R9 390 vs. GTX 970

[Mikjul]

2048x1080 is 2k

Hum? 1920x1080 = 1k

3840x2160 = 4k

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

[__][__]

[__][__]

[don_svetlio]

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.

I'm sorry - were you the one who made the benchmark?

[Mikjul]

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.

Calm down getting mad won't help.

[Monarch]

I'm sorry - were you the one who made the benchmark?

 

What's your point? 

 

Calm down getting mad won't help.

 

I'm perfectly calm. I just called BS on that misleading benchmark.

[don_svetlio]

What's your point? 

 

 

I'm perfectly calm. I just called BS on that misleading benchmark.

I'm asking where you got your numbers from - Digital Foundry don't release any sort of OC numbers in the videos.

[Monarch]

I'm asking where you got your numbers from - Digital Foundry don't release any sort of OC numbers in the videos.

 

In the video description.

[don_svetlio]

In the video description.

I am pretty sure they mean on top of the +200 from GPU Boost 2.0

[Mikjul]

Hope you know that the 970 has the advantage in that test... It boosts +200 and no a 1409mhz 970 won't come close to a R9 390X... They OC too... You need to be around 20+ fps faster than stock to keep up with the X and that really won't happen... 20fps is massive.

In the video description.

I

[BasedSpider]

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

Definately would agree. I'm running a 390x and for DX12 benchmarks way better than the nvidia price-equivelent

[Monarch]

I am pretty sure they mean on top of the +200 from GPU Boost 2.0

 

 

Hope you know that the 970 has the advantage in that test... It boosts +200 and no a 1409mhz 970 won't come close to a R9 390X... They OC too... You need to be around 20+ fps faster than stock to keep up with the X and that really won't happen... 20fps is massive.I

 

Where did you get the +200 MHz info from? I haven't seen anything that says they added +200 MHz. GPU Boost is different on different cards. Some 970's won't boost anywhere near 1400 MHz and that's exactly the type of card they used.

 

I'm reading their full article they linked in the description and apparently they don't even know which 970 they used. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review

They linked a Palit GTX 970 with a blower cooler, then they said they used a tiny Zotac version of the 970. Anyway, they admit that...

 

That product has a miniscule factory overclock (+25MHz to the core), but is more notable for its diminutive dimensions, allowing it to fit inside most of the mini-ITX gaming cases available.

[don_svetlio]

Where did you get the +200 MHz info from? I haven't seen anything that says they added +200 MHz. GPU Boost is different on different cards. Some 970's won't boost anywhere near 1400 MHz and that's exactly the type of card they used.

 

I'm reading their full article they linked in the description and apparently they don't even know which 970 they used. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review

They linked a Palit GTX 970 with a blower cooler, then they said they used a tiny Zotac version of the 970. Anyway, they admit that...

Well - I doubt there's a 970 that doesn't boost to 1300 according to the general opinion. So yeah. Can't please em all.

[Mikjul]

This is the PCS+ 390 @ 1010mhz.. It is stock 10mhz faster than reference.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,16.html

Now if you saw one of my 390's that do 1200mhz in stock volts... You could complain... And the gap would be pretty massive because i beat stock 390X at 1200 which a 970 would need around 1600mhz.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

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.

 

You want fair? 

 

 

Sorry bud, but there are 2 kings on the throne right now. OC for OC they are the same. And will always be the same. One just has more vram and the other is more efficient. Stop with this "Oh the 970 beats the 390 when OC" nonsense. 

 

970 OC

 

r9 390 OC 

[Monarch]

Well - I doubt there's a 970 that doesn't boost to 1300 according to the general opinion. So yeah. Can't please em all.

 

Do you think it's fair to use a tiny 970 card that is slightly OCed over the non-reference 970 to compare it to reference 390 and 390X with big heatpipes and heatsink that have +50 MHz on the core? Who even buys Zotac and Palit? People buy MSI, Gigabyte, EVGA 970. Those are the most popular models. And they all boost to ~1400 MHz. 

 

 

This is the PCS+ 390 @ 1010mhz.. It is stock 10mhz faster than reference.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,16.html

Now if you saw one of my 390's that do 1200mhz in stock volts... You could complain... And the gap would be pretty massive because i beat stock 390X at 1200 which a 970 would need around 1600mhz.

 

It says Asus 390 in the video description...

[Mikjul]

You don't get it... 390 blows the 970 out of the water at anything above 1080P but is an even match at FHD res.

[don_svetlio]

This is the PCS+ 390 @ 1010mhz.. It is stock 10mhz faster than reference.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,16.html

Now if you saw one of my 390's that do 1200mhz in stock volts... You could complain... And the gap would be pretty massive because i beat stock 390X at 1200 which a 970 would need around 1600mhz.

A 1600MHz 970 can't beat a 390X/980 - not enough to close the gap - you'd need 1.7 and 2GHz memory since the 970 is bandwidth starved as it was proven to be a 224-bit 3.5GB card

[Monarch]

You want fair? 

 

 

Sorry bud, but there are 2 kings on the throne right now. OC for OC they are the same. And will always be the same. One just has more vram and the other is more efficient. Stop with this "Oh the 970 beats the 390 when OC" nonsense. 

 

 

You misunderstood me. I said they should compare mildly OCed 390 to a mildly OCed 970, not mildly OCed 390 to a slightly OCed 970, because that's not fair. I'm talking about factory OC, not user OC. You said 390 beats 970 with 1-5 fps in everything and that's not true if you do a fair comparison. They trade blows, which is why the only factor for deciding to go with 390 should be 8 GB VRAM.

[Mikjul]

You misunderstood me. I said they should compare mildly OCed 390 to a mildly OCed 970, not slightly OCed 970, because that's not fair. I'm talking about factory OC, not user OC. You said 390 beats 970 with 1-5 fps in everything and that's not true if you do a fair comparison. They trade blows, which is why the only factor for deciding to go with 390 should be 8 GB VRAM.

So you completely missed the 1010mhz 390 bench i posted from guru3D to chat more shit? You have even been told at 1080P they are pretty even but the 390 put's the 970 to bed at 1440p and higher.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

You misunderstood me. I said they should compare mildly OCed 390 to a mildly OCed 970, not slightly OCed 970, because that's not fair. I'm talking about factory OC, not user OC. You said 390 beats 970 with 1-5 fps in everything and that's not true if you do a fair comparison. They trade blows, which is why the only factor for deciding to go with 390 should be 8 GB VRAM.

 

Goodness gracious... Did you read what I wrote? 

 

Not sure how you got the "obvious to go for 970" in that benchmark 

 

The only factor when choosing either cards are the prices. Obviously, you go for the one that is equal or better in quality and cheaper in price.

 

You misunderstood me. 

[Tangtawan]

The question is, do you care about power consumption?

[handymanshandle]

The R9 390 is better...

 

 

(The 390 and 390X are within a 1 to 5 FPS margin bumping down the AA should help. Personally I prefer MSAA 4x and 8x and they're not as taxing.)

 

 

 

 

The 970 gets similar FPS to the 390X at MSAA 8x, the 390X was at SSAA 2x+CMAA and considering the 390 and 390X are very close in performance the 390 would most likely beat the 970 (the reason I say most likely is I can't seem to find actual results for WoW with the 390... Though the 970 was at 144Hz so that could be a factor to why it was running slower but still the 390 will be better.)

 

[Monarch]

So you completely missed the 1010mhz 390 bench i posted from guru3D to chat more shit? You have even been told at 1080P they are pretty even but the 390 put's the 970 to bed at 1440p and higher.

 

Why do you bring up higher resolutions when we're talking about 1080p? OP plays at 1080p.

 

Goodness gracious... Did you read what I wrote? 

 

 

The only factor when choosing either cards are the prices. Obviously, you go for the one that is equal or better in quality and cheaper in price.

 

You misunderstood me. 

 

That too. The thing is, that difference between 970 and 390 in DigitalFoundries' video would be smaller or non existent if they used a properly clocked 970 like MSI or Gigabyte. Even though they still perform similar, they make 390 look better by winning with a few fps. 

[don_svetlio]

Why do you bring up higher resolutions when we're talking about 1080p? OP plays at 1080p.

 

 

That too. The thing is, that difference between 970 and 390 in DigitalFoundries' video would be smaller or non existent if they used a properly clocked 970 like MSI or Gigabyte. Even though they perform similar, they still make 390 look better by winning. 

A 390 is superior - a properly OCed 970 is equal with it at 1080p but for people who don't OC 390 is a LOT better.

[Mikjul]

Why do you bring up higher resolutions when we're talking about 1080p? OP plays at 1080p.

 

 

That too. The thing is, that difference between 970 and 390 in DigitalFoundries' video would be smaller or non existent if they used a properly clocked 970 like MSI or Gigabyte. Even though they still perform similar, they make 390 look better by winning with a few fps.

They are fucking even at 1080P... I even said as my first post in this fucking thread that the 970 you should buy... Fuck me you are a new kind of dense

[Monarch]

A 390 is superior - a properly OCed 970 is equal with it at 1080p but for people who don't OC 390 is a LOT better.

 

No, a properly clocked 970 from the factory is pretty much equal to it at 1080p. Technically 390 is a bit faster in everything except tessellation, but driver overhead effects it too and so 970 wins when the 390 is bottlenecked by AMD's driver, as well as tessellation, and loses when it comes to brute power in everything else.

 

They are fucking even at 1080P... I even said as my first post in this fucking thread that the 970 you should buy... Fuck me you are a new kind of dense

 

Then why are you arguing with me?