290X Lighting vs GTX 970 G1 Gaming

[cesrai]

Depends on the individuals needs of course.

 

Demands for better tech are increasing so rapidly, more powerful hardware is being released more often. To keep up with cutting edge gaming at high resolutions you need to upgrade more frequently. Before a GPU could last 2 years, that isnt the case anymore.

I agree it depends on individuals needs.

 

Lets be reasonable do you actually people keep up and jump to every advancement, for example like 4K, how many 1080p users switched to 4K in the past couple years ?? it's a small number, people still use 1368*720 too, users don't keep up with technology they stay behind a lot of them.

 

Also buying a 8 core instead of six core is more future proof, you may ask why because DX12 and future APIs will make use of those cores, also talking 4GB vram instead of 3 or 2 is more future proof, buying 16 GB of RAM instead of 8 is also future proof -don't know why but it may be-.

[Majestic]

I have heard that the Lightning is one of the louder versions of the 290X, but louder can still be quiet if the quieter is very silent. How much fps boost would a 50% overclock make?

 

50%? Give or take. Depends on the scenario though. If you're going to play Crysis 3 at max AA and stuff you'll be more bandwidth limited than GPU core.

But spose you can also overclock the memory.

 

Ill do a quick and dirty test with Tomb Raider, hold on.

 

EDIT: ok so this game is bandwidth limited. I have to also overclock my memory, which I haven't done yet.

Overclocking the GPU by 47% netted me 133.4 instead of 112.6. An ~18% improvement.

[Norman_the_Owl]

Haha i have a lightning, and i'd never trade it for a 970.

[zappian]

Haha i have a lightning, and i'd never trade it for a 970.

Smart man.

[cesrai]

Haha i have a lightning, and i'd never trade it for a 970.

Lucky.

[Norman_the_Owl]

Lucky.

Eh, i bought it like a few weeks before the price drop so i sorta got screwed. Such is tech i suppose

[Rhett M. Quigley]

50%? Give or take. Depends on the scenario though. If you're going to play Crysis 3 at max AA and stuff you'll be more bandwidth limited than GPU core.

But spose you can also overclock the memory.

 

Ill do a quick and dirty test with Tomb Raider, hold on.

 

EDIT: ok so this game is bandwidth limited. I have to also overclock my memory, which I haven't done yet.

Overclocking the GPU by 47% netted me 133.4 instead of 112.6. An ~18% improvement.

 

According to this article (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-290x-lightning-review,17.html) the Lightning gets 131 fps on Tomb Radar at 1920 x 1200.

[Majestic]

According to this article (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-290x-lightning-review,17.html) the Lightning gets 131 fps on Tomb Radar at 1920 x 1200.

 

Don't compare absolute values between systems. Also, I'm not sure what benchmark they run. Whether they use the ingame benchmark or some section they repeat.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Don't compare absolute values between systems. 

 

What do you mean?

[Majestic]

What do you mean?

 

I'm saying you can't just compare values of a 4.2ghz 4670K to a 4.6ghz 3960x. The CPU or platform, however unlikely the case for tomb raider, could influence the benchmark.

Also, you don't know for sure if the same testmethodology is used.

 

So only consider the relative peformance gain of the OC. Don't compare absolute values of my results to theirs.

[zappian]

What do you mean?

 

OP if you are gaming at 1080p the lightning is more than enough.

You wont need a sick OC.

[DeViLzzz]

Which one? I"ll currently use a 1080p monitor, I may move up to 1440p later. Are they equal in performance? I hear people say the 970 is better for 1080p, and I also hear that the 290x is better all around, so confused. It kinda makes me feel like people don't know what they are talking about, how can you have it both ways? If someone was offering a free MSI R9 290X Lightning or a GTX 970 G1 Gaming, which would you choose?

If someone was offering a free MSI card to me I would take the one that is easiest to sell right now and get rid of it.  I won't use the MSI brand after Nvidia slapped them for doing things they shouldn't have and also right now I could really use money vs having a new graphics card so either card I got for free would be sold.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Also, I'm not sure what benchmark they run. Whether they use the ingame benchmark or some section they repeat.

 

 

I would assume it's a regular benchmark, and it's at 1920 x 1200, I assume you had yours at 1920 x 1080.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

I'm saying you can't just compare values of a 4.2ghz 4670K to a 4.6ghz 3960x. The CPU or platform, however unlikely the case for tomb raider, could influence the benchmark.

