R9 390 vs. GTX 970

[elert]

Hi guys. Im building a new pc and I cant chose between GTX 970 and R9 390.

 

Here's a benchmark:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2954&cmp[]=2719

 

Based on a benchmark like the above, it would be obvious to go for the GTX 970. But in several benchmarks in games the R9 is slightly better than the 970. In my country the R9 is like $50 more than the 970, so is it even worth it? 

 

Here's a youtube clip with fps comparison

 

Atm im playing D3 and Wow, but would like to try out stuff like the Witcher with the new build. 

 

Which GPU would you pick? 

 

To be precise im standing between

 

http://www.computersalg.dk/produkt/1156102?varenummer=1156102&utm_source=PriceRunner&utm_medium=PriceRunnerLINK&utm_campaign=PriceRunner

 

and

 

http://www.computersalg.dk/produkt/2218486?varenummer=2218486&utm_source=PriceRunner&utm_medium=PriceRunnerLINK&utm_campaign=PriceRunner

or another 970

http://www.proshop.dk/Grafikkort/MSI-GeForce-GTX-970-GAMING-4GB-GDDR5-2457705.html

[Muz]

50 bucks less or 50 bucks more?

[Nacho Marco Segui]

If you can spend 50 more,the 390

[elert]

If you can spend 50 more,the 390

What about the benchmark where the 390 scores much lower than the gtx 970. To me it makes no sense that the R9 is better when it score that much lower benchmark? 

[elert]

50 bucks less or 50 bucks more?

50 bucks more

[Muz]

What about the benchmark where the 390 scores much lower than the gtx 970. To me it makes no sense that the R9 is better when it score that much lower benchmark? 

With current DX12 benchmarks the R9 390 is way better. So future wise, I'd go with the R9 390.

[Fate]

If you're playing at 1080p, and plan to keep doing so, and the 970 is $50 cheaper, I would personally get the 970. The 390 and 970 have similar performance at 1080p, but the 390 is better at higher resolutions. The 390 also has twice the vram (good for crossfire at higher resolutions) and will potentially be significantly better in DX12 games, so it's really up to you. 

 

Some performance charts at varying resolutions and throughout many games: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

[don_svetlio]

What about the benchmark where the 390 scores much lower than the gtx 970. To me it makes no sense that the R9 is better when it score that much lower benchmark? 

That's usually in Nvidia'based games. AC Unitiy is the also the worst bench as it's broken as fuck

[elert]

So R9 is the winner. But I would be futureproofing myself better with the R9 because it has 8gb Vram ? 

[Gofspar]

So R9 is the winner. But I would be futureproofing myself better with the R9 because it has 8gb Vram ? 

m8, by going $50 more for a 390 why spend $25 more for a 980, lol.

[comicsansms]

What about the benchmark where the 390 scores much lower than the gtx 970. To me it makes no sense that the R9 is better when it score that much lower benchmark? 

The 390 is faster than the 970 in most tasks (Not all, but most)

If you can spend the extra cash on a 390, DO IT, if not get a 970!

[Guest]

If the R9 390 is 50$ more i would go 970.

Very similar in performance, it you play the same games at same settings (the r9 390 will be able to have higher res and aa) with very similar performance.

Whatever you chose it will be a good card and it will satisfy you for similar amount of time, unless maxwell cant perform at dx12.

 

I would actually wait for more dx12 tests...

[don_svetlio]

So R9 is the winner. But I would be futureproofing myself better with the R9 because it has 8gb Vram ? 

in DX12 the 390 pulls ahead bya LOT - it matches a 980 in some cases.

[Muz]

If the R9 390 is 50$ more i would go 970.

Very similar in performance, it you play the same games at same settings (the r9 390 will be able to have higher res and aa) with very similar performance.

Whatever you chose it will be a good card and it will satisfy you for similar amount of time, unless maxwell cant perform at dx12.

 

I would actually wait for more dx12 tests...

Ashes of Singularity is being released on early access soon. So then I guess we can see real results on benchmarks.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Not sure how you got the "obvious to go for 970" in that benchmark when the 390 was handily beating the 970 by 1-5 fps. But as you can see those two cards have similar performance. And how the 390 got to dethrone the 970 was by beating it in price for similar performance. $50 more for a 390 doesn't seem that worth it. 

 

But I want to ask, what 970 were you looking at?

 

Edit: I'd go that Msi 390 since its cheaper than the other Msi 970.

[manikyath]

i'm gonna add that passmark is HORRIBLY nvidia biased.

they claim the 970 beats the fury X by a decenty margain.

they also claim the 295x2 is a meager 1% faster than the 290x/390x. (which are both placed under the same banner - another huge red flag)

 

EDIT: i'm gonna add how you should be picking between the two:

- 390 is faster by a noticable amount, but nothing 100% decisive. (just "outside margin of error" faster)

- 970 will require less power, and output less heat (some people see this as a plus, some people dont care, some people *alaska* gladly take the hotter card)

- 970 will have the nvidia drivers, with the nvidia driver features. i need those features, some people dont, but some may consider having them is a big plus.

(my tv needs an input signal of 59.7Hz, i can do this by default on nvidia drivers, back with my amd card it was a challenge to make it even output right... not that amd was to blame, its just a crappy TV, and nvidia just has more options to deal with that.)

- both sides have different coolers/cooler manufacturers. if you really like EVGA's design, you should go 970, if you really like sapphire's design, go 390.

EDIT2.0: you seem to have picked MSI designs on both sides: dont pick the blower cooler one, go either the 390, or the more expensive 970 for 23$ more

[Guest trucker2]

If you use Linux I would go with the GTX.

 

Oddly if you have an AMD CPU with a PCIe 2.0 MB I would go with the GTX. I read in one review that the new r9 380 relies on the pcie 3.0 standard for increased bandwith. Wish media would benchmark GPU's on AMD boards also but they don't, and I don't know if the r9 390 does better on pcie 3 then on pcie2. If you have an intel cpu and pcie3 board just ignore this part:)

 

I'm frugal (cheap). I went with an A10-7850k for my main gaming rig so to me 50 bucks is a deal killer. I would go with the GTX.

 

In your case I get the sense you would be happier with the 390. Forget logic, building a PC is mostly about emotion and what  will make you happy.

 

To quote Mr Morden,"What do you want? Londo Molari?"

[don_svetlio]

If you use Linux I would go with the GTX.

 

Oddly if you have an AMD CPU with a PCIe 2.0 MB I would go with the GTX. I read in one review that the new r9 380 relies on the pcie 3.0 standard for increased bandwith. Wish media would benchmark GPU's on AMD boards also but they don't, and I don't know if the r9 390 does better on pcie 3 then on pcie2. If you have an intel cpu and pcie3 board just ignore this part:)

 

I'm frugal (cheap). I went with an A10-7850k for my main gaming rig so to me 50 bucks is a deal killer. I would go with the GTX.

 

In your case I get the sense you would be happier with the 390. Forget logic, building a PC is mostly about emotion and what  will make you happy.

 

To quote Mr Morden,"What do you want? Londo Molari?"

No single GPU can currently max out PCIe 2.0 x16 or PCIe 3.0 x8 slots

[Mikjul]

GTX 970 @ 1080P sounds good... 390's really show their strength at 2k/4k res.

[don_svetlio]

GTX 970 @ 1080P sounds good... 390's really show their strength at 2k/4k res.

1440p is 2.5K

[Humbug]

If you use Linux I would go with the GTX.

This is the only problem I have with AMD's GPU business. They don't care about openGL performance which really sucks.

In every other way my R9 290 has been a revelation.

[TheCaptain53]

GTX 970 @ 1080P sounds good... 390's really show their strength at 2k/4k res.

2K resolution is actually 1080p. :')

[don_svetlio]

2K resolution is actually 1080p. :')

Hum? 1920x1080 = 1k

3840x2160 = 4k

Basically if this is a standard 1080p display [__] then 4K looks like this

[__][__]

[__][__]

[Mikjul]

2K resolution is actually 1080p. :')

1440p =2.5k i don't care.. Y'all know what i meant

[Monarch]

Not sure how you got the "obvious to go for 970" in that benchmark when the 390 was handily beating the 970 by 1-5 fps.

 

I like how they compared an OCed reference 390 with +50 MHz on the core with non-reference 970 with +25 on the core. This is BS. It's obvious they wanted to make the 390 look good. All tech sites do this and it's disgusting imo. If they took an MSI 970 or Gigabyte that boosts to ~1400 MHz out of the box, and added +50 MHz as they did with AMD cards 970 would beat 390 and be much closer to 390X.