Confused about which GPU to buy ?

[blabla21]

Also the game im looking for to play the most currently now is The Witcher 3 , and the 390 is kinda slguggish at 45-55 average FPS at 1440p, I ahve been thiniking of going with GTX 980 Ti just for future proofing , but then again it looks like an overkill.

 

[blabla21]

Current PSU is : SilverStone Strider Essentials 550W but I will be ugprading to EVGA Supernova G2 650W

 

[RealNeil]

Yes, R9-390 is a refresh, but with several benefits added. Remember that the 290 would probably do OK for you too.


The 390 has: The 290 has:

Significantly more memory 8,192 MB vs 4,096 MB 2x more memory
Higher clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 947 MHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Higher effective memory clock speed 6,000 MHz vs 5,000 MHz 20% higher effective memory clock speed
Significantly higher memory clock speed 1,500 MHz vs 1,125 MHz Around 35% higher memory clock speed
Slightly lower TDP 275W vs 300W Around 10% lower TDP

 

[blabla21]

Also the thing about the Freesync which I dislike on this monitor is the range of it 35-90 seems very limiting and If I would take 390 I would have to limit myself to 90 FPS but since that card can push all those games at 144 FPS I think 144 Hz would be better.

 

[RealNeil]

FreeSync delivers smoother gameplay and most people can't tell much difference between 90Hz & 144Hz

(60Hz gameplay is considered normal by most people)

Any game running at 90FPS is gonna be good, especially with freesync enabled.

 

[blabla21]

Yes, R9-390 is a refresh, but with several benefits added. Remember that the 290 would probably do OK for you too.


The 390 has: The 290 has:

Significantly more memory 8,192 MB vs 4,096 MB 2x more memory
Higher clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 947 MHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Higher effective memory clock speed 6,000 MHz vs 5,000 MHz 20% higher effective memory clock speed
Significantly higher memory clock speed 1,500 MHz vs 1,125 MHz Around 35% higher memory clock speed
Slightly lower TDP 275W vs 300W Around 10% lower TDP

1) I doubt that higher memory is more beneficial towards the game I play, because I doubt I would see more than 4 GB or VRAM being used even on 4K DSR,VSR

2,3,4) I wanted to overclock any card which I would get s hopefully I f I would get 390 it could overclock more.

 

[blabla21]

FreeSync delivers smoother gameplay and most people can't tell much difference between 90Hz & 144Hz

(60Hz gameplay is considered normal by most people)

Any game running at 90FPS is gonna be good, especially with freesync enabled.

Is this from experience or just a theory ?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

For WoW you can pretty much stop considering any AMD GPU.

 

[blabla21]

Why, I know that they favour NVIDIA GPU's but is the FPS difference huge ?

 

[RealNeil]

Is this from experience or just a theory ?

I've been reading reviews about freesync for a while now. I just bought three R9-290X Tri-X Sapphire GPUs. If I didn't already own a 28" 4K screen, I would get Freesync right now.
I may get a freesync screen for one of the other PCs anyways.

I suggest that you take an evening to read about FreeSync. read AMD's take on it first, and then check out what your favorite reviewers have to say about it.
You already own half of what you need to use the technology.

 

[GhostRyder]

Also the thing about the Freesync which I dislike on this monitor is the range of it 35-90 seems very limiting and If I would take 390 I would have to limit myself to 90 FPS but since that card can push all those games at 144 FPS I think 144 Hz would be better.

Even with that range it only means that Freesync will not be active beyond 90hz meaning you do not have to limit the monitor as it will just not be active beyond that range (I actually forgot that monitors range was not up to 144hz). So for instance if you have it on and your game dips below the 144hz mark down to say 75hz you will be in the Freesync range and Freesync will be in effect. I guess by that its a little less of a bonus than what I was thinking but still worth considering and even without that your not going to be with most of your games sweating a less expensive card.

1) I doubt that higher memory is more beneficial towards the game I play, because I doubt I would see more than 4 GB or VRAM being used even on 4K DSR,VSR

2,3,4) I wanted to overclock any card which I would get s hopefully I f I would get 390 it could overclock more.

