Sapphire 390 vs MSI 970. Reliability vs FPS

[MMKing]

Inferior? Are you reading what you type? At stock speed the 390 and 970 on average offer the same performance if all you care about are fps. Overclocked the 970 can pass up a 390. I have no idea how everyone got so blinded by hype on this forum. And since you won't read your post, read mine where I advised the 290. It's cheaper and offers the same performance as the 970 and 390. Put the money saved away and let it grow for when things change in 6 months.

i5-6600K + 390: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.11861428.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/1036/17000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=AMD Radeon R9 390

 

i5-6600k + 970: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.245797892.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/982/17000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970

 

They are the fucking same. The 390 had twice the Vram. If budget is tight, go for the cheaper, if not. Go for the 390.

 

i5-6600k + 290: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.11861428.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/906/15000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=AMD Radeon R9 290

 

The 390 is slightly faster than the 290. Slightly. The 390 8GB launched at 329USD, the 290 4GB launched at 399USD. When the 390 8GB launched, the price of the 290 4GB was well on it's way to hit the 300-330USD mark.

 

This entire thread is arguing over a 1-3% difference, and a 100% difference in Vram amount.

 

Edit: On the 3Dmark links, you need to set the GPU amount to 1.

[App4that]

i5-6600K + 390: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.11861428.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/1036/17000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=AMD Radeon R9 390

 

i5-6600k + 970: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.245797892.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/982/17000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970

 

They are the fucking same. The 390 had twice the Vram. If budget is tight, go for the cheaper, if not. Go for the 390.

 

i5-6600k + 290: http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.11861428.1230793271.1449082537#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/906/15000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=AMD Radeon R9 290

 

The 390 is slightly faster than the 290. Slightly. The 390 8GB launched at 329USD, the 290 4GB launched at 399USD. When the 390 8GB launched, the price of the 290 4GB was well on it's way to hit the 300-330USD mark.

 

This entire thread is arguing over a 1-3% difference, and a 100% difference in Vram amount.

 

Edit: On the 3Dmark links, you need to set the GPU amount to 1.

Well, I'm the one saying that they're the same so I'm amusing you're agreeing with me.

 

And the Vram deal is Bull Shit marketing. I've already said that if you play the same game, at the same settings, in the same PC, the 390 will use almost twice the VRAM than the 290 while showing no benefit to this. I've gone over 4g of VRAM, once. And I had no idea it had happened, only reason I know is I had Afterburner going and went off the max.

[MMKing]

My post showed that an overclocked 970 cannot surpass an overclocked 390, at least not more than a single %. I.E within the margin of error. The way you worded your post, implied that the 970 could in fact perform noteworthy better than the 390.

 

Then a long post again concerning GDDR5RAM. Bandwidth and amount.

 

1 module Graphics Double Data Rate v5 Random Access Memory = 32 lanes of 256 or 512 megabytes of storage.

If you want a GPU with a buss width of 512 bits, there is no way around it, you're getting 16 modules * 32 = 512 lanes. Then the choice comes down to the more expensive 512MB modules, or the cheaper 256MB modules.

 

Putting the high capacity modules on the 390 was no doubt a marketing decision. After all, AMD was arguing that the Fury x, 4GB of Vram is enough for 1440p and 4k, while at the same time they are putting 8GB on a significantly less powerful GPU. Which is why 4GB 390 cards are on their way. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/4gb-radeon-r9-390-cards-inbound.html

 

 

Then there is the issue of a 4GB card using more than 4GB Vram. You need to understand that there is a difference between how much the game needs, and how much the game is actually using.

 

A game utilizing the GPU and the VRam correctly: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_witcher_3_graphics_performance_review,9.html

 

A game utilizing the GPu and the VRam incorrectly: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_black_ops_iii_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html

 

This is an extreme example. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Black ops 3 attains legendary status for running like ass. But it shows the difference between needed, and used.

[App4that]

My post showed that an overclocked 970 cannot surpass an overclocked 390, at least not more than a single %. I.E within the margin of error. The way you worded your post, implied that the 970 could in fact perform noteworthy better than the 390.

 

Then a long post again concerning GDDR5RAM. Bandwidth and amount.

 

1 module Graphics Double Data Rate v5 Random Access Memory = 32 lanes of 256 or 512 megabytes of storage.

If you want a GPU with a buss width of 512 bits, there is no way around it, you're getting 16 modules * 32 = 512 lanes. Then the choice comes down to the more expensive 512MB modules, or the cheaper 256MB modules.

 

Putting the high capacity modules on the 390 was no doubt a marketing decision. After all, AMD was arguing that the Fury x, 4GB of Vram is enough for 1440p and 4k, while at the same time they are putting 8GB on a significantly less powerful GPU. Which is why 4GB 390 cards are on their way. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/4gb-radeon-r9-390-cards-inbound.html

 

 

Then there is the issue of a 4GB card using more than 4GB Vram. You need to understand that there is a difference between how much the game needs, and how much the game is actually using.

 

A game utilizing the GPU and the VRam correctly: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_witcher_3_graphics_performance_review,9.html

 

A game utilizing the GPu and the VRam incorrectly: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_black_ops_iii_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html

 

This is an extreme example. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Black ops 3 attains legendary status for running like ass. But it shows the difference between needed, and used.

*long sigh*

 

Do you understand how little benchmarks matter to gameplay, the focus of this topic? Here's a video that's apples to apples. Notice how the Heaven benchmark means exactly dick when it come's to how the two cards perform in games? I can confirm that while my 390 beat the 290 in Heaven and Valley, the 290 pulled ahead on games.

 

[ivan134]

Inferior? Are you reading what you type? At stock speed the 390 and 970 on average offer the same performance if all you care about are fps. Overclocked the 970 can pass up a 390. I have no idea how everyone got so blinded by hype on this forum. And since you won't read your post, read mine where I advised the 290. It's cheaper and offers the same performance as the 970 and 390. Put the money saved away and let it grow for when things change in 6 months.

An overclocked 390 beats and overclocked 970. They're also 1440p cards. Even if you're on a 1080p panel, using DSR/VSR and 2x AA of your choice (4x in older games) will look a lot better than 1080p and high amounts of AA. The 390 absolutely stomps the 970 here and your games end up looking a lot better. It is also inferior going forward because all early benchmarks have shown Nvidia lagging behind in dx 12. Ashes of Singularity is already out. Ark should have it already too if it didn't delayed suspended indefinitely (surprise, surprise, an Nvidia sponsored game gets dx12 delayed just like they removed dx10.1 from Assassins Creed because AMD saw huge performance boosts). A whole bunch of others are coming next year too. Dx12 is on track to an API with the fastest adoption rate. Most people do not buy a new graphics card every generation and I'm not sure if spending so much time on tech forums has convinced you otherwise.

 

The only 290s that compete with the 390s are the Vapor X and PCS+ 290s, and those were going for the same amount or higher than the 390s at launch with 4 less GB vram so I'm not sure how they're a cash grab. People on tech forums are not your average consumer, so no, the used market is not something your average consumer will look at. Even if they do, a lot of people just don't like buying used. AMD is not charging people copious amounts of money for non existent performance.

 

There was no blind hype. Most people were actually expect them to be just as bad as the 290(x). What no one expected were the huge driver improvements. You keep arguing one way because of your personal experience despite all benchmarks pointing towards the opposite.

[App4that]

 

 

There was no blind hype. Most people were actually expect them to be just as bad as the 290(x). What no one expected were the huge driver improvements. You keep arguing one way because of your personal experience despite all benchmarks pointing towards the opposite.

No blind hype? You just said a 390 overclocks better than a 970. What next, a Fury X will overclock better than a 980ti? :lol:

 

And as for my personal experience, exhibit B. Nitro returned to sender.

 

[MMKing]

*long sigh*

 

Do you understand how little benchmarks matter to gameplay, the focus of this topic? Here's a video that's apples to apples. Notice how the Heaven benchmark means exactly dick when it come's to how the two cards perform in games? I can confirm that while my 390 beat the 290 in Heaven and Valley, the 290 pulled ahead on games.

