970 vs 390x

[Saky94]

Hey guys. Since amds new series is out, wanted to know which one will be the better option. I can afford the 390x or the 970. Please keep in mind the price/performance ratio. If you favor the 390x, will it really be worth getting it over the 970?( i only plan to do 1080p gaming for now)

 

[Forgotten031511]

The 970 is more powerful GPU, uses less power, and less heat...plus you have Physx which AMD does not have.

The R9 390 has 8GB of VRAM which is GREAT for high resolution, but if you are on 1080p, the 4GB of VRAM on the 970 is more than enough. So it really comes down to the resolution you plan to pay on. If 1080p, then for sure the 970, if higher...then there is more to compare.

 

[Creme]

The 390 is competitive with the 970 and much cheaper than the 390x, and still has 8GB. I personally think it's the best option in that price range.

Either that or wait for the R9 Nano.

I'm debating 390 or 970. To me it looks like performance is almost the same the 390 barely beating it in FPS, but the 970 runs coolr and uses less power, also don't more games use Nvidia physx and hairworks?

Nvidia's Gameworks harm their performance almost as much as it does for AMD, it's an all around cancer for PC gaming. Just look at The Witcher 3, at launch AMD was competitive except with Gameworks, after the new drivers it has surpassed Nvidia until the 980 Ti, even with Gameworks. Also, Nvidia ditched their 600 and 700 series at launch from optimizations, both in The Witcher 3 and Project Cars, who knows if the same will happen with 900.

 

[Snookslayer]

Benchmarks I've seen show the 390X is 5-15% faster than the 970 (depending on resolution). But the 390X costs 40% more. That ain't worth it to me. However the 390 has similar benchmarks and costs the same. It uses more power and is slightly hotter (not nearly as bad as the 290's), but for the same price you also get 8 Gb of vRAM.