290x or 970

[Guest]

I have tested both of them at stock speeds, the MSI Gaming 4G GTX970 and the Asus DC2 R9 290x (which isnt a very good 290x btw).

These were all done at 1080p

Valley on the extreme HD Preset:

970: 58.4fps

290x: 62.7fps

Tomb Raider, maxed out without v-sync:

970: 82.8fps

290x: 85.2fps

Bioshock infinte on user setting 2:

970: 116.8fps

290x: 119fps

At 1080p the 290x still wins, granted not by much, but a win none the less, and the pattern is consistent among games and synthetic testing.

It is also very true that at the higher resolutions the 290x starts to pull away more, super evident when I was testing gpu's at 4K but you also see them start pulling away more at 1440p.

[iPhoenix]

With these cards - basically game update and driver updates will have them trading blows every single time. 

 

The reason everyone here is battling back and forth is that honestly it depends when the article was written.

 

At launch the 970 beat the 290X, but honestly AMD has done quite a bit with their drives in quite a few games.  The work really shows. 

 

 

Basically performance-wise they're going to be VERY similar - even the numbers above my post are like. within 5% which is within variance for the silicon lottery.  Don't forget both card manufacturers are going to OC based on temps and those temps are based on how good the silicon is. 

 

Where the difference lies is in software support, and power consumption. 

 

GeForce software kicks AMD's butt by a mile,. That raptor stuff is utter garbage.  Also, the 290X is going to suck down more power and be louder in your case. 

 

I would go with the 970 if you're trying to decide between these two.  Performance is the same, and the side benefits are a nice bonus.