Sapphire 390 vs MSI 970. Reliability vs FPS

[App4that]

there are not a lot of r9 290 at the price of 250 anymore. So it is not a better value card. Even if you find one it will have a stock cooler which will not be ideal. If you do find one with aftermarket cooler, it price will be around 300 buck which is maybe 10-20 more cheaper than 390since 390 give u more vram, better cooling than 290 . But it is not worth it.

390 right now is being a better value.

This is were you and I differ in our opinions. There are a few problems with the 390s. One is that it lacks a flagship model, something with a high build quality and premium features. The 290 had this with the Vapor X. Which you can buy for 290us dollars new. The Nitro which is a replacement for the Tri-X costs at least 30us dollars more. Now comes the other problem of the 390, stability. I'm not the only person to have issues with stability with the 300 series. I personally tested the two cards extensively and found both their strengths and weaknesses. If the 390 had better driver support to combat the stuttering and could better utilize it's speed in games, it would still require a premium version to compete for value with the Vapor X.

I get that the 300 series is the new thing, and everyone likes the new thing. I liked it enough to buy one. When the crossfire failed to work properly between the cards I started testing them to see which to keep, honestly I wanted to keep the 390. It was the testing that changed my mind, nothing else. It was seeing how much better at playing games the 290 was, the only thing that really matters when talking about GPUs that made me sell the 390.

8g of memory is great, if you can use it. When you can't they call that a gimmick. I like the 390 and really hope it comes into its own, but for now the 290 is still an option and can hold its own against a 390.

[afyeung]

Nah, I'll stop the conversation here. We can have this another day. Especially after seeing your new post on ocn. Wouldn't want you to be "done" with LTT forums either. Right now what we're doing is just arguing about the wording in out statements. 

 

Have a nice day 

Thanks. I remember once I think there was a similar argument which ended up in obscenities thrown at me. Lol. My OCN post. Mainly referring to the guy who was talking about what constitutes a stable overclock. I'm def not done with LTT lol. This forum is amazing. All of you. It doesn't really matter what anybody says because at the end of the day it's all fun and games here. I however think it's useful if you want to contribute data or what you have learned from your experiences. So whatever you have picked up from your experiences I could definitely learn from. My main points were:

-290/290x can do fairly high voltages, +100mv and higher with adequate cooling(remember, cooling is the kicker with these cards)

-390/390x has performance degradation after you go near 100mv. (however, it does clock a lot higher on lower voltages which is great)

 

Have a nice day, btw if you scroll past my most recent post on OCN(which is really exaggerated anyways) there's a lot of useful info. Also in the 290x club if you want to learn more about that http://www.overclock.net/t/1436497/official-amd-r9-290x-290-owners-club/21890#post_22208781 <- good starting point. 

[96Evo]

This is were you and I differ in our opinions. There are a few problems with the 390s. One is that it lacks a flagship model, something with a high build quality and premium features. The 290 had this with the Vapor X. Which you can buy for 290us dollars new. The Nitro which is a replacement for the Tri-X costs at least 30us dollars more. Now comes the other problem of the 390, stability. I'm not the only person to have issues with stability with the 300 series. I personally tested the two cards extensively and found both their strengths and weaknesses. If the 390 had better driver support to combat the stuttering and could better utilize it's speed in games, it would still require a premium version to compete for value with the Vapor X.

I get that the 300 series is the new thing, and everyone likes the new thing. I liked it enough to buy one. When the crossfire failed to work properly between the cards I started testing them to see which to keep, honestly I wanted to keep the 390. It was the testing that changed my mind, nothing else. It was seeing how much better at playing games the 290 was, the only thing that really matters when talking about GPUs that made me sell the 390.

8g of memory is great, if you can use it. When you can't they call that a gimmick. I like the 390 and really hope it comes into its own, but for now the 290 is still an option and can hold its own against a 390.

I wish I have the money to buy the tri-x 290 before the 300 series were out. It was such a good deal back then but now it gone.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Thanks. I remember once I think there was a similar argument which ended up in obscenities thrown at me. Lol. My OCN post. Mainly referring to the guy who was talking about what constitutes a stable overclock. I'm def not done with LTT lol. This forum is amazing. All of you. It doesn't really matter what anybody says because at the end of the day it's all fun and games here. I however think it's useful if you want to contribute data or what you have learned from your experiences. So whatever you have picked up from your experiences I could definitely learn from. My main points were:

-290/290x can do fairly high voltages, +100mv and higher with adequate cooling(remember, cooling is the kicker with these cards)

-390/390x has performance degradation after you go near 100mv. (however, it does clock a lot higher on lower voltages which is great)

 

Have a nice day, btw if you scroll past my most recent post on OCN(which is really exaggerated anyways) there's a lot of useful info. Also in the 290x club if you want to learn more about that http://www.overclock.net/t/1436497/official-amd-r9-290x-290-owners-club/21890#post_22208781 <- good starting point. 