 

https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=xmfppkgfRY4

 

Yes there is a difference between benchmarks and actual performance in games. What of it? A GPU scoring higher in synthetic tests will generally come out ahead in games. And if the original poster had asked for a GPU to play Witcher 3, Battlefront EA, black ops 3 and Battlefield: Hardline specifically, i would have presented argument for or against in the games. But since he only asked for CS:GO, which is so easy to run, a discussion about it is as pointless as arguing over Doom 1 performance. I am not going to.

 

The thread went as such:

 

''After looking a bit I found a sapphire 390 and a msi gtx 970 both at a very similar price and was wondering would which would be better? I am not going for like a million fps but reliability. I am going to be playing mostly CS:GO and maybe sometimes record/stream. I want this card to be able to get decent fps in games in 3 years time. I also have a mobo with build in overclocking so wouldn't mind pushing that card a bit.

Thanks, Bulky''

 

Important points:

- The price is insignificantly similar to his budget

- He wants to play at a decent FPS in 3 years.

 

I have no idea how AMD or Nvidia cards will behave with games in 3 years. I have no idea how much Vram is required. But as it stands, the 970 and the 390 perform extremely similar in synthetic tests, cost virtually the same (For the OP, which is what matters for this discussion) and the 390 has twice the amount of VRam. So i recommend the 390. If budget was tight and the 970 was noteworthy cheaper, i would have recommended the 970.

[ivan134]

No blind hype? You just said a 390 overclocks better than a 970. What next, a Fury X will overclock better than a 980ti? :lol:

 

And as for my personal experience, exhibit B. Nitro returned to sender.

 

It does. Go rewatch Jay's review. Or are you actually trying to compare clock for clock on 2 different architectures and conclude the 970 is better because the numbers are bigger?

[ivan134]

 

Fix this post for night theme users. Everything after the quotation mark is impossible to read.

[ivan134]

No blind hype? You just said a 390 overclocks better than a 970. What next, a Fury X will overclock better than a 980ti? :lol:

 

And as for my personal experience, exhibit B. Nitro returned to sender.

 

-snip

Also, for his 390x blackscreening, what does that have to do with anything?

[App4that]

It does. Go rewatch Jay's review. Or are you actually trying to compare clock for clock on 2 different architectures and conclude the 970 is better because the numbers are bigger?

*facepalm* I'm starting to think I'm the only one reading my posts. So I guess I'll continue to amuse myself. I'm saying the 290 is the better value.

 

 

 

Yes there is a difference between benchmarks and actual performance in games. What of it? A GPU scoring higher in synthetic tests will generally come out ahead in games. And if the original poster had asked for a GPU to play Witcher 3, Battlefront EA, black ops 3 and Battlefield: Hardline specifically, i would have presented argument for or against in the games. But since he only asked for CS:GO, which is so easy to run, a discussion about it is as pointless as arguing over Doom 1 performance. I am not going to.

 

The thread went as such:

 

''After looking a bit I found a sapphire 390 and a msi gtx 970 both at a very similar price and was wondering would which would be better? I am not going for like a million fps but reliability. I am going to be playing mostly CS:GO and maybe sometimes record/stream. I want this card to be able to get decent fps in games in 3 years time. I also have a mobo with build in overclocking so wouldn't mind pushing that card a bit.

Thanks, Bulky''

Important points:

- The price is insignificantly similar to his budget

- He wants to play at a decent FPS in 3 years.

 

I have no idea how AMD or Nvidia cards will behave with games in 3 years. I have no idea how much Vram is required. But as it stands, the 970 and the 390 perform extremely similar in synthetic tests, cost virtually the same (For the OP, which is what matters for this discussion) and the 390 has twice the amount of VRam. So i recommend the 390. If budget was tight and the 970 was noteworthy cheaper, i would have recommended the 970.

 

You know as much as I do that the VRAM is there for marketing. Really surprised they didn't do the same to the Fury. The lack of ability to forecast what will happen next year let alone in 3 is why my opinion is the 290 is better. Not only does it offer the same performance as the 390/970, but you can get a flagship Vapor-x on Amazon for 250us NEW. That's money in the bank.

