Life span of the new AMD 300 series compared to 200 series.

standinaround

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
4
0
4,510
I'm looking at either the AMD R9 390, or the GTX 970... I have read alot, and there really is alot of good arguments for both, as such, I'm still unsure which way to go... Anyway, what I would like to know, is with the over clocking AMD have done on the old chips, and the extra heat produced from that, Will the life of those GPU's be reduced in comparison to the older 200 series....

And given the choice, what would you go for, R9 390, or the GTX 970?
 

standinaround

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
4
0
4,510


I've read that cards can go as high as that, but surely the cooler a card, the more efficient it would be, and inturn the longer the life of the card.....

I have a different build with an AMD R9 270x, and I have an average high load temp of around 50 degree C. And thats with everything maxed out as high as possible on all games, including GTA V and the Witcher.... The average temps on the R9 390 are still alittle unknown to me, some say they are alot hotter, some, like yourself say they are no hotter... I suppose, if you have a decent cooling setup, you should be fine....

Which card would you buy if you had the choice... 390 or 970?
 
If you're going to over clock, get the 970. If you're not going to oc then get the 390. In my experience not only do AMD GPUs not oc much but it doesn't increase performance much anyway. I have a 290X which I actually under clocked, this makes it run much cooler without taking much of a performance hit and at 1080p gaming it's still more than I need to hit 60Hz at max settings. On benchmark tests like Unigine Valley and Heaven on max settings, the difference between the max oc I can get and a 5% under clock is only about 5fps or less than 10% yet the temperature is 15C different. So I decided there is no point cooking my GPU to try and get those last few fps when I don't use them anyway.