Should I go with the MSI GTX 970 or snag a different 970?

[MHButler]

I'm currently looking to finally get a GPU that isn't low-tier or entry-level, and between the R9 390 and GTX 970 I'm currently leaning towards the 970 for drivers and that I don't intend on surpassing 1080p gaming any time soon (the main argument for the 390 being that it performs better at 1440p and 4K.)

Currently the main version of the GTX 970 I'm looking at is the MSI version, this one to be exact: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

The design fits my case with the red and black, and I love the MSI LED on the side, but I'm not 100% sure if I should go with MSI or go with another card. I've used a few MSI cards in the past, including an MSI GT 620 and an MSI GTX 750, never had an issue so I trust them the most, but quite a few people are having issues with coil whine using the MSI it seems (but not a majority, since it's got way more 4/5 egg/star/point reviews everywhere than 1/2/3). I use the Razer Kraken Pro headset, which cancels most noise out very well so it shouldn't be much of an issue, but even so I'd rather go without it.

My current power supply is a Corsair TX 750w Bronze so power won't be an issue.

Just looking for some insight and testimonials regarding specifically the MSI GTX 970, but also any other good GTX 970 that would possibly be recommended over it. (I have indeed checked out the ASUS, EVGA, and Gigabyte ones.) I am willing to test my luck, though, I'm not one of the ones who will immediately back down because one or two people say "I had coil whine / fan troubles with the MSI one" while another 50 say either it works well or recommend other cards.

I'm sure you guys are sick of threads asking about the 970 versions and such, sorry about that. 😛

Thanks guys, happy gaming.

 

[Antinaxtos]

Both the MSI and the EVGA SSC ACX2.0+ are very decent 970s and both have technologies to handle power consumption, noise and heat, MSI with the Twin Frozr V system and EVGA with their updated ACX2.0+ system (much better heat dissipation than the previous model). Either one would be amazing. The Gigabyte one offers the best OC ability but if you aren't going to OC then i would suggest going for either MSI or EVGA. I have personally went for the EVGA model since it was cheaper

 

[agentile]

I own the MSI card and would recommend it. The Twin Frozr system is great. It's very quiet under load and when simply browsing the net or Windows it's silent, as the fans will stop spinning. Great performance all around I love the MSI gaming app which overclocks it for you.

 

[Cinderblox]

Depends. The MSI Gaming edition is an open air GPU and will heat up your case if you don't have good case flow. (case flow standpoint from a ytuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12aDCxrcts)
The GPU will make the CPU more hot in this way.
But if you use a blower type card ( like the standart ones) the heat will exit the case immediatly and the hot air wil not interfere with the CPU as much.

So i guess it is up to you. Find the cheapest one ( probably an open air with aftermarket cooler) and tune your case accordingly

 

[NightAntilli]

If you're interested in VR, I'd pick the R9 390 over the GTX 970.

 

[Antinaxtos]

If you're interested in VR, I'd pick the R9 390 over the GTX 970.

Umm i don't see anywhere in the OP anything about VR?

 

[king3pj]

Depends. The MSI Gaming edition is an open air GPU and will heat up your case if you don't have good case flow. (case flow standpoint from a ytuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12aDCxrcts)
The GPU will make the CPU more hot in this way.
But if you use a blower type card ( like the standart ones) the heat will exit the case immediatly and the hot air wil not interfere with the CPU as much.

So i guess it is up to you. Find the cheapest one ( probably an open air with aftermarket cooler) and tune your case accordingly

Most people use non-reference GPUs and it isn't a problem. I have 2 EVGA SC ACX 2.0 970s in my PC and my CPU doesn't have heat problems. As long as you have decent airflow the open air, style coolers are probably fine.

The benefit to the custom designs these manufactures make is that they are clocked higher and run quieter than reference models. Unless you are running a multi-GPU setup in a tight case I think the benefits of these custom designs typically outweigh the benefits of a blower style reference cooler.

 

[NightAntilli]

If you're interested in VR, I'd pick the R9 390 over the GTX 970.

Umm i don't see anywhere in the OP anything about VR?

Which is exactly why I mentioned it.

 

[Antinaxtos]

If you're interested in VR, I'd pick the R9 390 over the GTX 970.

Umm i don't see anywhere in the OP anything about VR?

Which is exactly why I mentioned it.

OK let me try then...

If you are interested in making coffee, i'd pick up an espresso maker instead of the GTX 970.

 

[NightAntilli]

You don't get it. Maybe he didn't even think of VR when considering the cards, but still has an interest in it.

Also, the 970 being faster at 1080p is false.

Here's the most recent benchmark with updates drivers which indicates that;
390 is 4% faster than 970 at 1080p.
390 is 9% faster than 970 at 1440p.
390 is 13% faster than 970 at 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_390_Nitro/23.html

The more time passes, the more the 390 will pull ahead.

 

[king3pj]

You don't get it. Maybe he didn't even think of VR when considering the cards, but still has an interest in it.

Also, the 970 being faster at 1080p is false.

Here's the most recent benchmark with updates drivers which indicates that;
390 is 4% faster than 970 at 1080p.
390 is 9% faster than 970 at 1440p.
390 is 13% faster than 970 at 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_390_Nitro/23.html

The more time passes, the more the 390 will pull ahead.

That's definitely a change. Every version of that chart I have seen in the past shows the 970 ahead of the 390 at 1080p. They have always been very close in performance at that resolution though. Then at 1440p and 4K the 390 would pull ahead. The 970 is still a great card but I might have to reconsider my recommendation going forward.

 

[Antinaxtos]

You don't get it. Maybe he didn't even think of VR when considering the cards, but still has an interest in it.

Also, the 970 being faster at 1080p is false.

Here's the most recent benchmark with updates drivers which indicates that;
390 is 4% faster than 970 at 1080p.
390 is 9% faster than 970 at 1440p.
390 is 13% faster than 970 at 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_390_Nitro/23.html

The more time passes, the more the 390 will pull ahead.

Sigh fine i'll bite. The reason why the GTX 970 is and will be much better IN MY OPINION is because:

1. It's newer technology. The 390 is pretty much a refreshed 290.
2. It has MUCH less power consumption than the 390, which leads to
3. Lower temps on the GTX 970 which helps in keeping overall temps in your case ( especially closed ones ) lower AND
4. The GTX 970 overclocks WAY better.

There is a gazzilion benchmarks and both cards get good results with one of them leading in some and the other in the rest. It's the same fucking thing. What it comes down to, if you blindly choose to disregard what i've just told you above, comes down to fanboyism. Like you could ever tell 4% difference with your eyes. I am PURELY talking about 1080p.

 

[NightAntilli]

Sigh fine i'll bite. The reason why the GTX 970 is and will be much better IN MY OPINION is because:

1. It's newer technology. The 390 is pretty much a refreshed 290.
2. It has MUCH less power consumption than the 390, which leads to
3. Lower temps on the GTX 970 which helps in keeping overall temps in your case ( especially closed ones ) lower AND
4. The GTX 970 overclocks WAY better.

There is a gazzilion benchmarks and both cards get good results with one of them leading in some and the other in the rest. It's the same fucking thing. What it comes down to, if you blindly choose to disregard what i've just told you above, comes down to fanboyism. Like you could ever tell 4% difference with your eyes. I am PURELY talking about 1080p.

1) The GTX 970 might be newer, but that doesn't really make it superior in terms of supporting new features. Note that GCN 1.1 (R9 390 is GCN 1.1) and GCN 1.2 support FL12_0. This means that since 2013, AMD has GPUs on the market supporting pretty much all DX12 features. On top of that, they support the majority of these features on the highest tiers, including the 'hidden' 11_2 feature level. They are only missing conservative rasterization and ROV. Compare that to nVidia. Maxwell which was released in 2014, were still only capable of FL11_0!!! In fact, AMD's GCN 1.0 from 2011 has a higher rank in feature level support than 2014's Maxwell... Let that sink in for a moment...