Also, you don't know for sure if the same testmethodology is used.

 

So only consider the relative peformance gain of the OC. Don't compare absolute values of my results to theirs.

 

Well it shows how much performance you get, in regards to Tomb Radar, apparently they are both neck and neck, perhaps the 290x is slightly ahead because it was at 1920 x 1200, which isn't a lot more than 1080p but nevertheless it's only one frame behind yours. I assume their CPU was top of the line. What CPU do you have?

[Rhett M. Quigley]

OP if you are gaming at 1080p the lightning is more than enough.

You wont need a sick OC.

 

I have heard that there is a big difference between 60 fps and 100+ fps, so if you love the high fps, it might not be OP.

[Majestic]

I would assume it's a regular benchmark, and it's at 1920 x 1200, I assume you had yours at 1920 x 1080.

Well it shows how much performance you get, in regards to Tomb Radar, apparently they are both neck and neck, perhaps the 290x is slightly ahead because it was at 1920 x 1200, which isn't a lot more than 1080p but nevertheless it's only one frame behind yours. I assume their CPU was top of the line. What CPU do you have?

 

My CPU i already told you. And no, you cannot just assume the tests are equally likely. You can only compare card A to card B in a repeatable testscenario that is within a certain variance/spread and on the same platform. What I gave you, those FPS numbers, should only be compared to eachother. Which I did (18%).

 

OP if you are gaming at 1080p the lightning is more than enough.

You wont need a sick OC.

That's a very weak argument for either card.

[zappian]

I have heard that there is a big difference between 60 fps and 100+ fps, so if you love the high fps, it might not be OP.

 

Dude if you have gaming at 1080p the 290x IS PLENTY.

[zappian]

 

My CPU i already told you. And no, you cannot just assume the tests are equally likely. You can only compare card A to card B in a repeatable testscenario that is within a certain variance/spread and on the same platform. What I gave you, those FPS numbers, should only be compared to eachother. Which I did (18%).

 

That's a very weak argument for either card.

 

 

Why is he gonna buy a more expensive card if the 290x is already overkill for his resolution?

 

Come on dude...

[Acerpwns]

Not everyone is as lucky.

Thats a perfect 970 specimen then.

http://imgur.com/hmcgkDp

 

it doesnt seem like getting a 1550MHz+ OC is that hard

[Majestic]

Why is he gonna buy a more expensive card if the 290x is already overkill for his resolution?

 

Come on dude...

 

It's not that much more expensive, and it's overkill *now*. Either way, the argument you used was just pretty weak. Don't need to throw a fit over it.

 

http://imgur.com/hmcgkDp

 

it doesnt seem like getting a 1550MHz+ OC is that hard

 

1225mv, that's overvolted. But aye, it isn't.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Dude if you have gaming at 1080p the 290x IS PLENTY.

 

I know, just some games like Far Cry 4 just barely meet the 60 fps mark, this will become more common in the future.

[zappian]

It's not that much more expensive, and it's overkill *now*. Either way, the argument you used was just pretty weak. Don't need to throw a fit over it.

 

 

1225mv, that's overvolted. But aye, it isn't.

 

Do you know what is underkill?

 

3.5 GB .

 

If the OP wants a future proof card he will get the full 4 GB.

 

Just saying.

[Acerpwns]

It's not that much more expensive, and it's overkill *now*. Either way, the argument you used was just pretty weak. Don't need to throw a fit over it.

 

 

1225mv, that's overvolted. But aye, it isn't.

wot?

[Rhett M. Quigley]

 

My CPU i already told you. And no, you cannot just assume the tests are equally likely. You can only compare card A to card B in a repeatable testscenario that is within a certain variance/spread and on the same platform. What I gave you, those FPS numbers, should only be compared to eachother. Which I did (18%).

 

That's a very weak argument for either card.

 

 

Oh, so you have a 4.2ghz 4670K then? Anyways, the 3.5gb vram will become a problem eventually, I'd rather get the 4gb 290X with virtually the same performance for $30 less.

[Acerpwns]

Do you know what is underkill?

 

3.5 GB .

 

If the OP wants a future proof card he will get the full 4 GB.

 

Just saying.

ehh... futureproof is kind of an ehhh term. i dont believe you can future proof by todays standard