290X Lighting vs GTX 970 G1 Gaming

[Faa]

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)

Is there any proof for this? http://be.hardware.info/reviews/5622/9/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-sli--3-way-sli--4-way-sli-review-benchmarks-watch-dogs

Watch Dogs is known for hitting 4GB quite easily at 4K.

[Fate]

Is there any proof for this? http://be.hardware.info/reviews/5622/9/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-sli--3-way-sli--4-way-sli-review-benchmarks-watch-dogs

Watch Dogs is known for hitting 4GB quite easily at 4K.

This http://www.hardwarepal.com/dying-light-benchmark-performance/shows it using 3.4GB vram at high no AA 1080p, which are relatively low settings if you ask me. Someone else was saying on here (LTT) that it used 3.9GB for them 

[Faa]

This http://www.hardwarepal.com/dying-light-benchmark-performance/shows it using 3.4GB vram at high no AA 1080p, which are relatively low settings if you ask me. Someone else was saying on here (LTT) that it used 3.9GB for them 

It doesn't mean much if you're idling at 500MB. You don't have the full 4GB on a 290 to play with anyways.

[Razzaa]

It doesn't mean much if you're idling at 500MB. You don't have the full 4GB on a 290 to play with anyways.

I usually idle around 300mb but according to the highly intelligent people on this forum that extra 200mb that runs faster on a 290x is soooooo future proof!!!! Bahahahaha :rolleyes:

[Faa]

I usually idle around 300mb but according to the highly intelligent people on this forum that extra 200mb that runs faster on a 290x is soooooo future proof!!!! Bahahahaha :rolleyes:

I'm really tired of this bs though, 90% of the comments were AMD fanboys complaining. The only proof you can have is; have a 780 3GB included in a comparison all the way up to a 980.

[Razzaa]

I'm really tired of this bs though, 90% of the comments were AMD fanboys complaining. The only proof you can have is; have a 780 3GB included in a comparison all the way up to a 980.

Its all tinfoil hats. All the reviewers are saying it doesnt affect the card until you get to crazy resolution and all the idiots are saying the reviewers are lying for Nvidia lmao. I have no issues at all in anything i do with it so i just wait for all these people who decided to buy a 290 (x) instead of a 970 to start posting about the issues they are having with them lol

[Faa]

Its all tinfoil hats. All the reviewers are saying it doesnt affect the card until you get to crazy resolution and all the idiots are saying the reviewers are lying for Nvidia lmao. I have no issues at all in anything i do with it so i just wait for all these people who decided to buy a 290 (x) instead of a 970 to start posting about the issues they are having with them lol

Lol I really love the 970, finally 680 power consumption again to have extreme silence and at least the semi-passive fan mode feature. I've been through various 780 coolers all of them were too loud for me. I've tried DSR 4K with my 780's, 3GB was enough in every game I tested (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Titanfall..). I wouldn't mind Nvidia nerfing the card all the way down to 3GB with a next driver update.

290/290x/780/780 Ti's aren't interesting cards imo, they're a failure compared to Maxwell.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Lol I really love the 970, finally 680 power consumption again to have extreme silence and at least the semi-passive fan mode feature. I've been through various 780 coolers all of them were too loud for me. I've tried DSR 4K with my 780's, 3GB was enough in every game I tested (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Titanfall..). I wouldn't mind Nvidia nerfing the card all the way down to 3GB with a next driver update.

290/290x/780/780 Ti's aren't interesting cards imo, they're a failure compared to Maxwell.

 

I wouldn't call them a failure, and why would you want 3.0gb of vram, isn't 3.5 bad enough when we all thought it was a good 4Gb? And "Faa" clearly showed that a brand new game uses 3.4GB of vram at 1080p, that's too close to 3.5 for comfort.

 

I'm going to wait until early March for any news in regards to AMD's new cards, if nothing is revealed by then, I'm buying a Lightning 290X, "4GB means 4GB".

[Razzaa]

I wouldn't call them a failure, and why would you want 3.0gb of vram, isn't 3.5 bad enough when we all thought it was a good 4Gb? And "Faa" clearly showed that a brand new game uses 3.4GB of vram at 1080p, that's too close to 3.5 for comfort.

I'm going to wait until early March for any news in regards to AMD's new cards, if nothing is revealed by then, I'm buying a Lightning 290X, "4GB means 4GB".

