GTX 970 vs. R9 390

[rshafer]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

 

[Aeroeng]

I have been using the 970 for several months and it has it ups and downs. They have been having a lot of issues with drivers but so far the newest one that came out for Windows 10 seems to be pretty stable. I tried playing a few older games and there were hang but this might be a windows 10 compatibility issue rather than the 970 (it's sometimes hard to figure out who to blame). Older drivers caused random hangs and crashes in games as well as in Google Chrome. Something that you should read into is the problems they hare having with the 4Gb. Supposedly, the last 0.5Gb were built using a different method and this has been a major problem in trying to get the drivers to work. That being said, when the 970 does decide to behave the quality in Witcher 3 is really good (so long as you turn off Hairworks).

 

[jfizzle4321]

The biggest problem I have heard about is the +.5 gb with the 970s. Even so, nvidia rarely has issues with running specific games where AMD runs into trouble frequently. As of early July, they still got terrible FPS in Project CARS. Initially AMD users cited the nvidia logos in game and drew up conspiracy theories. As it turned out, amd did not maintain contact with the developers on the game as far as optimization is concerned. Amd actually admitted this. On the contrary, nvidia worked hand and hand with the developers (SMS) and did not ask for anything in return. Even if amd cards were superior, I will never trust them. That being said, a msi twin frozr is phenomenal and a gigabyte g1 970 supposedly overclocks amazingly and come with backplates. All for $339 ea.

 

[Rexolaboy]

The biggest problem I have heard about is the +.5 gb with the 970s. Even so, nvidia rarely has issues with running specific games where AMD runs into trouble frequently. As of early July, they still got terrible FPS in Project CARS. Initially AMD users cited the nvidia logos in game and drew up conspiracy theories. As it turned out, amd did not maintain contact with the developers on the game as far as optimization is concerned. Amd actually admitted this. On the contrary, nvidia worked hand and hand with the developers (SMS) and did not ask for anything in return. Even if amd cards were superior, I will never trust them. That being said, a msi twin frozr is phenomenal and a gigabyte g1 970 supposedly overclocks amazingly and come with backplates. All for $339 ea.

Nvidia has been bribing developers for almost a decade? And yes Nvidia does ask for something in return, for devolopers to utilize proprietary physics and post proccess effect that cripples other non Nvidia GPU's

Link to article on Nvidia saying that devolopers gain access to tools and resources and artists supplied by Nvidia if the developer uses Physx
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1596167/nvidia-denies-bribing-developers

Developers for Witcher 3 talking about Nvidia and how they lock out AMD cards from accessing post processing effects
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-developer-its-up-to-nvidia-to-let-amd-users-enjoy-physx-hair-and-fur-effects/

 

[stavros58]

I have overclocked my 970 MSI to past stock 980 benchmark easily and I know very little about OCing, they are a great card and run everything at ultra at 1080 144HZ including BF4, Project Cars, Dirt RAlly, COD advanced Warfare etc etc, its super quiet and stays very cool in comparison to my old AMD 7870's in crossfire and it is way faster as a single card against 7870's in crossfire mode. I find the drivers better with Nvidia or at least more often updated and would only consider changing this card for a 980TI but only if I wanted to go to a much higher resolution as it runs everything brilliantly at 1080 so why spend more..

 

[MartinsD]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

So pretty bought test. Looks what brand amd cards tested and what brands are geforce....palit and gainward, the worst ones in the market......

 

[Outlander_04]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

So pretty bought test. Looks what brand amd cards tested and what brands are geforce....palit and gainward, the worst ones in the market......

Ive used a few Pallit cards . The quality is fine .
But either way if they were running at the same clock speed as an ASUS , gigabyte or MSI they were performing identically .
And the R9 390 was better even though it was from HIS which is also a lower tier manufacturer

Any other excuses?

 

[_Bata_]

Actually, GTX 970 performs better at gaming, consumes less power, makes less noise and heats less too.

 

[Outlander_04]

Actually, GTX 970 performs better at gaming, consumes less power, makes less noise and heats less too.

Actually the GTX doesnt perform better . The two cards are neck and neck at 1080p . The radeon wins at higher resolutions and often by very decent margins. The benches are already published in this thread so I wont do that again .

Noise ...... maybe , but both are available with 0 Db coolers

You are right that the GtX 970 uses less power though . The difference between the two under full load is about the same as a light bulb would use. At idle much less than that

 

[MartinsD]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

So pretty bought test. Looks what brand amd cards tested and what brands are geforce....palit and gainward, the worst ones in the market......

Ive used a few Pallit cards . The quality is fine .
But either way if they were running at the same clock speed as an ASUS , gigabyte or MSI they were performing identically .
And the R9 390 was better even though it was from HIS which is also a lower tier manufacturer

Any other excuses?

