290X Lighting vs GTX 970 G1 Gaming

[Guest Kloaked]

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

Too much bandwagon, not enough rationality.

[Majestic]

Nuff said.

 

actually no, weak evidence at best.

[zappian]

actually no, weak evidence at best.

 

Mods are nice people.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Have had both. 290X Lightning and a 970 Gaming. 970 was faster when overclocked but the 290X was a dog overclocker. Needed to push 1.45v for 1300 core and 1.7v for 1600 mem

[Majestic]

\

 

I call your "evidence" weak and you respond with a stupid meme. Do you understand why I don't take you seriously?

Why your shitposting hasn't been reason enough for a ban is beyond me really.

[Bateman_]

Keep in mind that the 290x produces more heat, and is louder.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Keep in mind that the 290x produces more heat, and is louder.

Overclocked vs overclocked. 290X will use around 200 more watts

[zappian]

I call your "evidence" weak and you respond with a stupid meme. Do you understand why I don't take you seriously?

Why your shitposting hasn't been reason enough for a ban is beyond me really.

 

You didnt have anything constructive about my evidence so i dont have anything constructive to say about your statement.

We are even.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Keep in mind that the 290x produces more heat, and is louder.

 

Not when its a Lightning hehe

[Majestic]

You didnt have anything constructive about my evidence so i dont have anything constructive to say about your statement.

We are even.

 

You post some screenshot completely devoid of context and expect constructive criticism? There was a valid reason I called it weak.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Not when its a Lightning hehe

Lightning is pretty vocal over 80% fan

[colonel_mortis]

The OP has his answer now, and the general consensus in this thread seems to be that they are fairly close on performance, although some tests have shown the 970 to have issues with certain games. There's no need to turn this thread into a flame war.

I will be monitoring this thread, and if you don't stop arguing, I'm going to have to lock it. You have been warned.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

 

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.

 

 

Just take away the slow 500MB, don't take away another 500MB, that'll make it worse.

[Victorious Secret]

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.

 

I think people on the forum have a very skewed idea of what it takes to drive 4K gaming. I like to play games at Ultra. Whats the point of gaming (for me) if your games aren't going to look the best they can? If I'm going to do 4K, I'm doing it right. 

That means 2 flagship class cards (at least), a 4K monitor and the PSU upgrade to support said flagship GPUs. That would be around 2 grand in hardware alone. 

No thanks. I'd rather go buy a DJI Inspire 1 instead of being the cliche "spends all his money on computer parts" just to enjoy ultra gaming at 4K. The prices will drop substantially, GPUs are only getting more powerful; waiting is hardly a bad thing right now. I say ~2 years before we can enjoy 4K ultra off single cards, which is what normal people ACTUALLY need. 

[Faa]

"theories"

 

From Guru 3D:

 

 

Spikes to 1 or 0 fps.

Running out of vram = 290x 0 fps as well.

Again, I've explained you this; you can't have 0 fps with a memory speed limitation. Only when there's no VRAM left you will have 0 fps.

[mr moose]

"theories"

 

From Guru 3D:

 

 

Spikes to 1 or 0 fps.

 

I dare say the only people who know for sure which is the biggest limiting factor will be the engineers at Nvidia, and seeing as no one here is,  I see it as quite erroneous to claim anything other than what we know to be a fact, and the performance limits we see on benchmarks are a known fact.  The ram slows at 3.5G is also a fact,  The ram slowing being the cause of performance limits?  unknown.

 

So yes they are theories, unless you are an engineer at Nvidia.

[Razzaa]

Since someone brought up Dying Light as an example of the 970 running into Vram issues i just spent an hour playing it. I played at 1080p everything maxed out and had no issues. My FPS was consistently between 80-100fps. 1440p DSR i was able to consistently stay @ or above 60 fps. I recorded it using Shadowplay and can upload it later if anyone needs a reference.