Cool. Then you can post some reults in the various benchmark threads on LTT and join the rest of the 290(x) under the Nvidia cards.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

woah why all the hate? 

 

both cards are equally beast while having their own pros and cons

 

but imo Lightning > everything else :B

 

that card is just too sexy

[Humbug]

This http://www.hardwarepal.com/dying-light-benchmark-performance/shows it using 3.4GB vram at high no AA 1080p, which are relatively low settings if you ask me. Someone else was saying on here (LTT) that it used 3.9GB for them 

Watchdogs uses huge amounts even when not at 4k. Probably because open world...

 

When Toms Hardware tested the game they did a sneaky thing. Even though they tested in Ultra Detail they kept the texture quality at medium to prevent VRAM from become an issue

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-3.html

Hardocp in their testing explained that the 4GB of VRAM on AMD Hawai allows them to use the full texture quality at 1600p

The XFX Radeon R9 290X DD allowed the best experience in this game. We were able to run with "Ultra" textures without any stutter at all. Performance was smooth with "Ultra" textures, "Ultra" settings, SMAA and MHBAO. Therefore, the GTX 780 Ti has a higher Ambient Occlusion and SMAA setting, but the R9 290X allows "Ultra" textures. Ultra textures make a bigger impact on the image quality of this game.

 

Even AMD Radeon R9 290 allowed us to play with "Ultra" textures smoothly. It is slower, so we had to lower the level of detail down a notch like the GeForce GTX 780, but its advantage is that it is able to run "Ultra" textures where the GTX 780 is not.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/08/18/watch_dogs_performance_image_quality_review/5#.VM3zzoLYWUk

 

At 1080p 3GB of VRAM will be enough to allow you to use ultra textures iN Watchdogs. 2GB however would not.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/08/18/watch_dogs_performance_image_quality_review/6#.VM30g4LYWUk

 

Even though the new consoles are not powerful, they do have 8GB of unified memory and that's probably the reason devs are moving towards more detailed textures.

 

The below image looks slightly magnified, but in my experience as well the ultra textures do make a large difference in image quality when you look at things close up.

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTQwMTIyNDI3OU15eWhXZkNQbk5fMV82X2wucG5n

[Humbug]

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.

I would guess most likely 3.5GB at 1080p will be enough, although I do prefer the lightning card.

[Faa]

Watchdogs uses huge amounts even when not at 4k. Probably because open world...

And I've proven you a 970 is performs nearly identical to a 980.

 

 

woah why all the hate? 

Nobody here is hating the 290x, all I'm seeing is people bashing the 970.

 

 

I wouldn't call them a failure, and why would you want 3.0gb of vram, isn't 3.5 bad enough when we all thought it was a good 4Gb? And "Faa" clearly showed that a brand new game uses 3.4GB of vram at 1080p, that's too close to 3.5 for comfort.

 

I'm going to wait until early March for any news in regards to AMD's new cards, if nothing is revealed by then, I'm buying a Lightning 290X, "4GB means 4GB".

I'll help you understanding some basics; you idle at 500MB/4GB, you got 3.5GB to play on a 290/970. You never have the full 4GB to use just never.

[Majestic]

Yes, I can see that AMD pulls ahead in Dying Light due to it's vastly superior Memorybus.

 

 

 

 

Oh wait, it doesn't. Almost as if at 1080p and 1440p, memorybus is totally irrelevant past a certain threshold (3GB).

[johnnysasaki]

Yes, I can see that AMD pulls ahead in Dying Light due to it's vastly superior Memorybus.

 

-snip-

 

Oh wait, it doesn't. Almost as if at 1080p and 1440p, memorybus is totally irrelevant past a certain threshold (3GB).

All I'm seeing is Nvidia: Gameworks at it's best once again. AMD didn't issue any driver updates with Dying Light performance improvement yet.

[Majestic]

All I'm seeing is Nvidia: Gameworks at it's best once again. AMD didn't issue any driver updates with Dying Light performance improvement yet.

Yet if the VRAM was an issue, that still would've crippled nvidia cards regardless of gameworks.

[zappian]

Shows nvida gameworks title where every nvidia card is made to perform better.

Is hoping i dont call him a strawman with cherry picked benchmarks.

