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?

 

[Jimmy_31]

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/

yea but giving things to people for them to use your stuff is pretty ignorant to call bribing i dont force your hand you do i have a 970 and wouldn't trade it for anything because i came from playing stick figures on a gtx 750 to 3d games on the 970 np 1080p ultra so if you have a choice 1 has 4gb vram and 1 has 8 in the future 8 would be a better choice

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

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/

yea but giving things to people for them to use your stuff is pretty ignorant to call bribing i dont force your hand you do i have a 970 and wouldn't trade it for anything because i came from playing stick figures on a gtx 750 to 3d games on the 970 np 1080p ultra so if you have a choice 1 has 4gb vram and 1 has 8 in the future 8 would be a better choice

There are SO many more things in a graphics card than just the amount of VRAM. What use is 8gb of VRAM if it's not going to be used? Just like RAM, anyone can have 128gb of RAM, but they wouldn't see any performance compared to one with 8gb of RAM if their usage is well below 8gb. And I, personally, do not think that it is the end of the world if the GTX 970 has 512mb of VRAM less. I definitely think people are overreacting majorly when they discovered that the GTX 970 has 512mb of extremely slow VRAM. Yes, NVIDIA should have stated it, but to be fair them saying that there was 4Gb of VRAM is still correct as there is 4gb usable, but the last 0.5gb is slow.

 

[Outlander_04]

For 3D modelling get a work station card.

For gaming at 1080p its close. At resolution above that the Radeon is the clear winner.

Also worth checking out the few DX12 tests available. The Radeon architecture is clearly faster there too.

Id also give thumbs up to AMD for creating and using open standards

 

[fraser_20]

Go for 970 and forget about AMD. 390x struggles to beat 970 at ~1080p while using twice as much power. Don't expect any better from 390.

It doesn't lol. The AMD R9 390 uses 8GB VRAM with a 512bit memory bus, meaning it SMASHES the GTX card out the water in higher resolutions, and overall performance

 

[RockyPlays]

Go for 970 and forget about AMD. 390x struggles to beat 970 at ~1080p while using twice as much power. Don't expect any better from 390.

It doesn't lol. The AMD R9 390 uses 8GB VRAM with a 512bit memory bus, meaning it SMASHES the GTX card out the water in higher resolutions, and overall performance

You are about a year late with that response lol.

 

[NextGenLifeHD]

Go for 970 and forget about AMD. 390x struggles to beat 970 at ~1080p while using twice as much power. Don't expect any better from 390.

It doesn't lol. The AMD R9 390 uses 8GB VRAM with a 512bit memory bus, meaning it SMASHES the GTX card out the water in higher resolutions, and overall performance

Read a few messages, and you will begin to understand a thing or two about graphics cards. There are so many more things in a graphics card than VRAM and Memory Bus. Saying that because one card has twice the VRAM and bus width shows how simple-minded you are as clearly that isn't everything if the GTX 970 is beating the R9 390 is many games and benchmarks. If your reasoning was correct, the R9 390 would have exactly 2x the performance of the GTX 970.

On a completely separate non-heated note (for those who have just came to this thread): NVIDIA's new Pascal Architecture was just revealed and is scheduled to release its flagship GPU on May 27th, featuring new technologies bringing their "greatest improvement yet".

 

[EdjinK]

I have a MSI 970 And i'd say go for the 970, no contest.
IT's extremely quiet and solid.

A good 970 model overclocks up to 1530+ mhz easily, and at that level of speed that is actually 10% faster than a reference 980 gtx. The power consumption don´t go above 210w.

It's no contest, if you overclock the 970, it's going to reach the same level of a 390x while consuming 90w less.

The biggest advantage is the hdmi 2.0, If you buy an UHD Television and would like to use it as a display, you won´t be able to do full 2160p @60hz and 444 chroma, this might even be a problem for upcoming VR displays that don´t come with DP. Forget the AMD, it's crap and the 3xx are ridiculuous overpriced.

Funny how you haven't had a 390 or 390x yet you still recommend the 970 as it's "Better". Mate... you have no idea. 390 is way better. and they are lower priced, also AMD's drivers are alot better. Gl playing stupid 4K 60hz, when I play 2k 144 have a nice one.

 

[EdjinK]

Go for 970 and forget about AMD. 390x struggles to beat 970 at ~1080p while using twice as much power. Don't expect any better from 390.

It doesn't lol. The AMD R9 390 uses 8GB VRAM with a 512bit memory bus, meaning it SMASHES the GTX card out the water in higher resolutions, and overall performance

Read a few messages, and you will begin to understand a thing or two about graphics cards. There are so many more things in a graphics card than VRAM and Memory Bus. Saying that because one card has twice the VRAM and bus width shows how simple-minded you are as clearly that isn't everything if the GTX 970 is beating the R9 390 is many games and benchmarks. If your reasoning was correct, the R9 390 would have exactly 2x the performance of the GTX 970.

On a completely separate non-heated note (for those who have just came to this thread): NVIDIA's new Pascal Architecture was just revealed and is scheduled to release its flagship GPU on May 27th, featuring new technologies bringing their "greatest improvement yet".

