Settling R9 390 vs GTX 970 and a DX12 myth

[afyeung]

I've been seeing a lot of 970 vs. 390 posts even though it's been debated to the moon and back 5000 times. I thought I could go over this well because I have a 390x(10% faster than 390 at most), and have lots of friends with the gtx970.

 

To start off, both are great cards and can handle 1440p very well and are stellar for 1080p. However, even though they perform very close to each other at default speeds, there's a lot of key differences.

1.) The 970 draws significantly less power and outputs much less heat than the 390.

NO, this does not mean the actual 390 chip is much hotter than the 970, as long as you have good airflow most aftermarket 390s should be in the mid-high 60s range which is on par with the 970. This means the 390 is kicking a lot more heat back into your system because of its much higher TDP(250W+ vs. 145W+). So if you have a case with tight airflow the rest of your components will feel the heat. This is something to definitely consider with the 390. Although the 390 consumes a lot more power(260W+ vs. 160W+), this will not affect your power bill which is just plain stupid. Winner: 970, however both should do fine with at least a 400w PSU(depending on your CPU), and good airflow.

 

2.) The 390 has more than double the usable VRAM of the 970 and has better specs. 

This is true. You have a full 8gb's of usable vram on the 390 while the 970 has full speed 3.5gb's of vram while the rest is just negligible for games. This might seem like an earth-shattering difference, but it depends on the scenario. Very few games can actually take advantage of the 390's 8GB, the only games where I noticed a difference going from the 290 4gb to 390x 8gb was GTA 5 and ME SOM. These games can get very VRAM heavy, especially ME SOM with the textures, and still maintain good frame-rates. If you plan on doing high resolution texture mods or high end video-editing, the 8gb of the 390 will come in handy. However, for 99% of games it's just a gimmick. Also, even though the 390 looks a lot better on paper, 2560 vs 1664 cores, more ROPs, double the memory bandwidth, etc., the 970 still is never that far behind the 390. I used to think that it was because game developers weren't able to make use of tech such ahead of its time, but then you realize the 980Ti also has a huge number of cores and is better on paper except for the memory bandwidth, and still performs 30-50% better than the 390. (more into dx12 myths later).

Winner: 390 but see above. 

 

3.) 970 has more features and better drivers.

Yes, the 970 has a lot more features than the 390. Shadow Play, Cuda, Gamestream, and PhysX just to name a few. However, it is totally up to you whether you use these features. Some Nvidia users hate Shadow Play, some video software doesn't use Cuda, many people don't even have a SHIELD device, and you may choose to disable PhysX for performance sake. That being said, if you want these features, then the 970 is the better option because AMD will never have these features. 

Drivers have gotten significantly better on the 390 ever since Crimson. I've seen a lot better day one support from AMD for recent games like R6 Siege. Nvidia has stellar day one performance since they work with a lot of the game devs. Most of the time however, if it's broken on the 390 it's safe to say the 970 isn't fairing too well either. Drivers shouldn't be a deciding factor for which GPU you get since both do a fine job,

Winner: 970 for features you might use

 

4.) 390 overclocks to lower speeds but has better performance per clock.

This is true. If you put both cards at the same clock the 390 would dominate, even against a 980 at the same clocks probably, however it is unlikely that you'll even hit 1200 on the core with the 390. I know many people will reference Jay's review of the 390. But if you look around, finding people with 1200 on the core with the 390 just isn't as common as you might think it is. I will say however, overclocking the memory with the 390 is a breeze. Aux voltage has gotten most people in the 1750+ range(7GHZ effective). 1150core/1750mem is a pretty safe estimate on what you can get with the 390(This will make it faster than stock 390x). A 970 at 1400mhz+ will still be trading blows due to the really high core clock. Overall, I wouldn't bet on overclocking anyways. My friend's 970 was a total dud, and you might not like the extra heat the 390 produces when it's overclocked.

Tie: Both cards get fairly good performance boosts when overclocked, however the 970 will always clock a lot higher.

