GTX 970 or R9 390 for 1440p ???

[newtekie1]

Yeah, if you're planning on getting a refurbished GPU. All of the EVGA cards new start at ~320 USD on NewEgg. I would say the price on them is the same.

That is why I posted the Zotac. The 970 is cheaper.

Uhh...That's not true...

GTX 970 has less VRAM (Including a segmented VRAM system), Lower Stock performance, Coil Whine, and needs significant overclocking to match small overclocking from the R9 390. Plus its more like 40 watts different dude to 50 depending on clocks but that's the same for Both cards when comparing their power consumption.

Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?

The only gtx970 i havent read about coilwhine is the msi 10 ME ,but its close to $350

I think coil whine was largely a first batch issue. I don't have noticeable coil whine on any of my 970s.

 

[Xzibit]

Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?

Its 70w on the method its being tested

Average: Metro: Last Light at 1920x1080 because it is representative of a typical gaming power draw. The average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen) is used. In order to heat up the card, the benchmark is run once without measuring power consumption.

Here is another test at a higher resolution.

If he is planning to play at 1440p in the future with the purchase of a new monitor, power consumption difference isn't that much.

AMD CCC also includes FRTC if his monitor is a set frequency he can enable it for extra power savings if that's a concern.

 

[jboydgolfer]

i wish i was your friend....im actually in the market for a GPU, and too broke to buy one... poor me. the envy is real

as far as the issue in the title, id go with the 390 for the RAM, and unless im mistaken it has more HP...not much more, but more, and i thing they cost less, or there about the same price...yeah the 390 is the better deal.

 

[NC37]

At this point I wonder if newtekie works for nVidia because he's got a serious hard on for 970s...lol

I wouldn't even come close to considering a 970. Just because of the VRAM issue. I'm a nVidia user right now too and I don't mind their cards, but I've known a lot of people who dumped their 970s for 980s or who can attest how bad that performance hit is when it comes. If someone is telling you that it is a non issue and that 4GB is all you need right now, then they are likely a person that is prone to dumping their cards every gen and have the money to waste even if they make a bad purchase.

The 3.5GB issue is going to be a worse problem within a year or two. The fact that it is already a problem now is not a good sign. Games are going to push past 4GB. You can count on that.

The 390 is also not a bad performer. Perhaps in a couple of titles a 970 can beat it but if you look at the majority of titles you'll often find 390s going head to head with 980s. Especially overclocked models. Clock it and you've got a 390X. The performance gap is not that big. You are also using a res that is higher than 1080 so i'd expect to see the VRAM issue affecting you sooner in the future. 1080 gamers and under might skirt by a little longer but higher than that, no way.

However, both gens are stopgap gens right now. If you can wait half a year, I'd wait. Much better boards coming. I'm not surprised that nVidia is canning their 2GB 960s because it is painfully clear how underspecced their cards are in the VRAM area. If you have to buy now, I'd buy 6GB and up cards.

 

[newtekie1]

Its 70w on the method its being tested

Here is another test at a higher resolution.

It is 70w, even more when overclocking. W1z's has probably the most accurate power measurement tests out there. At the very least they are way more accurate than any review that still uses total system power.

At this point I wonder if newtekie works for nVidia because he's got a serious hard on for 970s...lol

If it helps ease your mind any, I've got more AMD GPUs than nVidia. I have so many 970s because I got them cheap from people that seemed to think the memory issue was a big deal and wanted to sell the cards off. Works for me, now I get to fold with them.

I wouldn't even come close to considering a 970. Just because of the VRAM issue.

It isn't really an issue. Even at 4k the cards work beautifully. The memory thing was blown way out of proportion.

who can attest how bad that performance hit is when it comes.

I have yet to find actual 970 uses saying the problem is really bad. I see a lot of people that never even owned 970s saying the problem is terrible, I've seen people trying to run GTA:V of their hard drive try to blame the horrible stuttering on the 970, with screen shots of the memory used not even being anywhere near 3.5GB point. The only game I ever had an issue with was Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra-HD texture pack installed, and that uses a down right stupid amount of VRAM for no noticeable visual benefit. It was mainly just created for the purpose of using stupid amounts of VRAM.

The 3.5GB issue is going to be a worse problem within a year or two. The fact that it is already a problem now is not a good sign.

