GTX 970 vs R9 390

[DarkSmith2]

ehm...  @780ti http://www.bytemedev.com/the-gtx-780-ti-sli-end-of-life-driver-performance-analysis/ doesnt show bad things though

[tribaljet]

ehm...  @780ti http://www.bytemedev.com/the-gtx-780-ti-sli-end-of-life-driver-performance-analysis/ doesnt show bad things though

 

Interesting, so the 353.xx releaes did fix the major performance regressions Kepler was suffering. Let's hope that continues.

[DarkSmith2]

Silicon lottery.

 

They got a bad or average one then provided it as basis for "all teh cards", then went back to buisniss as usual. Sure, i do not intend to say it will reach 50% overclock. But do not ever take ONE test as the "final verdict" on a card". Ive heard of 970s not overclocking anywhere NEAR where other people get their 970s, even though we all know the 970 OC pretty well. However, looking at the bigger picture.

 

390 is around 7-10% better then GTX 970, when both are at stock settings.

Now, we know that well overclocked 970s CAN reach slightly above stock 980 performance. And YOUR OWN TEST showed that on several occasions, the 390 performed SLIGHTLY above stock 980 performance when OCd....

 

Meaning, yes when OCd they level out and get pretty similar. However then there is the elephant in the room

 

NOT EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH OVERCLOCKING, AND YOU SHOULD RESPECT THAT. THUS BEFORE RUBBING IT INTO PEOPLES FACES THAT "IF YOU WRING THE LAST BIT OF JUICE OUT OF THIS, YOU WILL GET BETTER PERFORMANCE". It may still not be the best solution for certain people.

 

And thus, you should give people the best option as the one who is faster OUT OF THE BOX. While reccomending the other options as "the ones you can make better yourself by tinkering".

i wouldnt go for +5fps in exchange of +125watts. So even if your performance assumes were right it wouldnt be worth it, for me atleast.

[Prysin]

i wouldnt go for +5fps in exchange of +125watts. So even if your performance assumes were right it wouldnt be worth it, for me atleast.

so you are now suggesting things based on subjective opinion, and no longer on measurable facts.

 

That sir, is what is commonly known as "fanboyism". And that, doesnt benefit anyone,

[DarkSmith2]

so you are now suggesting things based on subjective opinion, and no longer on measurable facts.

 

That sir, is what is commonly known as "fanboyism". And that, doesnt benefit anyone,

Nope, if the r390 would perform better in everything and wouldnt just cost more money in the longrun i would instantly change my card and take it. But the problem here is it isnt. All fair benches ive seen so far with them are showing they are just on the same level. Sometimes one card wins sometimes the other does. I dont need the 8GB VRAM because im not aiming to play on a 4k resolution if i would, i would buy a GTX980Ti OR FuryX.

 

I just dont see a reason to buy a card that performs the same, costs the same but gets more expansive over time just for more VRAM which wont ever be used on 1080p or 1440p.

 

And ofc got a good averaged sample of a gtx970 which beats a gtx980 reference clocked. Without additional power draw.

[Nena Trinity]

390 is far superior! It is closer to a 980!

 

Also how come people want 3.5+0.5 instead of 8GB?

[tribaljet]

390 is far superior! It is closer to a 980!

 

Also how come people want 3.5+0.5 instead of 8GB?

 

Wrong on both accounts. The 390X is closer to a 980. And last time I checked, the 970 always had 4GB of memory, regardless of allocation issues that have been covered everywhere by now.

[Prysin]

Nope, if the r390 would perform better in everything and wouldnt just cost more money in the longrun i would instantly change my card and take it. But the problem here is it isnt. All fair benches ive seen so far with them are showing they are just on the same level. Sometimes one card wins sometimes the other does. I dont need the 8GB VRAM because im not aiming to play on a 4k resolution if i would, i would buy a GTX980Ti OR FuryX.

 

I just dont see a reason to buy a card that performs the same, costs the same but gets more expansive over time just for more VRAM which wont ever be used on 1080p or 1440p.

Dunno which benches you've seen. The ones ive seen, like 4-5 good ones atleast, show it a few % ahead.

 

 

Also, this is 2015, not 2013. Games do, and will use more then 3.5+0.5GB VRAM. Sure you can play your games at high-ultra TODAY. But unless you plan to get a new card within a year or two, the 390 is, excuse the term, more futureproof in the general sense.

 

Remember, it takes several hours A DAY to make a difference. However here is a little known fact.

If you set your PC to hibernation/standby (not shut it off). Then due to AMD having Zerocore (GPU turns completely off), it will regain, over time, A LOT of power savings compared to Nvidia which will constantly stay around 14-25w power draw, even if the computer is supposed to be drawing as little as possible.

[Nena Trinity]

Wrong on both accounts. The 390X is closer to a 980. And last time I checked, the 970 always had 4GB of memory, regardless of allocation issues that have been covered everywhere by now.

It says 4GB of GDDR5 not 3.5 GDDR5 + 0.5 DDR3...