 

Now for some DX12 Myths. Actually the main myth I want to cover is that DX12 will automatically improve the performance on AMD cards such as the 390. This is simply untrue. DX12 is an API(Application Programming Interface), which means game developers can pick and choose any of the code/methods they want. A good example of how DX12 has not improved AMD performance at all in an AAA title is Just Cause 3. http://wccftech.com/dx12-3-pc-gbuffer-conservative-rasterization/ The reason for this is because Just Cause 3 only uses the DX12 code that helps with rasterization and g-buffering, which are key features for the Nvidia product line but not AMD. Like I said, Developers can pick and choose which DX12 features they want to use. The main feature that got people hyped for AMD DX12 performance is concurrent A-sync compute, however, developers have no incentive to include this in their games as long as Nvidia's cards can't use it(We'll see about Pascal). Most sponsored AAA titles on PC are Nvidia anyways. Hopefully for us AMD users, Deus Ex and Hitman which are AMD titles can effectively use DX12 features. My main point though was that the use of DX12 won't automatically boost performance on the GPU and CPU like many people had hoped.

 

[Atmos]

 

3.) 970 has more features and better drivers.

Yes, the 970 has a lot more features than the 390. Shadow Play, Cuda, Gamestream, and PhysX just to name a few. However, it is totally up to you whether you use these features. Some Nvidia users hate Shadow Play, some video software doesn't use Cuda, many people don't even have a SHIELD device, and you may choose to disable PhysX for performance sake. That being said, if you want these features, then the 970 is the better option because AMD will never have these features. 

Drivers have gotten significantly better on the 390 ever since Crimson. I've seen a lot better day one support from AMD for recent games like R6 Siege. Nvidia has stellar day one performance since they work with a lot of the game devs. Most of the time however, if it's broken on the 390 it's safe to say the 970 isn't fairing too well either. Drivers shouldn't be a deciding factor for which GPU you get since both do a fine job,

Winner: 970 for features you might use

 

 

Better drivers?

There's honestly no such thing. Each month you see the glorious title of "worst drivers" passed between nvidia and amd. They share that damn throne.

 

As for features... C'mon...

Shadowplay - Plays.tv  Both are equally good. Shadow means a very slightly less hit to performance, but that's literally it.

great cuda performance - earth shattering opencl calculations  both are extremely situational.

SLI - CFX  again, both are extremely situational and have various issues.

Physx/Gameworks - GPUOpen  honestly, gpuopen so long as it doesn't get screwed over is going to be better. Actual open source stuff, instead of licensed material means easier optimization for BOTH companies and developers.

Geforce Experience - Crimson  The only thing geforce has over crimson right now is not having to restart after a gpu driver update, that's literally it. Anything you can do on geforce EX you can do on crimson now.

G-Sync - Freesync  Again, nvidia proprietary bullshit vs actual opensource, and a visa standard no less. It's only a matter of time before nvidia has to cave in and adopt the VISA STANDARD.

Shield - This is really the only category that amd does not compete on. And considering how tiny the adoption of the shield tablet was, I'm not surprised. There's virtually no money to be made there.

[Enderman]

Tests show that DX12 performance improvements come from certain processing stuff getting moved off the CPU and onto the GPU

Since GPUs handle parallel processing much better, having that done on the GPU means you don't need an extremely powerful CPU to get good performance in a game

 

Looking forward to seeing more games use DX12 in the near future

[STRMfrmXMN]

I imagine this shall be locked soon. That said, I don't care if someone wants one card over the other, but I'll almost always suggest a 390 over a 970.

[afyeung]

 

You're pretty much agreeing with me. I said the features will only come in handy if you need them specifically and the drivers are on par. However some people are under the impression that AMD drivers suck. It's no rare lol.

[Sam Z Man]

You can't kill a myth with a WCCFtech article.

Hell that's how they are born.

[Atmos]

You're pretty much agreeing with me. I said the features will only come in handy if you need them specifically and the drivers are on par. However some people are under the impression that AMD drivers suck. It's no rare lol.

 

You missed my point though. In your closing statement you praised nvidia features, when amd has a counter feature to everything but one that's just as good, or just as situationally awesome.

You also can't decide that somethings objectively better because more people believe it is. Facts don't require you to like them, or even acknowledge them, facts are facts, and the fact is neither company right now has a better driver or software solution. They both have problems and they both are toe to toe.

[afyeung]

Tests show that DX12 performance improvements come from certain processing stuff getting moved off the CPU and onto the GPU

Since GPUs handle parallel processing much better, having that done on the GPU means you don't need an extremely powerful CPU to get good performance in a game

 

Looking forward to seeing more games use DX12 in the near future

You're right. Overhead is significantly reduced with full DX12. However the main feature that caught people's attention was Async which only AMD GPUs have. That's what made ashes of singularity so controversial 

[afyeung]

You missed my point though. In your closing statement you praised nvidia features, when amd has a counter feature to everything but one that's just as good, or just as situationally awesome.

You also can't decide that somethings objectively better because more people believe it is. Facts don't require you to like them, or even acknowledge them, facts are facts, and the fact is neither company right now has a better driver or software solution. They both have problems and they both are toe to toe.

Those weren't Nvidia specific features necessarily. They just work better because of how Maxwell is designed. Just how AMD cards are designed to use A sync when Maxwell will have trouble utilizing it at all. Also, the reason why I included the driver part is because of what people had previously said. I know the facts. 

[afyeung]

You can't kill a myth with a WCCFtech article.

Hell that's how they are born.

Here http://www.dsogaming.com/news/just-cause-3-engine-already-capable-of-supporting-dx12-pc-exclusive-dx12-features-revealed/

http://www.pcinvasion.com/just-cause-3-to-support-dx12

[Atmos]

Those weren't Nvidia specific features necessarily. They just work better because of how Maxwell is designed. Just how AMD cards are designed to use A sync when Maxwell will have trouble utilizing it at all. Also, the reason why I included the driver part is because of what people had previously said. I know the facts. 

 

But again, you're missing my point

 

One of the pillars of journalism is not taking sides and trying to stay neutral. Any good journalist, who hasn't sold their souls to the devil should know that. 

 

to say that something is better, when it clearly has significant rivals that can match it neck and neck is dishonest reporting, and trying to write it off as "This is what people expect, so this is what I'll write" is not being true to yourself, your readers, or the facts. It only hurts the market more when people continue to perpetuate false ideas and statistics.

 

For me to say that people who write with their right hand is correct, and clearly better than people who right with their left is just the same.

People that write with their left are just as capable, and can do everything people who write with their right hand can do, some languages when written even move from right to left, making the "left to right" writing point invalid. I can't just say "Writing with you right hand is best!" because its what most people expect. That's dishonest and plainly terrible.

[Enderman]

You missed my point though. In your closing statement you praised nvidia features, when amd has a counter feature to everything but one that's just as good, or just as situationally awesome.

You also can't decide that somethings objectively better because more people believe it is. Facts don't require you to like them, or even acknowledge them, facts are facts, and the fact is neither company right now has a better driver or software solution. They both have problems and they both are toe to toe.

actually a lot of people have used AMD game DVR (AMD's response to shadowplay) and almost everyone said it sucked...

i have seen a few people say it works for them, but each person i asked is not a streamer or someone who records videos on a daily basis with it

 

plus adaptive sync (since the hardware in the monitor is not made by AMD themselves) has greatly reduced functionality, with some monitors only having a variable refresh rate windows on a tiny 25Hz, whereas gsync has the full 30hz-monitors max refresh rate on every monitor that comes with gsync

 

so its different on both sides

and when linus compared them side by side he said the gsync clearly looked smoother and had less input lag, if that means anything to you

 

yes AMD has pretty much the same # of features as nvidia

that doesn't mean they all work the same or have the same popularity among users

[Atmos]

actually a lot of people have used AMD game DVR (AMD's response to shadowplay) and almost everyone said it sucked...

