gtx 970 vs 290x for 1440p

[MRSMIFFY]

right everybody for a while now ive been short living my pc gaming with settings turned down a bit on my 270x 4gb. Ive watched a few assassin's creed unity videos and it looks like it could be amazing maxed out' so i feel im due an upgrade.

The general consensus is that 970 beats out the 290x' but at higher resolutions the 290x still seems to claw some performance back. However i cant find any benchmarks to have a look at and also the 970 according to most sources is a champ at overclocking so what do you guys suggest????   

 

 

Also here in the uk i can get either for about £275 so price isnt really an issue

[Cheddle]

I would suggest the r9 290x - do NOT get a reference card unless you intend on watercooling or have an a/m cooler already to go on it.

 

I base this on pure speculation and this:

 

COD:AW seems to favour the 970/980 - these results are scaled by minimum FPS, pay attention to the average FPS as well.

 

[TheKDub]

I'd go for the 970 as it has a much lower power consumption, and less heat output.

Benchmarks for both the cards are very close, with the 970 being slightly ahead.

[Guest]

Definitely the 970 in my opinion.

 

The power is very similar and they trade blows quite a lot. But the 970 runs cooler and quieter. 

 

Here's some benchmarks (using the same site you can also compare the cards to other models) : http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1056

[Enderman]

The 970 will perform better in most cases, especially when overclocked.

Here you can see the 970 clearly beating the 290x in almost every game, at stock clocks.

[MRSMIFFY]

I would suggest the r9 290x - do NOT get a reference card unless you intend on watercooling or have an a/m cooler already to go on it.

 

I base this on pure speculation and this:

 

COD:AW seems to favour the 970/980 - these results are scaled by minimum FPS, pay attention to the average FPS as well.

 

500x1000px-LL-8ad768b7_Call_of_Duty_Advanced_Warfare-test-cod_2560.jpg

i defiantly wouldnt get reference design dont worry haha.. also im not sure that benchmark is correct or im just reading it wrong i am very tired lol but it shows a single 970 beating sli 970's ??? 

 

I'd go for the 970 as it has a much lower power consumption, and less heat output.

Benchmarks for both the cards are very close, with the 970 being slightly ahead.

power consumption im not too worried about heat on the other hand does so +1 for 970

 

Definitely the 970 in my opinion.

 

The power is very similar and they trade blows quite a lot. But the 970 runs cooler and quieter. 

 

Here's some benchmarks (using the same site you can also compare the cards to other models) : http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1056

1080p benchmarks there im looking for 1440p where amd tends to pull it back 

 

The 970 will perform better in most cases, especially when overclocked.

Here you can see the 970 clearly beating the 290x in almost every game, at stock clocks.

1080p there also mate ...

 

 

 

thanks for all the replies much appreciated. 

[Enderman]

1080p there also mate ...

Since nvidia GPUs now use a compression algorithm for memory, the bus size is no longer a restriction to its performance at resolutions above 1080p.

This means that if the 970 performs 10% better at 1080p, it will also perform 10% at 1440p and 10% better at 4k.

Obviously it would get lower fps, but the difference between a 290x and a 970 would still remain about 10%.

 

So what really matters here is that the 970 performs better at 1080p, so it also performs better at 1440p and 4k.

 

This benchmark here is 4k, but it does not include the 970.

Knowing the 970 performs a bit behind the 980, you can see it still is better than a 290x.

[Faceman]

I think the performance between the two will be very similar.

 

So, to differentiate the two you need to see what other factors you prefer.

 

Features is what Nvidia delivers with DSR, PhysX and less driver overhead(some games just plain run better on Nvidia).  AMD Has Mantle.  Both have their own variation of shadowplay.

 

Power consumption and heat.  Nvidia handily wins in this department, by a lot.

 

Free games.  Nvidia only offers one free game, where AMD offers 3, and they are actually pretty good games that you get to choose from.

[MRSMIFFY]

Since nvidia GPUs now use a compression algorithm for memory, the bus size is no longer a restriction to its performance at resolutions above 1080p.

This means that if the 970 performs 10% better at 1080p, it will also perform 10% at 1440p and 10% better at 4k.

Obviously it would get lower fps, but the difference between a 290x and a 970 would still remain about 10%.

 

So what really matters here is that the 970 performs better at 1080p, so it also performs better at 1440p and 4k.

 

This benchmark here is 4k, but it does not include the 970.

Knowing the 970 performs a bit behind the 980, you can see it still is better than a 290x.

 ahh right that makes a lot more sense now thanks a lot so the wise choice is nvidia  

I think the performance between the two will be very similar.

 

So, to differentiate the two you need to see what other factors you prefer.

 

Features is what Nvidia delivers with DSR, PhysX and less driver overhead(some games just plain run better on Nvidia).  AMD Has Mantle.  Both have their own variation of shadowplay.

 

Power consumption and heat.  Nvidia handily wins in this department, by a lot.

 

Free games.  Nvidia only offers one free game, where AMD offers 3, and they are actually pretty good games that you get to choose from.

yh nvidia seems to have the better subset of factors phys x sounds cool to me also ive never had any issues with amd drivers... Anyway i think that you guys gave successfully helped me spend a few days wages thanks guys