Ok, look, I just couldn't do it, all right? I couldn't bring myself to spend hours testing the 270X and 280X against their not-quite-identical counterparts in the Radeon HD 7000 series in order to show you the small-percentage performance differences involved. Testing like we do takes a lot of work, and we already know the stakes here are pretty darned low.
Rather than look at incredibly minor differences under the microscope, I chose to test the new Radeons against the direct competitors from Nvidia. I've also tested against a couple of much older Radeons, the HD 5870 and 6970, in order to show would-be upgraders what they're missing. I think that will make for a more interesting comparison.
|Radeon HD 5870||27||68/34||2.7||0.9||154|
|Radeon HD 6970||28||85/43||2.7||1.8||176|
|Radeon R9 270X||34||84/42||2.7||2.1||179|
|Radeon R9 280X||32||128/64||4.1||2.0||288|
There's a case to be made that the Pitcairn chip in the R9 270X is pretty much just a newer, smaller version of two legendary Radeons of yore, the HD 5870 and HD 6970. You can see how closely they match up in nearly every key category except for rasterization rate. Thing is, the 270X's GCN architecture ought to be more efficient, allowing it to achieve higher performance despite similar theoretical peak specs. I'm curious to see how this contest plays out.
The performance results you'll see on the following pages come from capturing and analyzing the rendering times for every single frame of animation during each test run. For an intro to our frame-time-based testing methods and an explanation of why they're helpful, you can start here. Please note that, for this review, we're only reporting results from the FCAT tools developed by Nvidia. We usually also report results from Fraps, since both tools are needed to capture a full picture of animation smoothness. However, testing with both tools can be time-consuming, and our window for work on this review was fairly small. We think sharing just the data from FCAT should suffice for this review, which is generally about incremental differences between video cards based on familiar chips.
Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Our test systems were configured like so:
|Chipset||Intel X79 Express|
|Memory size||16GB (4 DIMMs)|
DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz
|Memory timings||9-9-9-24 1T|
|Chipset drivers||INF update
Rapid Storage Technology Enterprise 184.108.40.2069
with Realtek 220.127.116.1162 drivers
|Hard drive||OCZ Deneva 2 240GB SATA|
|Power supply||Corsair AX850|
|OS||Windows 7 Service Pack 1|
|GeForce GTX 660||GeForce 331.40 beta||980||1033||1502||2048|
|GeForce GTX 760||GeForce 331.40 beta||980||1033||1502||2048|
|GeForce GTX 770||GeForce 331.40 beta||1046||1085||1753||2048|
|Radeon HD 5870||Catalyst 13.11 beta||850||-||1200||2048|
|Radeon HD 6970||Catalyst 13.11 beta||890||-||1375||2048|
|Radeon R9 270X||Catalyst 13.11 beta||?||1050||1400||2048|
|Radeon R9 280X||Catalyst 13.11 beta||?||1070||1600||3072|
Thanks to Intel, Corsair, Gigabyte, and OCZ for helping to outfit our test rigs with some of the finest hardware available. AMD, Nvidia, and the makers of the various products supplied the graphics cards for testing, as well.
Also, our FCAT video capture and analysis rig has some pretty demanding storage requirements. For it, Corsair has provided four 256GB Neutron SSDs, which we've assembled into a RAID 0 array for our primary capture storage device. When that array fills up, we copy the captured videos to our RAID 1 array, comprised of a pair of 4TB Black hard drives provided by WD.
Unless otherwise specified, image quality settings for the graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.
In addition to the games, we used the following test applications:
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.