 

To be fair, when you call someone a fan boy to which you were literary that first one. It'd be best to expect some backlash.

 

Most of the stuff there I already know. If you read my posts again I never commented on the stability of those cards. If you see my posts 3 or 4 months back. I was still recommending Vapor X, Lightning of those cheaper 290 XFX DD models. 

[afyeung]

To be fair, when you call someone a fan boy to which you were literary that first one. It'd be best to expect some backlash.

 

Most of the stuff there I already know. If you read my posts again I never commented on the stability of those cards. If you see my posts 3 or 4 months back. I was still recommending Vapor X, Lightning of those cheaper 290 XFX DD models. 

Alright. Haven't really called anybody a fan boy since. At least in recordable form I believe. Do you have a firestrike benchmark score for you PC by any chance? Just interested to see the 390x at stock with the i5's combined score.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Alright. Haven't really called anybody a fan boy since. At least in recordable form I believe. Do you have a firestrike benchmark score for you PC by any chance? Just interested to see the 390x at stock with the i5's combined score.

 

I only had one stock benchmark run, and that was when I first got the PCS+

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5890517

[afyeung]

I only had one stock benchmark run, and that was when I first got the PCS+

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5890517

Not bad at all. Here's mine with the overclocked 390x http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6841617

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Not bad at all. Here's mine with the overclocked 390x http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6841617

 

Damn, the 5820K, My very unlucky 4670k can only ever get this far. 

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6762738

[BulkyZaNka]

After I spent a lot of time reading this post that I didn't intend to go on for so long I have settled on the 390, doing some further research I have found that the MSI version of this card isn't half bad. Actually better in most cases, the fact that it has better "silicon lottery", is easier to get in my area and obviously not forgetting about the most important fact, it's nice and red which will fit perfectly with my MSI mobo. Is there anything about that card that I need to know before getting it?

Thanks for all that helped! Bulky

[96Evo]

It perfect so you don't have to worry

It will be easier for u to shop for new monitor since freesync is cheaper than gsync so you can get so much value out of the card.

I wish I can trade mine 970 for 390 x3

[xAcid9]

After I spent a lot of time reading this post that I didn't intend to go on for so long I have settled on the 390, doing some further research I have found that the MSI version of this card isn't half bad. Actually better in most cases, the fact that it has better "silicon lottery", is easier to get in my area and obviously not forgetting about the most important fact, it's nice and red which will fit perfectly with my MSI mobo. Is there anything about that card that I need to know before getting it?

Thanks for all that helped! Bulky

Just a friendly reminder that most if not all  Nvidia Gimpwork Gameworks game don't work well with AMD card so if you play those game the most then GTX970 will be the "better" option.

[App4that]

Just a friendly reminder that most if not all  Nvidia Gimpwork Gameworks game don't work well with AMD card so if you play those game the most then GTX970 will be the "better" option.

Why oh why didn't I take, the green pill...

[SteveGrabowski0]

Why oh why didn't I take, the green pill...

 

No luck selling your Radeons? I had my doubts and wondered if it was stupid to pay $70 more for my 970 than the 290 I was looking at, but of the six difficult to run games I have played this year, four run better on Nvidia hardware: Dying Light, GTA V, Witcher 3, and Fallout 4. The ones that do better on AMD are Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition, but when I was playing FC4 Nvidia was ahead. DAI I could have definitely gotten better performance out of a 290x though.

[App4that]

No luck selling your Radeons? I had my doubts and wondered if it was stupid to pay $70 more for my 970 than the 290 I was looking at, but of the six difficult to run games I have played this year, four run better on Nvidia hardware: Dying Light, GTA V, Witcher 3, and Fallout 4. The ones that do better on AMD are Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition, but when I was playing FC4 Nvidia was ahead. DAI I could have definitely gotten better performance out of a 290x though.

Sold the 390 and got enough for it to buy a 4790k, so kept the 290. The Vapor X does a "good" job and with the help of the 4790k keeps Fallout 4 playable.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Sold the 390 and got enough for it to buy a 4790k, so kept the 290. The Vapor X does a "good" job and with the help of the 4790k keeps Fallout 4 playable.

 

Are you able to max out the god rays and shadow distance with the 4790k? I can't do it with my Xeon.

