Nvidia GTX 970 vs. AMD Radeon R9 290X

[NascarBoy119]

Hello all. I plan on making a new build soon and I've narrowed down the potential Graphic Cards down to 2. They are the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 and the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X (4GB). I was also considering spending a bit more and getting the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Vapor-X (8GB), though that might be a bit overkill.

I've read reviews and benchmarks and it seems these cards preform about the same, with one sometimes beating the other in a category and vice versa. I was leaning towards the GTX 970 for it's lower TDP and more efficient nature, and then the reports of coil whine and '3.5 GB' came around. The R9 290X takes more power, but that's not really a huge concern for me. I plan on future-proofing this build and plan on adding another GPU down the road, so the R9 290X seems a bit better for that. This report also came out recently so that's making me lean towards thr R9 290X a bit more, along with the the 'full' 4GB of RAM.

Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[RCFProd]

GTX 970 will still perform better at 1080p, even though it has 3.5GB VRAM. Graphics cards are not fully dependent of RAM, other factors come into place. Many people seem to forget this.

However, early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful than it is now and that is incredible. Not sure how accurate this is really.

 

[terry4536]

I would recommend the GTX 970. The heat output of the R9-290X would be a major factor in a crossfire configuration.

The whole 3.5 GB VRAM scenario is more or less a red hearing. The comparisons of the two are with that same VRAM.

 

[terry4536]

Also, I would note that the GTX 970 has 3.5 GB of fast VRAM and another 0.5 of VRAM that is less fast for a total of 4GB of VRAM..

 

[JackNaylorPE]

The 3.5 GB thing is a non factor ... kind alike Fox News, they love to get mad about things of no substance
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

If you use cards outta the box.....
The 970 is faster at 1080p
The 290x is faster at 1440p

If you use cards w/ MSI Afterburner
The 970 is faster at 1080p
The 970 wins by the proverbial hair 1440p

Other things to consider:

Twin 970s require a bigger (250 watts extra) PSU
Twin 970s add 246 extra watts of heat to ya system
970 comes with Witcher 3
970 comes with PhysX, G-Sync and Shadowplay
The 970 has outsold all R9 + R7 cards combined so if you decide to add a 2nd card later on will be plenty in the channel.

Sapphire and MSI arethe two best 290x cards.
Gigabyte and MSI are the two best 970s.

The Gigabyte and MSI compete for best performance. Both routinely overclock well providing boost clocks over 1500 Mhz but the Giga wins more than it loses. Asus and EVGA have trouble breaking 1500.... with moist reviews around 1465. The Giga doesn't fit in many cases due to its 12.18" length and the Giga doesn't have the two its fans independently controlled. MSI shuts off its fans below 60C and will turn on one fan based upon GPU temps and the other based upon PCB readings.

If you want to see why the Asus and EVGA don't overclock as well read about the differences in VRM Phases, power delivery, chokes, capacitors, memory / VRM cooling in the article here. The nitty gritty is towards the bottom of the pages for each card (2-4). Not also that EVGA fixed the design defect noted in the article in the new SSC model so be careful as both are still in the channel. They also increased the number of VRM phases but not enough to match Giga / MSI.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/1

 

[NascarBoy119]

The 3.5 GB thing is a non factor ... kind alike Fox News, they love to get mad about things of no substance
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

If you use cards outta the box.....
The 970 is faster at 1080p
The 290x is faster at 1440p

If you use cards w/ MSI Afterburner
The 970 is faster at 1080p
The 970 wins by the proverbial hair 1440p

Other things to consider:

Twin 970s require a bigger (250 watts extra) PSU
Twin 970s add 246 extra watts of heat to ya system
970 comes with Witcher 3
970 comes with PhysX, G-Sync and Shadowplay
The 970 has outsold all R9 + R7 cards combined so if you decide to add a 2nd card later on will be plenty in the channel.

Sapphire and MSI arethe two best 290x cards.
Gigabyte and MSI are the two best 970s.

