390 or 970 ftw edition

[JackTheYoungBuilder]

I wanna know which one a 390 from msi or a evga 970 ftw edition. I will not be overclocking since I do not know how Thanks in advance

[Dabombinable]

Is it hot where you live and does power cost a lot? If so buy the GTX 970 as it runs cooler and consumes less power, otherwise buy the 390 if it costs less.

[Just The Tips]

The 970 beats the 390 in 1080p, but at higher resolutions the 390 may slightly beat it with double the VRAM it has. The 970 also consumes less power and is slightly quieter.

 

You can overclock with software like Afterburner to adjust the freq and fan curves and stuff.

[JackTheYoungBuilder]

 

Is it hot where you live and does power cost a lot? If so buy the GTX 970 as it runs cooler and consumes less power, otherwise buy the 390 if it costs less.

 

Its summer

 

The 970 beats the 390 in 1080p, but at higher resolutions the 390 may slightly beat it with double the VRAM it has. The 970 also consumes less power and is slightly quieter.

 

You can overclock with software like Afterburner to adjust the freq and fan curves and stuff.

kk thx I just needed that becuz I am gonna me 1080p gaming 4 a while

[Doughnutnator]

The one that costs less.

Both are neck to neck, and in some cases the 970 will win if you overclock it, since it so easy to get it 1500+Mhz.

 

About the VRAM:

 

both the 390 and 970 are not able to provide playable framerates in games and settings that require 3.5 and more VRAM, so the 8GB aren't really useful besides crossfire (and even 390's crossfire doesn't make that much sense, there's better single GPU high end solutions that will provide less issues and a better experience) and the issue in the 970 is now almost non-existing, Nvidia kinda optimized it with drivers and stuff, so there's nothing to worry about it.

[eman21790]

kk thx I just needed that becuz I am gonna me 1080p gaming 4 a while

How long do you plan to stay with the gpu, because the extra vram on the 390 might come in handy in like 3 years lol.

[8enjicraf2]

I'd get the 960 4GB if I were you...

[Sam Z Man]

Get the 390

[kipper]

390

[PineappleHolidays]

 

I'd get the 960 4GB if I were you...

Please don't
Get the cheapest, R9 390 gets my vote

[Sam Z Man]

I'd get the 960 4GB if I were you...

Wait why?

[Nena Trinity]

MSI 390!

 

More VRAM, has dragon and red! >=D

 

Also FTW is EVGA and they cost alot...

 

Still EVGA has good warranty...

[JackTheYoungBuilder]

 

MSI 390!

 

More VRAM, has dragon and red! >=D

 

Also FTW is EVGA and they cost alot...

 

Still EVGA has good warranty...

dats whut im worried bout EVGA has better customer support

 

plus evga gives out arkham knight fo free

[BarisERY]

390 is faster at any res. anyone who says otherwise is wrong go check benchmarks and you will see it is faster than 970 9/10 games at any res. So of you ask me i would definetly go with a 390

[tribaljet]

If you are in doubt, check Techpowerup's numbers. The 970 outperforms the 390 at 1080p and even on several titles at 1440p. It runs cooler, uses less power and is significantly more feature-packed. 8GB are pointless for the performance available on this card tier. Anyone saying otherwise has rose-tinted glasses.

 

EDIT: Here's a comulative 1080p performance graph of an aftermarket R9 390 alongside a GTX 970

 

Given 1080p is the metric you're going for, JackTheYoungBuilder, I definitely recommend the GTX 970 in all metrics, performance, power, features and game support.

 

Regarding overclocking, nowadays basic adjustments are rather simple and can be achieved through 3rd party software like MSI's Afterburner, EVGA's Precision X, ASUS GPU Tweak, etc. At a basic level it's just a matter of increasing GPU clock offset and VRAM clock offset through very incremental steps and running tests all the way until you reach a point where you will start getting visual artifacts, CTDs or system freezes, to which at that point you simply need to dial back the clock offsets a bit and test again until you find stable values.

Now, you should keep in mind that overclocking a GPU can reduce its lifespan so that's something worth considering, but basically all aftermarket GTX 970 GPUs have a significant overclocking margin so you could increase clocks without reaching those maximum clocks veteran overclockers do and still gain heightened performance without putting as much stress on your card. Also, you will gain more direct performance through increasing GPU (core) clocks rather than VRAM clocks, and ideally you should increase them separately for testing purposes.

[RyGuy99]

390 is faster at any res. anyone who says otherwise is wrong go check benchmarks and you will see it is faster than 970 9/10 games at any res. So of you ask me i would definetly go with a 390

Those are benchmarks based off of either reference or EVGA SSC 970s. Even those benchmarks showed more back and forth wins rather than decisive wins for most games.

I see a lot more Strix, MSI Gaming or G1 Gaming cards out there. Those go head to head with the 390 when overclocked.

Only at 1440p and above do you see a large improvement for the 390 over the 970.

[Nena Trinity]

dats whut im worried bout EVGA has better customer support

MSI is also good but EVGA has the best one!

 

If you are in doubt, check Techpowerup's numbers. The 970 outperforms the 390 at 1080p and even on several titles at 1440p. It runs cooler, uses less power and is significantly more feature-packed. 8GB are pointless for the performance available on this card tier. Anyone saying otherwise has rose-tinted glasses.

 

EDIT: Here's a comulative 1080p performance graph of an aftermarket R9 390 alongside a GTX 970

 

Given 1080p is the metric you're going for, JackTheYoungBuilder, I definitely recommend the GTX 970 in all metrics, performance, power, features and game support.

 

Regarding overclocking, nowadays basic adjustments are rather simple and can be achieved through 3rd party software like MSI's Afterburner, EVGA's Precision X, ASUS GPU Tweak, etc. At a basic level it's just a matter of increasing GPU clock offset and VRAM clock offset through very incremental steps and running tests all the way until you reach a point where you will start getting visual artifacts, CTDs or system freezes, to which at that point you simply need to dial back the clock offsets a bit and test again until you find stable values.

Now, you should keep in mind that overclocking a GPU can reduce its lifespan so that's something worth considering, but basically all aftermarket GTX 970 GPUs have a significant overclocking margin so you could increase clocks without reaching those maximum clocks veteran overclockers do and still gain heightened performance without putting as much stress on your card. Also, you will gain more direct performance through increasing GPU (core) clocks rather than VRAM clocks, and ideally you should increase them separately for testing purposes.

I feel that 390 is 5-10% better.

[tribaljet]

 

MSI is also good but EVGA has the best one!

-video snip-

I feel that 390 is 5-10% better.

 

 

Next time I suggest you read articles by all the major reviewers. And suggesting any product for its looks when the OP is looking for performance is nonsensical. I would post the performance graph again, but apparently you didn't read it in the first place.

 

EDIT: Also, that didn't refute a single fact I've listed before.

[Nena Trinity]

Next time I suggest you read articles by all the major reviewers. And suggesting any product for its looks when the OP is looking for performance is nonsensical. I would post the performance graph again, but apparently you didn't read it in the first place.

 

EDIT: Also, that didn't refute a single fact I've listed before.

It still win with 5% in majority of cases at 1080p but it still take a bit of power.

[tribaljet]

It still win with 5% in majority of cases at 1080p but it still take a bit of power.

 

Except it doesn't win at 1080p and it only improves at 1440p and higher. And "a bit of power" is a drastic understatement.

 

Instead of posting videos like you do on every single post, try actually writing an argument with data rather than linking videos (yet again). Just like you've shown on other threads, you clearly go by word of mouth rather than learning by yourself, therefore giving false advise to people seeking factual information.

 

In any case, as before, it's a waste of time arguing with you.

[Catman007]

8 gb vram on 390. The noob selling point of 390 cards. Big red carpet for the young bulls Whats the point of 8 gb ram when card cant deliver decent fps in resolution its claiming to support. Yes it had more fps then 970 in 4k but in many games both under 30 so it doesn't matter if its 2,5,10 fps difference when its unplayable. Equal with 970 in 1080p and being unplayable at 4k leaves us limited to 2560 x 1440 resolution where this card, to be honest, pawns. But the worst are the marketing moves they made with 8 gb vram. They present it as investment in future. And to tell you the truth, if someone thinks this card will keep up with gaming industry more then 2 years he is wrong. Even now some games that aren't optimized will cause a lot of troubles and thinking that wont be the case with next generation of games is delusional. Developers will keep making errors that our cards will suffer for. As for CF its good but rarely gains justify the price. Exception to these "rules" are ppl who don't know what to do with their money aka rich The point of my post isn't that 390 is bad card (its better then 970 overall by benchmarks) but I just hate marketing tricks AMD used here to sell their product. Also take in consideration that most people play on 1080 p resolution. And numerous sources report that 970 is in most cases better for OC where 390 is very close to its top of the box.

 

Customer : It says it can run all games in 4k

AMD : Well ofc we wrote it so its true. 

Customer : Please take my money!

 

- 2 min after launching first game in 4k - 

Customer : GOD DAMN IT! 

 

AMD : AMD customer service. How may we help you?

Customer : You said I can run games in 4k with card I bought.

AMD : And?

Customer : But its unplayable. Under 30 fps.

AMD : Sir, try to lower the resolution or level of details.

Customer : But I bought it to play on 4k ultra.

AMD : Well it cant ultra retard. Set it to low. When it starts to look like Minecraft you are there.

pls don't kill me I am not nvidia fan boy I just own nvidia card

[Nena Trinity]

Except it doesn't win at 1080p and it only improves at 1440p and higher. And "a bit of power" is a drastic understatement.

 

Instead of posting videos like you do on every single post, try actually writing an argument with data rather than linking videos (yet again). Just like you've shown on other threads, you clearly go by word of mouth rather than learning by yourself, therefore giving false advise to people seeking factual information.

 

In any case, as before, it's a waste of time arguing with you.

Dude the videos shows it won even in 1080p... 

 

Mostly.

[Prysin]

Except it doesn't win at 1080p and it only improves at 1440p and higher. And "a bit of power" is a drastic understatement.

 

Instead of posting videos like you do on every single post, try actually writing an argument with data rather than linking videos (yet again). Just like you've shown on other threads, you clearly go by word of mouth rather than learning by yourself, therefore giving false advise to people seeking factual information.

 

In any case, as before, it's a waste of time arguing with you.

 

I am sorry to inform you that in 9/10 reviews, your graph shows NO correlation to real life settings. My bet is that your graph shows a full bore OCd 970 vs a not too great OCd 390 (given how close that 970 is to the 980 and 390X).

 

So yeah.... Those graphs, without an article and more info backing them, is just like me making up statistics. The videos doesnt lie, and they come from credible sources that we know have a tidy and meticulous way of measuring.

[tribaljet]

I am sorry to inform you that in 9/10 reviews, your graph shows NO correlation to real life settings. My bet is that your graph shows a full bore OCd 970 vs a not too great OCd 390 (given how close that 970 is to the 980 and 390X).

 

So yeah.... Those graphs, without an article and more info backing them, is just like me making up statistics. The videos doesnt lie, and they come from credible sources that we know have a tidy and meticulous way of measuring.

 

There is at least one video that's credible. And I still prefer reviews from more established reviewers.

 

The source was mentioned, but here's the link: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/

 

But sure, keep deluding yourself into thinking it's a GTX 970 running core at 2GHz against a R9 390 running at 50MHz if it makes you feel any better.

[Prysin]

There is at least one video that's credible. And I still prefer reviews from more established reviewers.

 

The source was mentioned, but here's the link: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/

 

But sure, keep deluding yourself into thinking it's a GTX 970 running core at 2GHz against a R9 390 running at 50MHz if it makes you feel any better.

 

article released 1st july. So, prior to AMDs latest WHQL drivers which bumped FPS for most of their products by 4-6 FPS.. I assume they are not running the latest Nvidia drivers cuz those barely works.

 

Either way, powercolor PCS+ is great cards, albeit not common in all regions, so a more "fair" comparison would be with MSI or Sapphire which is avaliable wherever AMD stuff is sold. Both AMD and Sapphire has slightly cheaper but higher clocked R9 390 cards. Funny that, isnt it?

 

This is why one should not make statements that one is definetively better based on ONE graph.

 

 

Also, you said ONE video was trustworthy, please do explain why you think the others aint? Because the 970 lost or simply drawed the 390?