gtx 970 vs amd 290x

[Mohamed Khaled451]

so which one should get i was sure about gtx 970 but then i heard about the memory problem

 

[CaptainTom]

so which one should get i was sure about gtx 970 but then i heard about the memory problem

Before the memory issue it was basically a toss up. They perform about the same, but the 290 is cheaper at the expense of using more energy.

However the 290 just received another price drop and the 970 apparently only has 3.5 GB of VRAM. Now the choice is obvious in my opinion. Get the R9 290, or you could even get a 290X since they are now $300.

 

[barto]

What resolution are you going to be playing on?

 

[Mohamed Khaled451]

What resolution are you going to be playing on?

probably full hd 1080p higher screen will cost more

 

[Mohamed Khaled451]

so which one should get i was sure about gtx 970 but then i heard about the memory problem

Before the memory issue it was basically a toss up. They perform about the same, but the 290 is cheaper at the expense of using more energy.

However the 290 just received another price drop and the 970 apparently only has 3.5 GB of VRAM. Now the choice is obvious in my opinion. Get the R9 290, or you could even get a 290X since they are now $300.

but doesn't amd sometimes have problems with games like ac unity or fur in farcry 4

 

[barto]

probably full hd 1080p higher screen will cost more

Then either one will do. There are some games that run over 2GB @ 1080. I still don't think the 970 GTX is a bad option. 3.5 GB is still very good.

 

[Mohamed Khaled451]

probably full hd 1080p higher screen will cost more

Then either one will do. There are some games that run over 2GB @ 1080. I still don't think the 970 GTX is a bad option. 3.5 GB is still very good.

but isn't there some technology new one i think makes me run even 4k on a 1080p screen ?

 

[CaptainTom]

so which one should get i was sure about gtx 970 but then i heard about the memory problem

Before the memory issue it was basically a toss up. They perform about the same, but the 290 is cheaper at the expense of using more energy.

However the 290 just received another price drop and the 970 apparently only has 3.5 GB of VRAM. Now the choice is obvious in my opinion. Get the R9 290, or you could even get a 290X since they are now $300.

but doesn't amd sometimes have problems with games like ac unity or fur in farcry 4

The short answer is "No". Fur is available for AMD cards but "Nvidia Fur" isn't. I can't tell the difference between them except "Nvidia Fur" lowers my framerates. Don't fall for the "Gameworks" marketing gimmicks.

As for Unity...That game just doesn't run well on any card.

 

[CaptainTom]

probably full hd 1080p higher screen will cost more

Then either one will do. There are some games that run over 2GB @ 1080. I still don't think the 970 GTX is a bad option. 3.5 GB is still very good.

3.5GB is fine, but it isn't as good as 4GB. Plus some games in 1080p already use 4GB like Shadow of Mordor.

The fact is that 4GB is the defacto standard now, and games will be built around it. In otherwords 3.5GB isn't really much better (If at all) than 3GB, and 3GB is just enough. If you're gonna buy a new Enthusiast-Grade card, you shouldn't have to make silly sacrifices.

 

[CaptainTom]

probably full hd 1080p higher screen will cost more

Then either one will do. There are some games that run over 2GB @ 1080. I still don't think the 970 GTX is a bad option. 3.5 GB is still very good.

but isn't there some technology new one i think makes me run even 4k on a 1080p screen ?

Haha no. The only way to run 4K is with a 4K monitor. Nvidia lately has been advertising DSR as some magic way to get 4K, but all it does is render a game at 4K, and then downsize it to fit the 1080p screen.

In affect it works as really good anti-aliasing but again it doesn't look nearly as good as the real thing. AMD allows you to do the same thing. In fact, both companies have had this kind of thing forever in the form of Super Sampling.

 

[barto]

3.5GB is fine, but it isn't as good as 4GB. Plus some games in 1080p already use 4GB like Shadow of Mordor.

The fact is that 4GB is the defacto standard now, and games will be built around it. In otherwords 3.5GB isn't really much better (If at all) than 3GB, and 3GB is just enough. If you're gonna buy a new Enthusiast-Grade card, you shouldn't have to make silly sacrifices.

You pointed out the only game on the market that requires $600+ GPU to run Ultra textures as (SLI and CF are irrelevant). Let's be reasonable here. The 970 GTX destroys games just like the 290. The 3.5 GB is going to be fine and that's not an opinion. Tom's themselves said it's difficult to find a situation that the VRAM would be an issue.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

You're not sacrificing anything.

 

[CaptainTom]

3.5GB is fine, but it isn't as good as 4GB. Plus some games in 1080p already use 4GB like Shadow of Mordor.

The fact is that 4GB is the defacto standard now, and games will be built around it. In otherwords 3.5GB isn't really much better (If at all) than 3GB, and 3GB is just enough. If you're gonna buy a new Enthusiast-Grade card, you shouldn't have to make silly sacrifices.

You pointed out the only game on the market that requires $600+ GPU to run Ultra textures as (SLI and CF are irrelevant). Let's be reasonable here. The 970 GTX destroys games just like the 290. The 3.5 GB is going to be fine and that's not an opinion. Tom's themselves said it's difficult to find a situation that the VRAM would be an issue.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

You're not sacrificing anything.

7970 6GB and 290X 8GB are far cheaper than $600. There are already other games that use over 3GB like Unity and The Evil Within.

 

[Mohamed Khaled451]

you guys ended up fighting and i am more confused

 

[CAaronD]

Just go with whichever is cheaper.

 

[CaptainTom]

you guys ended up fighting and i am more confused

I wouldn't say we were fighting. We both agreed that both cards are of similar performance and that while the 3.5GB issue is a problem, it doesn't make it a bad card.

Want a recommendation? Get the 290 or 290X. They are both cheaper and offer more consistent performance. That is the unanimous answer here.

 

[barto]

7970 6GB and 290X 8GB are far cheaper than $600. There are already other games that use over 3GB like Unity and The Evil Within.

Fair enough. You can buy a slower card (used card) just because it has more VRAM or a card that's not in the OP's budget. Again, you're not being reasonable.

AC Unity: The game that no computer can run smoothly, does use more than 2GB under stable conditions. Yet the 970 ran if fine.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8738/benchmarked-assassins-creed-unity/2
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/12/22/assassins_creed_unity_performance_video_card_review/4#.VMtvcWjF-z4

Evil Within: The game that requires 4GB of system RAM but also 4GB of VRAM. Hmm, that's odd. It also does not use more than 3GB VRAM. Bethesda exaggerated usage.

As I said, either one will do fine. Neither will limit games.

 

[LucoTF]

Just go with whichever is cheaper.

End of discussion right here

 

[LucoTF]

Also if you want a 290x you need a very very beefy PSU to handle it. And the gtx 970 will have full DX12 support too.

 

[Mohamed Khaled451]

Also if you want a 290x you need a very very beefy PSU to handle it. And the gtx 970 will have full DX12 support too.

would xfx pro series 750 w bronze + 80 ok ?

 

[LucoTF]

Yes it would

 

[CaptainTom]

Also if you want a 290x you need a very very beefy PSU to handle it. And the gtx 970 will have full DX12 support too.

would xfx pro series 750 w bronze + 80 ok ?

Anything as big or bigger than 550w is more than enough. Heck Tomshardware proved that you can easily run a 295x2 on a 650w, and that thing uses nearly double the energy a 290X uses.

 

[CAaronD]

^ seems quite squeezy, haha. Well, my setup only uses around 300 watts when running quite demanding games