The Gigabyte and MSI compete for best performance. Both routinely overclock well providing boost clocks over 1500 Mhz but the Giga wins more than it loses. Asus and EVGA have trouble breaking 1500.... with moist reviews around 1465. The Giga doesn't fit in many cases due to its 12.18" length and the Giga doesn't have the two its fans independently controlled. MSI shuts off its fans below 60C and will turn on one fan based upon GPU temps and the other based upon PCB readings.

If you want to see why the Asus and EVGA don't overclock as well read about the differences in VRM Phases, power delivery, chokes, capacitors, memory / VRM cooling in the article here. The nitty gritty is towards the bottom of the pages for each card (2-4). Not also that EVGA fixed the design defect noted in the article in the new SSC model so be careful as both are still in the channel. They also increased the number of VRM phases but not enough to match Giga / MSI.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/1

Thank you very much for the information, it is much appreciated. However, do you think the GTX 970 will be good for future-proofing? If I get one, I'll probably SLI them in the future. I also plan on gaming with a 1080p triple-monitor setup with games on high-ultra settings, wouldn't that surely bring the VRAM usage above 3.5 GB? I don't plan on doing 1440p or 4K anytime soon, though.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that I WILL be overclocking it.

 

[terry4536]

The GTX 970 would be a great choice for SLI. They would be much cooler than the R9-290X.

The 0.5 GB of VRAM isn't going to much of a difference to make your decision on. If you are concerned wait for the 8 GB version.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Thank you very much for the information, it is much appreciated. However, do you think the GTX 970 will be good for future-proofing? If I get one, I'll probably SLI them in the future. I also plan on gaming with a 1080p triple-monitor setup with games on high-ultra settings, wouldn't that surely bring the VRAM usage above 3.5 GB? I don't plan on doing 1440p or 4K anytime soon, though.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that I WILL be overclocking it.

Well at 4k or 5760, while memory isn't an issues, the two 290x's get the benefit of the extra bandwidth. The 970s do well enough and they are good for a 14% speed increase according to TPU....so not a problem ... well Crysis 3 gets just under 30

63.5 overclocked

46 overclocked

61 overclocked

50 fps overclocked

33 fps overclocked.

The 290x overclocks too ... about 10%

 

[NascarBoy119]

Thank you very much for the information, it is much appreciated. However, do you think the GTX 970 will be good for future-proofing? If I get one, I'll probably SLI them in the future. I also plan on gaming with a 1080p triple-monitor setup with games on high-ultra settings, wouldn't that surely bring the VRAM usage above 3.5 GB? I don't plan on doing 1440p or 4K anytime soon, though.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that I WILL be overclocking it.

Well at 4k or 5760, while memory isn't an issues, the two 290x's get the benefit of the extra bandwidth. The 970s do well enough and they are good for a 14% speed increase according to TPU....so not a problem ... well Crysis 3 gets just under 30

63.5 overclocked

46 overclocked

61 overclocked

50 fps overclocked

33 fps overclocked.

The 290x overclocks too ... about 10%

So it seems that at 1080p even with the triple-monitors the VRAM won't be an issue, correct? I plan on giving it a decent overclocking as I said before, so I'm taking that into account for it to be able to max out games.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I don't see any issue in the pics or the Guru3D article.

 

[Pebbles015]

looking at the above graphs, 290x in xfire seems the way to go and works out a lot cheaper.

 

[samljer]

GTX 970 will still perform better at 1080p, even though it has 3.5GB VRAM. Graphics cards are not fully dependent of RAM, other factors come into place. Many people seem to forget this.

However, early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful than it is now and that is incredible. Not sure how accurate this is really.

Graphics cards are FULLY dependant on ram... the amount of ram just varies from resoultion to resolution. at 1080p, 2gb is way way more then enough
but at 1440 with AA on in BF4, my wifes GTX 680 hits the 2GB then stutters like mad
where on my 980, it hovers at around 3780MB with features enabled giving me about 40fps

make no mistake, GPU is 100% dependant on its ram, HOW MUCH RAM, is a question of resolution and quality settings, especially antialiasing, that eats so much.