i have seen a few people say it works for them, but each person i asked is not a streamer or someone who records videos on a daily basis with it

 

plus adaptive sync (since the hardware in the monitor is not made by AMD themselves) has greatly reduced functionality, with some monitors only having a variable refresh rate windows on a tiny 25Hz, whereas gsync has the full 30hz-monitors max refresh rate on every monitor that comes with gsync

 

so its different on both sides

and when linus compared them side by side he said the gsync clearly looked smoother and had less input lag, if that means anything to you

 

yes AMD has pretty much the same # of features as nvidia

that doesn't mean they all work the same or have the same popularity among users

 

Precisely, objective comparisons are what we need, not blanket statements of everything here is bad, and everything here is good. I can't ignore freesync is still developing, just like you can't ignore that gsync adds hefty price bumps to monitors due to inclusion of proprietary hardware and licensing.

 

I've never had an issue with amd's game stream, whether I've been streaming or w/e. Then again, any serious streamer isn't going to use shadowplay or amd's version... there's just not enough scene control there, obs and other platforms are far better. For recording, then that's where you see shadowplay and plays.tv excel.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I think there is alot of different meaning to when someone says they don't like a manufacturers driver. Some will mean that they crash often. And some will mean driver overhead. Though, the common misconception is that AMD drivers always crash(more often then nvidia) or what not.

 

Some peeps will mistaken(drivers always crashing) when someone else says they prefer the smaller driver overhead. This would affect performance in games where the system has a pretty weak cpu. But a current i5 and above will take care of that. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

i would take the GTX 970

[afyeung]

First of all, I wasn't really trying to be a journalist. And if I was reiterating what people already knew I would state that the 390 performs better in most games especially at 1440p with stock clocks, which is a fact. I addressed a lot of things which I felt weren't brought up enough, which were backed up by facts. I love my 390x, however Nvidia has good cards as well. I was simply stating pros and cons that some people might not know. 

And by features, I meant software that Nvidia has included to enhance the user experience. Some people like shadowplay because it's very easy to set up. And it's not true that professionals won't go out and use shadowplay. Jack Frags who has a very popular PC channel uses shadowplay. However, I am aware some people with Nvidia cards don't use those features at all which is why I said features only matter if you're planning to use them.

[afyeung]

i would take the GTX 970

390 and 970 are both good choices. At this point can't go wrong either way because they perform very similar to each other. My goal was to address specifics that might affect people's decision. 

[afyeung]

I think there is alot of different meaning to when someone says they don't like a manufacturers driver. Some will mean that they crash often. And some will mean driver overhead. Though, the common misconception is that AMD drivers always crash(more often then nvidia) or what not.

 

Some peeps will mistaken(drivers always crashing) when someone else says they prefer the smaller driver overhead. This would affect performance in games where the system has a pretty weak cpu. But a current i5 and above will take care of that. 

You're right. Some people who have had bad experiences with catalyst or crashing will not like AMD drivers. But I think they've improved a ton. Previously it took me 5 seconds to launch catalyst even with a 5820k, crimson launches in under a second now.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

You're right. Some people who have had bad experiences with catalyst or crashing will not like AMD drivers. But I think they've improved a ton. Previously it took me 5 seconds to launch catalyst even with a 5820k, crimson launches in under a second now.

 

Oh damn, I didn't notice how fast it took now that you've mentioned it...

[afyeung]

Oh damn, I didn't notice how fast it took now that you've mentioned it...

Catalyst on the 8320e and my friend's fx4130 took a solid 30 seconds to load lol

[App4that]

I've spent the night playing around with the GeForce Experience. DSR is not as easy to use as VSR. I prefer VSR. But holy shit are the game settings options better. Rather than leaving it up to you to know what the effects are of your changes you see them. And overclocking in the Nvidia verses the AMD, night and day. Having the software do most of the work with Nvidia for overclocking is bad ass.

FYI, shameless plug. My 980ti hit 1513 on the core just by setting the power limit to 110. Stoked