R9 390 vs. GTX 970

[Mikjul]

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 heavy situations, and loses when it comes to brute power in everything else.

 

 

Then why are you arguing with me?

You have problems with facts.. And above 1080P the difference is pretty damn big... As much as 15 frames ahead.

The whole intention was to downplay which you are failing at.

[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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

And what has using a different card got to do with anything I and you have said? You misunderstood my words, give up.

[Monarch]

 

And what has using a different card got to do with anything I and you have said? You misunderstood my words, give up.

 

 

My complaint wasn't pointed at you, I just quoted you because I found it interesting that you said 390 wins by 1-5 fps. I didn't misunderstand you, you said they perform similarly, which is something I agree with. I just said even though they perform similarly, they made 390 look a bit better by using a low clocked 970. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

My complaint wasn't pointed at you, I just quoted you because I found it interesting that you said 390 wins by 1-5 fps. I didn't misunderstand you, you said they perform similarly, which is something I agree with. I just said even though they perform similarly, they had to make 390 look a bit better by using a low clocked 970. 

 

Lol. I give up, just do whatever you want.

[Vellinious]

970s don't really "properly overclock" without a modded bios.  The power targets are too limiting in the stock bios...on most cards.  There are exceptions, of course, but if you want to get the most out of the 970, you'll need a modded bios to do it.

[Monarch]

 

Lol. I give up, just do whatever you want.

 

The point is the performance difference between 970 and 390 would be even smaller if they used a properly clocked (factory OCed) 970. When they test 390X for example, they all compare it to non-reference 980 and say 390X = 980. But if you think about it, they compare MSI 390X, which is one of the fastest 390X's (out of the box) you can buy, with non-reference GTX 980, which is not the fastest 980 you can buy. MSI GTX 980 and Gigabyte's beat 390X's easily. Not necessarily because they are better cards, cause I'm sure driver overhead has a huge role in performance, but to the consumer end result is what matters.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

The point is the performance difference between 970 and 390 would be even smaller if they used a properly clocked (factory OCed) 970. When they test 390X for example, they all compare it to non-reference 980 and say 390X = 980. But if you think about it, they compare MSI 390X, which is one of the fastest 390X's (out of the box) you can buy, with non-reference GTX 980, which is not the fastest 980 you can buy. MSI GTX 980 and Gigabyte's beat 390X's easily. Not necessarily because they are better cards, cause I'm sure driver overhead has a huge role in performance, but to the consumer end result is what matters.

 

You do know that the 390x is quite a lot cheaper than the 980 right? There's only the 390x in that price bracket. Peeps are saying that because prices are much cheaper. No I'm not saying 390x = 980. But it sounds to me that you aren't even taking prices in consideration.

 

(USD)

[Monarch]

You do know that the 390x is quite a lot cheaper than the 980 right? There's only the 390x in that price bracket. Peeps are saying that because prices are much cheaper. No I'm not saying 390x = 980. But it sounds to me that you aren't even taking prices in consideration.

 

(USD)

 

 

We all already know about the price difference. I just came here to call BS on the shitty tech sites that are falsely making certain cards look better than others and mislead people. Once the performance difference is clear, you can then proceed to consider prices, though I'm sure everyone already knows Nvidia cards are much more expensive, despite the fact that performance isn't that much better.

[Mikjul]

ROFLMFAO

[Prysin]

Just get the R9 390 and don't look back.

It should serve you well by all means.

 

OR

 

get a R9 390X. It will trash any 970 you can buy out of the box, and even if you OC the 970, you can just OC the 390X and still trash every 970 there is.

 

http://www.computersalg.dk/produkt/1188341/sapphire-radeon-r9-390x-tri

 

This one is on sale, damn good buy for the price!!!!!

https://www.komplett.dk/product/847401/hardware/grafikkort/pci-express/xfx-radeon-r9-390x-8gb-gddr5

[TheCaptain53]

Hum? 1920x1080 = 1k

3840x2160 = 4k

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

[__][__]

[__][__]

For an XK resolution, the X is the approximate count of horizontal pixels divided by 1000, denoted as ~horizontal resolution/1000 = X. For example:

 

(1920/2048 ≈ 2000)/1000 = 2K

(3840/4096 ≈ 4000)/1000 = 4K

(7680/8192 ≈ 8000)/1000 = 8K

 

By your theory, the resolution 8K = 7680 x 4320 (4x the pixels of 4K), would be called 16K as it is technically 16x the resolution of 1080p. The standard is based on cinema resolutions, such as 2048 x 1080 or 4096 x 2160, where the approximation of the horizontal resolution falls much closer to the factor X shown in the XK calculation above.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

We all already know about the price difference. I just came here to call BS on the shitty tech sites that are falsely making certain cards look better than others and mislead people. Once the performance difference is clear, you can then proceed to consider prices, though I'm sure everyone already knows Nvidia cards are much more expensive, despite the fact that performance isn't that much better.

