Well, I didn't want to buy any more 290x as the priced jumped a ton, so I bought a couple XFX 290 blacks (3% stock overclock).
I have 2 Asus and one XFX 290x, all 3 run at 876KH/s. If I move the clockspeed over 920, they start to go down.
The two XFX 290 both run at 917KH/s at 1030 CPU / 1490 Mem. I can't explain it, but mine definitely mine better. All other settings are identical.
Topic: Am I reading this wrong? 290 more Hashrate than 290x? and cheaper (Read 1429 times)
January 06, 2014, 11:40:20 AM
Thought so Thank you!
January 06, 2014, 11:06:14 AM
take those values with a grain of salt.
January 06, 2014, 11:05:31 AM
Ya that sites a little inaccurate. A 290 will usually do ~800-850 pretty easily, and will have to really be pushed to get to 900, if at all.
The 290x will do 880 pretty easily, and I've heard of some people pushing them towards 950, and even approaching 1MH/s.
The 290x will be faster. Don't worry about that.
The 290x will do 880 pretty easily, and I've heard of some people pushing them towards 950, and even approaching 1MH/s.
The 290x will be faster. Don't worry about that.
January 06, 2014, 10:36:55 AM
http://www.coinminingrigs.com/amd-7950-alternatives/
It says here that the R9 290 (NON x)
Is cheaper and more hasrate than the 290x although the wattage is alittle higher. Am I reading this wrong? I thought the 290X is the more powerful, why would everyone be talking about the 290x when the 290 is faster, cheaper and only a little more power hungry than the X
Can someone correct this if its a mistake
It says here that the R9 290 (NON x)
Is cheaper and more hasrate than the 290x although the wattage is alittle higher. Am I reading this wrong? I thought the 290X is the more powerful, why would everyone be talking about the 290x when the 290 is faster, cheaper and only a little more power hungry than the X
Can someone correct this if its a mistake
Jump to: