R9 390 or GTX 970

[BlackBurn98]

Hello. I come here again with yet another question! =)

I'm planning on to upgrade my GTX 650Ti 1GB GDDR5 to an either ASUS Radeon R9 390 STRIX (STRIX-R9390-DC3OC-8GD5-GAMING 8GB 512-Bit GDDR5) or a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming (GV-N970G1 GAMING-4GD (Rev 1.0)). The GTX 970 has only 4GB of GDDR5 RAM but with an OC speed of 1329 MHz while the R9 390 has 8GB of GDDR5 RAM but with an OC speed of only 1070 MHz.

I'm really confused because I've read that games like Arkham Knight take up a minimum of 4.5GB of RAM for smooth gameplay. I kind of want to future proof my purchase for up to 3 years at least. I'm into open world and FPS games like Battlefield 4 / Hardline, GTA V, Fallout 4, COD BO3, Just Cause 3 etc. I can/want to do 1080P 60FPS gaming.

My Current Specs:
Intel Core i5 4460
Nvidia Geforce GTX 650Ti 1GB
Kingston 8GB RAM
Gigabyte G1 Sniper B6 Motherboard
Corsair VS550

Please let me know if my system will be able to handle the games I mentioned above with the 2 GPUs I'm thinking about purchasing. Also, will I be needing to change my PSU or any other component? because I won't be having the funds to do so, sadly.

Thanks!

tl;dr: Asus Strix R9 390 or Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming for 1080p 60fps gameplay on i5 4460.

 

[rolli59]

Some people like 60+ fps on highest setting in all games at min but really in the eye of the beholder. I find on the other hand it being mute arguing about these cards since they all play the same games same settings with few FPS between.
And you are right especially when going past 1440P the 390 cards go a few frames past the 970 but it is not a big compromise as you state above since they will still play on same settings.

 

[loki1944]

Some people like 60+ fps on highest setting in all games at min but really in the eye of the beholder. I find on the other hand it being mute arguing about these cards since they all play the same games same settings with few FPS between.
And you are right especially when going past 1440P the 390 cards go a few frames past the 970 but it is not a big compromise as you state above since they will still play on same settings.

It's also about how smooth those FPS are; without having to dip into slower VRAM or system RAM.

 

[rolli59]

Some people like 60+ fps on highest setting in all games at min but really in the eye of the beholder. I find on the other hand it being mute arguing about these cards since they all play the same games same settings with few FPS between.
And you are right especially when going past 1440P the 390 cards go a few frames past the 970 but it is not a big compromise as you state above since they will still play on same settings.

It's also about how smooth those FPS are; without having to dip into slower VRAM or system RAM.

It is more theoretical, here FO4 1440P 390 and 970 exactly same avg and same min http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page3.html
4K 390 pulls ONE fps ahead in both aspects http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page4.html
conclusion just as smooth!
SW Battlefront 390 in the lead 3-4 fps but both just as smooth avg/min http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page2.html

 

[loki1944]

Some people like 60+ fps on highest setting in all games at min but really in the eye of the beholder. I find on the other hand it being mute arguing about these cards since they all play the same games same settings with few FPS between.
And you are right especially when going past 1440P the 390 cards go a few frames past the 970 but it is not a big compromise as you state above since they will still play on same settings.

It's also about how smooth those FPS are; without having to dip into slower VRAM or system RAM.

It is more theoretical, here FO4 1440P 390 and 970 exactly same avg and same min http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page3.html
4K 390 pulls ONE fps ahead in both aspects http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page4.html
conclusion just as smooth!
SW Battlefront 390 in the lead 3-4 fps but both just as smooth avg/min http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page2.html

Again, not about average FPS; it's about how smooth it will be; toss in a VRAM hungry game; and just as surely as with my 780Ti vs a 390X you will get stuttering. Anything that requires more VRAM than that 3.5GB+500MB is going to run smoother on a 390X than a 970 unless it exceeds to horsepower of the 390X.

 

[BlackBurn98]

I'm loving the discussion here but it appears to me that i'm getting more and more confused. So let's say in the future GTA VI comes out and requires a minimum of 4.5gb like Arkham Knight. I'm pretty much screwed if I have the 3.5GB+500MB 970? If I have the 390, I'll have an extra 3.5GB to increase the additional graphics options. How exactly is this a marketing gimmick? Fanboyism aside, isn't the 4gb of segmented memory of the 970 a gimmick? I would love to get the 970 G1 Edition, looks wise. Would love the 390, performance wise. Help? I have no issue in getting either of these 2. I just want to know how future proof the extra 4GB ram (total 8gb) is compared to the 4gb of the 970? I know that both perform similar; i don't want to know that the 970 or the 390 is better than each other. I need to know how useful can the extra ram be in the future, if not today. I won't be changing the bought gpu for 3+ years. Thanks!

 

[-Arke-]

I'm loving the discussion here but it appears to me that i'm getting more and more confused. So let's say in the future GTA VI comes out and requires a minimum of 4.5gb like Arkham Knight. I'm pretty much screwed if I have the 3.5GB+500MB 970? If I have the 390, I'll have an extra 3.5GB to increase the additional graphics options. How exactly is this a marketing gimmick? Fanboyism aside, isn't the 4gb of segmented memory of the 970 a gimmick? I would love to get the 970 G1 Edition, looks wise. Would love the 390, performance wise. Help? I have no issue in getting either of these 2. I just want to know how future proof the extra 4GB ram (total 8gb) is compared to the 4gb of the 970? I know that both perform similar; i don't want to know that the 970 or the 390 is better than each other. I need to know how useful can the extra ram be in the future, if not today. I won't be changing the bought gpu for 3+ years. Thanks!

The 970 is more eficient, looks better and have more OC potential. That said, the 8g of Vram that 390 has, is "marketing" when you think that most people plays in 1080 or 1440; there is little to no people playing 4k, so this huge Vram will not be useful right now. Looking at the future, I'd rather go for a 390 with its 8G or a 290 with 4G (instead of 970) since you wont see any big difference in performance between 970 and 290, and the last one is much cheaper (200€ vs 350€). The only problem I see here is the PSU. There u have a list about PSY quality: the VS series are tier 4: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-2547993/psu-tier-list.html

Tier Four

Built down to a low price. Not exactly the most stable units ever created. Very basic safety circuitry or even thin gauge wiring used. Not for gaming rigs or overclocking systems of any kind. Avoid unless your budget dictates your choice.

If new PSU + 390 is out of your budget, I'd rather go R9 290 + good quality PSU, let's say 200 + 110 and you woudl still paying less than a 970 would cost.

 

[renz496]

People always talk about 970 3.5GB problem but did most of these people actually own one to do their own test?

 

[JonnyPolygon]

People always talk about 970 3.5GB problem but did most of these people actually own one to do their own test?

Depends on the quality of textures, I noticed in some games it tended to stutter once I went over 3.5gb

But im very happy with my 970

 

[renz496]

What games?

 

[BlackBurn98]

I'm loving the discussion here but it appears to me that i'm getting more and more confused. So let's say in the future GTA VI comes out and requires a minimum of 4.5gb like Arkham Knight. I'm pretty much screwed if I have the 3.5GB+500MB 970? If I have the 390, I'll have an extra 3.5GB to increase the additional graphics options. How exactly is this a marketing gimmick? Fanboyism aside, isn't the 4gb of segmented memory of the 970 a gimmick? I would love to get the 970 G1 Edition, looks wise. Would love the 390, performance wise. Help? I have no issue in getting either of these 2. I just want to know how future proof the extra 4GB ram (total 8gb) is compared to the 4gb of the 970? I know that both perform similar; i don't want to know that the 970 or the 390 is better than each other. I need to know how useful can the extra ram be in the future, if not today. I won't be changing the bought gpu for 3+ years. Thanks!