 

Digital foundry? Shitty tech site? If it was shitty, they wouldn't even state what cards they were using... Just because a 970 loses, doesn't mean the site is shitty... smh.

[Monarch]

Digital foundry? Shitty tech site? If it was shitty, they wouldn't even state what cards they were using... Just because a 970 loses, doesn't mean the site is shitty... smh.

 

I used to like Digital Foundry, and I still read/watch their performance analyses.  But they disappointing me with bad tests like these. It's not because a 970 loses, I've already explained to you the reason multiple times. They're not always honest. Don't turn this into a fanboy thing, because it's not. I can tell you that they even made 290 look bad because they used the reference card. They obviously had the objective to make the 300 series look good, not only compared to Nvidia cards, but also 200 series. 

[don_svetlio]

I used to like Digital Foundry, and I still read/watch their performance analyses.  But they disappointing me with bad tests like these. It's not because a 970 loses, I've already explained to you the reason multiple times. They're not always honest. Don't turn this into a fanboy thing, because it's not. I can tell you that they even made 290 look bad because they used the non-reference card. They obviously had the objective to make the 300 series look good, not only compared to Nvidia cards, but also 200 series. 

Let me translate for anyone who can't understand.

"I use to like Digital Foundry when Nvidia were winning but I don't like them anymore since they don't defend my purchase decision and I feel cheated so I prefer to say they are lying"

[Mikjul]

o_O

[don_svetlio]

Digital foundry? Shitty tech site? If it was shitty, they wouldn't even state what cards they were using... Just because a 970 loses, doesn't mean the site is shitty... smh.

Let it go, let it gooooooo

[Monarch]

Let me translate for anyone who can't understand.

"I use to like Digital Foundry when Nvidia were winning but I don't like them anymore since they don't defend my purchase decision and I feel cheated so I prefer to say they are lying"

 

That's what you've been doing this whole time arguing with me. Answer me one simple question: is it fair to compare a 970 with a miniscule factory overclock to a mildly (factory) OCed 390?

[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 used to like Digital Foundry, and I still read/watch their performance analyses.  But they disappointing me with bad tests like these. It's not because a 970 loses, I've already explained to you the reason multiple times. They're not always honest. Don't turn this into a fanboy thing, because it's not. I can tell you that they even made 290 look bad because they used the non-reference card. They obviously had the objective to make the 300 series look good, not only compared to Nvidia cards, but also 200 series. 

 

and?

[don_svetlio]

That's what you've been doing this whole time arguing with me. Answer me one simple question: is it fair to compare a 970 with a miniscule factory overclock to a mildly (factory) OCed 390?

So why does this happen?

[Monarch]

So why does this happen?

 

Pretty much the same thing happens in SoM. Maps in these games are essentially wastelands with a low amount of objects, and therefore draw calls. So driver overhead is not an issue and AMD cards reach their full potential even at 1080p.

[Mikjul]

All these pages.... Wow and this guy still..... Lol

[elert]

Isnt it only the 390x which can overclock, or what?

 

If thats the case, isnt GTX970 a better card to get because it can overclock, which the 390 cannot? 

 

Just for info i ended up buying the MSI R9 390. I just pretty much picked it i was getting crazy going back and forth between the two, not being able to make a decision. 

Saw these two vids on youtube, which made me take the call.... Good or bad call? 

 

[don_svetlio]

Isnt it only the 390x which can overclock, or what?

 

If thats the case, isnt GTX970 a better card to get because it can overclock, which the 390 cannot? 

 

Just for info i ended up buying the MSI R9 390. I just pretty much picked it i was getting crazy going back and forth between the two, not being able to make a decision. 

Saw these two vids on youtube, which made me take the call.... Good or bad call? 

 

R9 390 was a good call - any GPU can overclock - the X stands for XT or the fully featured chip - so essentially, in AMD naming, a 980 would be a 970X and a Titan X would be a 980X with the 980 Ti being a cut-down version

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Isnt it only the 390x which can overclock, or what?

 

If thats the case, isnt GTX970 a better card to get because it can overclock, which the 390 cannot? 

 

Just for info i ended up buying the MSI R9 390. I just pretty much picked it i was getting crazy going back and forth between the two, not being able to make a decision. 

Saw these two vids on youtube, which made me take the call.... Good or bad call? 

 

 

Lol the 390 does overclock. Not sure where you got that from. But even if you picked the 970 or the 390 you can't go wrong with either of the cards.