R9 390 or GTX 970

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SSJ_GoMeow

Reputable
Jan 3, 2016
9
0
4,520
Well I have done some research of the R9 390 and the GTX 970. I have all of my parts except for the graphics card, I bought a 750W because why not! I've been always sticking with buying a GTX 970 but I'm just wondering about ur opinions. Oh and I'm planning on doing 1080p gaming
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
What CPU are you using? Because AMD drivers are designed to create a higher CPU overhead which basically means you would need to be using a newer higher performing cpu.

For example if you paired the R9 390 and GTX 970 with a 2nd gen i5 for instance (which is quite old but still good) The GTX 970 would perform better. But if you paired both cards with i7 6700k both cards would perform nearly the same.

Check out digital foundry's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4
Later in the video they test the 2500k with a 970 and 390 and the GTX 970 wins by quite a lot. But if both cards are paired with a newer higher end CPU they perform about the same.

They're both good cards, but I'm personally going to wait until Nvidia release their new Pascal cards later this year (rumored to be announced in april) and AMD's new Polaris line, which focuses on lower power consumption.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry for vote, stupid phone blurred on me.

Anyways, basically the 2 cards go head to head, the 390 gets slightly stronger wins than the 970 at 1080p. That changes at 1440p,where the 970 gets dusted easily and the 390 will go head to head with a 980.

However, the 970 does have some advantages. Nvidia cards of this power level have built in physX chips, amd doesn't, its proprietary. To simulate physX, the amd gpus need to use cpu power, so in a physX heavy game, the nvidia cards are much more optimized. Nvidia cards historically have much less problems with drivers, many are having problems with Amd Crimson, and it's a toss-up whether that's user created or driver related. Then there's power and heat. AMD needs more power and consequently runs hotter than equivalent nvidia, although for most, that's not an issue in a well ventilated case with a decent psu. There are also nvidia specific settings in some games having to do with explosions and other high intensity graphics. On the other end, amd overdrive is very good and nvidia has nothing that's equitable.

Either card would be a good choice, it'll depend on whats the better value and what'll fit your requirements better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Simple. AMD uses Havok as a physX type replacer. It's totally cpu bound so if you are running a weaker cpu, its gonna hurt the fps. The 970 has similar performance at 1080/60 but has a gpu mounted dedicated physX chipset. So doesn't affect the cpu in any way. So, better performance from a weaker cpu. The 970 will run just fine on a 500w psu. (The CX500m is still very cheap and very popular). Good luck with a 390 on that psu. So moving up from a 550ti or 660ti or even a 760, the 970 is the obvious choice as it won't require a psu upgrade, whereas the 390 does. There is also game specific nvidia settings, but not for amd cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Because jerdle, you asked how anyone could recommend a 970. I told you why. But I did forget to mention that performance is not an issue. Every card in a power range higher than the 970/390 performs exactly the same at 1080p. That's 60fps. Don't care if it's a titan-x or a 295x2 or a 980ti sli. You get 60fps. That's all. The only time a higher power card makes any difference is in the few oddball games like Witcher 3 that are so gpu demanding that even 1080p sees an issue at ultra settings with the 970/390. Other than that, name a game. They'll all run 60fps.

So tell us why the 970 is limited and ppl need a 390? At 1080/60 they have identical performance. 60fps. Which leaves software and hardware criteria. And if you even think that nvidia has even close to the same amount of driver issues as amd, you better read more Posts.

So same performance, same price, less hassle. You tell me why the 970 is inferior?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You realize monitors can show more than 60 FPS? Especially the ones people buy that do it straight out of the box when they are also buying these levels of GPUs? Or are you going to argue that you cant see any difference above 60 FPS?

Because the 970's are going to continue losing ground to the 390 as time goes on. But oh right, lets go back to the decade old line, you still think AMD has bad drivers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Both the cards have different strong and weak points. You'll have to choose what you want.

970 - Pros - Very efficient, good overclocker. Can use nvidia propriety techs, very good performance for 1080p, more suitable for dx11 usually. Hence better for games which have already been released. Nvidia has more money. Hence it can sponsor more games and use propriety techs and things like excessive tessellation to hamper performance in games especially for AMD cards and thus gain an advantage. Usually Nvidia has game ready drivers on day 1. So you can play the game from the very day its released. Though high has relevance only for dx11/openGl games as in low level apis driver importance decrease. Though there'll be game specific drivers, they won't be as important as in past apis. Some people say Nvidia's driver is better.

Cons - Not better for dx12 or Vulkan than AMD, 3.5GB of good ram CAN become a problem when pascal is released as Nvidia's focus will move onto pascal rather than maxwell, similar to what happened in kepler vs maxwell. Lack of optimization for 970 can cause problem in future.

390 - Pros - better suitable for low level api, Amd hardware present in consoles have given devs idea about how to get best performance out of it, so recent games are showing better performance out of Amd gpus

Cons - Not as efficient as its competitor, neither an overclocker. Doesn't have edge over Nvidia usually in dx11 games, AMD has less money and can't sponsor many games. So few chances of excessive async compute(dx12/vulkan) to hamper performance in Nvidia gpus. What's interesting here is that async compute can improve AMD gpus performance and decrease Nvida's performance at the same time while Nvidia's tech decrease performance on both gpus but AMD's gpu gets hammered more.