[ivan134]

*facepalm* I'm starting to think I'm the only one reading my posts. So I guess I'll continue to amuse myself. I'm saying the 290 is the better value.

 

 

You know as much as I do that the VRAM is there for marketing. Really surprised they didn't do the same to the Fury. The lack of ability to forecast what will happen next year let alone in 3 is why my opinion is the 290 is better. Not only does it offer the same performance as the 390/970, but you can get a flagship Vapor-x on Amazon for 250us NEW. That's money in the bank.

I was responding to you disputing that the 390 overclocks better than a 970. What does the 290 have do with that. No, you don't even read your own posts.

[MMKing]

 

You know as much as I do that the VRAM is there for marketing. Really surprised they didn't do the same to the Fury. The lack of ability to forecast what will happen next year let alone in 3 is why my opinion is the 290 is better. Not only does it offer the same performance as the 390/970, but you can get a flagship Vapor-x on Amazon for 250us NEW. That's money in the bank.

If you read my previous post, you would know that a 512Bit GDDR5 card needs 16 modules. Be it 256 MB for a total of 4GB, or 512MB for a total of 8GB. I also acknowledged and agreed that it was a marketing decision to use the higher capacity modules.

 

But i am not surprised that they didn't do the same to the Fury. Because i am not so hollow in my head, that i don't do some research about the subject before making assumptions. They didn't put 8GB on the Fury, because HBM1 memory technology doesn't allow it.

 

If the OP can get a 290 4GB for 250USD, that is a steal, but where is this phantom 290 for 250USD? I searched a bit for it, but couldn't find it.

[App4that]

I was responding to you disputing that the 390 overclocks better than a 970. What does the 290 have do with that. No, you don't even read your own posts.

Yep, that one's on me. Doing too many things at once. appologies

 

I'm fully aware that the two don't share a correlation in their clock speeds. But as I've owned two, and plenty of reputable reviewers have tried as well, I know the 290/390 don't overclock for shit. While plenty of people on this forum alone hit 1600 on the core with 970s. The 970 is the better overclocker. 

[App4that]

If you read my previous post, you would know that a 512Bit GDDR5 card needs 16 modules. Be it 256 MB for a total of 4GB, or 512MB for a total of 8GB. I also acknowledged and agreed that it was a marketing decision to use the higher capacity modules.

 

But i am not surprised that they didn't do the same to the Fury. Because i am not so hollow in my head, that i don't do some research about the subject before making assumptions. They didn't put 8GB on the Fury, because HBM1 memory technology doesn't allow it.

 

If the OP can get a 290 4GB for 250USD, that is a steal, but where is this phantom 290 for 250USD? I searched a bit for it, but couldn't find it.

Oh, I do my research. But marketing finds a way, they always do. And I looked too and they're gone. Not a big surprise, but they're 5 290us left.

[MMKing]

Oh, I do my research. But marketing finds a way, they always do. And I looked too and they're gone. Not a big surprise, but they're 5 290us left.

Please elaborate. Pretty please. I am begging you. What exactly does that sentence mean?

[App4that]

Please elaborate. Pretty please. I am begging you. What exactly does that sentence mean?

It means that functionality takes a back seat to buzz words. The 8g on the 390 is my case in point. And I'll repeat for the umtenth time that the 390 uses it's memory in an extremely odd way. I jumped someone's shit because they said Fallout didn't require over 2g and I idled over that with my 390. Then I played with my 290 and idled well under 2g. This is at 1080p. At 1440 the most I've ever seen and it only happens loading the game is 3.3g. I have modified the ini files for texture pop up and have a lot of texture mods going.

[MMKing]

It means that functionality takes a back seat to buzz words. The 8g on the 390 is my case in point. And I'll repeat for the umtenth time that the 390 uses it's memory in an extremely odd way. I jumped someone's shit because they said Fallout didn't require over 2g and I idled over that with my 390. Then I played with my 290 and idled well under 2g. This is at 1080p. At 1440 the most I've ever seen and it only happens loading the game is 3.3g. I have modified the ini files for texture pop up and have a lot of texture mods going.

