970 vs 290x

[TechnoBacon]

Pure performance. Trix 290x or gigabyte gtx 970?

[ELSknutson]

Trix 290X

[Thebman712]

The performance is about the same so i would go w/ the 970 because it is cooler and uses less power.

[Merlorz]

*Grabs Popcorn*

 

You just started a war my friend

[zonahbear]

no

[i_build_nanosuits]

They perform about the same, one pulls significantly less power from the wall doing so...and the other one should be cheaper.

[TechnoBacon]

*Grabs Popcorn*

You just started a war my friend

No? Heat and tdp is not a part of the question

[Razzaa]

It is pretty close tbh. You could find bench marks showing either card doing better than the other. The 290x will pull ahead at higher resolution.

[Badger906]

because of the 970s vram issue I'd say the 290x edges the battle just a little bit because of more demanding games that may require it down the line.

as it stands they're prity much level pegged.

[Anarchyz11]

Depends on the game and/or benchmark. 

[sgloux3470]

290x will perform better at higher resolution.

It's also cheaper.

970 uses less power.

imo cheaper is better when performance is so close.

[AMD FANBOI]

I would take the R9 290X cuz 970 VRAM problems. Or if you want to spend a bit more take a GTX 980, but thats probably not a option.

[Mr. Blonde]

Depending on the site you find the review on, and the game and resolution being benchmarked, you'll find varying results. Most of the time you'll see the GTX 970 ahead by a few FPS (~6 at most). But as Badger906 said, and as you've probably already read, the 970 is indeed a 4GB card, it just accesses the last 0.5GB at a much slower speed; With the move towards higher resolutions and larger textures, this could definitely hinder the card's performance in the future. 

But as other's have said, by the time that a resolution high enough, or textures large enough to induce problems as a result of this segmented VRAM becomes commonplace in games, it's likely that the card will already be performing poorly due to an overall lack of required processing power. I've also read that the VRAM issues become more prevalent in SLI setups, manifesting as stuttering, but since I don't have the 970, I can't personally attest to this.

So, if you're only going to do a single card setup at 1080p, then the 970 will perform slightly better, but at a higher price. If you plan on doing an SLI/Crossfire setup, or plan on playing at 1440p or even 4k, then a 290x would be a better choice. But if you have a card that can hold you over for the next few months I would highly recommend you wait for AMD's 300 series release, supposedly in June.

 

TL;DR:

If your resolution is =<1080p, then the 970

If you'll being doing SLI/Crossfire and/or your resolution is =>1440p, then the 290x

 

For your reference, and for whoever else may care, here are a few different benchmarks comparing the 970 against other cards, including the 980, 290x, and 780ti:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67958-evga-geforce-gtx-970-ftw-acx-2-0-review-5.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/4

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/6.html

[R_Golden]

290x will perform better at higher resolution.

It's also cheaper.

970 uses less power.

imo cheaper is better when performance is so close.

If you're in the US the prices are more or less the same.

[sgloux3470]

If you're in the US the prices are more or less the same.

 

It varies a lot.  I've seen 290x's as low as $250, but they did bounce up to the $300-350 range again.

 

Right now in Canada a 290x is around $440 and 970's are around $430.  (Thanks to the horrible CAD right now.)