Replacing 2 R9 290s with a Single-Slot Option

[DRosencraft]

I am looking to replace my dual GPU setup in the near future with a simpler setup, now that GPU technology has reached the point where I can get a single-slot option without losing too much in performance. Right now I have two water-cooled AMD R9 290s running two 4K displays (one at 43" the other at 28"). I want to retain that general level of GPU performance, and stick to the AMD options as they are generally more affordable. Not a whole lot of interest in desktop VR right now, so that capability isn't much of a concern either way.

I'm thinking the Fury X is probably the way to go then (can get one for ~$450). Is there a better value out there? Should I go for the Nano instead at a similar price, or a few hundred bucks cheaper on the 480? Or wait for something else from the 400 series? Any insight or recommendations would be helpful.

 

[bootcher]

Neither the Fury nor RX 480 will perform much better than your double R9 290's, not an upgrade that would be worth it in my opinion. I would consider a GTX 1070/1080 or wait for the RX 490. The RX 490 is still not officially announced but there have been rumors/leaks of it which indicate it being introduced still in 2016.

 

[photonboy]

WAIT.
WAIT.
WAIT.

performance: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html

1) Fury is no good because it has only 4GB VRAM.

2) R9-300 and previous isn't much of an upgrade, plus it will run hot as you know (which makes room hot).

3) RX-480 is not a powerful solution.

So...
1) If it has to be AMD then wait for R9-490, VEGA or whatever.

2) On the NVidia side the GTX1070, GTX1080 or upcoming GTX1080Ti are the only solutions.

Other:
a) You don't have to game at 4K resolution anyway. 2560x1440 often looks almost exactly the same.
b) NVidia has a feature called "FAST SYNC" coming which I've tested and it works great. On your 60Hz monitor, if you can output over 120FPS then it will reduce lag (less sluggish).

In the older COD 4 MW titles on my GTX680 I toggled between 120FPS and 180FPS. My screen was still vertically synched (60FPS, no screen tearing) however only the last full frame from the GPU is grabbed prior to the next monitor update. So frames are dropped, but the result is the game is less sluggish than normal 60FPS VSync'd.

Summary:
So I'd wait.

The GTX1080 is about 2X the performance of a single R9-290. So your experience will always be as good, or better than what you have now.

For most games 2560x1440 is probably ideal (especially if you can enable Fast Sync from NVidia).

The cheapest I can recommend is the GTX1070, though I'd wait a bit longer for prices to stabilize.

 

[coozie7]

If you're gaming there's no single AMD card that will outrun your dual R9 290s-apart from the R9 295x2-if you want a significant upgrade you're going to have to move over to the Green Team.

 

[DRosencraft]

The performance chart is a big help. As I said originally, my goal isn't 4K gaming, but 4K content. My brother is a content creator, so I like to have the 4K capability to see his stuff. For my own benefit I need 2 monitors (technically a monitor and a TV). The only reason I even have 2 290s is because one couldn't push both displays. In any event, it looks like I'll just wait for AMD's next offering. Thanks for all the feedback.