First of all, the 7990. That is [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355405&postcount=222"]stock[/URL] speeds, with 1500 MHz.

Also, I got the 7970 (3.7 ms) from TeknoHog, and I believe it is stock(or almost stock) because the 7970 is roughly ~15% faster than a single core of the 7990.

Let me test the speed of the 13.1 drivers later...

It would be interesting if you could run FFT test from 3-5m FFT size with 1024 between each fft size ?
that way we can sort the list and see which ones are the fastest and also compare the fft sizes to titan and 590s.

R9 290X runs double precision at 1/8 speed of single precision.

[url]http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/63742-amd-radeon-r9-290x-4gb-review.html[/url]

Well well, finally it is out.

[URL]http://anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review[/URL]
[URL]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650.html[/URL]

It looks quite powerful, tying or beating the Titan in most gaming benchmarks in high res, but compute is what really matters, I suppose. I think it will run mfakto well, not sure about clLucas.

There have been 290X (and even 290) "benchmarks" on [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]mersenne.ca[/URL] for a few weeks now. Where did they come from, and are they legit? For one thing, the prices listed for them are wrong.

[QUOTE=Jayder;357334]There have been 290X (and even 290) "benchmarks" on [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]mersenne.ca[/URL] for a few weeks now. Where did they come from, and are they legit? For one thing, the prices listed for them are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Don't ask me :razz: I'm curious to that as well.

[QUOTE=kracker;357340]Don't ask me :razz: I'm curious to that as well.[/QUOTE]

I saw it too! was weird.. since those postings need several reports to get out there.

[QUOTE=Jayder;357334]There have been 290X (and even 290) "benchmarks" on [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]mersenne.ca[/URL] for a few weeks now. Where did they come from, and are they legit? For one thing, the prices listed for them are wrong.[/QUOTE]
As the new cards are GCN as well, the new card's GFlops were used to calculate their GHz-days/day. If AMD really did some improvements to the architecture, then the cards may come out even better.

On the other hand, 280X, 290 and 290X all have a TDP of 250W - how likely is that? Is it aggressive binning or will the higher cards get to their TDP at 800 MHz while the others have room for the boost clock? The answer to that, and how much the 25% of potential boost clock really can do, will have to wait until someone buys one of these monsters.

Yes, all cards up to 290 are rebadged.

Anyways, the 7970 GHz has [URL="http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7900/Pages/radeon-7900.aspx#2"]4.3[/URL] TFlops, the 290X supposedly has [URL="http://www.techpowerup.com/191453/amd-gpu14-event-detailed-announces-radeon-r9-290x.html"]5.0 TFlops[/URL]...

[QUOTE=kracker;357945]Yes, all cards up to 290 are rebadged.

Anyways, the 7970 GHz has [URL="http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7900/Pages/radeon-7900.aspx#2"]4.3[/URL] TFlops, the 290X supposedly has [URL="http://www.techpowerup.com/191453/amd-gpu14-event-detailed-announces-radeon-r9-290x.html"]5.0 TFlops[/URL]...[/QUOTE]

Yes, at boost clock. But it seems that the stock cooler can't keep the boost for GPGPU tasks. If you manage to absorb 300W, then you should see 600 GHz-days/day.

[QUOTE=Bdot;357951]Yes, at boost clock. But it seems that the stock cooler can't keep the boost for GPGPU tasks. If you manage to absorb 300W, then you should see 600 GHz-days/day.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see. So I guess we will have to wait for non-stock cooled 290X's...