Would this GPU beat 290?

[lovingGamer]

 

I know it's 970 but it has only one fan.. (No overclocking i know that too)

[MrChavelo]

 

I know it's 970 but it has only one fan.. (No overclocking i know that too)

 

Beat? No.

Will it be better? Perhaps.

[ArcLights]

 

I know it's 970 but it has only one fan.. (No overclocking i know that too)

It's built for Mini ITX builds, but it will output the same performance as a GTX 970 with dual fan cooling solutions. The difference would be thermals

[arronleeds]

yes it does beat the 290.

[arronleeds]

Beat? No.

Will it be better? Perhaps.

considering the 970 is in 290x waters, yeah it will.

[salecar3]

its 2/3 fps difrance between normal and this 970 but thermals, noise, arr different, also this gpu can get easily thermal throttled

[SkywardKkalox]

This model is known to have coil whine just a heads up.

[Morgan Everett]

A stock 290? Yes. Overclocked? Perhaps not. 

[lovingGamer]

This model is known to have coil whine just a heads up.

what is that?

[SkywardKkalox]

what is that?

A loud whining noise that doesn't go away no matter what.

Here is an explanation of what it is.

 

 

And here is how it is on real time.

 

[lovingGamer]

A loud whining noise that doesn't go away no matter what.

Here is an explanation of what it is.

 

 

And here is how it is on real time.

 

yeah shit is annoying.. lol

[Prysin]

It's built for Mini ITX builds, but it will output the same performance as a GTX 970 with dual fan cooling solutions. The difference would be thermals

Thermals and the danger of throttling.

 

Fury Nano will beat this and the 290 when it releases later this summer.

[TheConverter]

You can fit a full sized gpu in most Mini-Itx builds.

 

Also Mini-Itx sucks, if you want small sizes go with Micro-Atx in a Air 240:

 

[FLUFFYJELLO]

You can fit a full sized gpu in most Mini-Itx builds.

 

Also Mini-Itx sucks, if you want small sizes go with Micro-Atx in a Air 240:

 

Dude what kind of subjective garbage are you spewing? Micro ATX and Mini ITX both offer different things and one might suit someone better than the other.

Also, that case is ugly as hell (in my opinion). Don't spout opinions as facts; it gets old really fast.

 

@lovingGamer the 970 and 290(x) go toe to toe but the 290(x) does better at higher resolutions. The 970 draws less power, generally overclocks better (with the exception being the MSI Lightning 290x), and runs cooler and quieter (again, generally speaking). Really it comes down to personal preference, but the rule of thumb is to get the best card that you can afford. Pick it out, pull the trigger, and regret nothing.

[TheConverter]

Dude what kind of subjective garbage are you spewing? Micro ATX and Mini ITX both offer different things and one might suit someone better than the other.

Also, that case is ugly as hell (in my opinion). Don't spout opinions as facts; it gets old really fast.

 

@lovingGamer the 970 and 290(x) go toe to toe but the 290(x) does better at higher resolutions. The 970 draws less power, generally overclocks better (with the exception being the MSI Lightning 290x), and runs cooler and quieter (again, generally speaking). Really it comes down to personal preference, but the rule of thumb is to get the best card that you can afford. Pick it out, pull the trigger, and regret nothing.

 

Well in Mini-Itx you are limited to one gpu and two memory slots. And it's only a fraction smaller then micro-atx.

 

Also why do you compare the 970 vs the 290(X)? The 390(X) is now out and performs 10% better then the 970 while having 8GB of vram instead of 3.5

 

[david cassar]

Well in Mini-Itx you are limited to one gpu and two memory slots. And it's only a fraction smaller then micro-atx.

 

Also why do you compare the 970 vs the 290(X)? The 390(X) is now out and performs 10% better then the 970 while having 8GB of vram instead of 3.5

 

 

390x costs 100$ more

Also don't link one benchmark

In tomshardware and techpowerup's reviews at 1080p the gtx 970 is basically as fast as an r9 390x. While being about 7% faster than a 390.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-6.html

Not to mention that the 970 overclocks better, uses less power.

[TheConverter]

390x costs 100$ more

Also don't link one benchmark

In tomshardware and techpowerup's reviews at 1080p the gtx 970 is basically as fast as an r9 390x. While being about 7% faster than a 390.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-6.html

Not to mention that the 970 overclocks better, uses less power.

 

And has 3.5GB vram, unless you want to upgrade next year when 8GB will be minimum thanks to HBM V2, get a 390 NON-X. Also as that dude said, it just came out and needs newer drivers.

 

In the TechPowerUP review the 390 is only 3% slower on 1080P then the 970 but up to 7% faster on 4K. If people still use the excuse that they game on 1080P, they why buy a 970/R9 290?

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Well in Mini-Itx you are limited to one gpu and two memory slots. And it's only a fraction smaller then micro-atx.

 

Also why do you compare the 970 vs the 290(X)? The 390(X) is now out and performs 10% better then the 970 while having 8GB of vram instead of 3.5

 

 

 

390x costs 100$ more

Also don't link one benchmark

In tomshardware and techpowerup's reviews at 1080p the gtx 970 is basically as fast as an r9 390x. While being about 7% faster than a 390.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-6.html

Not to mention that the 970 overclocks better, uses less power.

^pretty much this. 8GB of VRAM isn't useful at anything below 1440p, which 1080p is still the standard for 95% of people. And you do keep linking the same video over and over again as if it's the end-all comparison of the two cards (which it isn't and the fact that you only link one source is hilarious).

And I compare the 290(x) because it's a better value than the 390(x) right now.

 

Some people only need 1 expansion slot and 2 ram slots. Ever heard of an HTPC? Yeah, those exist and don't need a graphics card but can benefit from a cable card.

And has 3.5GB vram, unless you want to upgrade next year when 8GB will be minimum thanks to HBM V2, get a 390. Also as that dude said, it just came out and needs newer drivers.

 

In the TechPowerUP the 390 is only 3% slower on 1080P then the 970 but up to 7% faster on 4K.

8GB VRAM as the standard by next year? Wow, you must be dreaming considering there's only one or two games released this year that even come close to 6gb at 4k resolution. And that's 4k, and like I said, the vast majority of people are still gaming at 1080p. You're making some really bold claims based on nothing but your own really stretched opinions on tech; and like I said before, that gets old pretty fast.

[TheConverter]

^pretty much this. 8GB of VRAM isn't useful at anything below 1440p, which 1080p is still the standard for 95% of people. And you do keep linking the same video over and over again as if it's the end-all comparison of the two cards (which it isn't and the fact that you only link one source is hilarious).

And I compare the 290(x) because it's a better value than the 390(x) right now.

 

Some people only need 1 expansion slot and 2 ram slots. Ever heard of an HTPC? Yeah, those exist and don't need a graphics card but can benefit from a cable card.

8GB VRAM as the standard by next year? Wow, you must be dreaming considering there's only one or two games released this year that even come close to 6gb at 4k resolution. And that's 4k, and like I said, the vast majority of people are still gaming at 1080p. You're making some really bold claims based on nothing but your own really stretched opinions on tech; and like I said before, that gets old pretty fast.

 

 

Nvidia said that HBM V2 is cable of having 32GB of vram, do you really think they will put anything less then 8GB of HBM on their cards? Look at the Fury X it gets bashed because it can only do 4GB of HBM because it's has HBM V1

 

And FYI I can't max GTA V out on my R9 290 due to vram. I will be getting a 980Ti next week.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Nvidia said that HBM V2 is cable of having 32GB of vram, do you really think they will put anything less then 8GB of HBM on their cards? Look at the Fury X it gets bashed because it can only do 4GB of HBM because it's has HBM V1

 

And FYI I can't max GTA V out on my R9 290 due to vram. I will be getting a 980Ti next week.

Actually it doesn't get "bashed" it loses by like 5-8% because the 4GB of HBM can process data faster due to its higher bandwidth. It's able to keep up with the 980Ti at higher resolutions because of the HBM (keep up, not beat. 980Ti is still the better card, I am acknowledging that).

But 8GB of HBM2? That's excessive. Perhaps the next Ti card will have tat much, but the average Pascal I can't see going above 6. Honestly I think we're going to see dividends of 3 with Pascal (3GB low end, 6GB mid tier and "flagship" [Pascal's "980"], and 12GB for the "Titan" variant) and again, the Ti variant having 8. The insanely high bandwidth of HBM is what can allow a manufacturer to use less and still achieve almost equal performance of cards using more GDDR5. Because of this I think we'll see overall less memory but the greater performance of the HBM. Just my thoughts, which are al speculation. There's no way to know until it actually happens.

 

And congrats on the 980Ti! I cancelled my step up because money issues so unfortunately I can't get mine yet. I still have 50 days to start a new ticket though so hopefully I can get a one started by then.

[TheConverter]

Actually it doesn't get "bashed" it loses by like 5-8% because the 4GB of HBM can process data faster due to its higher bandwidth. It's able to keep up with the 980Ti at higher resolutions because of the HBM (keep up, not beat. 980Ti is still the better card, I am acknowledging that).

But 8GB of HBM2? That's excessive. Perhaps the next Ti card will have tat much, but the average Pascal I can't see going above 6. Honestly I think we're going to see dividends of 3 with Pascal (3GB low end, 6GB mid tier and "flagship" [Pascal's "980"], and 12GB for the "Titan" variant) and again, the Ti variant having 8. The insanely high bandwidth of HBM is what can allow a manufacturer to use less and still achieve almost equal performance of cards using more GDDR5. Because of this I think we'll see overall less memory but the greater performance of the HBM. Just my thoughts, which are al speculation. There's no way to know until it actually happens.

 

And congrats on the 980Ti! I cancelled my step up because money issues so unfortunately I can't get mine yet. I still have 50 days to start a new ticket though so hopefully I can get a one started by then.

 

"Canceled my Step-Up and ordered a second 1080p monitor instead. Sometimes it's easier to realize "need vs. want"."

 

Lmao who "needs" a second 1080P monitor? When 900P or 720P monitors are like 30$.

 

Anyways, I think it's nice that AMD is back and has a fairly large portion of the market in it's hand, except they just can't deliver to the enthousiast class.

 

360 = Great for budget builds, and for most played games like LoL,Dota2,CS:GO,WoW etc

370 = The next-gen crusher

380 > 960

390 > 970

 

but

 

980Ti > Fury X (stock 980ti is quite shit, but demn +1500mhz overclocks on aftermarket coolers)

[FLUFFYJELLO]

"Canceled my Step-Up and ordered a second 1080p monitor instead. Sometimes it's easier to realize "need vs. want"."

 

Lmao who "needs" a second 1080P monitor? When 900P or 720P monitors are like 30$.

 

Anyways, I think it's nice that AMD is back and has a fairly large portion of the market in it's hand, except they just can't deliver to the enthousiast class.

 

360 = Great for budget builds, and for most played games like LoL,Dota2,CS:GO,WoW etc

370 = The next-gen crusher

380 > 960

390 > 970

 

but

 

980Ti > Fury X (stock 980ti is quite shit, but demn +1500mhz overclocks on aftermarket coolers)

Someone who needs consistent UI scaling when going from one monitor to the next because otherwise I get a headache, I would consider not straining my eyes a need over a want. But I'm loving your sarcasm. More please! Link me to these 900p monitors for $30 while you're at it!

/s

[TheConverter]

Someone who needs consistent UI scaling when going from one monitor to the next because otherwise I get a headache, I would consider not straining my eyes a need over a want. But I'm loving your sarcasm. More please! Link me to these 900p monitors for $30 while you're at it!

/s

 

I swear I got a 1600x900 20 inch LG monitor for 30 euro brand new at a online auction from one of my favourite hardware-shops. But it's TN so it's shit for gaming, but it's cool as a second monitor. I gave it to my mum because I don't really multitask while gaming.

 

Also had triple 27 inch IPS 1080P 60HZ eyefinity setup, but returned 2 monitors because I didn't thought it was worth the price.

 

Now I'm using the Acer XB270HU which I got for 390€ instead of 799€ only because it had 2 death pixel on the edges. Glorious IPS 1440P 144hz G-Sync!

[FLUFFYJELLO]

I swear I got a 1600x900 20 inch LG monitor for 30 euro brand new at a online auction from one of my favourite hardware-shops. But it's TN so it's shit for gaming, but it's cool as a second monitor.

Ok 30 Euros is about $35USD (a bit exaggerated) but yeah I could pick up set of 2 brand new VA panel 21" 1600x900 monitors for $130. That was a 1 day deal and each was $65. Could have gone that route, but again, UI scaling gives me a headache.

980Ti is still not a need, and will only ever be a "want" on my end. I still may get it, and it would be pretty overkill for my setup. Stuff may change in 2 months, a new game might come out that I'll want to get requires 6GB of vram to be playable at 1080p (not likely). Who knows?