Yea, they cant perform identically, if gigabyte uses more superior cooling system than low lvl brand ones. Dont tell me that cooling aint effecting the performance outcome. Take two mowerfull engines and one leave in ferrari, other put in to lada, and make a race test. In theory both have the same power....no?

If you make test, it should be gigabyte amd vs gigabyte geforce, not that bought crap. All in all is like this - if you are on a budget = buy amd, if you can afford extra 50$ = buy geforce as they are in more superior overall. Amd like they cpus are very grat on paper, in real action they all are total and confusing dissappointment. And yes i bought new FX series cpu, that after a two weeks was changed to i5 and was noticeable performance increase.

Amd cards are only more superior for coin mining, nothing more.

 

[Outlander_04]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

So pretty bought test. Looks what brand amd cards tested and what brands are geforce....palit and gainward, the worst ones in the market......

Ive used a few Pallit cards . The quality is fine .
But either way if they were running at the same clock speed as an ASUS , gigabyte or MSI they were performing identically .
And the R9 390 was better even though it was from HIS which is also a lower tier manufacturer

Any other excuses?

Yea, they cant perform identically, if gigabyte uses more superior cooling system than low lvl brand ones. Dont tell me that cooling aint effecting the performance outcome. Take two mowerfull engines and one leave in ferrari, other put in to lada, and make a race test. In theory both have the same power....no?

If you make test, it should be gigabyte amd vs gigabyte geforce, not that bought crap. All in all is like this - if you are on a budget = buy amd, if you can afford extra 50$ = buy geforce as they are in more superior overall. Amd like they cpus are very grat on paper, in real action they all are total and confusing dissappointment. And yes i bought new FX series cpu, that after a two weeks was changed to i5 and was noticeable performance increase.

Amd cards are only more superior for coin mining, nothing more.

NO
a GTX 970 chip in a gigabyte card performs identically at the same speed as it does in a Pallit card .

A higher quality card might have a better cooler and run cooler but the heat wont affect the performance , only the longevity and overclocking headroom

 

[SherbetAddict]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

So pretty bought test. Looks what brand amd cards tested and what brands are geforce....palit and gainward, the worst ones in the market......

Ive used a few Pallit cards . The quality is fine .
But either way if they were running at the same clock speed as an ASUS , gigabyte or MSI they were performing identically .
And the R9 390 was better even though it was from HIS which is also a lower tier manufacturer

Any other excuses?

Yea, they cant perform identically, if gigabyte uses more superior cooling system than low lvl brand ones. Dont tell me that cooling aint effecting the performance outcome. Take two mowerfull engines and one leave in ferrari, other put in to lada, and make a race test. In theory both have the same power....no?

If you make test, it should be gigabyte amd vs gigabyte geforce, not that bought crap. All in all is like this - if you are on a budget = buy amd, if you can afford extra 50$ = buy geforce as they are in more superior overall. Amd like they cpus are very grat on paper, in real action they all are total and confusing dissappointment. And yes i bought new FX series cpu, that after a two weeks was changed to i5 and was noticeable performance increase.

Amd cards are only more superior for coin mining, nothing more.

NO
a GTX 970 chip in a gigabyte card performs identically at the same speed as it does in a Pallit card .

A higher quality card might have a better cooler and run cooler but the heat wont affect the performance , only the longevity and overclocking headroom

Unless teh card throttles and/or doesn't boost.

 

[madchemist83]

Lada ftw, I'm surprised u didn't brought up Zaporozhec. The only advantage of 390 is 8 gigs of ram that won't get used up unless playing at higher then 1080p. Nvidia driver constant update and stability moves the scale towards 970, but directx 12 is here and that puts the arrow closer to 390. I'm deciding myself which one to get.

 

[terroralpha]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

i just looked at the benchmarks you posted. 390 isn't edging out anything. the cards are pretty much the same. they are within 2 or 3 fps of one another and often post the same exact numbers, like in those GTA V benches for example. nothing has been upped.

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

A simpler way to look at it is to pick based on what resolution you game at. If 1080p and slightly lower watt power supply, then a 970. If playing memory intensive games or at higher resolutions and power supply is not a problem, then go for the R9 390.

 

[madchemist83]

Or if u do f@h, 970 is far superior to 390.

 

[GObonzo]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-nitro-r9-390-8g-d5,4245.html#xtor=EPR-8886

 

[AMD builder]

I know we'll have to wait until benchmarks are released to know more about card performance, but I am wondering what the community thinks.

So, it appears to me that the R9 390 should outperform the GTX 970. And it is also slightly cheaper. I know the 970 is more efficient. However, is there something else I'm missing?

