GPU for 1440p

[Simons]

I would probably not get the 980 since the performance gain is minimal for a huge price increase.

Right now probably the 390 or 290 if you get it cheap for price/performance.

Dont expect to max every game out at ultra 60fps though, probably gotta turn down msaa and tesselation.

 

the 390x isnt worth it over the 390 either, 5-10% more performance for 30% more money.

 

There is a huge gap between the 390X/290X vs the GTX 980 (Yes I know its a Classified, but that still counts).

Firestrike Normal : 12,297 vs 16,693 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Extreme : 5,454 vs 7,833 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Ultra : 2,735 vs 3,796 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1080p : 59 vs 73 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1440p : 40 vs 54 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1080p : 88 vs 116 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1440p : 61 vs 75 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1080p : 94 vs 123 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1440p : 57 vs 77 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1080p : 62 vs 78 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1440p : 41 vs 55 (GTX 980 Wins)

 

So the story short is, yes the GTX 980 is worth the extra money, some of the tests it had alot more than just 10% performance gap, heck even in some of them nearly 30%.

PS - They launched it as a different card, AMD fanboy'ism called it a refresh.

[Justhavocman]

There is a huge gap between the 390X/290X vs the GTX 980 (Yes I know its a Classified, but that still counts).

Firestrike Normal : 12,297 vs 16,693 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Extreme : 5,454 vs 7,833 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Ultra : 2,735 vs 3,796 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1080p : 59 vs 73 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1440p : 40 vs 54 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1080p : 88 vs 116 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1440p : 61 vs 75 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1080p : 94 vs 123 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1440p : 57 vs 77 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1080p : 62 vs 78 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1440p : 41 vs 55 (GTX 980 Wins)

 

So the story short is, yes the GTX 980 is worth the extra money, some of the tests it had alot more than just 10% performance gap, heck even in some of them nearly 30%.

PS - They launched it as a different card, AMD fanboy'ism called it a refresh.

THis is interesting , but take into consideration that if i were to go with a 390\x(290x) i'd be going with a higher quality brand like MSI or Gigabyte , if i choose the 980 i'd be going with a zotac or some other lower quality brand due to budget restraints.

[Rolling Potatoe]

Refresh* How hard is it to understand? the 290X was behind a 970 at 1080p but just under 980 at 1440p and 4K but the 390X is better than a 970 at 1080p and neck and neck but mainly better than a 980 at 1440p and 4K. 390X and 390 is not even close to a rebadge.

The r9 300 series is usually clocked higher than the 200 series cards, thats all there is to the performance gain.

A 290x and a 390x at 1050mhz are exactly the same, since there arent really any games that need more than 4 gb vram (expecially at 1440p) yet.

Many sides benchmarks have stock cooler 290s that run under 1000 mhz with old drivers pegged against overclocked aftermarked r9 390s with higher stock clocks,

thats where the difference comes from.

[Justhavocman]

Bottom line , 390 performance\money , 980= the best choice provided budget allows it?

[Rolling Potatoe]

There is a huge gap between the 390X/290X vs the GTX 980 (Yes I know its a Classified, but that still counts).

Firestrike Normal : 12,297 vs 16,693 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Extreme : 5,454 vs 7,833 (GTX 980 Wins)

Firestrike Ultra : 2,735 vs 3,796 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1080p : 59 vs 73 (GTX 980 Wins)

Witcher 3 - Ultra Preset / Postprocessing High / Hairworks OFF 1440p : 40 vs 54 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1080p : 88 vs 116 (GTX 980 Wins)

GTA V - High Settings MSAA 2x 1440p : 61 vs 75 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1080p : 94 vs 123 (GTX 980 Wins)

Metro Last Light - Very High Quality, No SSAA, Normal Tess, Normal Motion Blur, No PhysX 1440p : 57 vs 77 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1080p : 62 vs 78 (GTX 980 Wins)

Crysis 3 - Very High with MSAA 2x 1440p : 41 vs 55 (GTX 980 Wins)

 

So the story short is, yes the GTX 980 is worth the extra money, some of the tests it had alot more than just 10% performance gap, heck even in some of them nearly 30%.

PS - They launched it as a different card, AMD fanboy'ism called it a refresh.

Youve got any source for that?

While nvidia gpus are favored by firestrike I cant really believe any of the gaming numbers expecially on crysis or metro.

Even if youd compare a pre overclocked card like the classified with a stock 290x, the difference should only be around 10%,

not 35% (41 vs 55)....or maybe you where looking at the 980 ti?

 

Some actual benchmarks:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/grafikkarten/amd-radeon-r9-390x/test/radeon_r9_390x,889,3087218,2.html#benchmarks-mit-kantenglaettung

 

390x 10% faster than a 980 in 1440p with aa in crysis 3 and the same framerate in metro 1440p with aa.

[Simons]

Youve got any source for that?

While nvidia gpus are favored by firestrike I cant really believe any of the gaming numbers expecially on crysis or metro.

Even if youd compare a pre overclocked card like the classified with a stock 290x, the difference should only be around 10%,

not 35% (41 vs 55)....or maybe you where looking at the 980 ti?

 

Some actual benchmarks:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/grafikkarten/amd-radeon-r9-390x/test/radeon_r9_390x,889,3087218,2.html#benchmarks-mit-kantenglaettung

 

390x 10% faster than a 980 in 1440p with aa in crysis 3 and the same framerate in metro 1440p with aa.

 

Yes check out

.

 

Other source : https://youtu.be/31jGGOH5Wjg?t=6m36s

 

PS All of these cards are overclocked, and the Matrix Platinum is not a low end card at all.

[DirtySHISNO]

1440p/gtx780 seeing as its near enough a 970 i do not recommend a 970 for 1440p. Not if you want full ultra settings 60fps+ all the time.

[TheConverter]

way out of budget

around 500€ , can stretch to 550ish to get a 980 if needed.

 

Generaly MMOs , skyrim , mobas , some MGS5 , and newer AAA games but im no max-out freak , i can manage playing with no AA .

 

So 390x or 390? Is the extra cost worth the performance?

 

I would stick to 1080P 60hz because 1440P 60hz is not worth it, you should go straight to 1440P 144hz...

[FLUFFYJELLO]

THis is interesting , but take into consideration that if i were to go with a 390\x(290x) i'd be going with a higher quality brand like MSI or Gigabyte , if i choose the 980 i'd be going with a zotac or some other lower quality brand due to budget restraints.

Zotac is by no means a"lower quality brand" just to clear that up. They offer some of the best cards on the market tbh; it's just they're not as well known.

[othertomperson]

at 1440p? dont think so buddy.

 

Yet the person you're responding to does exactly that. Given that the 980 performance on a 970 is just an overclock away, and that at stock the 970 is a better card than the 780 which a lot of people still use for 1440p I don't find it at all surprising.

[arronleeds]

Yet the person you're responding to does exactly that. Given that the 980 performance on a 970 is just an overclock away, and that at stock the 970 is a better card than the 780 which a lot of people still use for 1440p I don't find it at all surprising.

the guy changed his post, a 970 cannot run 1440p 60fps on all games.

 

i have one and even 1440p dsr cant handle it on quite a lot, games like bioshock infinite yes, games like bf4, no.

[othertomperson]

the guy changed his post, a 970 cannot run 1440p 60fps on all games.

 

i have one and even 1440p dsr cant handle it on quite a lot, games like bioshock infinite yes, games like bf4, no.

 

A Titan X can't run 1440p 60 fps on all games, what's your point?

[Praesi]

If you spend some Dollars more you should get the 980Ti. Wait a Month longer and safe more Cash.

[Praesi]

THis is interesting , but take into consideration that if i were to go with a 390\x(290x) i'd be going with a higher quality brand like MSI or Gigabyte , if i choose the 980 i'd be going with a zotac or some other lower quality brand due to budget restraints.

Zotac´s 980Ti´s are highend stuff. Wtf are you talking about?

[arronleeds]

A Titan X can't run 1440p 60 fps on all games, what's your point?

are you taking the piss? hes saying a 970 and 390 will last 3+ years, the op is talking about 1440p, the 970 will not last 3+ years at 1440p this is what you do not understand, i am telling this member that this is an incorrect fact and getting a  980 would be a better choice for 1440p.

 

it doesnt matter if an ocd 970 almost gets same fps as a 980 because 1) you oc the 980 then dont you and 2) going past 3.5gb of vram on a 970 can lead to issues.

[othertomperson]

are you taking the piss? hes saying a 970 and 390 will last 3+ years, the op is talking about 1440p, the 970 will not last 3+ years at 1440p this is what you do not understand, i am telling this member that this is an incorrect fact and getting a  980 would be a better choice for 1440p

 

You name me a single GPU card that exists right now and tell me that it will be playing up to date games at max graphics preset at 1440p maintaining 60 fps in three or more years time and I will call you a liar. The bar you are setting for the 970 once again is higher than even a Titan X can reach.

 

 

it doesnt matter if an ocd 970 almost gets same fps as a 980 because 1) you oc the 980 then dont you and 2) going past 3.5gb of vram on a 970 can lead to issues.

 

1) That's a good use of £200, a fucking overclock. An overclock is the difference between them and that is what you are spending that extra money on. No, there is no point in buying the 980 ever. Buy a 970 and if that isn't enough jump to Fury or 980 Ti.

 

2) Almost a year of using 970s for 4K has revealed no such issue going past 3.5GB.

[arronleeds]

You name me a single GPU card that exists right now and tell me that it will be playing up to date games at max graphics preset at 1440p maintaining 60 fps in three or more years time and I will call you a liar. The bar you are setting for the 970 once again is higher than even a Titan X can reach.

omfg smh, i never said any gpu would run games in 3+ years time at 1440p!!!!! read correctly. and im pretty sure a titan x can run nearly  every single game at 1440p 60fps currently.

[othertomperson]

omfg smh, i never said any gpu would run games in 3+ years time at 1440p!!!!! read correctly. and im pretty sure a titan x can run nearly  every single game at 1440p 60fps currently.

 

It can run most games at 1440p, sure. But so can the 970. What percentile success rate are you prepared to accept here?

 

This argument is stupid. 970 is a decent enough card for 1440p, obviously there are better cards if you want to spend more. Like... duh.

[arronleeds]

It can run most games at 1440p, sure. But so can the 970. What percentile success rate are you prepared to accept here?

 

This argument is stupid. 970 is a decent enough card for 1440p, obviously there are better cards if you want to spend more. Like... duh.

the 970 is ok for 1440p with msaa turned down to 2x, a 980 is a better choice and we all know it, it doesn't have any issues over 3.5gb and we also all know 1440p can be very vram taxing.

 

im not saying the 970 is completely shite, because as seen in my sig, i own one and plan on getting another.

[othertomperson]

the 970 is ok for 1440p with msaa turned down to 2x, a 980 is a better choice and we all know it, it doesn't have any issues over 3.5gb and we also all know 1440p can be very vram taxing.

 

 

I'm just going to quote my response to all of the above from the last time you said it.

 

 

1) That's a good use of £200, a fucking overclock. An overclock is the difference between them and that is what you are spending that extra money on. No, there is no point in buying the 980 ever. Buy a 970 and if that isn't enough jump to Fury or 980 Ti.

 

2) Almost a year of using 970s for 4K has revealed no such issue going past 3.5GB.

 

[arronleeds]

I'm just going to quote my response to all of the above from the last time you said it.

 

wow so one person says he hasnt seen a difference and hes correct? what about the thousands who have said theyve seen a big performance hit? they must by lying then......

 

you ever played dying light? take that past 3.5gb then tell me there  is no issue, also go play shadow of mordor.

[Rolling Potatoe]

Yes check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjfzDY0D4ck.

 

Other source : https://youtu.be/31jGGOH5Wjg?t=6m36s

 

PS All of these cards are overclocked, and the Matrix Platinum is not a low end card at all.

Yeah, thats why you should always post your source.

 

Those benchmarks are with the 980 overclocked to  a almost 1600 mhz,

@6.20 he says that his 290x might be faulty and actually clocks down in the mid 900s.

Normal stock clocks for  the r9 390x is 1050 mhz

[Simons]

Yeah, thats why you should always post your source.

 

Those benchmarks are with the 980 overclocked to  a almost 1600 mhz,

@6.20 he says that his 290x might be faulty and actually clocks down in the mid 900s.

Normal stock clocks for  the r9 390x is 1050 mhz

 

Look up varies reviews from known techies, and it will be the same story, GTX 980 beating the R9 390X/290X. I dont care if you wont accept that or not, I am putting my advise on this, buy the GTX 980 if you want the superior card.

 

PS in Pauls video, it wasn't faulty.

[othertomperson]

wow so one person says he hasnt seen a difference and hes correct? what about the thousands who have said theyve seen a big performance hit? they must by lying then......

 

you ever played dying light? take that past 3.5gb then tell me there  is no issue, also go play shadow of mordor.

 

I have tested Shadow of Mordor very extensively specifically looking for this. I've also tested The Witcher 3 and Watch_dogs all at 4K. Whatever issue there might have been early on seems to have been remedied by the use of prioritisation in the driver.

[Justhavocman]

I would stick to 1080P 60hz because 1440P 60hz is not worth it, you should go straight to 1440P 144hz...

 

already have the monitor

If you spend some Dollars more you should get the 980Ti. Wait a Month longer and safe more Cash.

not gonna happen , dont wanna spend that much money on a GPU

 

Look up varies reviews from known techies, and it will be the same story, GTX 980 beating the R9 390X/290X. I dont care if you wont accept that or not, I am putting my advise on this, buy the GTX 980 if you want the superior card.

 

PS in Pauls video, it wasn't faulty.

I will probably go for a 390X , i don't wanna spend 150+ extra by switching over  to a 980.