[johnnysasaki]

-snip-

 

-snip-

 

Yet if the VRAM was an issue, that still would've crippled nvidia cards regardless of gameworks.

Actually the last graph from your post, shows something opposite imo (regardless of the 290(x)s under-performing).

[mr moose]

Unless you are seriously intending on going dual cards and hoping to start doing some 4k (in which case the 290x is a better choice), I would get whichever one is the cheapest.  Especially at 1080 and sometimes even upto 1440 there is no difference in performance between the two. 

 

Also, ignore the shitposting about the 970 being gimped, throttled and lacking ram, the benchmarks and performance figures are what you need to  look at, not theories about ram  requirements, for all we know the GPU dies in the arse before the amount of usable/hi speed ram becomes an issue.

[arniks8]

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

Imo nvidia will optimise dx12 better for their cards than AMD, but if you have good enough gpu then wait for AMD's Rx 3xx cards.

[zappian]

Unless you are seriously intending on going dual cards and hoping to start doing some 4k (in which case the 290x is a better choice), I would get whichever one is the cheapest.  Especially at 1080 and sometimes even upto 1440 there is no difference in performance between the two. 

 

Also, ignore the shitposting about the 970 being gimped, throttled and lacking ram, the benchmarks and performance figures are what you need to  look at, not theories about ram  requirements, for all we know the GPU dies in the arse before the amount of usable/hi speed ram becomes an issue.

 

"theories"

 

From Guru 3D:

 

 

Spikes to 1 or 0 fps.

[Majestic]

 

Shows nvida gameworks title where every nvidia card is made to perform better.

Is hoping i dont call him a strawman with cherry picked benchmarks.

 

Are you even trying not to be a complete asshole, or is that just your default? Like I said, it shows cards with vastly superior memory buffers all close to eachother, meaning it's not important. Just look at the nvidia cards alone. Titan has a 6GB, 384bit 336GB/s memorybuffer, and it's trading blows with a 3.5GB 224bit card.

 

Actually the last graph from your post, shows something opposite imo (regardless of the 290(x)s under-performing).

 

And how is that? It shows 6GB cards next to 4GB and 3GB cards. The 980 pulling ahead has nothing to do with it's memory buffer, since the titan has a faster buffer.

 

[zappian]

 

 

 

Are you even trying not to be a complete asshole, or is that just your default? Like I said, it shows cards with vastly superior memory buffers all close to eachother, meaning it's not important.

Don't care about absolute performance. Just look at the nvidia cards alone. Titan has a 6GB, 384bit 336GB/s memorybuffer, and it's trading blows with a 3.5GB 224bit card.

 

 

And how is that? It shows 6GB cards next to 4GB and 3GB cards. The 980 pulling ahead has nothing to do with it's memory buffer, since the titan has a faster buffer.

 

 

 

Im not trying to be a B word or an asshole.

Your benchmarks prove nothing , thats what im saying.

 

Games paied by nvidia perform better on nvidia cards.

Shocking.

[Majestic]

Im not trying to be a B word or an asshole.

Your benchmarks prove nothing , thats what im saying.

 

Games paied by nvidia perform better on nvidia cards.

Shocking.

 

Read what I wrote;

Just look at the nvidia cards alone. Titan has a 6GB, 384bit 336GB/s memorybuffer, and it's trading blows with a 3.5GB 224bit card.

Meaning at 1080p and 1440p, it's pointless to argue memorybuffer. So stop tunneling.

 

And it's not my choice grabbing this game. You guys insist that this is the game that supposedly cripples the 970. Now that i've shown it doesn't, it's somehow now biased again. This is brilliant.

[zappian]

Read what I wrote;

Meaning at 1080p and 1440p, it's pointless to argue memorybuffer. So stop tunneling.

 

And it's not my choice grabbing this game. You guys insist that this is the game that supposedly cripples the 970. Now that i've shown it doesn't, it's somehow now biased again. This is brilliant.

 

Read what I wrote;

Meaning at 1080p and 1440p, it's pointless to argue memorybuffer. So stop tunneling.

 

And it's not my choice grabbing this game. You guys insist that this is the game that supposedly cripples the 970. Now that i've shown it doesn't, it's somehow now biased again. This is brilliant.

 

970 over 3.5 GB VRAM

 

from guru 3d

 

Nuff said.