 

[JWB1971]

I bought a 290x and it's been a world of hurt. Blue screens, black screens, freezing. Reinstalled Windows 4 times already. Use Driver Fusion premium to wipe drivers. Look around the web. The 290x is a headache. My PSU is 850 watts. Just a word of warning.

 

[RCFProd]

I bought a 290x and it's been a world of hurt. Blue screens, black screens, freezing. Reinstalled Windows 4 times already. Use Driver Fusion premium to wipe drivers. Look around the web. The 290x is a headache. My PSU is 850 watts. Just a word of warning.

Somehow you were just unlucky with a malfunctioning graphics card. You have to RMA it for a new one and you won't have further issues.

I had the R9 290, not a single issue with it. Not one blue screen even.

 

[ASmith426]

I bought a 290x and it's been a world of hurt. Blue screens, black screens, freezing. Reinstalled Windows 4 times already. Use Driver Fusion premium to wipe drivers. Look around the web. The 290x is a headache. My PSU is 850 watts. Just a word of warning.

As RCFProd suggested, RMA your card if you can. I have been running the 290x since early 2014 and have had ZERO problems with it (on a 650W PSU)

 

[ekkclay]

I have a gtx 970 and a 290x and both cards have there benefits for around the same price but if you do decided to upgrade to a higher res monitor i would go with a 290x and future proof would be the 290x look at what more games are be designed on and what they are using now its not more toward physics and nvidia software thats why nvidia has swapped up with the 9 model cards than the old 7 because they leaning towards more raw power than there nvidia software cuda cores is software driven alot of games were designed for them for a long time which kept them in the relm of gaming ati / amd has always had the more powerful cars and show in aging and newer games with older cards they perform better. my 290x runs bf4 about 150 to 160 fps and which is a game designed on open gl and my 970 runs it 80 to 110 fps. yes the amd card uses more power but a tri fan card they will run cool. but it will be worth the power difference i have found my 290x out performing 980s in 1440p and yes ram means the world in games if you can use all the ram thats on a card when it comes to certain titles it will eat the memory up. not bashing the 970 i do like the card but i would say the 290x is a bit more future proof for the same price and i can verify my benchs. and my testing

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Graphics cards are FULLY dependant on ram... the amount of ram just varies from resoultion to resolution. at 1080p, 2gb is way way more then enough
but at 1440 with AA on in BF4, my wifes GTX 680 hits the 2GB then stutters like mad
where on my 980, it hovers at around 3780MB with features enabled giving me about 40fps

make no mistake, GPU is 100% dependant on its ram, HOW MUCH RAM, is a question of resolution and quality settings, especially antialiasing, that eats so much.

B4 is problematic on every build I have seen it on. I can not be used as a barometer of any component stability analysis.

For 6xx ....


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

So, what can we glean from all of that? For one thing, with any single monitor the 2GB video card is plenty - even on the most demanding games and benchmarks out today. When you scale up to three high-res screens the games we tested were all still fine on 2GB, though maxing out some games’ settings at that resolution really needs more than a single GPU to keep smooth frame rates. With the right combination of high resolution and high detail, though, there is the potential for 2GB to be insufficient. For future games, or perhaps current games that were not tested in this article, you might be better off with a 4GB card if - and only if - you plan to run across a multi-screen configuration.

For 7xx series....

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

This leaves five games out of 30 where a 4GB GTX 770 gives more than a 1 frame per second difference over the 2GB-equipped GTX 770. And one of them, Metro: Last Light still isn’t even quite a single frame difference.

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.

and finally 9xx....

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,12.html

What is interesting to see is that the 4GB version utilized over 3GB memory here, the 2GB version obviously can only utilize 2GB. That has no effect on FPS or game rendering experience whatsoever though.

With VRAM analyzed we can conclude that 2GB of 4GB hardly will have an effect on the average framerate, but in higher resolutions with certain games it can prevent loading textures or caching shaders, and that helps again a bit of stuttering here and there.

