Clearly a superior product to the reference Radeon R9 290X, the ASUS R9 290X DirectCUII brings out the untapped power of the Hawaii Island GPU. Let’s break down the score:
- Performance. All throughout the test, the R9 290X trades blows with the 780Ti and manages to drop it straight out in AMD-optimized games for max FPS. The significant improvement over reference extends when overclocking the card squeezing out more performance from the already powerful R9 290X.
- Build Quality. ASUSÂ has really set out to impress with this new series of DirectCUII cards. The cooler manages to pack cooling power in a 2-slot design. Also worth noting is the quality of the components used which lets us take our card to the next level. Add to this the array of overclocking tools and you have a well-rounded card for the most discerning enthusiast.
- Functionality. The card chews up any game up to 2560×1440, going to 4K resolution at max details taxes all our high-end cards but toning down, we can get much better framerates.
- Bundle. Select AMD vendors offer the Gaming Evolved bundle which bundles a couple of games with your graphic card purchase. This specific SKU does not include ANY GAME.
- Value. Coming in at ₱37,990, this card is by no means affordable. ASUS has went out of their way to deliver a proper R9 290X and boy are they charging a premium for it. Moreover, the lack of bundled games seriously hurts this product.
The ASUS Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC is what the AMD Radeon R9 290X is meant to be. There is just no going around it, with AMD stumbling on their reference card they left it to the AIB partners to come-up with custom-cooled SKUs to push the R9 290X out in the market. To this end, ASUS delivers the goods weaving gold from straws with its solution.
The ASUS Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC is simply the perfect version of the R9 290X but being a member of the DCU2O club demands a little premium. The card could be much more desirable if it was around the Php30k/USD680 mark where it competes directly with the reference NVIDIA 780Ti.
Regardless, we cannot deny the performance the card offers.
ASUS backs the Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC with a 3-year warranty. We award the Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC with our B2G Bronze Award and Performance Award.
6 Comments
I’m sorry but it is rather disingenuous to rate graphics performance by maximum FPS, instead of Average FPS. I’m getting the feeling that you guys don’t play a lot of games, to not realize something as technically fundamental as that.
Looking at the graphs, I don’t see that the graphics performance was rated by maximum FPS. Are we reading the same article?
Please take a look at the last chart on page #4 for example. It is for “Torchlight II”. The Asus 290X DCU2O OC is positioned at the bottom of the chart based on it’s max FPS (158) being the lowest, even though by it’s average FPS (150.64) it should be placed at the 2nd position. Similarly, in the chart for “Bioshock Infinite” (2560×1440, Ultimate), the 290s are placed at the top even though the 780s have a significantly higher average frame rate. If you look carefully at the charts for other games, it becomes obvious that the performance is being rated based on max FPS, which is technically unsound, because max FPS numbers are based on random performance spikes and hence are never a fair representation of a GPU’s true capability.
Also, it is important to note that high max FPS but low average FPS is indicative of performance inconsistency of the GPU under that particular workload, which means unpleasant stuttering with V-Sync turned on, and significantly profuse screen tearing with V-Sync turned off. Both the scenarios lead to a much poorer user experience, as any regular PC gamer would tell you.
For comparison, please visit a proper hardware review site (e.g. Anandtech.com, Tomshardware.com, Guru3d.com, etc) and look into their benchmark charts, where the Max FPS is often not even mentioned.
We used to only display average FPS for the comparative charts but when readers started demanding they wanted to see both min and max in the graphs.
That said, I can see the flaw in this and we will devise another format for our GPU performance charts.
Cheers. Apart from the aforementioned problem I appreciate the to-the-point article and the format of your site.
Appreciate the inputs also. I look forward to using your advice in our upcoming GPU reviews.