GTX 970, is it still better than r9 290x?

[rmac8530]

My R9 290x just died on me, and the warranty was voided because some oil or water spilled on the PCI-e Gold contact pins, and I have no idea how that happened. Anyway, I was so sure that what I wanted as a new card for my computer is the GTX 970 because I've seen a lot of reviews and benchmark results saying that it is slightly better than the R9 290x. However, while I was reading some more reviews, I discovered that there's a VRAM problem with the GTX 970 which is a very hot topic right now. I'm sure you all know about that already. My question is, if I will buy the GTX 970 G1 Gaming, will it still be worth it? I really don't want to do an upgrade until three years or so, and this VRAM allocation problem has been bothering me, which is why I'm writing this thread right now. Do you think the new games that will be released within 2 years will require more than 3.5Gb VRAM? I'm only going to play in 1080p with one monitor, and would love to have every settings maxed out if possible. I'm also looking forward to Elder Scrolls VI (if it will be released), and playing that in Ultra would make me so happy.

 

 

PC Specs

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690k, 3.5Ghz

Mobo: MSI Z97 PC Mate

RAM: 2x4Gb Kingston HyperX blue

HDD: 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm

Monitor: Asus VX239H LED 23'' IPS

Case: Xigmatek Mach

PSU: Corsair CX600M

 

[jkraghify]

This is the wrong sub for this. Welcome to the forum!

[Guest Kloaked]

They trade blows, so it's not worth buying a 970.

 

If you ever want to upgrade, wait until the next-gen cards are out from AMD and/or Nvidia.

[rmac8530]

Oh, my bad. I'll just remove the thread.

[rmac8530]

They trade blows, so it's not worth buying a 970.

 

If you ever want to upgrade, wait until the next-gen cards are out from AMD and/or Nvidia.

Actually, I was thinking the same thing, but then I realized that if I can't afford GTX 980 now, how would I buy the next gen cards?

[rmac8530]

How do I remove it?

[jkraghify]

You can't remove the thread. A mod will move it sometime. Mistakes happen, lol

[iTonyy]

Actually, I was thinking the same thing, but then I realized that if I can't afford GTX 980 now, how would I buy the next gen cards?

You can take a time machine into the future and buy 1 or just wait like the rest of us mortals

[Lays]

The 970 still performs exactly how benchmarks describe it performing, nothing's changed just because of these "VRAM issues".

 

There are a very small # of 290x's that are better, so if you do need a new card, either get a 290x Lightning or a 970 G1.  You'll be happy with either choice.

[rmac8530]

LOL. You just made my day. hahah that guy sounded like he's having a heart attack. I laughed so hard, my whole face is hurting!

[Badger906]

I'd get a 290x. costs less, performs just as well if not better and won't suffer in time if the vram thing comes into play

[Lewellyn]

The 970 still performs exactly how benchmarks describe it performing, nothing's changed just because of these "VRAM issues".

 

There are a very small # of 290x's that are better, so if you do need a new card, either get a 290x Lightning or a 970 G1.  You'll be happy with either choice.

 

Benchmark fallacy.

 

[Clarkey]

If you can wait. WHen AMD drops their new line nvidias prices will most likely drop.

[Misanthrope]

290x Has access to both Mantle now and DX12 down the line, as a matter of principle or if you ever want to go beyond 1080p, I'd go with a 290x

[Acerpwns]

290x Has access to both Mantle now and DX12 down the line, as a matter of principle or if you ever want to go beyond 1080p, I'd go with a 290x

the 970 and 290x trade blows in 1440p and 1080p and in some SLI configs it will perform better than CFX 290xs. Now for current 4K the 290x will lead ahead thanks to that 512bit bus

[Misanthrope]

the 970 and 290x trade blows in 1440p and 1080p and in some SLI configs it will perform better than CFX 290xs. Now for current 4K the 290x will lead ahead thanks to that 512bit bus

 

Future games are more likely to reach beyond 3.5gb of vram on 1440p an eventually even 1080p (Think something like the Ultra textures on Shadow of mordor becoming more common) So right now it's mostly a 4k issue but this is likely to become one in the not so distant future, as in within the useful lifetime of either card.

 

So even if you're not in the "Fuck liars" mindset, it's still a reasonably better idea to get a 290x provided you have one with a good cooling solution and such like a Sapphire.

[Briggsy]

get the 970. when you spill oil and water on it, it should keep working. pour some Crème de menthe into the fins and your room will smell nice in no time.

 

but seriously though, as long as you are going to play 1080p/1440p, you'll be fine for now with most current games. how long before AAA games start stuttering with the 970 is purely speculation at this point, and you can always turn down settings in the future if more than 3.5GB VRam is needed. 

 

Long story short because it's been beaten to death, both memory partitions cannot be accessed during the same memory cycle on a 970, meaning the 970's memory is actually 3.5GB with a 224bit bus @ 196GB/s bandwidth, or 0.5GB with a 32bit bus @ 28GB/s bandwidth, depending on which memory partition is being accessed during a memory cycle. benchmarks from the cards launch have not changed, but the games you will be playing are going to.

[Litargirio]

No. One good reason is that you can put the 290x and the 390x in crossfire.

[Syraz]

The 970 still performs exactly how benchmarks describe it performing, nothing's changed just because of these "VRAM issues".

 

There are a very small # of 290x's that are better, so if you do need a new card, either get a 290x Lightning or a 970 G1.  You'll be happy with either choice.

 

Exactly and Hello Fellow Oregonian!

[BrianPena]

No. One good reason is that you can put the 290x and the 390x in crossfire.

Source?

[vembutech]

GTX 970, is not so much better than r9 290x. Check the performance chart below

 

http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/AMD+Radeon+R9+290X/review

[GTX]

I have the Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 970. I have not OC'd it yet so I can't comment on that but im impressed. Although I have changed the LED's to Red which I would recommend if your colours don't match.

 

Back to your question: There is no clear performance winner because they beat each other in different games. Although the 970 is more efficient ( power wise ) and also also IMO runs quieter. 

 

Since your only running one 1080p monitor if you ever wanted to get a new one I would maybe go 290 because they will have 3sync which is free compared to g-sync which cost tons.

 

IMO: GTX 970

[mayu]

That video is really hilarious :lol: . I will fill stupid now if I went to buy 970 now  :unsure:

[Acerpwns]

Future games are more likely to reach beyond 3.5gb of vram on 1440p an eventually even 1080p (Think something like the Ultra textures on Shadow of mordor becoming more common) So right now it's mostly a 4k issue but this is likely to become one in the not so distant future, as in within the useful lifetime of either card.

 

So even if you're not in the "Fuck liars" mindset, it's still a reasonably better idea to get a 290x provided you have one with a good cooling solution and such like a Sapphire.

TBH the 970 seems to being doing OK at 4K atm, the CFX 290x is better but sometimes its usually about 3 fps

[Litargirio]

Source?

I forgot to write the word "probably". But still, AMD does let you put different GPUs in CFx, so chances of being able to are good.