Shitvidia upgrading? nah.. just gonna sell you 600$ cards. waste of money if you ask me.. I'd rather get an AMD HBM2 or GDDR5/X from AMD.

 

[Redneck5439]

I have a MSI 970 And i'd say go for the 970, no contest.
IT's extremely quiet and solid.

A good 970 model overclocks up to 1530+ mhz easily, and at that level of speed that is actually 10% faster than a reference 980 gtx. The power consumption don´t go above 210w.

It's no contest, if you overclock the 970, it's going to reach the same level of a 390x while consuming 90w less.

The biggest advantage is the hdmi 2.0, If you buy an UHD Television and would like to use it as a display, you won´t be able to do full 2160p @60hz and 444 chroma, this might even be a problem for upcoming VR displays that don´t come with DP. Forget the AMD, it's crap and the 3xx are ridiculuous overpriced.

Funny how you haven't had a 390 or 390x yet you still recommend the 970 as it's "Better". Mate... you have no idea. 390 is way better. and they are lower priced, also AMD's drivers are alot better. Gl playing stupid 4K 60hz, when I play 2k 144 have a nice one.

The biggest problem is when you are dealing with GPUs you can NEVER say just overclock it and it will be better than xxxx. Anytime you are overclocking anything you are pushing the product beyond what the manufacture had recommended as the safe operating settings. Furthermore you can NEVER say just overclock it to match or be better than xxxx because no two GPUs are going to overclock exactly the same. One may require twice as much voltage than another to achieve a lower overclock, ect, and that goes double for a GPU. The most power hungry computer component by far is the GPU, and it is also easily the hottest running component in a computer build. When people overclock a processor they buy huge aftermarket heat sinks, yet the vast majority of people overclocking a GPU will overclock it using whatever heat sink and fan(s) it came with out of the box. While it is very rare to "fry" a CPU though overlclocking (although no impossible) it is far more common to see people fry their GPU trying to overclock it. You need to know what you are doing to overclock a CPU, however you really have to know what you are doing to overclock a GPU and not push it to the point it causes damage or severe loss of longevity.

It is better to just get the GPU you need rather than trying to match the performance of a GPU you want with a lesser GPU though overclocking. GPUs are already pushing large power consumption and large heat production clocked as they are out of the box, and a novice really shouldn't be trying to push a large overclock out of a GPU. It will more often than not end in a damaged or totally fried GPU. Comparing the GTX 970 to the R9 390 the R9 390 out of the box has more raw power than the GTX 970. If you need more then get the GTX 980 or R9 Fury, don't try to make a GTX 970 a GTX 980 or you will at the very least shorten the lifespan of your GTX 970. In the worse case you will end up with a fried GTX 970 that will make a lovely paperweight.

 

[Redneck5439]

As an extra side note, I have many friends that hate their AMD cards and are looking to upgrade to nothing but an NVIDIA card, due to them hating their current graphics card because of their drivers

Years ago AMD had problems with their drivers and their drivers weren't of very good quality. That doesn't hold true anymore. Current AMD Crimson drivers are excellent, even outperforming Nvidia drivers in some cases. Anyone making a statement like that hasn't had an AMD GPU in a long time.

 

[Seeven7]

Well i will tell you guys my experience....
I had fx8350 , asus m5a99x evo r2.0 mobo and always had 1866Mhz corsair ram 8 gb cl 9. I added to this r9 290 asus direct CU II.
while the r9 was , let's say, just quieter than cpu, i rly demanded MORE MORE performance, it barely managed to keep 60 solid fps IN ANY GAME. i mean, i had drops to 30-40 sometimes, while 200 at skyes.(crysis, bf3/4, all cod series to bo3,starcraft 2, total war, gtaV, ALL unreal tournament series, saints row (3 and 4), All serious sams (only from hd up), sleeping dogs,
Then i said, let's try intel, and my dad borowed me an i3 4160, that smacked the fx out of question. i3 simply obliterated the fx.
Then, i said Intel FTW and BTW.
so, i chosed an ASUS z97 mark 2, 4790k, and my r9 was still there.
i rly got improved performance, but i rly expected MORE, (1080p user here, ALL maxed ou, and adjusted AA in games, not always maxed ou AA)
then i sold my 290 and bought an ASUS GTX970 strix OC.........
when i seen how the nvidia performed......... i said BYE BYE AMD, FOREVER.
I will never ever go back to any amd product.....
i always checked the PC temps, always took care of pc, and bios settings, i am not an ignorant. At nvidia you should disable shader cache and trilinear optimisation, and set HBAO in control panel to high quality (maxed out),
i can say that this gpu is DEAD silent while idle, and cannot hear in load, while the rest of pc is also silent (vengeance c70 full corsair build NO HDD IN PC, neutron xt 240 gb)
okay, this gpu at 4k (using dsr) without antialiasing does a frekin good job, yes , it drops to 45-50 in bf without AA, but hey, 4 gigs and 4k ^^.
another thing, this joke with 3.5 ram is Bull***t.
I have no stuttering in any game
the only game that works like crap, (also on r9) is cod ghost. bo3 once an hour stutters to 30fps about a half of second, then keeps 60 al the time.