[cesrai]

Since someone brought up Dying Light as an example of the 970 running into Vram issues i just spent an hour playing it. I played at 1080p everything maxed out and had no issues. My FPS was consistently between 80-100fps. 1440p DSR i was able to consistently stay @ or above 60 fps. I recorded it using Shadowplay and can upload it later if anyone needs a reference.

I would be surprised if it dipped below 60 FPS.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Okay, I just watched Digital Foundry's video comparing the 970 with a 290X, and the 970 in some cases destroyed it. So I'm getting a 970.

 

[Rhett M. Quigley]

OP: which system are you using?

 

I don't have a PC yet, I'm going to get one. I was thinking in terms of COD, where OP means "over-powered", not "original poster", I had to Google it.

[maizenblue]

Okay, I just watched Digital Foundry's video comparing the 970 with a 290X, and the 970 in some cases destroyed it. So I'm getting a 970.

 

When comparing a 290x to an Nvidia card its important to know whether or not the 290x had a reference cooler because the reference will experience thermal throttling in demanding games, which will affect performance. This is why AMD screwed themselves by releasing the 290x initially with their shitty reference cooler. That was what reviewers used for benchmarks and its what a lot of reviewers still use. This gives Nvidia cards an advantage over AMD they don't have when you use a non reference 290x.

 

Ive also noticed that when the 970 came out, because Nvidia didn't release a reference cooler a lot of reviewers were using non reference factory OC'd cards for 970 benchmarks, which made it seem a little better than it was. As a result there are reviews out there comparing a factory OC'd non reference 970 to a reference 290x experiencing thermal throttling. This might have been down out of laziness and/or Nvidia bias, but I would look at an MSI lightning 290x review. Guru3d shows it beating the 970 in some of the games you show the 970 beating the 290x.

 

You also said you are considering a 1440p monitor, so 290x performance will increase relative to the 970 in 1440p benchmarks(and a lot more in 4k).

[JustCallMeVlad]

When comparing a 290x to an Nvidia card its important to know whether or not the 290x had a reference cooler because the reference will experience thermal throttling in demanding games, which will affect performance. This is why AMD screwed themselves by releasing the 290x initially with their shitty reference cooler. That was what reviewers used for benchmarks and its what a lot of reviewers still use. This gives Nvidia cards an advantage over AMD they don't have when you use a non reference 290x.

Ive also noticed that when the 970 came out, because Nvidia didn't release a reference cooler a lot of reviewers were using non reference factory OC'd cards for 970 benchmarks, which made it seem a little better than it was. As a result there are reviews out there comparing a factory OC'd non reference 970 to a reference 290x experiencing thermal throttling. This might have been down out of laziness and/or Nvidia bias, but I would look at an MSI lightning 290x review. Guru3d shows it beating the 970 in some of the games you show the 970 beating the 290x.

You also said you are considering a 1440p monitor, so 290x performance will increase relative to the 970 in 1440p benchmarks(and a lot more in 4k).

Stop making excuses for amd.

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Bummer, I'm 16 years old and my Dad is going to be paying for the PC components. I told him about the 970 and how Nvidia lied (or at least was dishonest) and he said that he won't give his money to a company that lies (or at least is dishonest)

 

bye bye 970

[Face2Face]

Bummer, I'm 16 years old and my Dad is going to be paying for the PC components. I told him about the 970 and how Nvidia lied (or at least was dishonest) and he said that he won't give his money to a company that lies (or at least is dishonest)

 

bye bye 970

Then just get the Lightning and call it a day. You won't notice much in the way of a FPS difference, but the 290X does consume more energy; which in turn, produces more heat. If you're okay with that? Then grab the 290X Lightning - either way, the G1 970 and 290X Lightning are both great cards. 

[Rhett M. Quigley]

Then just get the Lightning and call it a day. You won't notice much in the way of a FPS difference, but the 290X does consume more energy; which in turn, produces more heat. If you're okay with that? Then grab the 290X Lightning - either way, the G1 970 and 290X Lightning are both great cards. 

 

Yeah, I guess I gotta go with the Lightning, the best 290X "hands down" according to Linus.