[xAcid9]

Are you able to max out the god rays and shadow distance with the 4790k? I can't do it with my Xeon.

No hardware in the world right now can Max that out and maintain 60FPS. I've seen a 5820k@4.6Ghz struggle with that game.

[App4that]

Are you able to max out the god rays and shadow distance with the 4790k? I can't do it with my Xeon.

God rays yes, I have them set to ultra and they never cause an issue. Shadow distance still does but it's not the CPU. My CPU usage will be at 30% but with the shadow distance set to high the fps drop even though the GPU is also down around 50-60%. Don't know if it's ram or just the GPU refusing to render.

I'm at a daily driver overclock of 4.6GHz at 1.22v, oddly just like my 4690k.

[afyeung]

God rays yes, I have them set to ultra and they never cause an issue. Shadow distance still does but it's not the CPU. My CPU usage will be at 30% but with the shadow distance set to high the fps drop even though the GPU is also down around 50-60%. Don't know if it's ram or just the GPU refusing to render.

I'm at a daily driver overclock of 4.6GHz at 1.22v, oddly just like my 4690k.

The problem with Fallout 4 shadows is that they only render on one cpu core which is why performance dips a ton. This is what I read most recently. However, they may have fixed it because people say performance is a lot better now.

[App4that]

The problem with Fallout 4 shadows is that they only render on one cpu core which is why performance dips a ton. This is what I read most recently. However, they may have fixed it because people say performance is a lot better now.

Hyperthreading helps because it allows you to dedicate a core/thread to the shadows, which I have done in the ini files and console command. But AMD places more stress on the CPU so even with hyperthreading a AMD GPU still has issues.

[afyeung]

 

Nice choice. If you're gaming at 1080p, the 390 will have no problem completely maxing out any game and getting playable frame rates. Even with GTA 5, you should be able to max out most of the advanced sliders and grass settings and still get in the 50s and 60s. Witcher 3 should be a solid 60 without hairworks. The only issue I have with the MSI version is that the cooler requires a ridiculous amount of air to cool effectively. You need at least 2-3 PCIE slots to give it room to breath. So if you're gonna use a small case like Evolv ITX, it will have terrible temps. I tested this by placing books in my case to cover up the PCIE slots. With one slot empty below it, the card started throttling. Also, with overclocking, it's not really a big deal since these cards are really bad overclockers in general. But if you can get to 1150 on the core which is highly likely, then you'll get a nice 7-10% boost. 

[afyeung]

Hyperthreading helps because it allows you to dedicate a core/thread to the shadows, which I have done in the ini files and console command. But AMD places more stress on the CPU so even with hyperthreading a AMD GPU still has issues.

Source? Just interested. I know that the shadows in general aren't effectively processed by the CPU for most people. That's why there's that mod to dynamically change the shadow res/distance which drastically improves performance. Also, I heard it was an issue with the engine as a whole.

[afyeung]

Damn, the 5820K, My very unlucky 4670k can only ever get this far. 

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6762738

Eh, Firestrike doesn't really benefit from the CPU anyways. My friend with a 980ti and overclocked 5960x only scores a little higher than me mainly because of the 980ti which scores 15% better than the 390x for graphics. 

[App4that]

Source? Just interested. I know that the shadows in general aren't effectively processed by the CPU for most people. That's why there's that mod to dynamically change the shadow res/distance which drastically improves performance. Also, I heard it was an issue with the engine as a whole.

There is a console command to use hyperthreading with the shadows. tMta I think (away from my notes) you get a response that hyperthreading for shadows is ON. Helps, nets me 5-10fps in problem areas but the draw calls still kill GPU utilization, and that's a AMD issue not an Nvidia issue. Though a 970 is not a cure all as you stil need a 4790 or above to be problem free, though I've heard reports of guys with Xeons and 4690ks being OK.

[afyeung]

There is a console command to use hyperthreading with the shadows. tMta I think (away from my notes) you get a response that hyperthreading for shadows is ON. Helps, nets me 5-10fps in problem areas but the draw calls still kill GPU utilization, and that's a AMD issue not an Nvidia issue. Though a 970 is not a cure all as you stil need a 4790 or above to be problem free, though I've heard reports of guys with Xeons and 4690ks being OK.

Nice. I'm still gonna buy the game though because the performance seems a lot better than it was before

[App4that]

Nice. I'm still gonna buy the game though because the performance seems a lot better than it was before

Set the shadow distance to 10000, but once you do that you cannot open the graphics options because the game will set itself to medium. You still get dips but you also don't have the game looking like its on a PS4 lol.