R9 390 vs GTX 970 and also OpenCL vs CUDA

[zerocool1431]

Okay first of all i know this question has been asked a lot of times but the more i read the more i get confused.

I started with searching for a good GPU, then ended up with two of them in my budget ie r9 390 and gtx 970.

But then i came across OpenCL vs CUDA. :unsure:

I know Adobe uses CUDA more efficiently but people are also saying that OpenCL will have a better development in future.

I am going to buy a new pc with the following specfications

Intel i7 6770k

asrock z170 motherboard

16gb DDR4 ram

and other basic stuff like psu, hdd's etc.

Now, this is what I'm going to work on

Video editing in Adobe AE and Premiere Pro

And also a bit of gaming on 1080p or 1440p.

Gaming is not much important for me as much as video editing is.

But these days upcoming titles are using much more VRAM than they used to.

I won't be able to buy another Computer for another 4-5 years after i buy this.

So i really need to decide which one is better to go with.

I watched the video of Jayztwocents on AMD R9 390 vs Nvidia GTX 970 Performance per dollar king...

and he clearly mentioned that the 390 wins.

But here i get confused again with the OpenCL vs CUDA.

I really need to get a PC which i can look upto and say "yes this is a good system FOR ME, for the next 4-5 years.

Please tell me what should i go with
Look upto the VRAM of AMD over Nvidia, keep faith that OpenCL will yeild better outputs with Adobe softwares in future and see to it as a "Future proof" or Trust Nvidia upon CUDA efficiency with softwares like Adobe. :blink:

 

 

And yes last but not the least, Even if i buy an Nvidia card or AMD i will SLI or Crossfire it in the next 1.5-2 years.

Please answer this and solve this topic forever

 

PS- Don't start over the 3.5gb VRAM issue of 970. That will only come into the scenario if i play games like Shadow of Mordor which has HD textures.

so keep that topic aside.

[don_svetlio]

R9 390 - the 8GB of VRAM is awesome for CF and allows for gaming even at 4K.

OpenCL, when properly supported, is stupidly fast. Look at Sony Vegas - literally twice as fast as Nvidia's cards.

[zerocool1431]

R9 390 - the 8GB of VRAM is awesome for CF and allows for gaming even at 4K.

OpenCL, when properly supported, is stupidly fast. Look at Sony Vegas - literally twice as fast as Nvidia's cards.

I need an answer!

Which one should i go with?

 

The 390 or 970!

I'm really confused

[8-Bit Ninja]

I need an answer!

Which one should i go with?

 

The 390 or 970!

I'm really confused

390

[App4that]

390

[don_svetlio]

I need an answer!

Which one should i go with?

 

The 390 or 970!

I'm really confused

If you don't want to upgrade for 5 years the R9 390 will last longer, based on history and DX12 benches you have better perspectives with GCN.

[zerocool1431]

390

Some people say that the 390 is based on a 4 year old architecture..

Should i wait for the Fury series and go with a Fury X ?

[8-Bit Ninja]

Some people say that the 390 is based on a 4 year old architecture..

Should i wait for the Fury series and go with a Fury X ?

you could, but then you'd be in the gtx 980 range, and at that price, go the 980

[TetraSky]

At 1080p, they have near identical performances. But once you go higher than that, the 390 pulls ahead by quite a lot, due to having more VRAM. (If you use more than 1 monitor, you will also want the 390)

Even if it was based on an "old" architecture(I guess you mean GNC? Other than that, the core itself isn't 4 year old, it's based around the 290 series's cores, Hawaii), it doesn't change the fact that it's wrecking the 970 in nearly every benchmarks out there.

[zerocool1431]

If you don't want to upgrade for 5 years the R9 390 will last longer, based on history and DX12 benches you have better perspectives with GCN.

Okay then 390 it is, but a last question

Which one should i go with?

I know the MSI 390 the XFX 390 and there's one called Sapphire Nitro 390

and what's up with the 390X ?

[TheCaptain53]

@zerocool1431, you should go for the 390. That thing is a monster.

Also, follow your topics.

[App4that]

Okay then 390 it is, but a last question

Which one should i go with?

I know the MSI 390 the XFX 390 and there's one called Sapphire Nitro 390

and what's up with the 390X ?

Sapphire, with AMD the answer is always Sapphire.

[zerocool1431]

At 1080p, they have near identical performances. But once you go higher than that, the 390 pulls ahead by quite a lot, due to having more VRAM. (If you use more than 1 monitor, you will also want the 390)

Even if it was based on an "old" architecture(I guess you mean GNC? Other than that, the core itself isn't 4 year old, it's based around the 290 series's cores, Hawaii), it doesn't change the fact that it's wrecking the 970 in nearly every benchmarks out there.

