GTX 970 vs. R9 280

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
JackNaylorPE



Again, read more closely, you are comparing apples and oranges...... the graph is at as described at 1920 x 1080 and as i said the 970 wins there (both stock and OC'd). I only put 1 graph up so as not to clog the board

perfrel_2560.gif


As you can see above, the 290x **is** 3% faster at stock speeds **outta the box** ... but 970 overclocks better so when both are...
Sort by date Sort by votes


How does the 290x win?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Direct answer: The 970 is better in every way over the 280
Differences: 970 runs cooler and quieter and uses less power.
Similarities: Both have 3GB+ video RAM and support 1080p and 1440p resolutions very well.

When you consider performance per dollar, the R9 290x is very good competition for the 970 and may be a better deal if you can get a 290x on sale.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Okay, I'm sorry. The graph shows the 970 above 290x, and 290x is better? I'm confused.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What display resolution are you planning to use with the graphics card? If it's above 1920x1080 then the R9 290X will be the better performing card.

If your display resolution is 1920x1080 then get the GeForce GTX 970.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I will be using two 1680x1050 monitors, so 3360x1050. But I will not use both for gaming.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


3360x1050 in 2D is no problem for either card.

1680x1050 for gaming favors the GeForce GTX 970.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What FPS drops can I expect in 1680x1050 from the 970 to the 290x?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


On average about a 5% drop in performance at that display resolution based on reference design cards.

If you want a specific FPS drop number you will have to specify the brand and model of the graphics cards being compared and the specific game, assuming there are benchmarks available.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The 290x does wins at 1440p ... as I said ..... "outta the box" (above image is 1080p) but overclocked at 1440p, though the 970 lags by 3% in the box, the 970s much larger overclocking headroom pushes it about 3% past the 290x.

With the 290x costing $315 (for the Sapphire with 10% off coupon and $20 MIR), I don't know where this "cheaper thing" comes from at least if we are talking ones peeps actually want to buy....

The MSI 970 is $320 but it comes with a $60 game coupon (net $240) and if ya figure in the cost of the bigger PSU for the 290x .....

 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Again, read more closely, you are comparing apples and oranges...... the graph is at as described at 1920 x 1080 and as i said the 970 wins there (both stock and OC'd). I only put 1 graph up so as not to clog the board

perfrel_2560.gif


As you can see above, the 290x **is** 3% faster at stock speeds **outta the box** ... but 970 overclocks better so when both are overclocked, it is able to overtake and pass the 290x.





What FPS drops can I expect in 1680x1050 from the 970 to the 290x?

[/quotemsg]

At 3360, you are talking 1.7 times more pixels than 1080p or approximately the same as 1440p

3360 x 1050 = 3,528,000 pixels
2560 x 1440 = 3,686,400 pixels

That is **not** going to be a small hit, more like 25 - 50% than 5%.....on the MSI 970 for example

Crysis 3 drops from 42 fps to 25.4
BF4 drops from 77.9 fps to 50.2
Far Cry 3 drops from 62.6 fps to 39.3
Tomb Raider drops from 59.5 fps to 35.0
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Why don't you use a chart that is closer to the OP's display resolution instead of one that is well beyond it?

Where's this "... more like 25 - 50% than 5% ..." that you claim?

From TechPowerUp's review of the MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4 GB:

perfrel_1600.gif


Reference Design GeForce GTX 970 to Reference Design Radeon R9 290X @ 1600x900 display resolution:

1.1% in favor of the R9 290X
crysis3_1600_900.gif


7.2% in favor of the GeForce GTX 970
bf4_1600_900.gif


12.7% in favor of the GeForce GTX 970
farcry3_1600_900.gif


3.3% in favor of the R9 290X
tombraider_1600_900.gif


Nothing even close to a 25 - 50% difference anywhere.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


For the games/tasks I'll be doing, GTX 980 wins.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Uhm, no. The 285 is just an oddball. The 285 only has 2GB of memory and the 280/280x have 3GB, big difference.

I am a budget minded individual so I would opt for the 280x. It has enough memory and performance to play all the games and will not set you back as far.

In terms of performance the R9 290x and GTX 970 really trade blows and noticeable difference between the two is very minimal, both great cards. If I had to pick one or the other new though; thanks to its efficiency, low operating temperature/cost, and overclocking headroom I would chose the GTX 970. If I were buying used, I would get the R9 290x because they can be found for quite a good deal on ebay if you wait one out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Tonga PRO is the successor to the Tahiti PRO GPU.

The display resolution, being discussed, is 1680x1050.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They are the same chip, reworked and renamed so it's a moot point. From the 7770 to current it is really still the same GPU just with increased efficiency. But all the same, the 285 was not a replacement for the 280x. It has less memory. I also am not discussing resolutions, because sure on paper it can be debated back and forth all day which is better at what resolution but both are going to have you playing your games the way you would like at most settings (barring extremely high resolutions of course.) Which is why my end suggestion was for the 280x, as my suggestions are generally the most budget friendly ones (because I too am broke).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Who said it was?

It was intended to be the replacement for the Radeon R9 280.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I guess that would be you that said it is the replacement. And just so we are clear the 285 is not a replacement for the 280 either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom