The results aren't suspicious. The game is GPU limited and so the results are based on the variance within GPU results.
As long as the CPU isn't holding the GPU back, the results will be neck and neck. This is true of most mid range GPU's, most games with multithreading and GPU bound scenarios like 4K or other similarly high resolutions.
Intel CPU's are still faster and significantly better in ~20% of games but something like the 8350 is a perfectly competent CPU.
I know everyone says 390 over 970 these days, but imo it all depends what kinda card you are looking for, i first got a MSI 390 and i just could not stand the noise the card made, i got a bit unlucky with coil whine, but the fan noise was also just too much for my taste. I just traded in my 390 for a MSI GTX 970 today and i gotta admit that i am happy with the trade, it runs cooler even in my airflow restricted case, 70 degrees overclocked to 1518 on the core, my 390 hit 85 while just running stock. I also cant hear the fans of the 970 before the card hits like 80% while the 390 sounded like a jet taking off next to me at 70% of even 60%.
You can never really be future proof, the 390 comes with 8Gigs of VRAM vs the 970s 4(3.5), games do use more and more as times go on, but at 1080p you are not gonna be needing more than the 4G, i would say where the 390 shines with its 8Gigs is if you CF it to run highter resolutions.
As others also point out, it all depends on price, where i live the 970 is cheaper than the 390, if you live in a place where the 390 is cheaper then that might just be the better option, go for something like Sapphire or MSI if you do go for the 390.
In Sri Lanka 390 is about Rs.60000 $426) and 970s are about Rs.63000 ($448). There is Rs. 20000 ($140) price difference between 390x and 980 and Rs. 15000 between FuryX and 980ti
For your information I'm using a 290X twin frozr. I'm experiencing about $12 difference in monthly electricity bill compared to previous GTX 560ti. Electricity cost is not same in every region
For your information I'm using a 290X twin frozr. I'm experiencing about $12 difference in monthly electricity bill compared to previous GTX 560ti. Electricity cost is not same in every region
For your information I'm using a 290X twin frozr. I'm experiencing about $12 difference in monthly electricity bill compared to previous GTX 560ti. Electricity cost is not same in every region
I'm having a 290X twin frozr, it's average temperature is below 87C while gaming (well fan speed reach 100% if 90C is reached, unless it's furmark, my card doesn't reach 94C). I live in Sri Lanka, ambient temperatures are same as yours. Problem must be either with casing or thermal paste.
Try what Pohernari said. If the problem still exist, try changing thermal paste. If you bought it from a local shop and if warranty is available, you may be able to claim warranty.
NOTES: THIS IS ONLY COMPARING BOTH COMPANY'S CURRENT GEN PRODUCTS (AMD: R7-9 300 SERIES, NVIDIA: GTX 750 AND GTX 750Ti, AND GTX 900 SERIES). THIS IS BECAUSE OLDER PRODUCTS' PRICES VARY HUGELY, AND ARE HARDER TO FIND. I WILL ALSO NOT BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF HUGELY MORE EXPENSIVE VERSIONS OF A CARD, EG R9 290 LIGHTNING. I WILL ALSO USE THE CARDS' BASE CONFIGURATION OF VRAM, EG 2GB ON THE GTX 960, NOT 4GB. THE MINIMUM RESOLUTION I AM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IS 1080P. ALL OF MY COMPARISONS OF PERFORMANCE ARE BASED OF BENCHMARKS FROM REPUTABLE WEBSITES LIKE TOM'S HARDWARE (EXCEPT THE CHEAPEST OPTION, WHERE I COULD ONLY FIND YOUTUBE BENCHMARKS FROM 1000 SUB CHANNELS). PRICES ARE IN AMERICAN DOLLARS AND BRITISH POUND STERLING. DUE TO SILICON LOTTERY, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VERY WHEN IT COMES TO OVERCLOCKING.
Budget Options
Price Range: $100-120 OR £80-90
Nvidia - GTX 750 AMD - R7 360
These are fairly equal, and trade blows with each other. The R7 360 looks better on paper, with double the amount of VRAM (2GB vs 1GB), however in practise this rarely matters. At 1080p, which is all these cards should be used at, 1GB is enough in most scenarios. To get decent framerates (40+ average), you will need to turn the detail down to low-high, depending on the game. Once you have done that, and the VRAM issue is out of the way, they are pretty much equal, although the GTX 750 has the edge in less AMD optimized games (let's face it, a lot of them). If you prefer higher detail settings and slightly lower framerates, the R7 360 is the way to go, as the card could potetnially use more than 1GB. The R7 360 might also be more future-proof due to more VRAM.
At this price range, the Nvidia GTX 750 is the way to go for most people, due to slightly better performance in games. If you like to crank the details up at the expense of very good frame rates, the AMD R7 360 is what you want, for its 2GB of VRAM. Overall, the winner is the GTX 750 currently, although this may change if future games start to use more VRAM.
Price Range: $130-160 OR £95-140
Nvidia - GTX 750Ti AMD - R7 370
Here AMD wins, in terms of performance. The R7 370 methodically beats the GTX 750Ti in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins, as well as in the synthetic benchmarks like 3D Mark Firestrike (4920 VS 4113). For example, it was able to get 60.1 average FPS in Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1080p, VS the GTX 750Ti's 46.3 FPS. Both cards have 2GB VRAM, although AMD has a 256 Bit interface VS Nvidia's 128 Bit one (this is mostly irrelevant due to differences in the two companies' compression techniques). The place where the 750Ti wins, however, is in overclocking. It can overclock much better than the r7 370, closing the gap in performance in a lot of cases. The 750Ti is also better if you are simply placing it into an old/pre built PC, because it does not need an external 6-Pin power connector, unlike the R7 370.
Here, the AMD R7 370 is the way to go. It has better performance than the competition in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins. The only reasons to consider the GTX 750Ti is the better overclocking, and the fact that it does not need a 6-Pin power connector, allowing for worse PSUs and better cable management in something like an ITX system.
Mid-Range Options
Price Range: $190-240 OR £150-180
Nvidia - GTX 960 AMD - R9 380
Again, AMD wins here. The R9 380 narrowly edges out the GTX 960 at 1080p in most games; however, at 1440p and 4k (although 4k is unreasonable for this card) the R9 380 starts to really pull ahead, often with differences of 10-20+ FPS, due to the 256-Bit memory bus on the AMD card. For example, the R9 380 gets 68.9 FPS on Battlefield 4 at 1080p Ultra, whereas the GTX 960 gets 61.8 FPS. In GTA V, interestingly enough, the GTX 960 wins, due to driver optimization. Once again, the Nvidia card is a slightly better overclocker.
At this price range, there is almost no reason to consider the GTX 960. The R9 380 beats it in every game except for GTA V, performs much better at higher than 1080p resolutions, and doesn't even have the temperature issues the R9 280/x did, due to its Tonga GPU. Although better drivers and overclocking potential on the Maxwell architecture of the GTX 960 will make the card on par with the R9 380 in some games, in most games it will not. The R9 380 is the way to go here.
High-End Options
Price Range: $320-380 OR £240-290
Nvidia - GTX 970 AMD - R9 390
AMD wins again... SURPRISE! This one is much closer though. The R9 390 beats the GTX 970 by just a few FPS in every game except The WItcher 3, and this gap stays roughly the same when overclocking. The R9 380 has over double the VRAM, at 8GB VS the GTX 970's 3.5GB effective memory (it has 4GB, of which only 3.5GB is fast enough to be useful). This means that the R9 390 is a MUCH better choice if you are using high detail texture packs at 1440p/4K.
This is practically a tie in terms of performance; however, the R9 390 is the card to choose at this price point. It is slightly better than the GTX 970 in every game except for WItcher 3, and has double the VRAM, making it the best choice, expecially for things like high detail Skyrim texture packs at 1440p or 4K gaming.
Price Range: $430-440 (AMD), $470-530 (Nvidia) OR £340-360 (AMD), £390-440(Nvidia)
Nvidia - GTX 980 AMD - R9 390X
From here on in, things get more complicated. The R9 390X performs worse than the GTX 980, but is cheaper; the GTX 980 performs better than the R9 390X, and is more expensive. What to get in this price range is very much dependent on your circumstances. If you simply want to get the most out of your graphics card,then the GTX 980 is a no-brainer, as it has much better performance. If you are more budget concious, then the R9 390X is the way to go; it has less performance, but overall is cheap enough to give you more 'bang for your buck', or performance per dollar/pound. To give an idea of the performance difference, on Witcher 3 at 1080p Ultra, the GTX 980 got 59.4 FPS average, and the R9 390X got 52.7 FPS. On GTA V at High 1080p, the GTX 980 gets 75.5 FPS average, and the R9 390X gets 64.2 FPS average. Note that both of these games are quite intensive, and the performance gap scales well when changing the resolution. The GTX 980 is much cooler, which gives it more room for better overclocks.
This price range is difficult. If you can comfortably afford the GTX 980, buy it, as it will give you better performance, ESPECIALLY when overclocked. If your budget is slightly tighter, then the R9 390X offers more performance for your money. The choice here depends on your circumstance, although if you have the money Nvidia wins here.
Very High-End Option
Price Range: $560 OR £450
Nvidia - Nothing AMD - R9 Fury
The R9 Fury is priced between the GTX 980/R9 390X and the GTX 980Ti/Fury X, and the performance fits right into the middle. The fact that Nvidia has no card at this price range means that the Fury is bound to be a big success. It costs only a little bit more than some of the higher end board-partner GTX 980s, while performing much better. At 1440p, highest settings, and 8x MSAA, the Fury get 63 FPS Average, the GTX 980 gets 52 FPS Average, and the Fury X gets 70FPS average.
If you are willing to spend quite a lot of money, the R9 Fury offers amazing value for money; it is only a little bit more expensive than the GTX 980, while offering much better performance; it is right on the heels of the Fury X, which costs quite a lot more. For anyone who has a lot to spend on a GPU, but cannot wuite stretch their budget to a GTX 980Ti/Fury X, this is an amazing alternative that offers very good performance for your money.
Enthusiast Options
Price Range: $650-690 OR £510-560
Nvidia - GTX 980Ti AMD - R9 Fury X
Nvidia wins in this price point in terms of performance; however, AMD has advantages in other areas. The 980Ti defeats the Fury X in every game, especially when overclocked. In Battlefield 4, it beats the Fury X by 15 FPS at 1080p Ultra (97 FPS Average VS 113 FPS Average). AMD has other things going for it though. Due to its water cooled deisgn, it is both cooler and quieter than the GTX 980Ti (other than the first production run that had pump whining issues that have now been fixed). The lack of an air cooler allows the GPU to fit into smaller cases with not much room for a huge graphics card.Once AMD unlocks the voltage on the Fury X via a driver update, overclockers should be able to make the Fury X match, if not beat, the 980Ti, due to the headroom from the water cooling (this is speculation, not confirmed).HBM memory on the Fury X allows for MUCH higher bandwidth memory, that will really start to come into play as new games optimize for it, but for now the 980Ti wins on the VRAM side due to its 6GB (non HBM), VS the Fury X's 4GB (HBM).
Currently, the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to get for sure. It offers better performance, doesn't need a radiator taking up a fan mounting slot, and is MUCH better to overclock. If you have a Mini ITX/small Micro ATX system, the Fury X might be the card for you if you have not much room for a long GPU. The performance of the Fury X is likely to be bumped up by a driver update that will unlock card voltages and result in better overclocks, and by games optimizing for HBM memory; however, for now the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to choose.
Bragging Rights Options
Price Range: $1000-1300(Nvidia), $680(AMD) OR £760-830(Nvidia), £540(AMD)
Nvidia - GTX Titan X AMD - R9 295X2
The R9 295X2 wins here in performance, but I would NOT reccomend it, unless you absolutely have to have the best performance. It consumes RIDICULOUS amounts of power (500W), outputs a metric butt ton of heat, and has issues with stuttering, just like an SLI configuration, due to it being a dual-GPU card. The Titan X performs the same as the GTX 980Ti which is half the price, and the doubled VRAM won't matter until the Titan X is too weak a GPU to play the games that need 12GB anyway.
Buy the R9 295X2 if you want to own what is the most powerful Graphics Card. Then regret your decision as your power bill goes through the roof and the room your computer is in turns into a desert. Buy the Titan X if you want to then look down at your wallet and weep, realising you could have gotten the same for almost half the price. Buy either of them if you want to join the ranks of the elite enthusiasts with more money than sense.
Conclusion
In terms of performance, Nvidia wins at the very budget (GTX 750) and enthusiast (GTX 980Ti) levels, while AMD runs away with it for budget to high-end levels. This is quite interesting, as the majority of sales will come from the areas that AMD are winning in; currently, Nvidia owns about 60% of the GPU market, but in my opinion this is set to change so long as the information gets put out there for the general market to see.
This thread took a long time to write, and with new GPU releases it will be updated. I am putting it in my signature as reference, and if any of you would do the same I would be honoured. Please point out any mistakes/areas I missed, and give me feedback on what you thought of the thread. Thanks for reading!
Why not SLI your current 780ti? They go for pretty good prices on eBay and whatnot, and it will definitely yield more performance than a new single GPU
I kinda think because amd is "losing" that is my opinion since nvidia has the lead right now in term of gpu they tend to bash nvidia mistake or nvidia in general. I don't really have a side i just pick what ever is best at the time in my price range and i have used both nvidia and amd gpu. I want some competition so i hope amd will continue to do well so nvidia have to keep their game up and vice versa.
AMD cards at $300 price range consume more power and run at higher temperaures. It's not worth buying 290X for lesser price or 390 for your gaming resolution (3.5Gb memory issue won't be a problem for 1080P gaming)
Basic element is the transistor. You can make gates like NOT, AND, OR etc. from that. Then combining gates you can make bit adders, memory storages, binary shifting and respective components. then there are some other CPU architectures which mention about CPU registers and other things which will perform calculations (Little man computer or LMC).
Then intel and other companies improved LMC and made processors
Go with 960 4GB version. Although lot of people say 2Gb is enough for 1080P gaming, I doubt whether it'll be true in near future since Vram requirements are usually rising.
Also if you can wait few weeks, you may get better offer from AMD or price reduction from Nvidia
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-R9290-DC2OC-4GD5-ASUS-Graphics-Cards/dp/B00HWQUI02/ref=sr_1_4?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1428540202&sr=1-4&keywords=r9+290lol just realized there is a rebate on this so 240 dollars for r9 290
it all depends. 2gb is fine for lower end cards like the 750ti, any settings that would push more than 2gb vram would be too much for the card to render smoothly anyway. when you start getting higher up, it can be difficult to say. certain forms of anti aliasing will drive the vram up (MSAA and especially SSAA are the worst for this) higher quality textures also use up a lot of vram, like shadow of mordor and modded skyrim.
the problem with vram is that when you go over, your framerate tanks. seriously less than 1 frame per second. happened to me in thief on my r9 270 for a about half a minute, still not sure how the hell that happened but ya. AMD has some nice options around the 960's price if a 970 is out of reach for ya. The 280 performs just under the 960 but with that safety net of an extra gig of ram and the 280X costs a bit more on average but out performs it.
unless you really want physx/shadow play i'd say go with one of those two cards, you can't go wrong with either one.
In terms of CPU if they don't catch up with their next gen then Intel probably has too much of an advantage in the high end desktop space for AMD to keep pace. Mobile might be AMDs refuge in that case. In terms of GPUs, AMD and NVidia are still trading blows no matter what fanboys either side might tell you. If the 300 series is as good as the rumours right now, AMD might put up a serious fight to NVidia in the GPU space.
One thing is you won't be able to use a Graphic card more than 5 years. I'm running my EVGA GTX 560 ti overclocked and 90% or 100% fan speed for 2 years now and it works perfect.
Considering power efficiency of maxwell architecture in 970, you may not need that much of fan speed
chamath got a reaction from Crunchy Dragon in Gtx 1060 low fps
chamath reacted to sgloux3470 in And people were saying AMD CPUs are bad?
chamath got a reaction from don_svetlio in What is graphics card pricing like where you live?
chamath got a reaction from Khajiit Dealer in Nvidia's Domination of the Market - This is Bad
chamath got a reaction from Hiebly in Nvidia's Domination of the Market - This is Bad
chamath got a reaction from Dabombinable in Nvidia's Domination of the Market - This is Bad
chamath got a reaction from Kinda Bottlenecked in Trouble with 290x GPU temps ? ambient Temps affecting it ? help plz
chamath got a reaction from Colours in 290x/390/970 (1080p/60Hz)
chamath got a reaction from Guilty Baby in How many of you guys actually know how a CPU works?
chamath got a reaction from chottiandbitti in Gtx 960 2Gb vs 4Gb
chamath got a reaction from BrinkGG in GPU Memory Bus speed
chamath got a reaction from frostyshuggah in 2gb vs 4 gb.
chamath got a reaction from c0d0ps in gtx 970 70% fan speed for long period of time while gaming?
