andy_Man :
I am very disappointed in this article. Usually I agree with a lot of the conclusions, but I can't this time.
The gtx 970 and the r9 390 both retail for around $300 right now. There is no reason a gtx 970 should be recommended above the r9 390 if you are being objective about price to performance.
Heck, the r9 390 should be the recommended card over the gtx 980.
The gtx 970 and the r9 390 both retail for around $300 right now. There is no reason a gtx 970 should be recommended above the r9 390 if you are being objective about price to performance.
Heck, the r9 390 should be the recommended card over the gtx 980.
that's pretty much how i feel about it. the reviews have shown it matches the 970 at lower resolutions and beats it easily at higher resolutions. for the same money this sure seems like a check in the win box to me.
i know folks love to talk about the power usage but when looking at high performance cars, no one really looks at mpg. if a car is faster, then it's faster. and the 390 is faster from all i have seen. the honorable mention of the 970 for it's power usage is fine as it surely is a factor in some cases. but for all out performance, not giving the 390 the nod is pretty much false info.
but the article does not really call one better than the other. it is presented as a tie which is a pretty cheap way to avoid declaring the 390 the winner and the 970 as an afterthought. guess they don't want to upset the nvidia followers or something......