It isn't an issue now, and it likely won't be an issue in the future. The GPU is going to run out of horsepower before the VRAM becomes an issue.

The 390 is also not a bad performer. Perhaps in a couple of titles a 970 can beat it but if you look at the majority of titles you'll often find 390s going head to head with 980s.

Actually, as I already pointed out, it is within 1-2% overall. It doesn't come close to going head to head with the 980s in the majority of titles. That is just completely BS.

You are also using a res that is higher than 1080 so i'd expect to see the VRAM issue affecting you sooner in the future. 1080 gamers and under might skirt by a little longer but higher than that, no way.

Yeah right, look at some of the performance analyses W1z does. The Witcher III at 4K, maxed out, uses 1.75GB. And that game looks freaking awesome. There has to be something to the fact that W1z has, on multiple occasions, recommended 970 SLI for 4K over other options like the Titan X. He doesn't seem to think the memory is an issue. But, yeah, we're really going to need a shit ton of RAM if you want to go over 1080...:rollseyes:

I'm not surprised that nVidia is canning their 2GB 960s because it is painfully clear how underspecced their cards are in the VRAM area.

For 1080p the 960 is specced just fine. And where is this news that nVidia is canning the 960? Because I haven't heard it.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Presented the OP with the information he needs, so I'm done here. No point in arguing back and forth.

 

[Xzibit]

It is 70w, even more when overclocking. W1z's has probably the most accurate power measurement tests out there. At the very least they are way more accurate than any review that still uses total system power.

If all you do is play Metro Last Light @ 1080p then they are the most accurate there is.

 

[Kanan]

Go with a 290X if you can find one, else take the 390. Why? Because it has simply a LOT more power than a 970 in DX12 and some DX11 games. 4 (real) or 8 GB Ram is also a plus.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/

a only 1000 MHz clocked 290 wins against a high clocked 970 in the new Star Wars. 390s are clocked even higher. 290X too and are about 10-15% faster in that game.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/

here a 970 gets completely destroyed in Fable, a viable upcoming DX12 game. No strategy game like Ashes and not "powered by AMD". Simply the vastly bigger shader array of the 290/390 / 290X/390X is what matters here. Asynchronous compute will set GeForce cards behind even more. The 980 Ti is a exception in that matter, but of no relevance here.

That said, I'd never buy a 970. Good cards for good prices now are 290X / 390 and 780 Ti. My 2 cents.

 

[jormungand]

Go with a 290X if you can find one, else take the 390. Why? Because it has simply a LOT more power than a 970 in DX12 and some DX11 games. 4 (real) or 8 GB Ram is also a plus.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/

a only 1000 MHz clocked 290 wins against a high clocked 970 in the new Star Wars. 390s are clocked even higher. 290X too and are about 10-15% faster in that game.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/

here a 970 gets completely destroyed in Fable, a viable upcoming DX12 game. No strategy game like Ashes and not "powered by AMD". Simply the vastly bigger shader array of the 290/390 / 290X/390X is what matters here. Asynchronous compute will set GeForce cards behind even more. The 980 Ti is a exception in that matter, but of no relevance here.

That said, I'd never buy a 970. Good cards for good prices now are 290X / 390 and 780 Ti. My 2 cents.

ty but in no scenario ill pick a 290x. i need a new gpu by november thats why i aint waiting for pascal release. too much time without pc. and having the options of the gtx 970 and the 390 out is what im focused on. Maybe by the time im changing again my gpu the dx12 matter is already no mistery for anyone and we can decide wich way to go and wich gpu performs the best at 1440 and if the vram more than 4gb is relevant or not. but again 290x right now uhmmmm no thanks , even cheap ill not even think about it.

 

[Kanan]

Seems you don't like the 290X, can I ask why? It's the best card by far for about 250-300$ or €. Else I'd take the 390, simple. About DX12/DX11: DX11 390 and 970 are about equal in most games, I'd still favour 390 here. DX12 the 390 can only go up because of how the architecture of AMD works, its by far in the favour of the GCN based cards. The 970 can't go up because it's already at 100% speed in DX11 usage, I'd say, 95% sure about this too. You have to buy for now and the future, for me clearly the 390 wins because it's (far) better in DX12 and about equal or faster in DX11.

