The truths about the old GTX 970 vs R9 390 argument. Need valid points on both.

[Jiggy The-Red]

Good day, Wizards!
I'm bringing up the old debate about Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 VS AMD's Radeon R9 390.

It's an old argument, I know. There are many posts asking about these two cards, I know.
But the performances, and the debates about the two are so on par that I'm as confused as anybody. Not to mention the fanboys, the old opinions, and inexperienced comments that flood the posts.

I'm currently building a brand new gaming system to give to somebody else. This build is intended to not overclock (has a locked CPU) and utilize one GPU in the specific budget. $400 - $500 (Australian Dollars).
The best prices I found are as follows:

• 
  GTX 970 = $450AUD
  R9 390 = $400AUD

Now, I am open minded, and the price difference is only slightly steering me to one direction.
What I want is truth, and facts, so that I can make the best decision between the two.

When I give this system, I want the owner to feel that they've got their hands on the best, new gaming rig that the budget could afford. And that means that they have a rig that will last for a long time, and will keep up with all the latest and upcoming titles, without having to change a thing. (Some could call that 'future proof')

So back to the debate.
I've looked through many different forum posts, comparative videos, benchmark scores, reviews. All the informative resources online.
And of course, it seems the two sides are at a tie.
But what would help me is some clarification on the strong points that have been made for both sides.
And I need to know answers relevant to NOW, not in the past. It's mid 2016

---

1.
Supportive comments for the 970 state that the GTX supplies better graphic quality than the R9. And I think that comes with either its newer hardware, technology or design? (Some clarification please!)
This also comes against all the clear evidence that the R9 brings better FPS. Because even though the R9's FPS are better, the argument rebuts that its graphic detail doesn't match up to the GTX's.
Somebody explain, and tell me how the graphics do compare. Is it dramatic?

2.
Next, the GTX 970's VRAM is 3.5GB+0.5GB, and the R9 390's is 8GB, which would indicate the R9's ability to handle future titles that are expected possibly to utilize more VRAM.
I'm not too informed about programing or how future games are being developed, but what is the seen trend in all the latest titles? What sort of specifications do the latest games require from a graphics card? In these terms, which of the two cards is actually better suited for now, and for the future?

3.
In regards with the VRAM and the hardware differences, the R9 390 is said by some to not be strong enough to handle all 8GB of memory. On the other hand the GTX with its better components makes the most of its memory, and therefore proves to be the stronger card.
The details of this makes it tricky for me to compare, because it still seems the R9 holds up its stance, and the two cards are still neck and neck(or almost) in comparative tests.
Are the two fighting styles truly equal in this match, or is there an unsaid benefit one holds against the other?

4.
The 970 is said to hold more consistent FPS whereas the 390 flaunts the higher figures through fluctuation. If truth be told, is the consistence superior(especially in gaming) and is the continuous flux of FPS a heavy downfall? What is the degree of the 390's 'inconsistent' FPS?
In gaming, what are the desired outcomes, and why?

5.
The 970 is said to overclock much better than the 390. A fair point indeed. I'm not sure if that is important to me as I planned to not overclock anything in this PC. The owner of the PC may overclock the GPU, but that's entirely up to them. I'll probably be informing them about technicalities like overclocking components as I explain the build to them.
Since I had no intention of OC'ing any components, I'll be happy with the graphics card that runs better at its stock speeds. It will be a simplicity for the owner.
But in terms of OC'ing the two cards, does one certainly shine better in OC'ed performance?
I know the numbers of the clocks scale differently to one another in terms of overall performance (at least I think they're different) due to different architectures. So do the higher figures account for superior outcomes?
And which does overclock better? I mean, which works even better once clocked higher?

6.
People say that Nvidia's software and drivers are superb whereas AMD's are faulty and unreliable.
I've seen recent comments on forum posts and videos that say that is no longer the case.
What's the truth of this? What's the truth of this NOW, in JULY 2016?
=[ It's almost July
What are the faults and favours? Does this make one product really disregardable? Because how have they stayed in business if so? I'm sure the endless factors of different PC builds or IT ignorance accounts for these hiccups. Enlighten me please!

