290X Lighting vs GTX 970 G1 Gaming

[Majestic]

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.

That's an even weaker argument. 

 

wot?

Well, stock voltage is 1200, 1175 when it hits the power target.

 

Look I don't care either way. I was just throwing all arguments on the table here. 970 is more quiet, overclocks like a champ and consumes less power. 

290x has less decline in larger resolutions due to bandwidth, but on 1080p or 1440p that argument is nearly non-existant. The overclocking on it is pretty 'meh' considering the thermals and it consumes ~100W more during load which means higher casetemps and fan-noise.

[zappian]

That's an even weaker argument. 

 

Well, stock voltage is 1200, 1175 when it hits the power target.

 

Not a weak argument at all lol.

 

Let me understand you pay MORE for LESS vram.

 

Seems legit.

[Majestic]

Not a weak argument at all lol.

 

Let me understand you pay MORE for LESS vram.

 

Seems legit.

Like the VRAM is the only determining factor on a card. Don't turn this into another vram rant, you already got a warning for that.

Again, 3.5GB should not under any circumstance be a limiting factor in a 1080p/1440p scenario.

 

So don't use arguments that are not really relevant to the scenario of the OP.

 

OP: which system are you using?

[zappian]

Like the VRAM is the only determining factor on a card. Don't turn this into another vram rant, you already got a warning for that.

 

Again, 3.5GB should not under any circumstance be a limiting factor in a 1080p/1440p scenario.

 

The VRAM inst the determining factor but when the cards perform the same it is lol.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

Anyway i will let OP decide im out.

 

You have clearly no interest on AMD products and ignore them on purpose.

 

I have at least suggested some 980s and 960s in builds.

[Majestic]

The VRAM inst the determining factor but when the cards perform the same it is lol.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

That's stock vs. stock. Which is why I brought up overclocking in the first place.

 

 

You have clearly no interest on AMD products and ignore them on purpose.

 

I have at least suggested some 980s and 960s in builds.

Don't misrepresent my argument. That's not my intent, you're just in full cognitive dissonance again.

 

I'm not keeping score tbh, and I don't care how balanced my builds are. I don't owe loyalty to any company.

[Fate]

That's stock vs. stock. Which is why I brought up overclocking in the first place.

You can't overclock to get 500MB vram back.

In those unoptimized games where the vram usage is ridiculous and your performance starts to tank on a 970, you'll be wishing you would have went with a 290x. Well, I would at least. (Dying Light for example)

[Briggsy]

The VRAM inst the determining factor but when the cards perform the same it is lol.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

Anyway i will let OP decide im out.

 

not to mention in that benchmark they are using a 970 that boosts past 1400Mhz out of the box, compared to a stock clocked 290x.

 

even vs the 290 @ 947Mhz its laughable http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1355

[zappian]

not to mention in that benchmark they are using a 970 that boosts past 1400Mhz out of the box, compared to a stock clocked 290x.

 

even vs the 290 @ 947Mhz its laughable http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1355

 

Lol nice catch didnt even notice that.

[Majestic]

not to mention in that benchmark they are using a 970 that boosts past 1400Mhz out of the box, compared to a stock clocked 290x.

 

even vs the 290 @ 947Mhz its laughable http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1355

It says with stock bios tbh.

 

 

You can't overclock to get 500MB vram back.

In those unoptimized games where the vram usage is ridiculous and your performance starts to tank on a 970, you'll be wishing you would have went with a 290x. Well, I would at least. (Dying Light for example)

If your argument is; buy a 290x, because it works better with shitty unoptimized pc-ports. Sure, go ahead. If those are the games you play and you don't mind the noise and heatoutput. Go ahead.

 

Again, for me the 970 is favored. But I'm not holding any grudges if he chooses otherwise. I'm just saying that before I joined, some benefits of the 970 were overlooked. And when I started suggesting those I'm being called a fanboy again.

[Briggsy]

It says with stock bios tbh.

 

stock bios has slower fan speeds and power limits.

 

with stock bios anandtech got a 1418Mhz boost without changing any clocks.

[Zweihander]

Actually, the 970 would be cheaper in the long run due to lesser power consumption values. 

 

However, either card would be beast for 1080p. 

[Majestic]

stock bios has slower fan speeds and power limits.

 

with stock bios anandtech got a 1418Mhz boost without changing any clocks.

How can it boost up to 1418mhz on a 1050mhz baseclock?