I didn't know whether to put it in pros or cons. AMD's software techs can be optimized for Nvidia's but vice-versa isn't true. Nvidia's tech are black boxes which nobody except Nvidia can see. This has most likely to do with their market and economic position than one being saint while other evil. Only time will tell if AMD's approach will be as successful as with freesync.

For average performance comparison (latest), check out this link -
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/23.html

Well, not much difference in performance with 970 having a slight edge. In the next pages you can compare efficiency vs watt and vs $. Performance per watt hugely favors 970. Performance per $ hugely favors 390. Though this can change if you don't live in US.
Hope you enjoy whatever you purchase.

If you can wait a quarter or 2, finfet gpus will arrive. They'll be better than present generation and the cost of this gen gpus should go down too.



 
Upvote 1 Downvote


you are doing nothing but making a fool of yourself. please just stop before you make yourself look worse.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Of course if you buy a 120/144Hz monitor or even a 1440p then a 390 would do better, but those are rare exceptions. By far, the largest retail bracket is 1080/60, although the second most popular is 4k, whether that's the tv or a monitor.

As far as drivers go, amd was just finally after years, getting the bugs worked out and reliable drivers, and what did they do? Crimson.. And yes back to that. Issues, all over again
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@Karadjgne

There is no dedicated physx hardware in nvidia gpu. Period. The reason amd gpu cannot use gpu PhysX was because of CUDA (and licensing issue). And ultimately Amd did not use havok to replace PhysX in games so they can have physics in game. Physic engine ia game engine dependent and not OS dependent. And for the record PhysX work just fine on cpu. Only small portion of PhysX using gpu. Since gpu PhysX only run on on nvidia gpu, amd gpu have no relevence to amd gpu performance at all to PhysX.

@jerdle

I know where you stand seeing multiple of your post. But don't make it out to be that AMD as an absolute solution for the future. And with your statement you should agree with this: why buying Fury X in 2016 when the card only have 4GB VRAM?
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


I don't make it out that AMD is the absolute solution for the future. I make it out that between GCN and Maxwell, GCN is the better solution for the future.

As for Fury X, it seems to be capable of swapping out data fast enough for now - I'm playing games at over 4k resolution (though I have Fury X crossfire). I doubt it will be able to maintain that high of a res at smooth framerates beyond 2016 though. I expect its lifespan to be slightly less than a 980 TI - Assuming NVidia doesn't ignore Maxwell once Pascal is out. I wouldn't be surprised to see another iteration of plain R9 290s matching 780 TIs occur with Fury/Nanos and 980 TIs either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


i got a r9 380 i was in the same decision as you but i picekd the r9 i would go for the r9 anyday its just better and its futureproof for longer than an 970 my tip bro go for r9 390
 
Upvote 2 Downvote
I was recently faced with the same dilemma and chose the R9 390. Here is why:
-The 390 offered much better value. They are cheaper than their 970 counterparts. In the more recent benchmark testing I saw, the 390 edged out the 970 performance wise most of the time at 1080p. Kick it up to 1440p, and the 390 was noticeably ahead. This was comparing stock to stock, and overclock to overclock. With the 390 being 10%, there is a huge gap in value between these two.
-More future ready. It bothered me what I read about the 970 really being a 3.5gb card vs. the advertised 4gb. Honestly, I haven't seen any of my games get over 2gb so far, but it really is pretty shady that they would advertise 4gb and then I guess, hope no one actually pushed it that far? What's that all about? With 8gb of RAM, it seems that AMD was more forward thinking in the 390. Who knows, maybe we find out one day the 390 only really has 7.5gb! That said, I will have likely bought a new card long before I ever get a game that would use that much Vram, but it's not hard to see need over 3.5gb.

What made the decision tough:
-I have a 650 watt psu. There has been a lot made of having to have a 750 watt or better PSU to run a 390. Thanks to this website, I educated myself and learned that amps on the 12 volt rail is what really matters. Doing some research and a little math, I learned that my PSU could absolutely handle the 390, and so far, that has been the case.
-Heat. The 390 is hot, is what it is. That means a little more work on the part of the owner to monitor temps and make sure you have optimized your air flow. If you want to plug it and forget it, the heat is definitely and issue to consider.
-Drivers - This was my one, true hand up in the end. Currently, I am running Windows 10 with the newest Crimson driver and I have had 0 issues. Please note that I currently play some older games and not the most demanding on the GPU, but I have had no problems so far.

Overall, I felt like I would get a good card, regardless of my choice. I think that still holds true. This were just some of the deciding factors in my recent journey, so hope they help. 🙂

Please note, I am a recent crossover from console gaming, so I am still pretty new at this.

This video was a pretty big influence on my decision. This is only one source, so treat it as such, but I felt like there was some good data here.
https://youtu.be/k9cKZiJw6Pk
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom