GTX 970 vs R9 390 for 1080p gaming

[Dan Marinescu]

Hello everybody!

I am about to build a new pc and I am stuck in a dilemma over the Gigabyte 970 vs MSI R9 390. I will mostly game on it, maybe some photo and video editing and some After Effects. I know that this horse has been beaten down to the ground, but I am still confused between these two. I am not going to OC them because I do not want to participate in the sillicon lottery.

What do you think about them?

 

[Brunostako]

For 1080p is quite simple, the GTX 970 is the best GPU for 1080p.

R9 390 really shines at 4K.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

But doesn't the 0.5 GB of slow VRAM issue hold the card back? I've seen some games that need more than 3.5 GB of VRAM.

 

[Brunostako]

Yes, GTX 970 has a partitioned VRAM 3.5GB + 0.5GB.

But for 1080p it never gets fully used, it's at higher resolutions when it starts to slow down.

Both cards will give great performance, don't think that the R9 390 will deliver less than 30 fps, it's just the GTX 970 will give more performance than the R9 390.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

Ok then, buddy. Thanks for your help. I will place my order tomorrow

 

[Dan Marinescu]

Yes, GTX 970 has a partitioned VRAM 3.5GB + 0.5GB.

But for 1080p it never gets fully used, it's at higher resolutions when it starts to slow down.

Both cards will give great performance, don't think that the R9 390 will deliver less than 30 fps, it's just the GTX 970 will give more performance than the R9 390.

But what vendor do you recommend? I have Gigabyte, Asus and Msi as options.

 

[Brunostako]

All are great, can't really choose.

Just take in count the type of cooling solution they use, the clock speeds and of course the price.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

All are great, can't really choose.

Just take in count the type of cooling solution they use, the clock speeds and of course the price.

The MSI is the cheapest and I heard that the cooling on their product is the best and even the turbo frequency is higher on MSI, but on Gigabyte, the base clock is higher by about 20 mhz. I think that MSI will do just fine.

 

[Snookslayer]

For 1080p is quite simple, the GTX 970 is the best GPU for 1080p.

R9 390 really shines at 4K.

At 1080, benchmarks I've seen show them being basically the same. True, higher resolution is where the 390 really does better, but when the cards are the EXACT same price, why not get 8 Gigs of RAM, rather than 3.5 Gigs?

Even if your not planning on upgrading to a higher resolution monitor, you never know what games might demand RAM wise in the future.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

For 1080p is quite simple, the GTX 970 is the best GPU for 1080p.

R9 390 really shines at 4K.

At 1080, benchmarks I've seen show them being basically the same. True, higher resolution is where the 390 really does better, but when the cards are the EXACT same price, why not get 8 Gigs of RAM, rather than 3.5 Gigs?

Even if your not planning on upgrading to a higher resolution monitor, you never know what games might demand RAM wise in the future.

The thing is that Nvidia runs cooler, consumes less power and ShadowPlay is a pretty good thing for the youtube channel that I will start. But, your point is good, 8 gigs of Vram are better. The question is: is the r9 390 advanced enough to process more than 4 gigs of vram?

 

[Snookslayer]

For 1080p is quite simple, the GTX 970 is the best GPU for 1080p.

R9 390 really shines at 4K.

At 1080, benchmarks I've seen show them being basically the same. True, higher resolution is where the 390 really does better, but when the cards are the EXACT same price, why not get 8 Gigs of RAM, rather than 3.5 Gigs?

Even if your not planning on upgrading to a higher resolution monitor, you never know what games might demand RAM wise in the future.

The thing is that Nvidia runs cooler, consumes less power and ShadowPlay is a pretty good thing for the youtube channel that I will start. But, your point is good, 8 gigs of Vram are better. The question is: is the r9 390 advanced enough to process more than 4 gigs of vram?

True, the 970 is slightly cooler (390's aren't nearly as hot as the 290's were) and consumes less power - . But those minor benefits aren't enough to offset the extra 4.5 Gigs of RAM in my mind.

People who currently use 1080 and don't foresee themselves using 2K or 4K in the future might be surprised considering how quickly prices drop. The 2K 27" monitor I've been eye-balling for about a year has dropped from $650+ and is now down to $475. I expect to keep my next video card at least three years and I'm guessing I'll probably own a 2K monitor before then if the prices keep falling like that. At the very least it'd be nice to have the option to upgrade knowing I'll have a card with 8 Gigs.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

Ok then, I will buy the R9 390. Thanks everybody for the help!