Well when it comes to overclocking sometimes it comes down to how each card reacts to overclocks. In this case, a comparison of the R9 390 vs GTX 970 while the GTX 970 overclocks significantly more (and its a close match as is to its bigger brother the GTX 980) the R9 390 still matches or outperforms it with a significantly lower core clock. Now overall the GTX 980 and 980ti will be more powerful in the end (Especially the GTX 980ti), your paying a lot more for performance you will most likely not see in the games you play (minus Witcher 3).

All I am saying is don't spend a lot more on parts you may or may not get a real benefit from in the games you play. You can save some of that money and put it towards other parts later or grab another R9 390 later and cruise along for a very long time. Each card on the list has a pro and con to it, I am just saying you may want to cut back and keep some extra money instead of paying a lot more for something you may not see. Plus think of it this way, even in the Witcher 3 if your card struggles to keep it very high (IE above 60 in all scenarios) you will have Freesync at that range which will eliminate the problems (With my experimenting with both techs, they do an excellent job at making everything feel better).

 

[blabla21]

Even with that range it only means that Freesync will not be active beyond 90hz meaning you do not have to limit the monitor as it will just not be active beyond that range (I actually forgot that monitors range was not up to 144hz). So for instance if you have it on and your game dips below the 144hz mark down to say 75hz you will be in the Freesync range and Freesync will be in effect. I guess by that its a little less of a bonus than what I was thinking but still worth considering and even without that your not going to be with most of your games sweating a less expensive card.

Well when it comes to overclocking sometimes it comes down to how each card reacts to overclocks. In this case, a comparison of the R9 390 vs GTX 970 while the GTX 970 overclocks significantly more (and its a close match as is to its bigger brother the GTX 980) the R9 390 still matches or outperforms it with a significantly lower core clock. Now overall the GTX 980 and 980ti will be more powerful in the end (Especially the GTX 980ti), your paying a lot more for performance you will most likely not see in the games you play (minus Witcher 3).

All I am saying is don't spend a lot more on parts you may or may not get a real benefit from in the games you play. You can save some of that money and put it towards other parts later or grab another R9 390 later and cruise along for a very long time. Each card on the list has a pro and con to it, I am just saying you may want to cut back and keep some extra money instead of paying a lot more for something you may not see. Plus think of it this way, even in the Witcher 3 if your card struggles to keep it very high (IE above 60 in all scenarios) you will have Freesync at that range which will eliminate the problems (With my experimenting with both techs, they do an excellent job at making everything feel better).

Well the 390 or 290 were my first choices before creating this thread, the problem about it was when Fury X and GTX 980 Ti launched I wanted to grab one of those for future proofing just because they can or will handle most new games at 1440p at max while 390 or 290 will handle a few modern fames at max at 1440p and then start to show its 'age'.I mean 390 at The Witcher 1440p maxed out without HW is at 35-50 FPS, for me thats bad.

And now that thing is what would make me jealous of seeing others get better frames with higher GPU's and then I would be afraid that I would replace it withing 5-9 months.

Concerning what you said that if I would get 980 Ti I would not get a real benefit from is something I highly agree with but this is where the DSR or VSR would be effective, if im getting too much FPS at a certain game >144 FPS I would turn on DSR or VSR at higher resolution and there I would be reaping benefits from both things.

Now I dont think my EVGA 650W Supernova G2 could handle 2 of 390's concerning high power draw.

And I agree with everything you said, the problem unfortunately is that I also was thinking about these things too, and that unfortunately cant decide what to do, I remember when 350$ was high end, this now is just ridiculous.

Also here is yet another few games I was thinking to play when they come out:

MGS V The Phantom Pain

Sword Coast Legends

Heroes of Might and Magic VII

Mafia III

Forgive me everyone for yet another long post and for being a pain in tge ass, but hopefully you can understand.

 

[RealNeil]

jealousy?

then you must buy the 980Ti and nothing else!

 

[blabla21]

Well not literally jealous I just meant, it would be frustrating to see that.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well not literally jealous I just meant, it would be frustrating to see that.

Never worry about what fps other people get. It's not a competition. If YOU are happy with what you see on your own screen, then that is all that matters!

 

[RealNeil]

Well not literally jealous I just meant, it would be frustrating to see that.

It always happens that prices change and new products come out, no matter what you buy, or when you buy it.
Life as an overclocking (or not) gamer is filled with "I should have done that instead" moments,.....so frustration abounds.

