R9 290 or r9 390?

[kaden golda]

I do animation and rendering which i heard more vram helps with, but I also game a lot and am getting a 144hz monitor by BenQ. The r9 390 is $330 with 8gb but the r9 290 is 4gb for $275. I also found a 290x 8gb for $375.

 

[AdviserKulikov]

They're the same card. The 290X is the strongest of those 3.

At 144hz, you don't need 8GB of VRAM. If you had 4k instead, maybe 8GB would be beneficial.

 

[hamzahfelix]

It would depend on your resolution. For 1080p and even 1440p, the r9 290 4GB v-ram will be plenty. Anything above that, r9 390, especially if you're thinking to crossfire.

 

[Shalaska]

It all comes down to what you are looking to spend. Of all of those the 290x 8GB edition is the best card, but is it $100 better, well that is up to you. For example for me 2x GTX 980 Asus Matrix graphics cards were worth the premium I paid for the look that matched my Motherboard and provided the overclocking headroom I desired. For many other people that would have been an enormous waste of money and they would have been better off buying a reference 980 that vented out the back. One other thing to note is what companies are these prices from, ex. are these all reference cards? Because that makes a big difference as well. While you pay a premium for non-reference cards, you also get increased cooling etc. So I am assuming that the 390 at $330 is a reference card while the 290x at $375 is not, which makes the 290x even better in my opinion.

 

[kaden golda]

It all comes down to what you are looking to spend. Of all of those the 290x 8GB edition is the best card, but is it $100 better, well that is up to you. For example for me 2x GTX 980 Asus Matrix graphics cards were worth the premium I paid for the look that matched my Motherboard and provided the overclocking headroom I desired. For many other people that would have been an enormous waste of money and they would have been better off buying a reference 980 that vented out the back. One other thing to note is what companies are these prices from, ex. are these all reference cards? Because that makes a big difference as well. While you pay a premium for non-reference cards, you also get increased cooling etc. So I am assuming that the 390 at $330 is a reference card while the 290x at $375 is not, which makes the 290x even better in my opinion.

the 390 is non reference

 

[Shalaska]

the 390 is non reference

OK, if that is the case then it comes down to the questions everyone else was asking, what resolution are you gaming at and what resolution are you rendering videos at. If all you are doing is 1080p then the 290 is fine and will save you some money. If on the other hand you are doing 1440 or 4k than the 290x or the 390x starts to look far more appetizing. The other thing to check is your animation software, I don't do animation so I don't know how effected it is by the GPU, but if it is heavily GPU bound then you might be better off with the 290x or even saving up and getting the 390x or the Fury X when it comes out.

 

[kaden golda]

the 390 is non reference

OK, if that is the case then it comes down to the questions everyone else was asking, what resolution are you gaming at and what resolution are you rendering videos at. If all you are doing is 1080p then the 290 is fine and will save you some money. If on the other hand you are doing 1440 or 4k than the 290x or the 390x starts to look far more appetizing. The other thing to check is your animation software, I don't do animation so I don't know how effected it is by the GPU, but if it is heavily GPU bound then you might be better off with the 290x or even saving up and getting the 390x or the Fury X when it comes out.

i was going to use 144hz 1080p, i heard vram helps with animation and this is what I found.
"When using GPU rendering, VRAM is used to cache assets. If all of your assets will 'fit' in the available VRAM the GPU can crunch away with very little effort spent fetching assets and information.

Meshes, even high poly meshes, are generally fairly small assets. The real strain on your RAM or VRAM comes from textures. If you are using small image maps and procedural textures, you can get away with a great deal less memory for rendering.

Largely, it's going to depend on your specific workflow and your tools. You may not notice a difference, or you may notice a difference. There really isn't a one size fits all answer because workflow and tools can make a huge difference in how well a GPU functions for a specific task."

 

[Shalaska]

OK, in that case for GAMING there is little reason to get above a 290 as you will have acceptable frame rates at 1080p and the VRAM is not an issue. For ANIMATION it because a question of how large are the textures you typically use in your animations? If they would fit in 4GB then there is no reason to go with an 8GB model. If on the other hand you are using high-def textures that take up more then 4GB of space then you will see significantly increased performance with an 8GB card.

The only other question comes down to what graphics level you are aiming for, your budget, and what you consider acceptable framerates. I mainly only mention this because you picked up a 144hz monitor, for me I like my frame rates to be north of 60 and above 100 if I can manage it. I have a ROG Swift 144hz monitor with G-Sync and I power that with 2xGTX980's to keep my 1440p monitor above 60 with all graphics turned to Ultra in every game I play. But I am not willing to sacrifice graphical quality for FPS and I have the money where this isn't a problem.

All three of those cards are "GOOD" cards and all three will work for your intended tasks. Now it is basically a case of measuring your actual texture size usage and then things such as budget to help you decide. If you have any more questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer you.

 

[kaden golda]

OK, in that case for GAMING there is little reason to get above a 290 as you will have acceptable frame rates at 1080p and the VRAM is not an issue. For ANIMATION it because a question of how large are the textures you typically use in your animations? If they would fit in 4GB then there is no reason to go with an 8GB model. If on the other hand you are using high-def textures that take up more then 4GB of space then you will see significantly increased performance with an 8GB card.

The only other question comes down to what graphics level you are aiming for, your budget, and what you consider acceptable framerates. I mainly only mention this because you picked up a 144hz monitor, for me I like my frame rates to be north of 60 and above 100 if I can manage it. I have a ROG Swift 144hz monitor with G-Sync and I power that with 2xGTX980's to keep my 1440p monitor above 60 with all graphics turned to Ultra in every game I play. But I am not willing to sacrifice graphical quality for FPS and I have the money where this isn't a problem.

All three of those cards are "GOOD" cards and all three will work for your intended tasks. Now it is basically a case of measuring your actual texture size usage and then things such as budget to help you decide. If you have any more questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer you.

So I should get a r9 290 tri x OC? Also My textures will not be crazy good and I really want it to be a quiet one, so the r9 390 by MSI is said to be quiet and never goes above 73c.

 

[Shalaska]

Yes that is a good card that should serve you well, and at 1080 the 4GB of RAM will be more then enough.