The 970 is more eficient, looks better and have more OC potential. That said, the (g of Vram that 390 has, is "marketing" when you think that most people plays in 1080 or 1440; there is little to no people playing 4k, so this huge Vram will not be useful right now. Looking at the future, I'd rather go for a 390 with its 8G or a 290 with 4G (instead of 970) since you wont see any big difference in performance between 970 and 290, and the last one is much cheaper (200€ vs 350€). The only problem I see here is the PSU. There u have a list about PSY quality: the VS series are tier 4: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-2547993/psu-tier-list.html

Tier Four

Built down to a low price. Not exactly the most stable units ever created. Very basic safety circuitry or even thin gauge wiring used. Not for gaming rigs or overclocking systems of any kind. Avoid unless your budget dictates your choice.

If new PSU + 390 is out of your budget, I'd rather go R9 290 + good quality PSU, let's say 200 + 110 and you woudl still paying less than a 970 would cost.

I have a brand new Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 OC 4GB (GV-R929OC-4GD) available for 423 US Dollars (converted from my currency) and a Corsair CS650M 650W (Tier Three as per the link above) available for 107 US Dollars, adding up to 530 US Dollars. Or I can get the R9 390 STRIX in exchange for the R9 290 with CS650M psu for a total of 503 US Dollars. So CS650M with R9 390 Strix it is? Keeping the future in mind for the 8GB ram.

OR

I can get any of these which cost from $400 to $440 and would save a couple $.

• 
  Asus STRIX-GTX970-DC2OC-4GD5
  Gigabyte GV-N970WF3-4GD WINDFORCE 3X 4GB
  GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 970 GV-N970WF3OC-4GD
  GIGABYTE GV-N970G1 GAMING-4GD (Rev 1.0)

So many options!

 

[BlackBurn98]

What games?

Like I said in the original post.

"I'm into open world and FPS games like Battlefield 4 / Hardline, GTA V, Fallout 4, COD BO3, Just Cause 3 etc. I can/want to do 1080P 60FPS gaming."

 

[RCFProd]

Imo this is the best TL;DR when it comes to R9 390 vs GTX 970:

R9 390 is better out of the box, but GTX 970 can be overclocked and then become the better card UNTIL you hit a game that is extremely VRAM heavy.

 

[-Arke-]

(...)
So many options!

400$ for a 290 is not worth at all. I often tell people to get one just because it's way cheaper than 390 (200€ vs 340-360€ in Europe). If you rip apart the price advantage, it's out of game, because 290 and 390 are the same card, just 390 has higher clocks and more Vram. At same or close price, 390 beats 10/10 the 290.

If you cant find a cheap 290, I'd go with the 970 and save some money for the future. I havent tried 970 myself but most people loves them, so they gotta be a good choice I guess : )

 

[Infamousrsx]

970 for 1080p gaming, 390 if you plan to upgrade you monitor to 1440p in the future.

 

[renz496]

Actually all of this will not be much of an issue if nvidia just allow partner to come up with 8GB 980/970 :lol:

 

[loki1944]

Actually all of this will not be much of an issue if nvidia just allow partner to come up with 8GB 980/970 :lol:

I wish they would have released a 6GB 780Ti; I wouldn't have upgraded to 980Tis for my main rig if that was the case. Even with only 3GB of VRAM my 780Tis trade blows with 980s, often beating them as long as I don't hit a VRAM breach. For something like modded Skyrim with ENB though my old 290Xs provided a smoother experience @1440p with a similar set of texture mods. Had similar issue with Thief; it runs great on very high settings @1440p with 290X/390X/980Ti, but lots of stuttering with 780Ti (even tried my 780Tis with 5930K/4770K and it runs better with 390X and i5 4440).

 

[BlackBurn98]

390 plus a tier 3 PSU. Done. Thanks everyone!

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Without a doubt 8GB RAM should be seen in the successor to the GTX 970. If it wasn't for the 8GB RAM in the 390, probably half of the 390 purchasers would have gone with a GTX 970. It was actually a very smart move on AMD's part to equip the 390 with 8GB.