Right now, the 980Ti is the best performer over a wide swath of price points. With unlimited funds, I would get three of them for my next build.

But the R9-390 also has a lot of performance to offer and has a much lower price.
It's 8GB of memory is gonna keep it viable for a long time to come.

Good luck making up your mind.

 

[NC37]

8GB is the key factor. That might buy you a year or two more than a 4GB card will. You cannot say games will stop at 4GB and never go further, even in 1440 or under resolutions. Right now resolution is the buzz word but I'd still look at 8GB minimum just because consoles are at 8GB. Devs are lazy in ports too and you'll find multiple titles just eating up VRAM probably in another year.

The real issue with the 390 is that benches have been seeing it a bit underpowered as things get pushed hard. However, you're looking at 4k+ res situations for a lot of that.

Still, personally when I look at 390 vs 980 I see a $200 price premium for nVidia and the 390 beats it at things. That shouldn't be. nvidia really needs to readjust their pricing and bring the 980 down within reason. 4GB 980 vs an 8GB 390. Have to really consider the 390 in that case.

 

[Aquinus]

Price to performance the 390 is similar to the 290, it's a winner in a lot of respects. It's part of the reason why I got one. The 390 has a lot of geometry and texture processing power but (like every other high-end AMD GPU,) you never see more than 64 ROPs which ruins anti-aliasing performance. The question is, what will you be doing with the GPU and what will you be asking of it? If you want 8x AA across the board, get a nVidia GPU, their offerings tend to have more pixel pushing power than AMD GPUs, however AMD gpus tend to have a shit-ton of shaders are significantly more texturing capability.

Also, I think @NC37 made a good point as well:

8GB is the key factor. That might buy you a year or two more than a 4GB card will. You cannot say games will stop at 4GB and never go further, even in 1440 or under resolutions. Right now resolution is the buzz word but I'd still look at 8GB minimum just because consoles are at 8GB. Devs are lazy in ports too and you'll find multiple titles just eating up VRAM probably in another year.

The real issue with the 390 is that benches have been seeing it a bit underpowered as things get pushed hard. However, you're looking at 4k+ res situations for a lot of that.

Still, personally when I look at 390 vs 980 I see a $200 price premium for nVidia and the 390 beats it at things. That shouldn't be. nvidia really needs to readjust their pricing and bring the 980 down within reason. 4GB 980 vs an 8GB 390. Have to really consider the 390 in that case.

Consider that for the cost of a 980, you're only 33% away (cost wise,) from a second 390. Word of warning though, overclocking the 390s does suck down power and that I've seen my 390 eat more power than both of my old 6870s combined. I have hit 550-watts draw from the wall with the 390 after overclocking it. At stock, 450-watts for total system usage is realistic at 100% GPU load.

 

[GhostRyder]

​

Well the 390 or 290 were my first choices before creating this thread, the problem about it was when Fury X and GTX 980 Ti launched I wanted to grab one of those for future proofing just because they can or will handle most new games at 1440p at max while 390 or 290 will handle a few modern fames at max at 1440p and then start to show its 'age'.I mean 390 at The Witcher 1440p maxed out without HW is at 35-50 FPS, for me thats bad.

And now that thing is what would make me jealous of seeing others get better frames with higher GPU's and then I would be afraid that I would replace it withing 5-9 months.

Concerning what you said that if I would get 980 Ti I would not get a real benefit from is something I highly agree with but this is where the DSR or VSR would be effective, if im getting too much FPS at a certain game >144 FPS I would turn on DSR or VSR at higher resolution and there I would be reaping benefits from both things.

Now I dont think my EVGA 650W Supernova G2 could handle 2 of 390's concerning high power draw.

And I agree with everything you said, the problem unfortunately is that I also was thinking about these things too, and that unfortunately cant decide what to do, I remember when 350$ was high end, this now is just ridiculous.

Also here is yet another few games I was thinking to play when they come out:

MGS V The Phantom Pain

Sword Coast Legends

Heroes of Might and Magic VII

Mafia III

Forgive me everyone for yet another long post and for being a pain in tge ass, but hopefully you can understand.

