Just bought GTX970.But 290x is better with DX12?

[Alberto]

Hi all. Have some troubling thoughts about gpus. I just built my new gaming pc and utilized an MSI GTX 970 to handle all the games for the next few years at 1080p. However, I'm now hearing that the 290x, which costs the same, outperforms the 970 with DX12 involved. Could it be that the 290x is the better choice? Should I return mine and make the switch?

Thanks for the help

[Godlygamer23]

We should get more numbers before making any final conclusions. Both NVIDIA and AMD will benefit from DX12.

[Alberto]

Very true. But based on current numbers, the 290x matches up to the titan on occassion. If so, there's a huge difference between my gpu and the amd counterproduct.

[TheCaptain53]

Very true. But based on current numbers, the 290x matches up to the titan on occassion. If so, there's a huge difference between my gpu and the amd counterproduct.

There are no 'current numbers'. There aren't even any current games that run on DX12.

The GTX 970 and R9 290X will trade blows in some scenarios, but what is important, is that the GTX 970 is an exceptionally powerful card and you won't be disappointed.

Hindsight is a great thing, but it was a good purchase at the time, so don't blame yourself for that.

[SteveGrabowski0]

The 970 and 290x are pretty much neck and neck at 1080p. For DirectX12 we have no idea how they'll perform yet, we probably won't know much until November when DirectX12 games hit the market for the Christmas season.

[PineappleHolidays]

If you have it already, just keep it.

 

The 290x is the more powerful card if it gets good optimisation bumps ( but atm they are the same ), and 4gb of vram is a tiny bit better than ~3.5

[Monkey Dust]

Both cards are overkill for 1080p, I doubt DX12 will change that.

[Naeaes]

Don't worry. It's not like there are any official info out yet. Don't make a purchase decision based on early unconfirmed beta tests. As soon as the games are officially out, you can bet your ballsack that both are gonna launch their final and fine-tuned drivers. That's when the bombs hit the ground. Until then, you bought an awesome card that won't die in the next three years and drain your PSU dry while doing it.

[sarfraz]

Hi all. Have some troubling thoughts about gpus. I just built my new gaming pc and utilized an MSI GTX 970 to handle all the games for the next few years at 1080p. However, I'm now hearing that the 290x, which costs the same, outperforms the 970 with DX12 involved. Could it be that the 290x is the better choice? Should I return mine and make the switch?

Thanks for the help

[sarfraz]

Hi , r9 290x is a little bit outdated . 970 is good . but if you want to replace it , then replace it with a newer R9 390 . a superb gpu that even easily beats gtx 970 and costs exactly the same. But i think r9 290x coats more

[Nena Trinity]

Nobody knows yet!

[Alberto]

Thanks. That 390x does look awesome. This is 970 is so quiet and fresh though. I think I'll wait about 2 years before I upgrade again.

Again, thanks for all the help

[Godlygamer23]

4gb of vram is a tiny bit better than ~3.5

The 970 has 4GB of VRAM.

[Mew]

ATM, I'm more confident in AMD's slower driver updates over nVidia's quicker and unreliable drivers. I'm currently running the GTAV release drivers because they're just much more stable than the newer drivers (according to reddit after I got fed up with chrome tab crashes).

[tomas710]

Hi all. Have some troubling thoughts about gpus. I just built my new gaming pc and utilized an MSI GTX 970 to handle all the games for the next few years at 1080p. However, I'm now hearing that the 290x, which costs the same, outperforms the 970 with DX12 involved. Could it be that the 290x is the better choice? Should I return mine and make the switch?

Thanks for the help

Most of what we 'know' about DX12 are educated guesses at best, i don't wanna get into the whole pros and cons of the 970 and 290X, all i'm saying is an API that still has to be released and integrated into games engines, of which we really know nothing about is not a motive to return your card, and...what if the 290X is too hot, or overclocks badly, or has coil whine, you could be in that perogative forever, but focus on now, and enjoy the fuck out of that GPU

[tomas710]

The 970 has 4GB of VRAM.

Dude, it's 3.5, i have a 970 and i'm not gonna say 3.5 gigs of 'usable' memory each time, the final 0.5 gigs are horseshit, either not recognized or being as slow as using your system ram (AKA running out of vram) so let's agree that it has 3,5? Please? I'm just tired of talking about it. Still a great card, i personally never had run out of vram, but it was my first build and i did feel a bit fucked over, so let's call it for what it is and move on.