 

[rtwjunkie]

The 100ME from MSI is the same PCB as the gaming if the gaming has coil whine then the 100ME does too it's just that no one has gotten a card that does it yet.

No coil whine on the 100ME 970 in our house. It's an excellent card, but I've got to give the nod to the R9 390 as the better card.

I tend to think though, as @newtekie1 points out, the desire for more and more VRAM is blown out of proportion, as is the 3.5GB/4GB VRAM issue of the 970.

The Witcher 3 is proof that a properly coded game doesn't need to use massive amounts of VRAM. I tend to believe that more and more developers will learn to code more efficiently, keeping the exploaive perceived need growth of VRAM from continuing to grow.

 

[GhostRyder]

That is why I posted the Zotac. The 970 is cheaper.


Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?

I think coil whine was largely a first batch issue. I don't have noticeable coil whine on any of my 970s.

I don't believe anything I said was directly rude, however I do believe your statements towards 970 vs 390 debates a bit too one sided since you keep claiming the 970 is just in every way superior minus VRAM which is not true. Even the chart you showed above places it above the 970 at stock performance. Not to mention that is one card and its specifically one of the lower variants of the 390 (Similar to the gigabyte one). Most other sites show a much more different light (Plus its an OC variant that is cheap compared to a reference 970 even if its not much OCed they generally overcompensate for them).

Plus all other reviews out there seem to put them closer to 50watt difference give or take. not claiming his are wrong, just claiming its all dependent on the cards supplied and the games tested etc.

The point is for the OP's benefit so we should suggest the best performing card for that benefit (Or what fits the OP's requirements).

No coil whine on the 100ME 970 in our house. It's an excellent card, but I've got to give the nod to the R9 390 as the better card.

I tend to think though, as @newtekie1 points out, the desire for more and more VRAM is blown out of proportion, as is the 3.5GB/4GB VRAM issue of the 970.

The Witcher 3 is proof that a properly coded game doesn't need to use massive amounts of VRAM. I tend to believe that more and more developers will learn to code more efficiently, keeping the exploaive perceived need growth of VRAM from continuing to grow.

While I share your ideals I doubt it will happen. Its going to come down to what is handed to developers and with time becoming more and more of a constraint we get sloppy coding. Games could use less VRAM but they continue to increase and they probably will continue forward unfortunately.

 

[PCGamerDR]

I had the same question a few months ago and went with the r9 290.

I'd say you could try to find a brand new r9 290 instead of the 390 as it could be a LOT cheaper than the 390 and possibly the 970 but yeah the 970 has weird vRAM amounts with less power consumption and better OC while the 390 has more vRAM with slightly higher power consumption and less OC headroom. The only game that has filled about 3.9Gb vRAM @2560x1600 is Shadow of Mordor, TW3 and Mad Max get up to 2.4GB.

 

[Xzibit]

While I share your ideals I doubt it will happen. Its going to come down to what is handed to developers and with time becoming more and more of a constraint we get sloppy coding. Games could use less VRAM but they continue to increase and they probably will continue forward unfortunately.

If ARK is any indication they pretty much gave up until UE does it for them. While you have Lionhead actively submitting their changes to UE and UE adding it to their engine. DX12 is going to further separate the good & bad developers.

 

[johnspack]

970 or 980. It's why I just spent 500can for a 970 even though thats more than I have to live on for a month after rent. Charge cards are nice!

 

[jormungand]

Seems you don't like the 290X, can I ask why? It's the best card by far for about 250-300$ or €. Else I'd take the 390, simple. About DX12/DX11: DX11 390 and 970 are about equal in most games, I'd still favour 390 here. DX12 the 390 can only go up because of how the architecture of AMD works, its by far in the favour of the GCN based cards. The 970 can't go up because it's already at 100% speed in DX11 usage, I'd say, 95% sure about this too. You have to buy for now and the future, for me clearly the 390 wins because it's (far) better in DX12 and about equal or faster in DX11.

is just a matter of spending money in new tech. for me 250/300 for a 290x right now is like ... why i didnt payed 300/330 for a 390 or the gtx 970 if i had the money. remember i dont take the r9 290x cuz ill not change my card at least for 2 years. and those two are more reliable for the upcoming games/dx12 etc.....

 

[Devon68]

From your posts it seems you already made up your mind for the R9 390 so it's only the matter of which brand to choose.