Well I can see that being someone with 3 video cards

Well remember with the savings you get from the 390 you could put that money to buying an even better PSU like 850+ for dual of any card. Even on the GTX 980ti you will need more power to run a pair of them while still costing you 700 euro. That being said as well based on the prices you have listed, for the savings you could buy a nicer PSU, get a second one for 100 more than just a single GTX 980ti (which I would say wait anyways and see prices go down in the future), and be even better than before. Now that being said I will say having a single more powerful GPU is better, but in this case because of the high prices I would be inclined to buy an R9 390 and maybe a second one in your shoes mostly for the monitor support mixed with the fact you have 8gb of VRAM with two cards that together will do more than outperform a single GTX 980ti.

With the idea of DSR, that is true since you will be rendering games at 4K it will need more power so its a tough call in the end because of the pricing your seeing. I personally would say the GPU market is a bit interesting right now because most of the high end components are pretty well squeezed together which makes it hard to choose. When it comes to 4k though, since your pushing 4K 144hz essentially (Using DSR on a 1440p 144hz monitor) I doubt any of them are going to push games beyond their limits. At least on the AMD side with your current setup, you will have something to help alleviate that if the problem arises (IE Freesync) and grabbing a second one later on will better it overall while costing around just a little more (Or depending on when you buy the same) as a single GTX 980ti right now.

My opinion still stays the same on what you should buy for the best value and to take advantage of your system the most. However I can sympathize wanting to spend on a GTX 980ti as even I was considering it (Even with my 3 card setup), the thing I just want to emphasize along with the others here is that the value of the 390 in your case (And in more cases than naught) is very high compared to the value of the 980ti and would probably benefit you more with the savings and the ability to upgrade/add another later on versus buying a GTX 980ti that while is the single fastest card (minus Titan X), it hold a pretty high premium for the small difference you may see.

 

[Ikaruga]

Never worry about what fps other people get. It's not a competition. If YOU are happy with what you see on your own screen, then that is all that matters!

This! I would like to add (despite I was and I'm still an enthusiast), that if you are a true gamer and love playing games, you will play them on anything you have. Higher fps and settings would never make you play games more, only passion will, and you don't need a high spec PC for that. If you want to save money, get a 970 or a 980 (or AMD equivalent), OC the hell out of it, and play games on "high" instead of "ultra", you will lose nothing.

 

[blabla21]

Thanks guys for all the answers, Im leaning towards 390 now but I 'd appreciate any other ideas and suggestions.

 

[Devon68]

Serbia.

Ha ha ha. I know what you are talking about.
I usually buy my things from winwin.
With the price's you mentioned I think that the 390 would be the best choice.

 

[skippy258]

What is displeasing to me about R9 390 is that it is refresh of R9 290 but I might give it a try though I'm still researching.

I weighted the value of buck for bang and decided to go with R9 390 because you will need over 6 gig of ram in games on max vram or not. and the non x Fury is twice the price and not a great deal of difference other than ram size and type.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-FURY-vs-Radeon-R9-390X

 

[tabascosauz]

I weighted the value of buck for bang and decided to go with R9 390 because you will need over 6 gig of ram in games on max vram or not. and the non x Fury is twice the price and not a great deal of difference other than ram size and type.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-FURY-vs-Radeon-R9-390X

Christ alive, GPUboss? Even AT's review already said that the 4GB of VRAM is not a big deal. This is like buying the 8GB 290X over the 4GB 290X because it just has 8GB, without actually knowing what the 8GB entails for performance. "you will need over 6 gig of ram in games" I don't see the GTX 780 Ti struggling, to be frank. It's still faster than the Titan, and it doesn't have 6GB of VRAM.

 

[skippy258]

Christ alive, GPUboss? Even AT's review already said that the 4GB of VRAM is not a big deal. This is like buying the 8GB 290X over the 4GB 290X because it just has 8GB, without actually knowing what the 8GB entails for performance. "you will need over 6 gig of ram in games" I don't see the GTX 780 Ti struggling, to be frank. It's still faster than the Titan, and it doesn't have 6GB of VRAM.

Nvidia do not have the ram issue because they have the gpu, cuda and physx. Amd only have a gpu and the CPU for Physx this is why AMD need more ram for games over Nvidia cards.... thats why i said 6gig as most top games need 4gig in MAX settings and newer games will be pulling 6.0 to 6.5 gig ram and will grow over the next few years.