970 or 390 Poll

[jnmbhj]

Poll of 970 or 390.

 

Both about the same Performance 

[Aytex]

no they are not "about" same performance

390 has 5-10% higher performance increase in most games

[stealth80]

I have 2x 970s in SLI, but I was going round again Id get the 390

[Chasem121]

Since when does the 970 have the same performance as a 390

[jnmbhj]

no they are not le same performance

390 has 5-10% higher performance increase

Depends on the game. 1-3 fps difference. Not a huge difference 

[Guest]

Unless power consumption or electric bills cost a ton, 390 all the way.

[Aytex]

Depends on the game. 1-3 fps difference. Not a huge difference 

no.. not really 1-3 more like 5-7

[VagabondWraith]

There's no reason to create 2 topics. You got a lot of your answers in the other thread.

[m_tieu]

I would get a 390. 3.5gb of VRAM is definitely not enough. If you ever decide to upgrade to a SLI/Crossfire set up, the extra VRAM will come in handy. I have 2 780ti's in SLI and I definitely regret not getting Titan Blacks because 3GB is not enough. Some games crash to 3-7 fps just because I run out of VRAM. It's actually very frustrating.

[jnmbhj]

There's no reason to create 2 topics. You got a lot of your answers in the other thread.

Yeah I don't exactly know how to add in a poll to my existing post.  

[jnmbhj]

I would get a 390. 3.5gb of VRAM is definitely not enough. If you ever decide to upgrade to a SLI/Crossfire set up, the extra VRAM will come in handy. I have 2 780ti's in SLI and I definitely regret not getting Titan Blacks because 3GB is not enough. Some games crash to 3-7 fps just because I run out of VRAM. It's actually very frustrating.

Ah reminds me of my 7970 crossfire set-up 3 gb wasn't enough. Stuttering was an issue 

[stealth80]

R9 390 is better than a GTX 970, 2x more vram, and better performance. There isn't a reason to buy a GTX 970 anymore.

 

CUDA

[stealth80]

That's the only reason then I guess. I only use Cuda with Adobe Premier Pro CC 2015.

 

And when I bought one on release and put it on water and then it was cheaper to add a second rather than swap it out

 

Think I'm an AMD fan at heart, loved my 9800pro flashed to XT

[HectorF]

R9 390

[App4that]

R9 390 is better than a GTX 970, 2x more vram, and better performance. There isn't a reason to buy a GTX 970 anymore.

You mean other than being able to pick your own games, not just those that play well on your GPU.

Because Gameworks

[Predator50]

R9 390 is better than a GTX 970, 2x more vram, and better performance. There isn't a reason to buy a GTX 970 anymore.

 

 

gamestream perhaps, using limelight on your android phone.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Evga G1 gaming?

[SteveGrabowski0]

The AMD fanboys are getting really annoying now. Yes, the 390 is probably the better card overall, but the 970 still beats it in plenty of major releases at 1080p. Fallout 4, GTA V, and Witcher 3 come to mind. Generally the 970 seems to do a little better when the game is really cpu intensive due to better DX11 drivers, while the 390's balls to the wall hardware wins out when the game doesn't need as much out of the CPU. Since the latter situation is more common right now in AAA games the 390 wins more often at 1080p, but you guys are acting like it's a clean sweep. Now at 1440p the R9 390 is unquestionably better since you're almost always going to be gpu bound at that resolution with a single card unless it's a Fury X or 980 Ti. But at 1080p it's not as clean-cut as people want to make it here. I'd be surprised if the extra VRAM made any difference, as 4GB is a ton. I guess we'll find out when the 4GB R9 390 releases.

[jnmbhj]

The AMD fanboys are getting really annoying now. Yes, the 390 is probably the better card overall, but the 970 still beats it in plenty of major releases at 1080p. Fallout 4, GTA V, and Witcher 3 come to mind. Generally the 970 seems to do a little better when the game is really cpu intensive due to better DX11 drivers, while the 390's balls to the wall hardware wins out when the game doesn't need as much out of the CPU. Since the latter situation is more common right now in AAA games the 390 wins more often at 1080p, but you guys are acting like it's a clean sweep. Now at 1440p the R9 390 is unquestionably better since you're almost always going to be gpu bound at that resolution with a single card unless it's a Fury X or 980 Ti. But at 1080p it's not as clean-cut as people want to make it here. I'd be surprised if the extra VRAM made any difference, as 4GB is a ton. I guess we'll find out when the 4GB R9 390 releases.