Also 8 GB of GDDR 5 is better! And the 390 is better than 970 and quite close to a 980.

[tribaljet]

It says 4GB of GDDR5 not 3.5 GDDR5 + 0.5 DDR3...

Also 8 GB of GDDR 5 is better! And the 390 is better than 970 and quite close to a 980.

snip

 

So suddenly more VRAM translates into higher performance? That warrants a very easy lol.

 

Also, at 1440p (a resolution where the R9 390 should easily outclass the GTX 970) the R9 390 barely has any advantage over the GTX 970 and that's even taking into account AMD-optimized titles. So no, that is still incorrect.

[DarkSmith2]

Dunno which benches you've seen. The ones ive seen, like 4-5 good ones atleast, show it a few % ahead.

 

 

Also, this is 2015, not 2013. Games do, and will use more then 3.5+0.5GB VRAM. Sure you can play your games at high-ultra TODAY. But unless you plan to get a new card within a year or two, the 390 is, excuse the term, more futureproof in the general sense.

 

Remember, it takes several hours A DAY to make a difference. However here is a little known fact.

If you set your PC to hibernation/standby (not shut it off). Then due to AMD having Zerocore (GPU turns completely off), it will regain, over time, A LOT of power savings compared to Nvidia which will constantly stay around 14-25w power draw, even if the computer is supposed to be drawing as little as possible.

hmm for some reason i feel like i have to buy a r9 390 just to do my own benchmarks. never trust statistics which you haven't faked on your own.

A yea im really aiming to upgrade my whole pc in about 3years. Because my 2600k and pci-e 2.1, DDR3 and stuff is getting old. I decided to "only" buy a gtx970 because im interrested in performance increases with volta / nvlink / skylake and all the other stuff that comes out. Im hoping for a big jump in performance and 4k 144hz gaming in about 3years. Time hasnt come for it right now.. so im just holding out for the new technologies like everyone should do at this point.

 

I shut my pc off when im not in front of it. It takes me only 4seconds to boot windows. 

[Vebb]

R 390, if you are only gaming. You have to check application support, the 390 has less supported aplications than the gtx 970.

 

The 8GB of VRAM is more marketing, the card is never going to be able to use more than 6GB. Maybe 8 GB since amd's memmory compression tehnology kinda sucks.

[tribaljet]

-snip-

 

Then I suggest you start reading more diverse and reliable benchmarks (note I said read, not watch random Youtube videos) given that more and more reviewers are doing a more balanced approach to benchmarking regarding sponsored titles and vendor-neutral titles.

 

Regarding AMD-optimized titles, here are a few: Alien Isolation, Tomb Raider, Battlefield 3 onwards, Dragon Age Inquisition, Civilization Beyond Earth, Hitman Absolution, Far Cry 3, just to name a few.

[DarkSmith2]

from this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

 

ignore the highlighted sections. take a look at the 970 and the 390.  This for me is a valid testfield with a huge number of games though. As you can see in the performance summary both cards are performance wise nearly identically on 1080p/1440p ... 

 

Just to show some real "fair" performance.

 

And ofc the 390 is often ahead in fps but not by alot. Keep in mind that both are reference cards.

[Guest]

Jay's video is up and this should answer a lot of questions:

 

[DarkSmith2]

as i said in the other thread, this is a great video. Showing a decent r9 390 overclock. I love it. 

[othertomperson]

you can still overclock a 390. So.... your argument it moot.

 

Not by nearly as much as the 290 (let alone the 970). It doesn't magically gain headroom just because they gave it a new number along side its factory overclock.

[Prysin]

Not by nearly as much as the 290 (let alone the 970). It doesn't magically gain headroom just because they gave it a new number along side its factory overclock.

and how much proof do you have of this?

 

there is 3 videos featuring 390 OC and like... 3 more written reviews for a blistering SIX video cards being tested among SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSANDS, PERHAPS MILLIONS BEING SOLD.

 

Yup, 6 cards is just about the right sample size to nail down a verdict on the cards ability to OC.

 

come back with your ridiculous statements in 2-3 months when more people have actually spoken up

[othertomperson]

and how much proof do you have of this?

 

there is 3 videos featuring 390 OC and like... 3 more written reviews for a blistering SIX video cards being tested among SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSANDS, PERHAPS MILLIONS BEING SOLD.

 

Yup, 6 cards is just about the right sample size to nail down a verdict on the cards ability to OC.

 

come back with your ridiculous statements in 2-3 months when more people have actually spoken up

 

I don't need 2-3 months, that cards been out for about 20 months now. It's had a couple of different names, but it's the same card. This time it's just overclocked to 1000 MHz out of the box. Even a well binned 290 only has so much headroom and such an aggressive factory OC is going to reduce the headroom the end user sees.

 

I'd love to live in your fairy kingdom in which this is a ridiculous statement. I could just overclock my old GPU, write a new number on the box, call it "stock" and suddenly get my overclocking headroom back. I'd never have to buy another GPU!!

[DarkSmith2]

 

this guys havent tested properly ;(

 

or this guy: