GTX 970 or R9 390 please help!

[treewilly]

Hello, I am due an upgrade from my R7 265.
I have two cards in my sight right now, and it is the GTX 970 and the R9 390.
What I have come to understand is that the R9 390 is more expensive than the 970, yet right now, there is a great deal on Amazon for an XFX R9 390, and was wondering if I should go ahead and buy this one, or spend a bit more and get a different brand, maybe the 970? I also know that the 970 has the 3.5GB GDDR5 issue, so I don't know if it is still a worthy card.
I play at 1080p 60Hz
Thanks!

Link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/XFX-Radeon-Graphics-Card-GDDR5/dp/B00ZCBDUXQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438375492&sr=8-2&keywords=r9+390

 

[fudgecakes99]

yes buy the 390 it has 8 gigs of vram and if you plan on doing higher then 1080p res. it'll outperform the 970 easily. It'll work better in an sli/crossfire set up too. It also has higher frames on most games in 1080p. go 390. Is my opinion granted the 970 only has 3.5 of usable ram it is also uses less power.

 

[gskill support]

It's a great card, check out the EVGA models. If you plan to do some overclocking, they can have outstanding results.

 

[Xtergo]

Get the 390 its better at performance and the 8 gb vram would help over the years. It shouldn't be more expensive than the 970 it might be just a 20 - 30 $ which is definitely better if you spend a few more. The 970 isn't worth it if better solutions are available on similar pricing.

 

[spentshells]

@1080 p there is no reason not to get the 970. It's just as fast if not faster, it uses less power and it's more affordable. Some are coming with a free AAA game as well. just some thoughts.


Hmmm I see not in north america so no game.

Look at this.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nvidia-GeForce-Strix-Graphics-Express/dp/B00NFFAW50/ref=lp_430524031_1_7?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1438378113&sr=1-7

this will crush 1080p without issue. 3.5 GB will never come into play for you unless you are going ape with skyrim mods.

 

[fudgecakes99]

255 pounds is about 398 usd while the card in usd is 339 strange markup. also heres another link to a different non reference 390

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-362-SP&campaign=affiliate/tag

sapphire makes good coolers.

 

[fudgecakes99]

But hands down the best r9 390 oc wise would have to be the msi card if you can spare the extra cash go with that. If not xfx sapphire all good brands.

 

[Bossyfins]

OCing a 390/x isn't going to be easy. They are practically at their limits.

 

[treewilly]

OCing a 390/x isn't going to be easy. They are practically at their limits.

Well, it's a good thing that I don't overclock anything!

 

[spentshells]

OCing a 390/x isn't going to be easy. They are practically at their limits.

I agree, while on the other hand a gtx 970 has long legs and can generally be overclocked quite high.

 

[fudgecakes99]

Yes, the 970 does have higher headroom for an oc. But personally i think with 3.5 gigs of vram it would be kind of wasted to an extent. That said if you're aren't going to oc. Then 390 is the best choice.

 

[andreii707]

Shadow of Mordor is also hungry on the VRAM, so keep that in mind if you plan on playing it. Both cards are great, trading blows is the best way to describe the two of them. It comes down to what you want, more headroom (referring to raw power and VRAM here) at the cost of a tad big higher power consumption and more heat or more efficiency, as in lower consumption and temperatures and more OC headroom. DX12 also seems to benefit AMD a bit more.

 

[Bossyfins]

^ Until AMD's card has been tested with dx12, I don't believe it will perform better. Only want to see benchmarks

 

[fudgecakes99]

Well i mean the way mantle and dx 12 are fairly similar. Even though mantle is gone. At least the ideas the same.

 

[Mousemonkey]

@1080 p there is no reason not to get the 970. It's just as fast if not faster, it uses less power and it's more affordable. Some are coming with a free AAA game as well. just some thoughts.


Hmmm I see not in north america so no game.

Look at this.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nvidia-GeForce-Strix-Graphics-Express/dp/B00NFFAW50/ref=lp_430524031_1_7?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1438378113&sr=1-7

this will crush 1080p without issue. 3.5 GB will never come into play for you unless you are going ape with skyrim mods.

You don't have to be in North America to get a free game.

http://www.dabs.com/products/zotac-geforce-gtx-970-4gb-pci-express-3-0-hdmi-9S1K.html?refs=58150000&src=3

 

[renz496]

At 1080p just pick the cheapest one between the two. No need to think too much about the VRAM thingy at such res

 

[sora]

If you plan on overclocking, get the NVIDIA GTX 970. Otherwise, get the AMD Radeon R9 370.

 

[faraway]

Definitely 390. Had to make the same choice myself recently, went with the 390. It's just the rational choice between the two.

 

[thelethalhorker]

255 pounds is about 398 usd while the card in usd is 339 strange markup. also heres another link to a different non reference 390

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-362-SP&campaign=affiliate/tag

sapphire makes good coolers.

All 390's are non reference.

 

[17seconds]

Seems strange that so many would recommend the 390. Checking reviews, they mostly agree that the GTX 970 is the better option at 1080p.

Quote:
"You can find the GTX 970 online for $310, which is definitely a better option in terms of performance, power draw, and noise—pretty much everything. Don't get me wrong, this isn't PowerColor's fault as their card is good for a R9 390; it's AMD's old technology and their pricing that affects the product negatively. What the R9 390 has going for it is its large 8 GB memory capacity, though it doesn't make a difference because this is a 1080p-performance-class card.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/35.html

 

[fudgecakes99]

Seems strange that so many would recommend the 390. Checking reviews, they mostly agree that the GTX 970 is the better option at 1080p.

Quote:
"You can find the GTX 970 online for $310, which is definitely a better option in terms of performance, power draw, and noise—pretty much everything. Don't get me wrong, this isn't PowerColor's fault as their card is good for a R9 390; it's AMD's old technology and their pricing that affects the product negatively. What the R9 390 has going for it is its large 8 GB memory capacity, though it doesn't make a difference because this is a 1080p-performance-class card.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/35.html

Thats just one non-reference cards, it doesn't account for sapphire,xfx,msi,gigabyte. Plus i don't think op's planning on ocing so 390 would be the logical choice.

 

[17seconds]

Seems strange that so many would recommend the 390. Checking reviews, they mostly agree that the GTX 970 is the better option at 1080p.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/35.html

Thats just one non-reference cards, it doesn't account for sapphire,xfx,msi,gigabyte. Plus i don't think op's planning on ocing so 390 would be the logical choice.

What makes it the "logical choice" if, as the article says, the GTX 970 "is definitely a better option in terms of performance, power draw, and noise—pretty much everything"? In fact, since there's so little overclocking headroom on the 390, there's basically no difference between the different brands of 390. They are all hitting the same clocks and the same performance.


Actually, according to TechPowerUp, the 290 is a better option than a 390:

"Unfortunately, that extra memory is also the reason why the price is so high compared to the R9 290 4 GB that can be found for as little as $250, a price point that delivers excellent value for the money, and you're not missing out on any features. If pricing of the R9 390 could go below $300, the card could become an interesting option for the more value-oriented buyer. So for right now, my recommendation would be a 4 GB R9 290 instead if you are looking for an affordable card that will let you play all games at 1080p."

That's also the conclusion of Guru3d:
"The differences for the 390 series and 290 series are rather small. Let's also not forget that there already have been 8 GB R9 290 and 290X graphics cards on the market for almost a year. The extra few MHz on the GPU isn't going to move mountains and the extra kick in bandwidth on the memory isn't going to make the biggest difference either as that 512-bit memory bus already delivers plenty of bandwidth. That said I think the 390 series is going to be a tough sell."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,27.html

Basically, if anyone does an honest assessment, unless the 390 is a lot cheaper, then you would either be looking at a less expensive 290 or a GTX 970. With the GTX 970 coming with a free game, there's a lot more value to be had.

