Futureproof of gtx 970 vs r9 390

[ELECTRX]

Hi guys, sorry i really didnt want to make another of these posts comparing these two graphics cards but futureproof wise which card would be better? Is the 4 vs 8gb difference going to be very significant for 1080p gaming in the next 5 years or so? I'm asking because in my area the 390 costs around NZ$70 more.

 

For those wondering, this is my build: (pcpartpicker is down right now)

 

i5 4590

g.skill 8gb ram

gigabyte 970

nzxt s340 case

samsung evo 240gb ssd

cm v650W psu

asrock fatal1ty motherboard

 

Thanks

[Aytex]

First off, you cant tell if ANYTHING in matter of technology is "futureproof"

 

Preformance wise the 390 Wins on the long run, (sapphire, MSI, XFX are brands i would suggest)

get a 4460 if your not OCing

everything else looks fine

[EIijah]

There are benefits to both cards, but the 390 doesn't really have the power to even use the 8 gig so if the 970 is cheaper, go with it

[App4that]

No such thing as future proofing, but the 390 adds 2 inches. I'm joking. It adds girth. Still joking. Both are good cards but if you go AMD go Sapphire.

[Fulgrim]

There are benefits to both cards, but the 390 doesn't really have the power to even use the 8 gig so if the 970 is cheaper, go with it

Skyrim with 4k texture mods says otherwise.

[desertcomputer]

Even 4 Way Titan X cant be future proof for crap. I would get 380 and better PSU. 

[don_svetlio]

There are benefits to both cards, but the 390 doesn't really have the power to even use the 8 gig so if the 970 is cheaper, go with it

That's BS - core power is irrelevant, bandwidth is

[SteveGrabowski0]

The 390 is better now, so will almost certainly be better one year, two years, three years, etc from now.

[Shadow Ghost]

There are benefits to both cards, but the 390 doesn't really have the power to even use the 8 gig so if the 970 is cheaper, go with it

i doesn't but you can reach six with hi res textures after six the game probably wont have playable fps

 

No such thing as future proofing, but the 390 adds 2 inches. I'm joking. It adds girth. Still joking. Both are good cards but if you go AMD go Sapphire.

Good one... i like

 

Hi guys, sorry i really didnt want to make another of these posts comparing these two graphics cards but futureproof wise which card would be better? Is the 4 vs 8gb difference going to be very significant for 1080p gaming in the next 5 years or so? I'm asking because in my area the 390 costs around NZ$70 more.

 

For those wondering, this is my build: (pcpartpicker is down right now)

 

i5 4590

g.skill 8gb ram

gigabyte 970

nzxt s340 case

samsung evo 240gb ssd

cm v650W psu

asrock fatal1ty motherboard

 

Thanks

GO with there 390 this has been said time and time agian the 390 beats the 970 has full usable 8GB of Ram unless you want things like shadow play streaming Gameworks ADVANCED PhysX and hair works then go with the 390 and not to mention the 390 has AMAZING DX12 performance thats what i would call future proofing where moving to dX12 soon and the 970 doesnt have nearly as good of a performance gain as the 390

[SkilledRebuilds]

5 FULL Years is asking too much anyway IMO.

IMO, 2-3 years, 4 at best (not meaning life expectancy, but performance wise and feasible use of Higher>Ultra details) and most cards have to drop too many details after a few years, which IS fine.. for some, not for me personally.

[ELECTRX]

Thanks, which card has better driver optimisation and lower temps at stock/ overclocking?

 

I doubt I will be overclocking either gigabyte 970 or sapphire 390 for 1080p and i doubt I will be upgrading my monitor in the next year or 2.

[xAcid9]

390 will be better in the long run but not really worth that extra NZ$70 though.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Hi guys, sorry i really didnt want to make another of these posts comparing these two graphics cards but futureproof wise which card would be better? Is the 4 vs 8gb difference going to be very significant for 1080p gaming in the next 5 years or so? I'm asking because in my area the 390 costs around NZ$70 more.

 

For those wondering, this is my build: (pcpartpicker is down right now)

 

i5 4590

g.skill 8gb ram

gigabyte 970

nzxt s340 case

samsung evo 240gb ssd

cm v650W psu

asrock fatal1ty motherboard

 

Thanks

 

In five years neither card will be good. Five years ago the GTX 580 was the equivalent of the 980 Ti and that thing is a dog now. The R9 390 isn't $70NZ better than the 970, not even close. The 390 is better, but not that much better at 1080p.

[ELECTRX]

I'm thinking about getting it when the prices are cheaper depending on temperatures tho.

 

I know it runs with more power and higher heat which can reduce lifespan of my parts.

[Suika]

I could make the argument the 970 can win in terms of longevity. If you don't have a long warranty and plan on keeping the cards for some time, the lower power consumption, 0db modes, and cooler operating temperatures can keep the GTX 970 alive for longer. The added VRAM could be an argument in favor of the 390 but quite frankly, even 2GB of VRAM is fine for today, the GTX 480 2GB from 2010 performs fine even today.

[Demm]

Well, they said Z97 is future proof and a lot of things will come for it like new CPUs and etc. We are at Z170 now ... so dont belive the hype my friend. As for the video cards. Get the R9 390. If u look at my signature you would see that I am with the GTX 970, so i am not telling you to get 970 just 'cuz I got it.

 

P.S. the above comment. having more VRAM doesnt mean anything when the card is that slow and cant process data that may want 6 or 8 Gigs of Vram. What I ment is that r9 390 can't use all her VRAM.

[don_svetlio]

Well, they said Z97 is future proof and a lot of things will come for it like new CPUs and etc. We are at Z170 now ... so dont belive the hype my friend. As for the video cards. Get the R9 390. If u look at my signature you would see that I am with the GTX 970, so i am not telling you to get 970 just 'cuz I got it.