 

Pretty sure by reference bios they mean geforce.com specsheet clocks. Don't they?

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Actually, the 970 would be cheaper in the long run due to lesser power consumption values. 

 

However, either card would be beast for 1080p. 

 

A G1 Gaming 970 uses up to around 270 watts, not really that much better, perhaps several years and you would start saving money, by then you would have another card anyway. I might be wrong.

[Razzaa]

A G1 Gaming 970 uses up to around 270 watts, not really that much better, perhaps several years and you would start saving money, by then you would have another card anyway. I might be wrong.

Im not a fan of heat.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Im not a fan of heat.

 

Only the reference model gets over 90, the Lightning is around 65 degrees under heavy load according to this article http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-290x-lightning-review,12.html

[Carde]

I have both these cards OCed them to their max the R9 290x lightning was faster, but louder and a lot more hungry naturally

[Majestic]

Only the reference model gets over 90, the Lightning is around 65 degrees under heavy load according to this article http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-290x-lightning-review,12.html

 

It's the noise with which they do.

http://nl.hardware.info/vergelijkingstabel/producten/253092-205301-208617

 

290X Tri-X = 48.2dB, 290X Lighting 51.9 dB..... 970 Strix 38.6dB. If you then consider that adding ~3dB is about twice the noise. Do the math.

 

290X cards are loud compared to 970's. Really loud. If that's OK with you. Fine, but it needs to be said.

[arniks8]

Imo 970 will have better use over dx12 than 290x. AMD's drivers are also shit( not everyone has problems, but a lot of peopole do).

[Rhett M. Quigley]

It's the noise with which they do.

http://nl.hardware.info/vergelijkingstabel/producten/253092-205301-208617

 

290X Tri-X = 48.2dB, 290X Lighting 51.9 dB..... 970 Strix 38.6dB. If you then consider that adding ~3dB is about twice the noise. Do the math.

 

290X cards are loud compared to 970's. Really loud. If that's OK with you. Fine, but it needs to be said.

 

So you would trade 500 mb of vram for less noise? The way I see it, both cards are roughly equal. They both have disadvantages, but I have read reviews which say the lightning is not that loud. You want to know whats loud? a really old Xbox 360, it's so loud that when I turn it off the room feels weird because I was used to it's sound. I can deal with a slight noise, if the Lightning is even loud in the first place.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Imo 970 will have better use over dx12 than 290x. AMD's drivers are also shit( not everyone has problems, but a lot of peopole do).

 

Both support it, why would the 970 be better for that?

[Rhett M. Quigley]

I have both these cards OCed them to their max the R9 290x lightning was faster, but louder and a lot more hungry naturally

 

Good. Majestic doesn't think so.

[Whorax]

When will 4Gb of VRAM be not enough? The difference between 3.5 and 4.0 doesn't sound like a gigantic leap.

Some games have already proven to consume more than 3.5GB VRAM, hence how the issue came up in the first place. If you had to buy now and you plan on getting/have a monitor resolution of 1440p or over, get the 290X Lightning...

 

Would it be more wise to wait till AMD releases their new video cards?

...now with that being said, I would personally wait till the 3xx series comes out, as that's what I plan on doing if I can get NewEgg to refund both of my 970s.

[Majestic]

 

So you would trade 500 mb of vram for less noise? The way I see it, both cards are roughly equal. They both have disadvantages, but I have read reviews which say the lightning is not that loud. You want to know whats loud? a really old Xbox 360, it's so loud that when I turn it off the room feels weird because I was used to it's sound. I can deal with a slight noise, if the Lightning is even loud in the first place.

It's not a trade for me, I game at 1080p. Not sure why you bring up a Xbox 360, and i have little interest in those types of weird rationalizations. The way I interpret your reactions, is that you've already made up your mind and are trying to rationalize your decision already.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

 

 

It's not a trade for me, I game at 1080p. Not sure why you bring up a Xbox 360, and i have little interest in those types of weird rationalizations. The way I interpret your reactions, is that you've already made up your mind and are trying to rationalize your decision already.

 

 

I can change my mind if the 970 truly performs better, the fps is pretty much what matters when comparing cards. If the 970 can consistently deliver more fps on average (some say it doesn't) then I'd go for the 970...as long as 3.5 vram will be enough for awhile for 1080p maxed out gaming.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

 

 

Not sure why you bring up a Xbox 360, and i have little interest in those types of weird rationalizations.

 

How is that weird? I show how much I can tolerate noise.