 

[Brunostako]

You're welcome and good luck.

 

[Snookslayer]

Before you invest hard earned money, take a minute looking at reviews for yourself. "970 vs 390" in Youtube results in a bunch of cool vids. I particularly like the "Tech Showdown" and "Jayz" vids, which are historically unbiased.

I have to admit, the reviews changed my thinking. I used to think the 970 was the best bang for the buck (and it was), but it seems there's a new sherrif in town. By the way I don't think the 390X is worth the extra money... 40% higher price for a meager 5-10% performance increase doesn't make a lot if sense to me.

For what it's worth some folks say the 970 has better over clocking ability than the 390, but that doesn't mean anything to me since I don't OC. But if you do it should be taken into consideration.

 

[Dan Marinescu]

Before you invest hard earned money, take a minute looking at reviews for yourself. "970 vs 390" in Youtube results in a bunch of cool vids. I particularly like the "Tech Showdown" and "Jayz" vids, which are historically unbiased.

I have to admit, the reviews changed my thinking. I used to think the 970 was the best bang for the buck (and it was), but it seems there's a new sherrif in town. By the way I don't think the 390X is worth the extra money... 40% higher price for a meager 5-10% performance increase doesn't make a lot if sense to me.

For what it's worth some folks say the 970 has better over clocking ability than the 390, but that doesn't mean anything to me since I don't OC. But if you do it should be taken into consideration.

You are right. I was also leaning towards the R9 390, but I have seen much people recommending the GTX 970 over the R9 390 just for the overclocking ability, the cooler temperature and the lower wattage needed. Now I am sure that R9 390 is the right choice, the GTX 970 is just over-recommended.

 

[TirthaS]

If anyone is really concerned about 1080p gaming then GTX 970 is the way to go. I request all of you to go through plenty of available Benchmark tables with any given scenario in 1080p gaming . In each and every article GTX 970 stands superior and this only justifies that GTX 970 is the "King" at 1080p gaming. And yes beyond that r9 390 gains it's ground slowly. R9 390 beats GTX 970 with negligible margin at 2k gaming and even in better way at 4k with the figure of few fps!! Oh yes! few fps. But tell me which one is better for gaming firstly 28.9 fps vs 31.2 fps (respectively for GTX 970 and R9 390 at 4k gaming) and secondly 68.8 fps vs 62.4 fps(respectively for GTX 970 and R9 390 at 1080p gaming) . The answer for first example is both fps are useless for gaming. And according to second set, both are very playable and it also signifies that GTX 970 is superior when it really counts. No need to worry about cooling because with right model and proper cooling even R9 Fury X can run cooler than GTX 970. Then also at default GTX 970 is much more calm, cooler and no need to tell far more power efficient than R9 390 because the latter one consumes nearly double the power consumed by first one. You may have to consider a new psu also. But you people should also consider that none of them are capable to fuel 4K gaming on their own. So, R9 390 is only future proof when you're ready to crossfire it. Otherwise what you are getting with R9 390 at gross is 1080p gaming with lesser fps and bigger electricity bill. Also you need to have much greater psu for R9 390. If any green or red fanboy reads my answer please remember that I answered the question "which one is better for 1080p gaming". This answer then only should be considered from that perspective only. And once again I request to all of you to go through plenty of available benchmark results provided by real experts so that you really can justify your own opinion.

I also used to have ATI RADEON and every time I tried to update driver it gave me real headache for at least couple of days. Actually when it comes to performance along with other stability issues Nvidia is the way to go.

 

[ema21del9]

I don't know about you, but I also take into account the "middle man" software when I choose something, what I mean is the drivers, this is not red vs green or 1000Mhz vs 1001Mhz, drivers are also a pretty big important deal for GPUs.

I have a Sapphire Nitro R9 390 right now in one of my systems and I totally regret not having chosen the GTX970. First: I have never used more than 3GB VRAM of the card in 1080p so it's useless to have 8GB even if it's there. Second: I had to buy a new PSU because 390 eats some power and I like to have headroom, bad PSU and limited wattage leads to components being damaged. Third: The NVIDIA card have a bit more performance over the R9 390 in 1080p.

Don't get me wrong though, the R9 390 is a really nice card for 1080p@60Hz.

Having said that, I guess a lot goes to "red vs green" in some people.

 

[Vikerules]

why buy a 380 when the after market 480 is soon for sale?