With the 7950 and 7970 the 70 was enough faster to justify the extra $100 price tag over the 7950. With the 290 vs the 290x most of the benches have the 290 like almost neck and neck with the 290x. Did amd pull a huge derp and make their own card mostly irrelevant, save maybe for overclocking with water or cross firing?
I haven't had time to do as much research as I'd like to myself because college so I thought this the best place to ask.
You're right in your observation of the 290, but I contest some of your view. After overclocking, the 7950 and 7970 were the same situation. Very little difference and a huge increase in price. Same with the GTX 670 and 680. You could overclock beyond a 680 with some variants of the 670. It seems that there's very little difference between many different lines of graphics card. They use the same chip, with very similar capabilities. It's been this way for as long as I have observed.
Yes, after overclocking but this is even before the overclocking. I am more talking about stock.
Plus not every 7950 overclocks well.
Well it comes down to the application at the end of it. Does the application benefit from more cores or faster processing speed. Which is why the 2 cards give out similar numbers.
If you can keep the 290x cool (the 290 naturally staying cooler due to less stream processors) then it will bitch slap the 290 around as it is the better equipped card.
But yes, for people who are willing to tweak and tune the card. The 290 may actually be the better of the two in terms of Price to Performance.
My understanding of the 290 is they are already quite aggressive out of the box. That may be the limitations of the cooler. They are using the same chip, and at a similar clock speed. So imagine the 290 like a 7950 with an OC out of the box.
I'd imagine the 290x has a lot more productivity. Don't take gaming values as the only deciding factor. I think if you're purely gaming, the 290 is the card of choice.