With Maxwell 2 (the GTX 970), they included the two features missing on AMD, conservative rasterization and ROV, making nVidia capable of advertising FL12_1, pretending their cards are superior to AMD cards, despite that these features have been easily implemented on CPUs for a long time, without any significant performance loss. nVidia also have a higher tier in tiled resources.
However, despite all this, the R9 390 is still a higher tier in resource binding, and even GCN 1.0 which is from 2011 has a higher tier than Maxwell 3.
Stencil reference value from pixel shader is still only supported by GCN cards, again starting from GCN 1.0.
All GCN cards have the full heap available for UAV slots for all stages, Maxwell 2 cards are limited to 64.
GCN 1.0 cards have two asynchronous compute engines with two queues per unit (total of 4), which allow concurrent calculations of graphics + compute. Maxwell 2 still can't do this since they're limited by their required context switch. They can do asynchronous computing, but they can't do concurrent graphics + compute. GCN doesn't have this limit since no context switch is required. GCN 1.1 increased the compute units from two to eight compared to GCN 1.0, and the queues from 2 to 8 per unit also (total of 64). And this isn't even being used yet. Developers are just starting to experiment with it, Oxide was the first.
So, don't imply that AMD's cards have old technologies because the cards are old. nVidia is playing catch-up in some areas, and they even admitted it...

Page 23; http://www.reedbeta.com/talks/VR_Direct_GDC_2015.pdf

2) This is true, and is one of the only two reasons to go with a GTX 970 instead. If your power supply can't handle the power draw of the R9 390, by all means, get the GTX 970. Better than upgrading PSU + R9 390. The other one being the size of the cards, if the GTX 970 is able to fit in your case but not the R9 390.

3) The reason AMD's cards have such large coolers is to keep the temperatures within normal levels. You will get more heat in your case, but everyone should have proper airflow, and this is not really an issue in practice.

4) Yeah. This overclock argument goes out the window when the 390 is actually quite a bit faster if the cores are clocked the same. At the same clock speed the 390 is significantly faster. It takes 1500mhz+ for the 970 to keep up with a lower clocked 390. So, the advantage "but it overclocks crazy high" is kind of null since that doesn't make the 970 pull ahead significantly.

If the OP wants to go with the GTX 970, it's his choice. I can guarantee that the 390 is the better choice. Again, that's provided his PSU and case size are up to snuff.

 

[Antinaxtos]

Sigh fine i'll bite. The reason why the GTX 970 is and will be much better IN MY OPINION is because:

1. It's newer technology. The 390 is pretty much a refreshed 290.
2. It has MUCH less power consumption than the 390, which leads to
3. Lower temps on the GTX 970 which helps in keeping overall temps in your case ( especially closed ones ) lower AND
4. The GTX 970 overclocks WAY better.

There is a gazzilion benchmarks and both cards get good results with one of them leading in some and the other in the rest. It's the same fucking thing. What it comes down to, if you blindly choose to disregard what i've just told you above, comes down to fanboyism. Like you could ever tell 4% difference with your eyes. I am PURELY talking about 1080p.

1) The GTX 970 might be newer, but that doesn't really make it superior in terms of supporting new features. Note that GCN 1.1 (R9 390 is GCN 1.1) and GCN 1.2 support FL12_0. This means that since 2013, AMD has GPUs on the market supporting pretty much all DX12 features. On top of that, they support the majority of these features on the highest tiers, including the 'hidden' 11_2 feature level. They are only missing conservative rasterization and ROV. Compare that to nVidia. Maxwell which was released in 2014, were still only capable of FL11_0!!! In fact, AMD's GCN 1.0 from 2011 has a higher rank in feature level support than 2014's Maxwell... Let that sink in for a moment...

With Maxwell 2 (the GTX 970), they included the two features missing on AMD, conservative rasterization and ROV, making nVidia capable of advertising FL12_1, pretending their cards are superior to AMD cards, despite that these features have been easily implemented on CPUs for a long time, without any significant performance loss. nVidia also have a higher tier in tiled resources.
However, despite all this, the R9 390 is still a higher tier in resource binding, and even GCN 1.0 which is from 2011 has a higher tier than Maxwell 3.
Stencil reference value from pixel shader is still only supported by GCN cards, again starting from GCN 1.0.
All GCN cards have the full heap available for UAV slots for all stages, Maxwell 2 cards are limited to 64.
GCN 1.0 cards have two asynchronous compute engines with two queues per unit (total of 4), which allow concurrent calculations of graphics + compute. Maxwell 2 still can't do this since they're limited by their required context switch. They can do asynchronous computing, but they can't do concurrent graphics + compute. GCN doesn't have this limit since no context switch is required. GCN 1.1 increased the compute units from two to eight compared to GCN 1.0, and the queues from 2 to 8 per unit also (total of 64). And this isn't even being used yet. Developers are just starting to experiment with it, Oxide was the first.
So, don't imply that AMD's cards have old technologies because the cards are old. nVidia is playing catch-up in some areas, and they even admitted it...

