid-range GPUs stand, old name or new, as well as retesting with the latest drivers and considering new price points, after all the Radeon HD 7870 was $350 when it launched 18 months ago, while today (270X) it can be bought for an attractive $200.
Getting to the results we find that on average the Radeon R9 270X was 6% faster than the Radeon HD 7870, since its core is overclocked by 5% with 17% faster memory this makes sense. The Radeon R7 260X did slightly better when compared to its rebadged part the Radeon HD 7790 as it was on average 9% faster. That said the core was clocked 10% higher with an 8% faster memory frequency.
Compared to Nvidia’s offerings, the Radeon R9 270X faces the GeForce GTX 660 ($200), the R9 270X will be around $20 more than most GTX 660 cards. Still the Radeon R9 270X was on average 18% faster.
Then we have the Radeon R7 260X which is said to cost $140, placing it in direct competition with the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, a card that is ~10% slower. While this does help to strengthen AMD’s position against Nvidia’s in the sub-$200 market we expect Nvidia to cut prices of competing cards next month.
Finally, we have the issue of the new naming scheme which normally we wouldn’t get too caught up with, except for the fact that AMD thought it wise to implement a radically different naming scheme on a run of rebadging. With the absence of the R9 290X the most significant change that has come with the new RX 200 series thus far is the naming scheme. Of course, we still have the Mantle API to explore but with limited information available and Battlefield 4 still yet to be released we don’t have much to go on just yet.
0 comments:
Post a Comment