TetraSky

answer the upper question please

the one with 390x and MSI sapphire and XFX

[ManWithBeard1990]

Well, OpenCL isn't inherently faster than CUDA, but an R9 390 is inherently a lot faster than a GTX 970, when it comes to compute performance anyway. If you don't need CUDA (because you have a. OpenCL alternative), the AMD card should be your winner, there's no contest.

[TheRandomness]

Okay then 390 it is, but a last question

Which one should i go with?

I know the MSI 390 the XFX 390 and there's one called Sapphire Nitro 390

and what's up with the 390X ?

390X is more comparable to a 980, not a 970.

 

Out of the 3 brands you picked, choose the one that's lowest price and fits your colour scheme best

[zerocool1431]

Well, OpenCL isn't inherently faster than CUDA, but an R9 390 is inherently a lot faster than a GTX 970, when it comes to compute performance anyway. If you don't need CUDA (because you have a. OpenCL alternative), the AMD card should be your winner, there's no contest.

i will be needing CUDA with Adobe softwares but looking at the future i get confused between this two..

and so i come back to the question of which one should i go with

[TetraSky]

TetraSky

answer the upper question please

the one with 390x and MSI sapphire and XFX

Go with whichever is cheaper/fit your color scheme.

Also depending on where you live, try to look into the warranty service they provide. Last I heard, Sapphire had an horrible reputation on that side for Canada so I'd personally be avoiding them.

[App4that]

Go with whichever is cheaper/fit your color scheme.

Also depending on where you live, try to look into the warranty service they provide. Last I heard, Sapphire had an horrible reputation on that side for Canada so I'd personally be avoiding them.

Evidence of this please.

[ManWithBeard1990]

i will be needing CUDA with Adobe softwares but looking at the future i get confused between this two..

and so i come back to the question of which one should i go with

AMD doesn't support CUDA. At all. If your software doesn't work without it you'll need the nVidia card. If it's able to use OpenCL instead, even if not as well optimized, get the AMD card. GCN crushes Maxwell in compute workloads so hard it's not even a contest. In graphics performance the two are pretty close though. As for which 390 I'd be inclined to go with either Sapphire or MSI. Sapphire designs AMD's reference boards and coolers and even though the latter don't have a stellar reputation, these guys know what they're doing. I also heasr MSI have done a great job with Twin Frozr V on their 390 with VRM cooling and everything whereas most others merely slapped a different badge on the 290 and called it a day, so that's also some quality equipment right there from MSI. For the 970, well, the same applies with EVGA, really.

[Egad]

GTX 970, Adobe says a lot of shit about a lot of things and only some of it comes to pass.  OpenCL looks better and Adobe did some OpenCL improvements back in May, but CUDA still has the edge right now.  I hope more OpenCL work comes out of Adobe and everyone else, but I hope for lots of things.

 

Honestly if you do lots of editing, rendering, etc then no GPU is going to last you four to five years.  The time saved by getting a new one puts most professionals on a yearly or biyearly upgrade cycle.  4 to 5 years would just be painful.  We do a couple of our primary non 10 bit render boxes every six months or so and it pays for itself.  

[don_svetlio]

Okay then 390 it is, but a last question

Which one should i go with?

I know the MSI 390 the XFX 390 and there's one called Sapphire Nitro 390

and what's up with the 390X ?

390X is within spitting distance of a 980.

If you choose to go with a Fury, you're getting 15-20% more power than a 980 but you are paying more.

Also - 390 core architecture is 2 years old, not 4. GCN 1.1 came out in mid-late 2013.

[PlayStation 2]

Depends on what you use.

In Adobe products both cards are pretty well-matched.

In Sony Vegas, the 390 slaps the 970 so hard that it's fucking funny.

In gaming, they trade blows, with the 390 normally coming out on top at 1080p. Higher than that, the 390 more or less beats the 970 in everything.

[Nena Trinity]

you could, but then you'd be in the gtx 980 range, and at that price, go the 980

Kinda wrong cause the Fury X is close to the 980Ti in DX12 I heard and also some benchmarks that looked fake it even won...

 

Also 390 X is a 980 equal and the Fury is above so...

[i_build_nanosuits]

If you choose to go with a Fury, you're getting 15-20% more power than a 980 but you are paying more.

you mean more like 5-7% right?

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-Fury-vs-Nvidia-GTX-980/3509vs2576

[don_svetlio]

you mean more like 5-7% right?

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-Fury-vs-Nvidia-GTX-980/3509vs2576

Fury vs a highly OCed 980