Page 23; http://www.reedbeta.com/talks/VR_Direct_GDC_2015.pdf

2) This is true, and is one of the only two reasons to go with a GTX 970 instead. If your power supply can't handle the power draw of the R9 390, by all means, get the GTX 970. Better than upgrading PSU + R9 390. The other one being the size of the cards, if the GTX 970 is able to fit in your case but not the R9 390.

3) The reason AMD's cards have such large coolers is to keep the temperatures within normal levels. You will get more heat in your case, but everyone should have proper airflow, and this is not really an issue in practice.

4) Yeah. This overclock argument goes out the window when the 390 is actually quite a bit faster if the cores are clocked the same. At the same clock speed the 390 is significantly faster. It takes 1500mhz+ for the 970 to keep up with a lower clocked 390. So, the advantage "but it overclocks crazy high" is kind of null since that doesn't make the 970 pull ahead significantly.

If the OP wants to go with the GTX 970, it's his choice. I can guarantee that the 390 is the better choice. Again, that's provided his PSU and case size are up to snuff.

The huge pile of text you just posted (i have honestly read every single word of it) to me comes down to potato potato tomato tomato. Still yeah, if OP wants 970, let op have 970

 

[Cinderblox]

Depends. The MSI Gaming edition is an open air GPU and will heat up your case if you don't have good case flow. (case flow standpoint from a ytuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12aDCxrcts)
The GPU will make the CPU more hot in this way.
But if you use a blower type card ( like the standart ones) the heat will exit the case immediatly and the hot air wil not interfere with the CPU as much.

So i guess it is up to you. Find the cheapest one ( probably an open air with aftermarket cooler) and tune your case accordingly

Most people use non-reference GPUs and it isn't a problem. I have 2 EVGA SC ACX 2.0 970s in my PC and my CPU doesn't have heat problems. As long as you have decent airflow the open air, style coolers are probably fine.

The benefit to the custom designs these manufactures make is that they are clocked higher and run quieter than reference models. Unless you are running a multi-GPU setup in a tight case I think the benefits of these custom designs typically outweigh the benefits of a blower style reference cooler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAKyh-qqQCw

 

[Cinderblox]

Sigh fine i'll bite. The reason why the GTX 970 is and will be much better IN MY OPINION is because:

1. It's newer technology. The 390 is pretty much a refreshed 290.
2. It has MUCH less power consumption than the 390, which leads to
3. Lower temps on the GTX 970 which helps in keeping overall temps in your case ( especially closed ones ) lower AND
4. The GTX 970 overclocks WAY better.

There is a gazzilion benchmarks and both cards get good results with one of them leading in some and the other in the rest. It's the same fucking thing. What it comes down to, if you blindly choose to disregard what i've just told you above, comes down to fanboyism. Like you could ever tell 4% difference with your eyes. I am PURELY talking about 1080p.

1) The GTX 970 might be newer, but that doesn't really make it superior in terms of supporting new features. Note that GCN 1.1 (R9 390 is GCN 1.1) and GCN 1.2 support FL12_0. This means that since 2013, AMD has GPUs on the market supporting pretty much all DX12 features. On top of that, they support the majority of these features on the highest tiers, including the 'hidden' 11_2 feature level. They are only missing conservative rasterization and ROV. Compare that to nVidia. Maxwell which was released in 2014, were still only capable of FL11_0!!! In fact, AMD's GCN 1.0 from 2011 has a higher rank in feature level support than 2014's Maxwell... Let that sink in for a moment...