7.
Nvidia is optimised for more games than AMD. I hear that driver updates for programs are delayed with AMD. Not that it concerns me, because the updates still come, don't they?
Is this the same point I'm discussing? Or is Nvidia's game optimizations and developer partnerships a different boat in terms of driver compatibility with programs? Because if it's different, it sounds as if AMD stands a minuscule chance in the gaming market.

8.
Some games are better optimized for Nvidia, where others a better for AMD. Does this have to do with the previous point of business associations? Does this have to do with the general hardware?
Some say Battlefield 4 is better with AMD. Are they talking specifically about R9 390 card against the GTX 970, or do they mean the generally with the GPU brands?

9.
Many talk of their bad experiences with AMD, but I feel these opinions are out of date since years have probably passed and both companies have developed in their individual manners. I'm sure when people talk of how they'll never go back to AMD, they're talking about old lines of products that probably were inferior to Nvidia's options at the time.
Let's be honest here. Is this still the case?
And no I'm not talking about CPU's and other components. I'm talking about graphics cards here.
I've got an AMD FX8350 rig, and I know how it compares to Intel

10.
The R9 390's TDP is higher, and thus will generate more heat. I understand how this will drive the cooling to work harder as the fans will probably spin faster, and thus generate more noise. But to what degree (haha degree, not temperature) do the GTX and the R9 differ in heat and noise?
Updated posts tell me that the temperatures are even with the two now, which I'm not sure about since one does have a greater power draw.
And wouldn't load on either card activate the fans to roar anyway? I was planning to use the MSI R9 390, which is said to not run its fans on idle. Is noise still an issue then?

11.
Direct X 12 is apparently better suited to AMD. I'm not up to date with this news and so I don't know much about what this will determine. And I'm not sure how that will affect me, or I should say the owner on the PC I'm building.
Is there any certain information on where this sits with current games, and future games?
This, I need to be educated about.

12.
The common knowledge on the argument is that:

• 
  at 1080p, the GTX 970 is the better card, but the R9 390 keeps up well.
  at 1440p, the R9 390 is the better card.

Does the 970 keep up well at 1440p like the 390 keeps up on 1080p? Or are the two resolutions completely different leagues that define the players of this match?

Also, any information about Virtual Reality, and the two cards? I've no idea of VR specifications.

---

Now, I've typed up way too much for a forum post. I know =[
But I feel this is a worthy discussion that I need to clarify. SORRY IF THIS IS ALREADY A DISCUSSION SOMEWHERE ELSE. I'VE SEEN MANY POSTS ON THE MATTER.
I want to make the right decision for the PC and would love honest answers to my queries.
I'll put the component list of the build at the very bottom.

I hope this post brings out the true intellectuals on the matter and scares away the fanboys.

I want to make a few guidelines for anybody who wishes to answer any of the points (or all of them). Please?

• 
  -Answers or comments are to come with evidence and/or an explanation.(I'm sick of substanceless opinions). Experiences are evidence, so be honest yet informative.
  
  -Answers are to be up to date, or at least have a time reference, such as what year the information was valid.
  
  -Keep comments centred around the two cards, not other GPU's or products.
  
  -No flames! Let's keep it educational. (And please don't flame me for such a long post) =[
  
  -And please no swear words. Or keep it to a minimum. Vulgar language isn't sexy, sometimes.

Thanks, Wizards!
---

The build is not intended for OC'ing. It's a simple system, I'd say.
If I decide on the R9 390, I may throw in an extra chassis fan or two. This makes up and equates the price difference I see between the two graphics cards. That's why the price difference hasn't swayed me yet.
If the owner of the build finds this post, I hope it educates them enough about what they'll be running. (That's if anybody bothers to read and/or answer my long article)

Part List:
i5 6500
Asus B150M Pro Gaming
16(4x4GB) DDR4 RAM 2133mhz
240GB SSD
2TB HDD
Corsair Carbide 88R MATX Chassis
XFX Pro 550w
GPU: Either the MSI GTX 970 or the MSI R9 390
1x Rear exhaust, Corsair AF120 Quiet

 

[jtk2515]

Amd 480 cheaper and same performance. ;-) Sadly your not in the US market or the prices for sales make the choice an ez one. If your not Overclocking then the card with the highest Factory OC will win.

 

[damric]

I would not consider buying either of these obsolete cards at new prices. If you have your heart set on one I would just get it second hand since everyone is updating to the next generation.

 

[Dugimodo]

I didn't read all that, just too long.
Anyway I don't think you'll be unhappy with either and if you don't want to wait for the upcoming 480 or a 1060 whenever that might happen then just pick one.

I think relative performance will come down to what games get played. Some titles favour one architecture over the other. I've stuck with Nvidia mainly because it's been more consistent for me with the games I play but when I've had an AMD card it generally was just as good, except maybe with early drivers but both cards you mention have been around a fair while now.

 

[Jiggy The-Red]

I would not consider buying either of these obsolete cards at new prices. If you have your heart set on one I would just get it second hand since everyone is updating to the next generation.

Thanks for the opinion.
Would these new generation cards fall under the same retail price that these two cards cost?
I'm working with a budget, and so have been deterred from some of the latest releases.

 

[Jiggy The-Red]

I didn't read all that, just too long.
Anyway I don't think you'll be unhappy with either and if you don't want to wait for the upcoming 480 or a 1060 whenever that might happen then just pick one.

I think relative performance will come down to what games get played. Some titles favour one architecture over the other. I've stuck with Nvidia mainly because it's been more consistent for me with the games I play but when I've had an AMD card it generally was just as good, except maybe with early drivers but both cards you mention have been around a fair while now.

Thanks.
Do you think you could tell me some games that work better with Nvidia or AMD?
Or is there a webpage somewhere that lists all the titles and their optimized gpu brands?

 

[Martell1977]

We will know in about 4 hours and 10 minutes how the RX 480 stacks up to the 970 and 390. No telling what prices will do but I expect them to get inflated with the demand.

That being said, AMD had bad drivers back in 2006-07 when they bought ATI. Now, they are about even but they don't release as many updates as nVidia does at this time. At 1080p, they are just about dead even on performance, the 390 pulls a little ahead as the resolution goes up.

I chose the 390 because I tend to keep my hardware until it can no longer serve my needs (hence I'm still rocking an i7-950). My last video card was still doing well, but was limited by VRAM (1gb), so when I was considering the 970 or the 390, I felt the 390 will have better longevity as games will demand more VRAM. I have 2 monitors and a TV connected, all 1080p, and have zero complaints in Fallout 4 and Doom 2016.

If I were in the market today, I'd seriously look at the 480 or the 1070, depending on the price range I was looking at. But with the release of the 480, the prices should drop further on the 970 and 390 or at least make for some awesome sales for vendors to clear out stock of them.

I am not a fanboy of either brand, I just buy the best price/performance and what will suit my needs the best and longest. If the 970 had 6gb or 8gb VRAM, it would have been a much harder choice.

The MSRP for the 480 is $199 US.

 

[geofelt]

From a performance point of view, the end user will be hard pressed to detect any difference without a benchmark.
And... the result will differ with different games.

VRAM has become a marketing issue.
My understanding is that vram is more of a performance issue than a functional issue.
A game needs to have most of the data in vram that it uses most of the time.
Somewhat like real ram.
If a game needs something not in vram, it needs to get it across the pcie boundary
hopefully from real ram and hopefully not from a hard drive.
It is not informative to know to what level the available vram is filled.
Possibly much of what is there is not needed.
What is not known is the rate of vram exchange.
Vram is managed by the Graphics card driver, and by the game. There may be differences in effectiveness between amd and nvidia cards.
And differences between games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2gb with 4gb vram.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
Spoiler... not a significant difference.
A more current set of tests shows the same results:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/page5.html

And... no game maker wants to limit their market by
requiring huge amounts of vram. The vram you see will be appropriate to the particular card.

The R9 cards are power hungry and typically take 75w more than the nvidia equivalents.
For the R9-390, you should look more to 650w.

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm

The story is different with current gen GTX1070 cards and the current gen amd cards.

And... do not buy a 4 x 4gb ram kit.
You can only run in dual channel mode regardless. Buy a 2 x 8gb kit.

 

[Jiggy The-Red]

We will know in about 4 hours and 10 minutes how the RX 480 stacks up to the 970 and 390. No telling what prices will do but I expect them to get inflated with the demand.

That being said, AMD had bad drivers back in 2006-07 when they bought ATI. Now, they are about even but they don't release as many updates as nVidia does at this time. At 1080p, they are just about dead even on performance, the 390 pulls a little ahead as the resolution goes up.

I chose the 390 because I tend to keep my hardware until it can no longer serve my needs (hence I'm still rocking an i7-950). My last video card was still doing well, but was limited by VRAM (1gb), so when I was considering the 970 or the 390, I felt the 390 will have better longevity as games will demand more VRAM. I have 2 monitors and a TV connected, all 1080p, and have zero complaints in Fallout 4 and Doom 2016.

If I were in the market today, I'd seriously look at the 480 or the 1070, depending on the price range I was looking at. But with the release of the 480, the prices should drop further on the 970 and 390 or at least make for some awesome sales for vendors to clear out stock of them.

I am not a fanboy of either brand, I just buy the best price/performance and what will suit my needs the best and longest. If the 970 had 6gb or 8gb VRAM, it would have been a much harder choice.

The MSRP for the 480 is $199 US.

Thanks for the answer.
I didn't know about AMD taking over ATI, but the issues from that make sense.
I've looked around, and certain online leaks had said that the RX 480 will sell at $420AUD, which is in between the current price of the two cards. Not that impressive, considering the predicted performance.
I'm scared the price drop won't be major, as it seems here in my country.

 

[Jiggy The-Red]

From a performance point of view, the end user will be hard pressed to detect any difference without a benchmark.
And... the result will differ with different games.

VRAM has become a marketing issue.
My understanding is that vram is more of a performance issue than a functional issue.
A game needs to have most of the data in vram that it uses most of the time.
Somewhat like real ram.
If a game needs something not in vram, it needs to get it across the pcie boundary
hopefully from real ram and hopefully not from a hard drive.
It is not informative to know to what level the available vram is filled.
Possibly much of what is there is not needed.
What is not known is the rate of vram exchange.
Vram is managed by the Graphics card driver, and by the game. There may be differences in effectiveness between amd and nvidia cards.
And differences between games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2gb with 4gb vram.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
Spoiler... not a significant difference.
A more current set of tests shows the same results:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/page5.html

And... no game maker wants to limit their market by
requiring huge amounts of vram. The vram you see will be appropriate to the particular card.

The R9 cards are power hungry and typically take 75w more than the nvidia equivalents.
For the R9-390, you should look more to 650w.

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm

The story is different with current gen GTX1070 cards and the current gen amd cards.

And... do not buy a 4 x 4gb ram kit.
You can only run in dual channel mode regardless. Buy a 2 x 8gb kit.

Thank you for your answer.
I don't know why RAM, and VRAM didn't click together in my mind. Now it makes much more sense.

Would the 4x4gb not work in dual channel though? I don't plan to upgrade or increase the RAM as 8gb seems sufficient for any games

 

[ema21del9]

I've found this video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CJBaZ9V2Eo

Me personally would choose the GTX 970 for longetivity, check the 750TI for example is still performing very well for modern games in 1080p and it's a middle-range GPU which is more than 2 years old.