 

But you have no case... there is no evidence to back up your list of ridiculous claims.

[App4that]

But you have no case... there is no evidence to back up your list of ridiculous claims.

What evidence do you require? No current game requires 8g of VRAM. Not one. Nada, zip, zilch.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Yep, that one's on me. Doing too many things at once. appologies

I'm fully aware that the two don't share a correlation in their clock speeds. But as I've owned two, and plenty of reputable reviewers have tried as well, I know the 290/390 don't overclock for shit. While plenty of people on this forum alone hit 1600 on the core with 970s. The 970 is the better overclocker.

No, I'll need to correct you on that, those "many" people achieve 1600mhz with modded bios. There are only a handful that achieve it on stock.

The msi 390 on the other hand very commonly achieves 1200mhz on stock bios.

[App4that]

No, I'll need to correct you on that, those "many" people achieve 1600mhz with modded bios. There are only a handful that achieve it on stock.

The msi 390 on the other hand very commonly achieves 1200mhz on stock bios.

From my perception of everyone's tales I'd say changing the bios is much more common on Nvidia, the Classified comes with three bios for a reason . And I can't speak for MSI but Sapphires sure as hell don't overclock. Having spent 700 bucks and not been able to cross 1100mhz on the core or 50mhz over on the memory gives me the right to say that.

And edit. You can post Valley benchmarks all day long showing 1200mhz on the core of a 390 but that 700 bucks also gave me the experience needed to call bullshit until you've games on it. My 290 will almost reach 1200 on the core and run Valley, try loading Fallout and you're in for a rude awakening. Benchmarks are bullshit.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

From my perception of everyone's tales I'd say changing the bios is much more common on Nvidia, the Classified comes with three bios for a reason . And I can't speak for MSI but Sapphires sure as hell don't overclock. Having spent 700 bucks and not been able to cross 1100mhz or 50mhz over on the memory gives me the right to say that.

 

You'll need to flash the bios. And there's a chance it might fail, though that's not a problem for most. 

 

Again, you lost the gamble. Sapphire, through observing the 390/x club in OCN. Is third on my overclocking list. I've also never recommended a Sapphire card to anyone who wanted to overclock.  Though, some of them got pretty lucky and got 1200mhz out of it. Even my PCS+ got 1200mhz. But not at +100mv that most of the Msi cards are having. I had to go higher than that. Again, be careful with your purchases.  

[AMDisTheBEST]

r9 390 because it has 2x the Vram and performs better on upcoming directx 12

[AMDisTheBEST]

If you read my previous post, you would know that a 512Bit GDDR5 card needs 16 modules. Be it 256 MB for a total of 4GB, or 512MB for a total of 8GB. I also acknowledged and agreed that it was a marketing decision to use the higher capacity modules.

 

But i am not surprised that they didn't do the same to the Fury. Because i am not so hollow in my head, that i don't do some research about the subject before making assumptions. They didn't put 8GB on the Fury, because HBM1 memory technology doesn't allow it.

 

If the OP can get a 290 4GB for 250USD, that is a steal, but where is this phantom 290 for 250USD? I searched a bit for it, but couldn't find it.

I saw r9 290s on sale for 220 USD on neweeg back in November. They are all out of stock now lol. I regretted so much for buying r9 380 4gb because of that. 

[App4that]

You'll need to flash the bios. And there's a chance it might fail, though that's not a problem for most.

Again, you lost the gamble. Sapphire, through observing the 390/x club in OCN. Is third on my overclocking list. I've also never recommended a Sapphire card to anyone who wanted to overclock. Though, some of them got pretty lucky and got 1200mhz out of it. Even my PCS+ got 1200mhz. But not at +100mv that most of the Msi cards are having. I had to go higher than that. Again, be careful with your purchases.

And again, if a person buys two cards back to back and can't reach the numbers you state, that's more than bad luck. Your numbers are off.