We have some benchmarks for the 390 found here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html

It looks like the 390 will edge out the 970 in just about everything and an improvement in efficiency over the previous generation should help it in performing more closely to the 970 in power consumption. I think AMD has done well with this series and has slightly upped Nvidia's current offerings.

No, it is literally a 290 rebrand, if you think thats done well im not sure what to say.

Any 970 you are able to actually buy will beat a 390 no question as has been proven many times over. Those benchmarks are using reference clocks, which you have to go way out of your way to find for a 970. Add 10% to those numbers and the 390 loses in every single way.

If you are intent on buying a 390, purchase a 290. A 390 cannot use more than 4gb before it chokes on the the chip itself. A 290 is otherwise the same exact card.

This video will clear up any misinformation you want to spread...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3rIOFP34Dg

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

Well currently, NVIDIA is including a Bullets or Blades bundle, which lets you pick between Assassins creed Syndicate or Rainbow Six Siege. Included with the gpu...

 

[SherbetAddict]

Well currently, NVIDIA is including a Bullets or Blades bundle, which lets you pick between Assassins creed Syndicate or Rainbow Six Siege. Included with the gpu...

NVidia always seems to have better games bundled with GPUs. MGSV vs Dirt Rally? No contest.

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

Well currently, NVIDIA is including a Bullets or Blades bundle, which lets you pick between Assassins creed Syndicate or Rainbow Six Siege. Included with the gpu...

NVidia always seems to have better games bundled with GPUs. MGSV vs Dirt Rally? No contest.

I agree. Although the two currently offered games are good, they are not my type of game (I'm into Just Cause, GTA V, etc....). But anyways, go for whichever one suits you. Be it power consumption, overclocking, VRAM quantities......know what you require and build up from there

 

[PytSkee]

I got Batman: Arkham Knight with my 970 last summer, and I was very happy with that. What would be really interesting is if AMD released a 390 with 4 or 6GB of VRAM and sell the price difference. Clearly if the 390 with 8GB is already cheaper to produce than the 970, then taking some of that overboard memory off and bringing down the price even more would definitely draw a lot of people.

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

I got Batman: Arkham Knight with my 970 last summer, and I was very happy with that. What would be really interesting is if AMD released a 390 with 4 or 6GB of VRAM and sell the price difference. Clearly if the 390 with 8GB is already cheaper to produce than the 970, then taking some of that overboard memory off and bringing down the price even more would definitely draw a lot of people.

This is a good idea, and I completely support it . What if it had 4gb of VRAM and a 256bit bus, which would lower its power consumption

 

[praxis22]

Broadly speaking the fanboy nonsense is just that.

The real issues here are Price, Performance & Driver support.

AMD is usually cheaper

At 1080p depending which site you look at either the 970 or the 390 will be marginally ahead depending on the games chosen. By all accounts the 390 performs better at higher resolutions but there is no single card solution (as yet) to 4K gaming. The (fast) 8GB or VRAM does give the 390 an advantage at higher resolutions and with certain modded games.

Driver support belongs to Nvidia, AMD suck at it, and their innovations, while often very good don't count for squat if developers don't code for them. This is where Nvidia shine, they supports developers well and often pay to have them support their innovations. With AMD you have to know what you're doing, as it's often up to you to fix what AMD can't in any given game.

All that said, I bought a 390 as I play Skyrim and I wanted 8GB or RAM for cheap. I've seen video of a 4GB Nvidia Titan stutter in modded Skyrim as it only has 3.5GB of usable VRAM, and a modded game can eat that for breakfast, which allied with the game's engine behaviour can cause problems. The 970 is now an old card, it may not fare well in the coming years, depending on how often you change video cards. I do it every 3 years or so.

I have Witcher3 and hair works aside, (pure Nvidia, and GPU heavy) I get 60fps at Ultra, Everything else I've tried, is smooth.

If you're uncomfortable with digging into your PC's guts, and fixing problems when they occur, or your replace your card every year, then buy the 970.

YMMV

 

[mjgfish]

Apart from this thread so far being mostly fan boys sticking up for their GPU would anyone like to give opinions on whch is best for gaming and which on is also best for CAD/ 3d modelling? Some facts would be nice too

 

[Ivan Rosic]

Apart from this thread so far being mostly fan boys sticking up for their GPU would anyone like to give opinions on whch is best for gaming and which on is also best for CAD/ 3d modelling? Some facts would be nice too

R9 390 is slitlly better gpu curently in that price class , if you asking amater 3d moduling and cad any of those will be fine ... if you need for somthing more serious you should look in nvidia Quadro serie of gpu-s