 

[jormungand]

From your posts it seems you already made up your mind for the R9 390 so it's only the matter of which brand to choose.

LOLOL!! not yet thinking on MSI both sides.

 

[GreiverBlade]

if you do get AMD, you will just keep blaming AMD for any driver issues blah blah..

well ... no, in all the years i used a AMD GPU i had no driver complain unlike my current period with a Nvidia GPU (980) ahah! (latest AMD GPU was a 290 for me )

tho i would also recommend Nvidia in that instance except that i would recommend a 980 for 1440p, as i use DSR 1323p which is close to 1440p
don't settle for less than 4gb ... ok ... bad joke tho i hope you don't plan to run a 1440p heavily moded full detail Skyrim on a 970
or a 390/390X since both are above (slightly) a 970 and no ... i will not "cost" you a lot on your yearly electricity bill if you go AMD (that's a "half" cliché, it will cost more but it's marginal )

edit: "LOLOL!" ... maybe you should stop DOTA after sleep and start LOL instead (joking joking )

 

[Ebo]

OP

If you can wait until next generation comes out, then you can have my card for free, just pay the shipping.

 

[Aquinus]

tho i hope you don't plan to run a 1440p heavily moded full detail Skyrim on a 970
or a 390/390X since both are above (slightly) a 970

High res textures in Skyrim at 5760x1080 ran flawlessly on my 390. Almost never would it fully peg out the GPU or consume more than 2.5-3GB of VRAM. Just saying.

For what it's worth, Farcry 4 did on rare occasions touch 4GB of VRAM in surround. I seriously don't think we're that far off from some games taking advantage of that. Even some UE4 demos that have run flawlessly on my 390 have used over 3GB of VRAM. The Witcher 3 looks good because it's a lot of post processing, tessellation, and geometry effects whereas a game like Farcry 4 is a little more texture heavy so, it depends on the game.

My simple point is that I don't think it will be long before we see games utilizing more than 4GB of VRAM and AMD cards tend to be a little heavier handed with the number of TMUs than ROPs so, it's entirely possible that as more VRAM is used for texturing that loss in performance may be relatively minimal if there are resources in the GPU getting under utilized because all of the effects TW3 relies on that is more compute/geometry related as opposed to texture related.

The 390 and 970 both have their strong points, best not to lose sight of that. 970 has more pixel pumping power, that's without a doubt but, it doesn't compare to the 390's compute or texturing capability so, it depends on the game and how much AA you're applying because nVidia's faster ROPs tend to give them an advantage on things like AA.

 

[Flow]

Well jormungand , I just ordered the msi 390 Gaming card. I too was looking between 970 and 390 cards. But overall the 390 cards seemed to fare slightly better in various reviews.
I'm not one of the persons that believe more than 3GB video ram will be needed for future games, but I'm satisfied with 8GB nonetheless.
The power requirements is different though, the 390 consumes/needs more than the 970 cards. With the small difference in performance this could be a dealbreaker, if you're into that or have a psu that's barely cutting your needs.

If you go 390, I would recommend the msi card, which seems to do well overall according to various reviews. Noise levels and cooling seems adequate for this card.
As for the 970, I looked at the asus strix, which seems a good card also.

 

[Aquinus]

If you go 390, I would recommend the msi card, which seems to do well overall according to various reviews. Noise levels and cooling seems adequate for this card.

I would have to say that is an accurate assessment as an owner of one. Big card is big though. The heatsink and card alone take up 2 slots, the partial use of the third is really just for the shroud and the fans. Either way, it's a decent cooler.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

theres the drivers matter too.

If drivers matter don't even consider AMD. Their driver support sucks. They only release drivers every 4+ months! And the company is in serious danger of going under, which means no driver support at all.

 

[happita]

Either get the Sapphire NITRO R9 390 or the MSI R9 390 and be done with it already..

I would personally lean towards the Sapphire because every card I've owned by them have been nothing short of great.

 

[jormungand]

OP

If you can wait until next generation comes out, then you can have my card for free, just pay the shipping.

Many thanks man but i cant wait ..... really apreciate your help many thanks again but i myself am a vicious addict to at least spend one hour playing everyday. I can go to bed without it or ill be feeling in the morning a emptiness in me, seriously.