 

[spentshells]

+1

 

[fudgecakes99]

Seems strange that so many would recommend the 390. Checking reviews, they mostly agree that the GTX 970 is the better option at 1080p.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/35.html

Thats just one non-reference cards, it doesn't account for sapphire,xfx,msi,gigabyte. Plus i don't think op's planning on ocing so 390 would be the logical choice.

What makes it the "logical choice" if, as the article says, the GTX 970 "is definitely a better option in terms of performance, power draw, and noise—pretty much everything"? In fact, since there's so little overclocking headroom on the 390, there's basically no difference between the different brands of 390. They are all hitting the same clocks and the same performance.


Actually, according to TechPowerUp, the 290 is a better option than a 390:

"Unfortunately, that extra memory is also the reason why the price is so high compared to the R9 290 4 GB that can be found for as little as $250, a price point that delivers excellent value for the money, and you're not missing out on any features. If pricing of the R9 390 could go below $300, the card could become an interesting option for the more value-oriented buyer. So for right now, my recommendation would be a 4 GB R9 290 instead if you are looking for an affordable card that will let you play all games at 1080p."

That's also the conclusion of Guru3d:
"The differences for the 390 series and 290 series are rather small. Let's also not forget that there already have been 8 GB R9 290 and 290X graphics cards on the market for almost a year. The extra few MHz on the GPU isn't going to move mountains and the extra kick in bandwidth on the memory isn't going to make the biggest difference either as that 512-bit memory bus already delivers plenty of bandwidth. That said I think the 390 series is going to be a tough sell."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,27.html

Basically, if anyone does an honest assessment, unless the 390 is a lot cheaper, then you would either be looking at a less expensive 290 or a GTX 970. With the GTX 970 coming with a free game, there's a lot more value to be had.

You cannot measure noise with one non reference card. They're are different setups different pcb's. Sure i'll give you the 970 is better at oc'ing and even that it does in fact use less wattage. If op plans on ocing then 970 all the way, i don't think he does. That said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVNKQj39Gkk. That 8 gigs of vram and updated architecture goes a long way and the 390 is visibly better than a 290. Granted theirs a 60+ premium on a 390 over a 290.

At 1080p trends show that vram consumption is growing gradually. But it is. For now though 3.5 gigs of vram is completley viable especially at 1080p. But personally i'd like having the extra headroom of 8 gigs. especially when the price difference is so minimal.

 

[faraway]

You cannot measure noise with one non reference card. They're are different setups different pcb's. Sure i'll give you the 970 is better at oc'ing and even that it does in fact use less wattage. If op plans on ocing then 970 all the way, i don't think he does. That said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVNKQj39Gkk. That 8 gigs of vram and updated architecture goes a long way and the 390 is visibly better than a 290. Granted theirs a 60+ premium on a 390 over a 290.

At 1080p trends show that vram consumption is growing gradually. But it is. For now though 3.5 gigs of vram is completley viable especially at 1080p. But personally i'd like having the extra headroom of 8 gigs. especially when the price difference is so minimal.

Honestly, i think people who favour the 970 by arguing that even 3.5GB is more than enough "for today" either own the card and/or just love Nvidia so much that they're simply blind to reality. I'm sure this has been discussed a million times already.

Sure VRAM isn't everything(certainly not nothing) and the two cards are very similar, with 390 usually being a bit more expensive, but at least AMD isn't deceiving people and hoping they don't find out, at least they're up-front about their product. What Nvidia did with the 970 is just unacceptable, they lied, regardless of that lie not really affecting the product performance, as its defenders argue. They should've just said "this is practically a 3.5GB card and here's how", or better yet, avoid this stupid design altogether, screw their marketing. I've relied on Nvidia for GPU so far, but that doesn't mean i'm gonna blind myself to other options when i'm in the market for a new one. Overall the 390 pretty much wins in this case.