With Maxwell 2 (the GTX 970), they included the two features missing on AMD, conservative rasterization and ROV, making nVidia capable of advertising FL12_1, pretending their cards are superior to AMD cards, despite that these features have been easily implemented on CPUs for a long time, without any significant performance loss. nVidia also have a higher tier in tiled resources.
However, despite all this, the R9 390 is still a higher tier in resource binding, and even GCN 1.0 which is from 2011 has a higher tier than Maxwell 3.
Stencil reference value from pixel shader is still only supported by GCN cards, again starting from GCN 1.0.
All GCN cards have the full heap available for UAV slots for all stages, Maxwell 2 cards are limited to 64.
GCN 1.0 cards have two asynchronous compute engines with two queues per unit (total of 4), which allow concurrent calculations of graphics + compute. Maxwell 2 still can't do this since they're limited by their required context switch. They can do asynchronous computing, but they can't do concurrent graphics + compute. GCN doesn't have this limit since no context switch is required. GCN 1.1 increased the compute units from two to eight compared to GCN 1.0, and the queues from 2 to 8 per unit also (total of 64). And this isn't even being used yet. Developers are just starting to experiment with it, Oxide was the first.
So, don't imply that AMD's cards have old technologies because the cards are old. nVidia is playing catch-up in some areas, and they even admitted it...

Page 23; http://www.reedbeta.com/talks/VR_Direct_GDC_2015.pdf

2) This is true, and is one of the only two reasons to go with a GTX 970 instead. If your power supply can't handle the power draw of the R9 390, by all means, get the GTX 970. Better than upgrading PSU + R9 390. The other one being the size of the cards, if the GTX 970 is able to fit in your case but not the R9 390.

3) The reason AMD's cards have such large coolers is to keep the temperatures within normal levels. You will get more heat in your case, but everyone should have proper airflow, and this is not really an issue in practice.

4) Yeah. This overclock argument goes out the window when the 390 is actually quite a bit faster if the cores are clocked the same. At the same clock speed the 390 is significantly faster. It takes 1500mhz+ for the 970 to keep up with a lower clocked 390. So, the advantage "but it overclocks crazy high" is kind of null since that doesn't make the 970 pull ahead significantly.

If the OP wants to go with the GTX 970, it's his choice. I can guarantee that the 390 is the better choice. Again, that's provided his PSU and case size are up to snuff.

thank you for point 1, people saying straightout that it is almost the same as the 290 ... ugh

 

[agentile]

End of the day, they're both great cards. At 1080p without Fraps actively running I doubt you'll notice any difference. They'll both run all current games at 1080p flawlessly. I personally went with the 970 because I've always gone with AMD and their drivers have been a bit of a let down for me. Felt like a change. OP, the 970 will rock your socks.

 

[Javier_18]

Well, I've got an Asus gtx 970 strix, it comes factory overclocked, it fits your red and black case, but mostly i bought it because of the low noise. The 970 strix has a feature in which the gpu fans don't even turn on on idle or low usage, such as light gaming, but when you start playing more graphic intense games, or start rendering something, the gpu fans will start to spin.


(sorry if theres any grammatical error, my native language is spanish 😛)

 

[king3pj]

Well, I've got an Asus gtx 970 strix, it comes factory overclocked, it fits your red and black case, but mostly i bought it because of the low noise. The 970 strix has a feature in which the gpu fans don't even turn on on idle or low usage, such as light gaming, but when you start playing more graphic intense games, or start rendering something, the gpu fans will start to spin.


(sorry if theres any grammatical error, my native language is spanish 😛)

That isn't really a feature of the Strix model. Almost all the GTX 900 series cards have that feature. It's on my EVGA SC ACX 2.0 970s as well. I'm pretty sure you could do it yourself with a custom fan curve in something like EVGA PrecisonX or MSI Afterburner too.

 

[Javier_18]

Well, I've got an Asus gtx 970 strix, it comes factory overclocked, it fits your red and black case, but mostly i bought it because of the low noise. The 970 strix has a feature in which the gpu fans don't even turn on on idle or low usage, such as light gaming, but when you start playing more graphic intense games, or start rendering something, the gpu fans will start to spin.


(sorry if theres any grammatical error, my native language is spanish 😛)

That isn't really a feature of the Strix model. Almost all the GTX 900 series cards have that feature. It's on my EVGA SC ACX 2.0 970s as well. I'm pretty sure you could do it yourself with a custom fan curve in something like EVGA PrecisonX or MSI Afterburner too.

Oh really? well I didn't know about that ty