 

P.S. the above comment. having more VRAM doesnt mean anything when the card is that slow and cant process data that may want 6 or 8 Gigs of Vram. What I ment is that r9 390 can't use all her VRAM.

Actually, @D2ultima did some testing and according to his results memory usage is only based on bandwidth and games rather than the core's power - I can also confirm this via TitanFall where I was getting 60 fps @ 60% GPU usage and using all 3GB of VRAM - it even crashed cause it ran out of memory

[Shadow Ghost]

Well, they said Z97 is future proof and a lot of things will come for it like new CPUs and etc. We are at Z170 now ... so dont belive the hype my friend. As for the video cards. Get the R9 390. If u look at my signature you would see that I am with the GTX 970, so i am not telling you to get 970 just 'cuz I got it.

 

P.S. the above comment. having more VRAM doesnt mean anything when the card is that slow and cant process data that may want 6 or 8 Gigs of Vram. What I ment is that r9 390 can't use all her VRAM.

I Have to disagree i have reached 8GB of Vram Plenty of times before and i have a screen shot

[i_build_nanosuits]

I Have to disagree i have reached 8GB of Vram Plenty of times before and i have a screen shot

This is 8GB of system memory (RAM) being utilized, not VRAM.

VRAM usage is 595mb on GPU#1 and 0mb on GPU#2

 

 

 

Thanks, which card has better driver optimisation and lower temps at stock/ overclocking?

 

I doubt I will be overclocking either gigabyte 970 or sapphire 390 for 1080p and i doubt I will be upgrading my monitor in the next year or 2.

the nvidia card has much better DX11 drivers and consume less energy and will run cooler and overclock better and should have a longer lifespan, nvidia also have many newer technologies that are supported by maxwell, AMD has none of that...but the AMD card is slightly faster and has more memory.

 

it's your choice! Both are good and should last you a while especialy if you're willing to tweak down some settings down the road as the games evolve.

[don_svetlio]

This is 8GB of system memory (RAM) being utilized, not VRAM.

VRAM usage is 595mb on GPU#1 and 0mb on GPU#2

 

 

 

the nvidia card has much better DX11 drivers and consume less energy and will run cooler and overclock better and should have a longer lifespan, nvidia also have many newer technologies that are supported by maxwell, AMD has none of that...but the AMD card is slightly faster and has more memory.

 

it's your choice! Both are good and should last you a while especialy if you're willing to tweak down some settings down the road as the games evolve.

A stock 970 vs a stock 390 is more than "slightly faster" - a stock 390 from MSI at 1100MHz from the factor vs a 1200MHz 970 will be about 10% difference. As for lifespan - that's arbitrary - you cannot predict it.

[Suika]

I Have to disagree i have reached 8GB of Vram Plenty of times before and i have a screen shot

You don't know how to read the afterburner performance charts if you think you're using 8GB of VRAM.

 

You're using 8GB of system memory, standard RAM installed on your motherboard. Your actual GPU is at 600MB of use.

[D2ultima]

Actually, @D2ultima did some testing and according to his results memory usage is only based on bandwidth and games rather than the core's power - I can also confirm this via TitanFall where I was getting 60 fps @ 60% GPU usage and using all 3GB of VRAM - it even crashed cause it ran out of memory

Yay! Now I'm not the only one correcting people <3

 

i doesn't but you can reach six with hi res textures after six the game probably wont have playable fps

You have no idea what you're talking about. There's a vRAM guide stickied to the graphics card forums. Read it, and educate thineself.

[don_svetlio]

Yay! Now I'm not the only one correcting people <3

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. There's a vRAM guide stickied to the graphics card forums. Read it, and educate thineself.

But I still hold the opinion that 128-bit bus is too low for a 960. I'm a heretic, burn me

[D2ultima]

But I still hold the opinion that 128-bit bus is too low for a 960. I'm a heretic, burn me

No, I hold that opinion too. It's not a problem with accessing its vRAM, but the fact that the 128-bit memory bus limits its memory bandwidth in such a way that some games can perform worse purely because it has too little memory bandwidth.

 

That card should have definitely been a 192-bit memory bus card. Or better yet, they should have used the 970M's core for the 960 and made that card the 950, and used the 965M's clockspeeds for it.

 

And then from now on, any card as strong as it or stronger should have a 192-bit memory bus or larger, or be using HBM.

 

The problem is people are stupid and blind and won't understand why the 128-bit memory bus on the 960 is a limiting factor, and constantly tell people to buy it. No. nVidrosoft screwed up because they wanted to cut corners, and they should lose the sales for it. 

[don_svetlio]

No, I hold that opinion too. It's not a problem with accessing its vRAM, but the fact that the 128-bit memory bus limits its memory bandwidth in such a way that some games can perform worse purely because it has too little memory bandwidth.

 

That card should have definitely been a 192-bit memory bus card. Or better yet, they should have used the 970M's core for the 960 and made that card the 950, and used the 965M's clockspeeds for it.

 

And then from now on, any card as strong as it or stronger should have a 192-bit memory bus or larger, or be using HBM.

 

The problem is people are stupid and blind and won't understand why the 128-bit memory bus on the 960 is a limiting factor, and constantly tell people to buy it. No. nVidrosoft screwed up because they wanted to cut corners, and they should lose the sales for it. 

Well, good news is, with 380X coming and R9 380 already taking a dump on the 960, I wouldn't be surprised if 960 users got "downgraded" to 950 Ti status and a 960 Ti becoming the new 960 - Nvidia don't care bout PR - they'd do it.