 

[rolli59]

Without a doubt 8GB RAM should be seen in the successor to the GTX 970. If it wasn't for the 8GB RAM in the 390, probably half of the 390 purchasers would have gone with a GTX 970. It was actually a very smart move on AMD's part to equip the 390 with 8GB.

Best sales trick ever since they are basically 290 cards with more ram just allowing them to edge the 970 at high resolution.

 

[BlackBurn98]

Without a doubt 8GB RAM should be seen in the successor to the GTX 970. If it wasn't for the 8GB RAM in the 390, probably half of the 390 purchasers would have gone with a GTX 970. It was actually a very smart move on AMD's part to equip the 390 with 8GB.

I'm one of those hard core Nvidia fans; yet, I'm purchasing an AMD product because I simply feel like my future would be safe for a cheaper cost than a 970 G1 Gaming. Whatever is better, deserves appreciation. NO hatred towards the competition. I always dreamt about purchasing a 900 series Nvidia GPU. I guess it's not possible with AMD packing a punch. Nvidia still wins my heart lol xD

 

[rolli59]

Without a doubt 8GB RAM should be seen in the successor to the GTX 970. If it wasn't for the 8GB RAM in the 390, probably half of the 390 purchasers would have gone with a GTX 970. It was actually a very smart move on AMD's part to equip the 390 with 8GB.

I'm one of those hard core Nvidia fans; yet, I'm purchasing an AMD product because I simply feel like my future would be safe for a cheaper cost than a 970 G1 Gaming. Whatever is better, deserves appreciation. NO hatred towards the competition. I always dreamt about purchasing a 900 series Nvidia GPU. I guess it's not possible with AMD packing a punch. Nvidia still wins my heart lol xD

Since I am on 1080P I selected 970 twice because of the lower power consumption and better performance @ 1080P. If I had had plans on going higher resolution neither AMD card would have cut it and I would have been looking Fury or GTX980Ti.

 

[loki1944]

Without a doubt 8GB RAM should be seen in the successor to the GTX 970. If it wasn't for the 8GB RAM in the 390, probably half of the 390 purchasers would have gone with a GTX 970. It was actually a very smart move on AMD's part to equip the 390 with 8GB.

I'm one of those hard core Nvidia fans; yet, I'm purchasing an AMD product because I simply feel like my future would be safe for a cheaper cost than a 970 G1 Gaming. Whatever is better, deserves appreciation. NO hatred towards the competition. I always dreamt about purchasing a 900 series Nvidia GPU. I guess it's not possible with AMD packing a punch. Nvidia still wins my heart lol xD

Since I am on 1080P I selected 970 twice because of the lower power consumption and better performance @ 1080P. If I had had plans on going higher resolution neither AMD card would have cut it and I would have been looking Fury or GTX980Ti.

What? 390/390X are great for 1440p; and in some games are G2G for 3200x1800 as long as you don't go crazy with AA (which you shouldn't need at that rez anyway). If you want to max EVERYTHING @1440p 60+FPS you'd need SLI or CF for the most demanding games anyway.

also

"With the AMD Radeon R9 Fury being around 10% faster on average the real question is, why purchase AMD Radeon R9 Fury when you can get AMD Radeon R9 390X for at least $120 less, and keep in mind that the 390X has fair overclocking abilities. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury does not make a lot of sense with today's games at 1440p. The Radeon R9 390X even has double the VRAM, which the R9 Fury can never have. However, the R9 Fury does show its prowess when heavily tessellated effects are used."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/13/msi_r9_390x_gaming_vs_asus_strix_fury_review/8#.Vo2JwPkrJhE

 

[rolli59]

It is missing the X!

 

[17seconds]

I hope you enjoy your AMD experience. Just go in with your eyes open, and don't expect to play any PhysX games. Be sure to check your VRam usage to see for yourself if 8GB really is a "marketing gimmick".

It's kind of funny to note, but it's not every day that someone goes against the advice of the #2 and #3 all-time Tom's graphics cards experts.

 

[loki1944]

It is missing the X!

R9 390 is within 3-6 FPS of the 390X without the VRAM limitation @1440p. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review