Of course there are exceptions....AC unity gets hit big time even at 1080p.... FC4 (also from Ubisoft) gets hit too. Can't really tell if this is a Ubisoft issue, a driver issue or sumthin' else.

 

[RCFProd]

Ofcourse it is an issue with Ubisoft, poor optimization.

 

[mustang man]

Hello all. I plan on making a new build soon and I've narrowed down the potential Graphic Cards down to 2. They are the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 and the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X (4GB). I was also considering spending a bit more and getting the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Vapor-X (8GB), though that might be a bit overkill.

I've read reviews and benchmarks and it seems these cards preform about the same, with one sometimes beating the other in a category and vice versa. I was leaning towards the GTX 970 for it's lower TDP and more efficient nature, and then the reports of coil whine and '3.5 GB' came around. The R9 290X takes more power, but that's not really a huge concern for me. I plan on future-proofing this build and plan on adding another GPU down the road, so the R9 290X seems a bit better for that. This report also came out recently so that's making me lean towards thr R9 290X a bit more, along with the the 'full' 4GB of RAM.

Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

go with the 290x it's a vary powerful can and it has a true 4 gigs of ram and no coil wine anf at 1440 or 4k it stomps the 970 ....

 

[RCFProd]

Why the downvote gravemeister? Reason it. The GTX 970 is better than the R9 290x at 1080p.

 

[doriansmith]

GTX 970 will still perform better at 1080p, even though it has 3.5GB VRAM. Graphics cards are not fully dependent of RAM, other factors come into place. Many people seem to forget this.

However, early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful than it is now and that is incredible. Not sure how accurate this is really.

Would you expand on the "early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful" please? When will there be a change and how?

 

[RCFProd]

GTX 970 will still perform better at 1080p, even though it has 3.5GB VRAM. Graphics cards are not fully dependent of RAM, other factors come into place. Many people seem to forget this.

However, early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful than it is now and that is incredible. Not sure how accurate this is really.

Would you expand on the "early DX12 benchmarks show that the R9 290x will become up to 30-35% more powerful" please? When will there be a change and how?

http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-enabled-3dmark-33-faster-gtx-980/

I don't want to make it look more than just a rumor, tho.

 

[Silicon burn]

I bought a 290x and it's been a world of hurt. Blue screens, black screens, freezing. Reinstalled Windows 4 times already. Use Driver Fusion premium to wipe drivers. Look around the web. The 290x is a headache. My PSU is 850 watts. Just a word of warning.

Somehow you were just unlucky with a malfunctioning graphics card. You have to RMA it for a new one and you won't have further issues.

I had the R9 290, not a single issue with it. Not one blue screen even.

sorry to hear you're having issues, I have got: crossfire sapphire tri-x 290x i7-4790k, 16gb rad, raid 0 intel ssd 128GB*2, corsair AX860 860w, rock solid with custom water cooling w. 3 radiators colling cpu and 2 graphic cards, memory fail or PSUissue might be related to the issue you're having.

Hope it's worked out by now. I assume you're not oc:ing.

 

[01002920]

Hello all. I plan on making a new build soon and I've narrowed down the potential Graphic Cards down to 2. They are the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 and the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X (4GB). I was also considering spending a bit more and getting the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Vapor-X (8GB), though that might be a bit overkill.

I've read reviews and benchmarks and it seems these cards preform about the same, with one sometimes beating the other in a category and vice versa. I was leaning towards the GTX 970 for it's lower TDP and more efficient nature, and then the reports of coil whine and '3.5 GB' came around. The R9 290X takes more power, but that's not really a huge concern for me. I plan on future-proofing this build and plan on adding another GPU down the road, so the R9 290X seems a bit better for that. This report also came out recently so that's making me lean towards thr R9 290X a bit more, along with the the 'full' 4GB of RAM.

Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Go for the AMD if you have problems and want to game beyond 1080, if you like nvidia and prefer cooler GPU get that EVGA with those twin fans you'll be as cool as a morning in Canada.

 

[Agent0744]

290x if you want better texture detail and also this card will be the one for future proofing .