about 390..... i don't know.... but considering the low budget of amd, and desperation of releasing a card, to TRY compete with nvidia, and betting on fact that is just a rebrand...... just avoid amd.
while.
As i seen benchmarks on internet, i expected that 8 gigs of vram of 390 should rly beat the s**t out of 970, well, it isn't like that...
while i can admit that MAYBE 390 is better at 4k, while nvidia doing 20fps and 390 24fps, both are same s**t.
you can't rly play at that framerate, so neither are good at 4k, maybe 1440p, not 4k.
while i tested 970 sli , using a friend 970 and mine pc..... 2 of these card are simply MONSTROUS. (4k maxed out every game, no AA{just because usseles at 4k} 60+ FPS)
i found that the MSI version of 970 is rly rly loud, compared to my asus strix oc.
msi was under my card (slot 2).
Hope this helped somebody!
p.s: my cpu cooler was (in the tests) zalman fx70 with sp120 on it. cannot hear! (42 Degrees celsius on load, 20-25% fan speed @ 21-27 ambiental.
i rly want dead sillent pc! i hate noises! i need pc, not coffee maker )
PSU: Corsair RM750 Modular (boss cable management,
I never overclocked my card, neither of one, but the r9 i tryed at 1000Mhz, and that was rly hot! (speaking of temps) 95 degress! (load)
while stock had 85 on load

 

[zared619]

Well i will tell you guys my experience....
I had fx8350 , asus m5a99x evo r2.0 mobo and always had 1866Mhz corsair ram 8 gb cl 9. I added to this r9 290 asus direct CU II.
while the r9 was , let's say, just quieter than cpu, i rly demanded MORE MORE performance, it barely managed to keep 60 solid fps IN ANY GAME. i mean, i had drops to 30-40 sometimes, while 200 at skyes.(crysis, bf3/4, all cod series to bo3,starcraft 2, total war, gtaV, ALL unreal tournament series, saints row (3 and 4), All serious sams (only from hd up), sleeping dogs,
Then i said, let's try intel, and my dad borowed me an i3 4160, that smacked the fx out of question. i3 simply obliterated the fx.
Then, i said Intel FTW and BTW.
so, i chosed an ASUS z97 mark 2, 4790k, and my r9 was still there.
i rly got improved performance, but i rly expected MORE, (1080p user here, ALL maxed ou, and adjusted AA in games, not always maxed ou AA)
then i sold my 290 and bought an ASUS GTX970 strix OC.........
when i seen how the nvidia performed......... i said BYE BYE AMD, FOREVER.
I will never ever go back to any amd product.....
i always checked the PC temps, always took care of pc, and bios settings, i am not an ignorant. At nvidia you should disable shader cache and trilinear optimisation, and set HBAO in control panel to high quality (maxed out),
i can say that this gpu is DEAD silent while idle, and cannot hear in load, while the rest of pc is also silent (vengeance c70 full corsair build NO HDD IN PC, neutron xt 240 gb)
okay, this gpu at 4k (using dsr) without antialiasing does a frekin good job, yes , it drops to 45-50 in bf without AA, but hey, 4 gigs and 4k ^^.
another thing, this joke with 3.5 ram is Bull***t.
I have no stuttering in any game
the only game that works like crap, (also on r9) is cod ghost. bo3 once an hour stutters to 30fps about a half of second, then keeps 60 al the time.

about 390..... i don't know.... but considering the low budget of amd, and desperation of releasing a card, to TRY compete with nvidia, and betting on fact that is just a rebrand...... just avoid amd.
while.
As i seen benchmarks on internet, i expected that 8 gigs of vram of 390 should rly beat the s**t out of 970, well, it isn't like that...
while i can admit that MAYBE 390 is better at 4k, while nvidia doing 20fps and 390 24fps, both are same s**t.
you can't rly play at that framerate, so neither are good at 4k, maybe 1440p, not 4k.
while i tested 970 sli , using a friend 970 and mine pc..... 2 of these card are simply MONSTROUS. (4k maxed out every game, no AA{just because usseles at 4k} 60+ FPS)
i found that the MSI version of 970 is rly rly loud, compared to my asus strix oc.
msi was under my card (slot 2).
Hope this helped somebody!
p.s: my cpu cooler was (in the tests) zalman fx70 with sp120 on it. cannot hear! (42 Degrees celsius on load, 20-25% fan speed @ 21-27 ambiental.
i rly want dead sillent pc! i hate noises! i need pc, not coffee maker )
PSU: Corsair RM750 Modular (boss cable management,
I never overclocked my card, neither of one, but the r9 i tryed at 1000Mhz, and that was rly hot! (speaking of temps) 95 degress! (load)
while stock had 85 on load

To be fair though, the 290 was one of the worst flagship cards put out by AMD in recent memory. The 390 was a really good improvement upon the card that they originally put out. The card before, the 7970, was a great card for it's time.

Also, everyone knows that Intel chips have been better than AMD chips. That's no secret, but that's also why AMD chips are cheaper than Intel.

But really though, this thread should stop being so popular.