970 Vs 290x Help!

[mushies1337]

cannot decide between

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-gtx-970-g1-1329mhz-1a-102011.htm

 

Or

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/msi-radeon-r9-290x-gaming-df-92892-1229.htm

 

Or

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-290-royal-f3-94205-1509.htm

 

Apparently Amd's drivers arent as good as Nvidia's. Also my build is an Amd build which one should i choose? the 290x has an appealing price.

if you don't mind the 290's overall inefficiency then go for it

970 for more efficiency and 1080p-1440p gaming

[mapegl]

Yeah I really like my 290 and it perfoms very well at 1080, still Ver nice at 1440 and decent at 4k.

Temps are fine if you get a decent cooler. Vapor-X.

The 970 is also a nice card, though I would not buy it myself. Right now (unless you get two cards and max out everything possible at4k) you will most likely have no issues, but as tek syndicate pointed out, probably in the future you will more and more often need that higher vram.

I don't care much for the lying part. Amd is probably just lucky. But their card works 100% for what they are at the moment.

If you really want to game at 4k I would suggest getting regular 290s instead of 290X. Heat output is lower and therefore getting two heating up your system won't be as bad and they are even better price/performance.

Just get good coolers and use a decent airflow case like the haf-xb.

[othertomperson]

Not when you crank details to high/ultra with HD textures, because then you exceed 3.5GB of vram usage.

I have seen some people say they dont notice any fps drops/stuttering when using over 3.5GB, but there are also a ton of reports that do show a big drop in framerate.

 

So for someone looking to go 4k, they should invest in a 290x or 980

 

The only game I've exceeded 3.5GB with is Skyrim, and it hasn't had any noticeable effect whatsoever. Every other game I've played can be played at ultra at 4K on 970s without issue.

[GrimNeo]

cannot decide between

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-gtx-970-g1-1329mhz-1a-102011.htm

 

Or

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/msi-radeon-r9-290x-gaming-df-92892-1229.htm

 

Or

 

http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-290-royal-f3-94205-1509.htm

 

Apparently Amd's drivers arent as good as Nvidia's. Also my build is an Amd build which one should i choose? the 290x has an appealing price.

I would go with the MSI AMD 290x if your on a budget. 100 CAD mail in rebate. The 970 is also a great choice and your fine with either company for that. I would check to see if there are any rebates on them. EVGA has a step-up prgoram so I would check into that and they have great customer service and warranty coverage.

[vembutech]

970 performance is better while compare to others.

[Whorax]

I would go with the R9 290X.

[Lays]

970 will win at 1080p and 1440p.

 

 

We've been over this first hand in my teamspeak, the 290x is faster at 1440p when it has a proper cooler on it & is overclocked whilst the 970 is being overclocked too.

[Gofspar]

We've been over this first hand in my teamspeak, the 290x is faster at 1440p when it has a proper cooler on it & is overclocked whilst the 970 is being overclocked too.

Depends on the game according to this AnandTech post.

[Justhavocman]

The drivers have not gotten alot better. They still suck and the fact I (and many others using 290x's) are stuck on 14.7 drivers due to a bug with any later drivers is shocking. They need to sort it out before I will consider buying another AMD product.

funny , i'd say nvidias drivers arent any better , i've been having screen flickering with every new update which forces me to use older drivers. so -1 from me.

[LoneGun]

Get 970 if:

1. If you plan to use oculus rift

2. If you plan to SLI/CF. AMD CF has been horrible lately

3. If you don't mind slight lower texture quality in future games

If not, get 290x. 4gb does and WILL matter a lot more in near future.

[Lays]

Depends on the game according to this AnandTech post.

 

 

Does it also say which 290x they're using?, my Lightning was 4-6 FPS in 90% of the games I benchmarked vs my 970 G1, and the 970 was at 1600 Mhz.

Everytime I see people post benchmarks with 290x's, they're always using reference 290x's against non reference nvidia cards, I don't find that very fair.

[Gofspar]

Does it also say which 290x they're using?, my Lightning was 4-6 FPS in 90% of the games I benchmarked vs my 970 G1, and the 970 was at 1600 Mhz.

Everytime I see people post benchmarks with 290x's, they're always using reference 290x's against non reference nvidia cards, I don't find that very fair.

wasn't a lightning so ye

[Majestic]

If you factor in overclocking, 970 all the way. Maxwells overclock like beasts, while most 290's don't due to power/heatlimitations.

At stock they pretty much trade blows and it bascially boils down to what you find important. Casetemps, noise or simply the price.