I don't think its AMD "fan boys" I would say in average the 390 does preform 5 fps better. Also in higher res, the 390 preforms better than the 970. 

 

Far Cry 4   5 fps better at 1080   8 fps better at 1440p

 

Grid 970 beats the 390 by 0.1 fps at 1080p 390 beats 970 by 3 fps at 1440p 

 

Battlefield 4 (My go to game) 

 

390 beats 970 by 4 fps at 1080p

 

390 beats 970 by 7 fps at 1440p 

 

*with the new driver update 

 

Fallout 4 

970 beats 390 by 4 fps at 1080p

970 = 390 at 1440p 

I am not defending amd. Those are just the games that I have currently in my library.  

 

Star Wars Battlefront 

390 beats 970 by 3 fps at 1080p 

same thing for 1440p 

 

*Pre-update 

 

I am not going into 4k because a single 970 or 390 will not be powerful enough. But heres the other thing, i remember people saying back then. to go with a 680 over a 7970, and that 2gb of v ram was more than enough for at least the next 3 years. Well it turns out after just a year, most games are pushing more than 2gb at 1080p. I remember battlefield 4 pushing 2.5 gb of V ram, this is a game made in October 2013. Now a days games easily push over 3 gb when textures and AA is added in. And also the 970 has about 3.5 gb of usable ram. a full 4 gb will prob be enough until summer of 2017 at 1080p, but I feel its not going to be enough for 1440p even with games coming in 2016.

Also the 390 has far more v ram for crossfire. Allowing for more Textures and higher resolutions. As next year game developers can add even better textures and quality. 

Also early info about dx12 shows that AMD is already ahead. 

[App4that]

OP, they're right. I've owned a 390, I've crossfired a 390, and the Hype becomes over hype when you have a 390 in your case. The overhype of the 390 is near criminal on this forum. Sure the 390 is a great card but it only good for fps, not smooth gameplay. Which means get ready for fps dips not seen on the 970. And try and find a game that offers any improvement in crossfire, and watch your top card temps go through the roof.

Just a heads up.

[agentagent47]

Cuda, gamework, and shadowplay on nvidia side. I don't know what amd have to compete with that. 5-7fps really worth the extra watt?

[Pitythefool]

I'd say the 390 has more upside because of the 8gb of vram (especially for xfire 4k). However 390's consume substantially more power. I don't think you can really go wrong with either choice.

[jnmbhj]

Cuda, gamework, and shadowplay on nvidia side. I don't know what amd have to compete with that. 5-7fps really worth the extra watt?

Ah but, I've looked into that kind of stuff, Cuda doesn't work in my application, sony vegas. (At least what i do) And Open CL does a pretty good job. Most of the work in rendering is done by the CPU. GPUs only accelerate the special visual effects. Also for shadowplay there is a thing called AMD VFW (Dxtory). Works just as well as shadow play. Or use the AMD raptr app which sucks. 

 

Also I looked at the 970 vs 390 Frame times, and for the most part they are quite steady. 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review

[App4that]

See what Eruogamer has to say about Fallout 4 and the 390. They change their tune fast.

I tried every title in my steam library and never found a game that benefited from crossfire, even those with crossfire profiles.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 290 and wouldn't trade it for any 970.

[jnmbhj]

OP, they're right. I've owned a 390, I've crossfired a 390, and the Hype becomes over hype when you have a 390 in your case. The overhype of the 390 is near criminal on this forum. Sure the 390 is a great card but it only good for fps, not smooth gameplay. Which means get ready for fps dips not seen on the 970. And try and find a game that offers any improvement in crossfire, and watch your top card temps go through the roof.

Just a heads up.

I see in your profile that you have a 290, how is it? How come you don't recommend it?

 

I would not call better performance over hype. Also since the 390 is a fairly new card with added features. As they say better drivers come in with time. And yeah I know how the card temps can be. I used to have a 7970 CF set-up. And boy did those cards heat up. Also I found BF4 works with CF, Crysis 3, does much better with CF. But I think Battlefront can use CF. I do not think my CPU is going to bottleneck a dual 390 setup and since they have ample vram stuttering should not be an issue. 

 

I am just thinking on the future. My 7970 ghz lasted me quite sometime, and I enjoyed using it.