970 vs 390, same price USD?

[ZetZet]

Considering both chips are around the same size I don't think the thermal dissipation gap is big enough. And TDP is rarely accurate.

Can you stop spreading the myth that TDP is arbitrary? It's not arbitrary. It's not accurate because it's not meant to be accurate, it's approximate. It's VERY CLOSE though. 

 

 

Why do people always assume engineers and scientists are retarded and they with no actual education (thinking temperature is a measure of heat) are the ones right.

 

 

If you don't understand the subject don't talk about it, or at least back off and go read up on it.

[don_svetlio]

I just looked up some old review videos. In Jayz2cents video his 390 got up to 1200 MHz which is exceptional and his EVGA 970 got 1440 MHz which is the bare minimum that 95% of 970s are abled to achieve, at least in my book, and i have built some PCs with 970s in them. Anyways, in Jay's tests the two cards were trading blows with the 390 having a slight tendency of a lead in some scenarios. So in other words: th GTX 970 has to be overclocked to be considered a true competition for the 390. But when it is OCed, I'd prefer it over the 390 due to the lower heat and thus noise output.

When you OC the 970 heat and power arguments go out the window as those tend to increase quite a bit

The Average OC reported by HWBot for a 390 is 1184MHz - some people have been getting 1250 and even 1300 on 390s

[don_svetlio]

Can you stop spreading the myth that TDP is arbitrary? It's not arbitrary. It's not accurate because it's not meant to be accurate, it's approximate. It's VERY CLOSE though. 

 

 

Why do people always assume engineers and scientists are retarded and they with no actual education (thinking temperature is a measure of heat) are the ones right.

 

 

If you don't understand the subject don't talk about it, or at least back off and go read up on it.

Because it would benefit Nvidia if the TDP was "slightly lower" than it actually is?

[Castdeath97]

Can you stop spreading the myth that TDP is arbitrary? It's not arbitrary. It's not accurate because it's not meant to be accurate, it's approximate. It's VERY CLOSE though. 

 

 

Why do people always assume engineers and scientists are retarded and they with no actual education (thinking temperature is a measure of heat) are the ones right.

 

 

If you don't understand the subject don't talk about it, or at least back off and go read up on it.

Did I say it was arbitrary? I said it isn't accurate, which it is because like you said it approximation that is also based on a generalised.

 

Anyhow I already said TDP difference isn't huge enough to be a deal breaker like the guy I quoted first said, yes if it's a small factor case I understand, but in OP case it doesn't seem like it.

 

 

[ZetZet]

Because it would benefit Nvidia if the TDP was "slightly lower" than it actually is?

What do you mean? Even if it is slightly lower (it's not, I have already shown that to you in many benchmarks) Nvidia has nothing to gain here because people don't understand TDP anyway.

 

 

AMD are the ones with stupid TDP, their TDP is always wrong. Either too large or too small. Nvidia has it real close.

 

Did I say it was arbitrary? I said it isn't accurate, which it is because like you said it approximation that is also based on a generalised.

 

Anyhow I already said TDP difference isn't huge enough to be a deal breaker like the guy I quoted first said, yes if it's a small factor case I understand, but in OP case it doesn't seem like it.

It's not accurate as in it's 140W instead of 139.3W. But it's not approximated from real 187.7W to 250W or something like that. It's really close.

 

 

TDP difference between 970 and 390 is actually massive. 

 

390 is 275W

970 is 145W

[KamiKatze]

When you OC the 970 heat and power arguments go out the window as those tend to increase quite a bit

The Average OC reported by HWBot for a 390 is 1184MHz - some people have been getting 1250 and even 1300 on 390s

 

I have a 970, and as long as its not a Gigabyte G1 gaming the TDP or power usage doesn't increase nearly as much as one would think. The max overvolt (if you want to call the increased power target an overvolt) is 110% equaling in 145W + 10% = 160W of total power use. That's very plausible at least from my testing, while R9 390s still draw waaaaay more power than that. So depending on your cooling setup and the cooling solution of the card, it could be a better idea to get the 970.

 

However a much bigger influence in my opinion is the upgrading habit of OP. If he wants to keep the card for longer (2-3 years or more) I'd definiteley go with the 390. If he wants to upgrade regularly, like once the prices for the next gen have settled, i see no problem by going with the 970. It's cooler, uses less energy and thus is more quiet. Its only problem in the long run is the amount of VRAM that it has - and by that i do NOT mean the ramgate thingy, but rather that 4 GB of VRAM could be outdated within the next 1-2 years.

[don_svetlio]

I have a 970, and as long as its not a Gigabyte G1 gaming the TDP or power usage doesn't increase nearly as much as one would think. The max overvolt (if you want to call the increased power target an overvolt) is 110% equaling in 145W + 10% = 160W of total power use. That's very plausible at least from my testing, while R9 390s still draw waaaaay more power than that. So depending on your cooling setup and the cooling solution of the card, it could be a better idea to get the 970.

 

However a much bigger influence in my opinion is the upgrading habit of OP. If he wants to keep the card for longer (2-3 years or more) I'd definiteley go with the 390. If he wants to upgrade regularly, like once the prices for the next gen have settled, i see no problem by going with the 970. It's cooler, uses less energy and thus is more quiet. Its only problem in the long run is the amount of VRAM that it has - and by that i do NOT mean the ramgate thingy, but rather that 4 GB of VRAM could be outdated within the next 1-2 years.

About the noise - Sapphire Nitro 390 is quieter than any 970 available so that's not based on core but on cooler.

As for power, while under load the 390 draws more, at idle (75% of time on average is spent idling) the 390 uses LESS than a 970 since it features "Zero core" tech that basically turns the GPU off.

[ZetZet]

As for power, while under load the 390 draws more, at idle (75% of time on average is spent idling) the 390 uses LESS than a 970 since it features "Zero core" tech that basically turns the GPU off.

Uhm, no? http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html

 

 

Marketing bla bla bla marketing

[Castdeath97]

 

What do you mean? Even if it is slightly lower (it's not, I have already shown that to you in many benchmarks) Nvidia has nothing to gain here because people don't understand TDP anyway.

 

 

AMD are the ones with stupid TDP, their TDP is always wrong. Either too large or too small. Nvidia has it real close.

 

It's not accurate as in it's 140W instead of 139.3W. But it's not approximated from real 187.7W to 250W or something like that. It's really close.

 

 

TDP difference between 970 and 390 is actually massive. 

 

390 is 275W

970 is 145W

 

 

Not massive enough to not recommend a card that outperforms it unless it's a small form factor case. Also keep in mind you have to consider all things from silicone lottery to load and even Nvidia's boost clock so no way it's that accurate. 

[don_svetlio]

Uhm, no? http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html

 

 

Marketing bla bla bla marketing

Zero core kicks in when the display shuts off - true idle, they turn that off.

[ZetZet]

Not massive enough to not recommend a card that outperforms it unless it's a small form factor case.

130W can boil a cup of water in minutes.

 

A person expells about 100-200W of heat. Depending on size and activity.

 

Zero core kicks in when the display shuts off - true idle, they turn that off.

oh, but that's a difference of 9W then, probably less, because it's not completely off, just basically off. Really not possible to notice that.

[don_svetlio]

130W can boil a cup of water in minutes.

 

oh, but that's a difference of 9W then, probably less, because it's not completely off, just basically off. Really not possible to notice that.

It took the GTX 480 more than 1 minute to boil water - that card was stupidly hot and hungry.

It's still less. That's what matters nowadays right? 9W less is better even if it performs 5% slower!

[ZetZet]

It's still less. That's what matters nowadays right? 9W less is better even if it performs 5% slower!

:lol:

 

It took the GTX 480 more than 1 minute to boil water - that card was stupidly hot and hungry.

http://www.amazon.com/Travel-Immersion-Water-Heater-Voltage/dp/B000AXS0UE

[Castdeath97]

130W can boil a cup of water in minutes.

 

A person expells about 200W of heat.

 

oh, but that's a difference of 9W then, probably less, because it's not completely off, just basically off. Really not possible to notice that.

 

Considering a good cooler can keep a 275W card around 76 degrees I still don't see the point of not recommending a card just because it's hotter for a mid-full tower case with decent cooling.

[don_svetlio]

 

:lol:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Travel-Immersion-Water-Heater-Voltage/dp/B000AXS0UE

 

[ZetZet]

Considering a good cooler can keep a 275W card around 76 degrees I still don't see the point of not recommending a card just because it's hotter for a mid-full tower case with decent cooling.

Yes, I agree 

http://i.imgur.com/X8zevmV.png

 

However the difference is not small and not unnoticeable. In an ITX build it would be very much noticeable.

[Castdeath97]

Yes, I agree 

http://i.imgur.com/X8zevmV.png

 

However the difference is not small and not unnoticeable. In an ITX build it would be very much noticeable.

Yes I get that is your point. But, you quoted me when I was explaining to someone who was recommending the 970 over just because of a over exaggeration.

[don_svetlio]

Yes, I agree 

http://i.imgur.com/X8zevmV.png

 

However the difference is not small and not unnoticeable. In an ITX build it would be very much noticeable.

For compact power get a Nano - 980 performance with lower power draw and heat output

[ZetZet]

For compact power get a Nano - 980 performance with lower power draw and heat output

980 uses less power than Nano. Once again.

[don_svetlio]

980 uses less power than Nano. Once again.

Noooope - Nano uses less friend.

[ZetZet]

Noooope - Nano uses less friend.

FURMARK

 

 

Fury nano is limited by the lack of power connectors. 980 is not.

[don_svetlio]

FURMARK

 

 

Fury nano is limited by the lack of power connectors. 980 is not.

EXACTLY - Nano uses less since a 980 can go higher once you start OCing.

[ZetZet]

EXACTLY - Nano uses less since a 980 can go higher once you start OCing.

Yes, once you start ocing it will use more.. It will also.. Perform better.

[Fate]

FURMARK

 

 

Fury nano is limited by the lack of power connectors. 980 is not.

 

Noooope - Nano uses less friend.

Gaming power usage:

[don_svetlio]

Yes, once you start ocing it will use more.. It will also.. Perform better.

Not by much - but again, EVERYONE WANTS POWER EFFICIENCY!