[Godlygamer23]

Dude, it's 3.5, i have a 970 and i'm not gonna say 3.5 gigs of 'usable' memory each time, the final 0.5 gigs are horseshit, either not recognized or being as slow as using your system ram (AKA running out of vram) so let's agree that it has 3,5? Please? I'm just tired of talking about it. Still a great card, i personally never had run out of vram, but it was my first build and i did feel a bit fucked over, so let's call it for what it is and move on.

It has 4GB of VRAM. Whether partitioned or not the way it is, 4GB of VRAM is present on the card and is usable. Any time you make a comment like "3.5GB of VRAM," it's going to come up.

[KarateHottie93]

As somebody who just bought TWO 980 HOF's yesterday I'm scared too haha, and honestly all the signs point to AMD having greater benefits. It sucks but it is what it is and while once current GPU drivers from both brands are matured for DX12 it will likely be a much closer competition...the reality is still that as of right now it seems current AMD cards will best their current Nvidia counterparts when it comes to DX12.

 

You Nvidia purists can bash me all you want but all I'm stating is facts based on the results. DX12 may end up benefiting Maxwell cards better than 200/300/Fury AMD cards but as it stand and from what little we've seen, that does not look likely at all.

[KarateHottie93]

It has 4GB of VRAM. Whether partitioned or not the way it is, 4GB of VRAM is present on the card and is usable. Any time you make a comment like "3.5GB of VRAM," it's going to come up.

While that is true, it's sill only 3.5 in actuality lol. A Fury card has 4096 stream processors but only 3580 are usable. Of course you can say the others don't count since they are disabled by AMD but then again, some people have had success unlocking them.

[arronleeds]

Dude, it's 3.5, i have a 970 and i'm not gonna say 3.5 gigs of 'usable' memory each time, the final 0.5 gigs are horseshit, either not recognized or being as slow as using your system ram (AKA running out of vram) so let's agree that it has 3,5? Please? I'm just tired of talking about it. Still a great card, i personally never had run out of vram, but it was my first build and i did feel a bit fucked over, so let's call it for what it is and move on.

Please learn to add, 3.5 + 0.5= 4, ive hit over 3.5gb with no issues.

[Godlygamer23]

While that is true, it's sill only 3.5 in actuality lol. A Fury card has 4096 stream processors but only 3580 are usable. Of course you can say the others don't count since they are disabled by AMD but then again, some people have had success unlocking them.

That's completely different. NVIDIA didn't disable any VRAM. It's still there and detectable. The stream processors that AMD has disabled are not detectable without re-flashing the BIOS to make the card become a Fury X.

[KarateHottie93]

That's completely different. NVIDIA didn't disable any VRAM. It's still there and detectable. The stream processors that AMD has disabled are not detectable without re-flashing the BIOS to make the card become a Fury X.

Well at least some people can use those disabled stream processors that AMD locked.

 

Lets see the same with the 970's 0.5 gigs of worthless vram

[othertomperson]

Dude, it's 3.5, i have a 970 and i'm not gonna say 3.5 gigs of 'usable' memory each time, the final 0.5 gigs are horseshit, either not recognized or being as slow as using your system ram (AKA running out of vram) so let's agree that it has 3,5? Please? I'm just tired of talking about it. Still a great card, i personally never had run out of vram, but it was my first build and i did feel a bit fucked over, so let's call it for what it is and move on.

 

It's only the same speed as system RAM if you don't have to go through the PCI-E bus, and then access your RAM through your CPU. If you take that into account the second 0.5GB chunk is massively faster than system RAM.

 

I've tested this extensively with Shadow of Mordor, Watch_Dogs and The Witcher 3 so far at 4K. The card has no issue using more than 3.5GB vram.

[Godlygamer23]

Lets see the same with the 970's 0.5 gigs of worthless vram

You can. How do you think this all started? Some dude noticed that the bandwidth dropped after the card started using more than 3.5GB of VRAM. Obviously it's usable.

[tomas710]

You can. How do you think this all started? Some dude noticed that the bandwidth dropped after the card started using more than 3.5GB of VRAM. Obviously it's usable.

Well, I payed for 4 gigs of GDDR5, when 0.5 is seven times slower, that's fraud, and now Nvidia is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging false advertising. It was morally repugnant, and i can't understand people defending them, i can understand people saying let's move on, still a great card, but false advertisement is no joke. And in some games, it caps at 3.5, in others FPS count goes downhill, 2 cases which i wasn't suppose to encounter when i bough a 4 gigabyte card with 64 ROPs and 2 megs of L2 cache, are you gonna make the argument that those are also usable in it's entirety? Look, i'm over it, i never had the chance to return the card anyway since i ordered it from amazon, but justifying fraud at this stage? come one dude, we might as well bend over and pass Nvidia the lube, if they are nice enough to provide lube without watering it down first...