R9 390 vs Gtx 970

[Morgan MLGman]

older testing done with different drivers on a different machine, not any more trustful.

You can bring them to 4K and they will STILL trade blows depending on the game, drivers, and settings.

end of the story.

You can't call BS on DigitalFoundry as it's one of the few sources that you like to bring up, remember that AMD improved their drivers significantly since July and the difference should be even higher imo. (since nvidia releases their updates faster on average)

[RuLeZ]

No one's flaming so relax. Look at the numbers, the difference in the fps produced by all 390s is greater than the difference between the 390 and 970. Same with the 970. That's how they're equal, and as I said even if you give the 390 a fps advantage the 970 equals it out with features.

 

They're equal. That's why these topic go on and on, while 380/960 topics don't

Good answer 

[i_build_nanosuits]

You can't call BS on DigitalFoundry as it's one of the few sources that you like to bring up, remember that AMD improved their drivers significantly since July and the difference should be even higher imo. (since nvidia releases their updates faster on average)

i do not call BS on digitalfoundry i call a TIE on the whole 970 vs 390 flamegate, that's it, that's all.

[App4that]

You can't call BS on DigitalFoundry as it's one of the few sources that you like to bring up, remember that AMD improved their drivers significantly since July and the difference should be even higher imo. (since nvidia releases their updates faster on average)

Read the post, Nano was defending the attack on his source. Not attacking DF

[LokiFire]

On the other hand if i want maximum GPU horsepower over features, R9 390 will take the cake.

 

[ivan134]

R9 390

[Majestic]

Memory bandwidth represents the speed of your memory. clockspeed is irrelevant if the bus is 128-bit

 

It does, Effective Memoryspeed * bit-width / 8 = ### GB/s

 

So for 6ghz memory it's 96GB/s

For 7ghz memory is 112GB/s.

 

Also, those results you mention severely differ once you start overclocking. Most tests are done with 970's set to reference speeds, not out-of-the-box overclocks. If you add out-of-the-box overclocks or even manual overclocking, the results tend to favor the 970 more.

 

I prefer to use a more trustful source

 

Bryan is legit.

[App4that]

On the other hand if i want maximum GPU horsepower over features, R9 390 will take the cake.

 

 

Even then it depends on the game, and the driver.

[Morgan MLGman]

i do not call BS on digitalfoundry i call a TIE on the whole 970 vs 390 flamegate, that's it, that's all.

Yeah but if you watch the entire video, in every game basically (even the heavily-Nvidia ones) the 390 wins @1440p (even by over 10FPS in some games) it would be a lot closer @ 1080p though. Same goes for the 4K resolution version of their video, even though it's sad cause both cards are MUCH too weak for 4K so I don't get the point of that video at all.

IMO even if they were "even" I'd still get the 390 because you get twice as much VRAM for essentially the same price with essentially the same performance, just for the sake of getting more for the same money

[LokiFire]

Even then it depends on the game, and the driver.

Looks like 390 rips the 970 in half at 4k though, even in NVIDIA titles the gap is lowered but it's still ahead.

 

As i said though for me i would go 970 as i game at 1080p and well NVENC is just sexy.

[Majestic]

And can we please stop using 8GB as a pro, I like to think we're better than the average joe who buys on "more is better".

 

Either provide an argument that makes this something of an interesting point, or stop mentioning it.

[don_svetlio]

It does, Effective Memoryspeed * bit-width / 8 = ### GB/s

So for 6ghz memory it's 96GB/s
For 7ghz memory is 112GB/s.

Also, those results you mention severely differ once you start overclocking. Most tests are done with 970's set to reference speeds, not out-of-the-box overclocks. If you add out-of-the-box overclocks or even manual overclocking, the results tend to favor the 970 more.

 

Bryan is legit.

Nope. If those tests were with fully stock 970s then you'd see them lose by a LOT

 

And can we please stop using 8GB as a pro, I like to think we're better than the average joe who buys on "more is better".

Either provide an argument that makes this something of an interesting point, or stop mentioning it.

But it is, you get more for your money, it's superior when you go CF/SLI and it also provides a somewhat future-proof product since with 16GB cards coming, games will only get MORE VRAM-hungry.

[Asses_Of_Fire]

the 390 is better. sure they trade blows right now in dx11,even though the 390 is still ahead there too.

 

390 is based off 290/x, dx12 benches show those gpus get like a 30-40% increase from dx 12, the 970  wont be able to compete because simply it has much less cores.  extra 4gb of vram is awesome and 970 stutters like butt when it hits 3.5 vram. and games like BO3 at 1440p hit up to 4gb vram and thats just a game right now imagine a year from now

[Majestic]

Nope. If those tests were with fully stock 970s then you'd see them lose by a LOT

 

Are you referring to JayzTwoCents's 1442mhz turd of a 970 and his golden 390, running on a 4.6ghz 5960X? ...

 

 

But it is, you get more for your money, it's superior when you go CF/SLI and it also provides a somewhat future-proof product since with 16GB cards coming, games will only get MORE VRAM-hungry.

 

This is not a viable argument, it's subjective blabbering. Empirically prove it.

[App4that]

Looks like 390 rips the 970 in half at 4k though, even in NVIDIA titles the gap is lowered but it's still ahead.

 

As i said though for me i would go 970 as i game at 1080p and well NVENC is just sexy.

First off what's the percentage of people buying a 970 or 390 that will game in 4k?

 

Nope. If those tests were with fully stock 970s then you'd see them lose by a LOT

Digital Foundry's a great source because they list these things, those 970's are at advertised clock speeds, and we all know most of them exceed that.

[Morgan MLGman]

And can we please stop using 8GB as a pro, I like to think we're better than the average joe who buys on "more is better".

 

Either provide an argument that makes this something of an interesting point, or stop mentioning it.

I rarely read your posts so I didn't know you, but the guys at some previous CPU-related thread mentioned that you're being fanboy-ish and unreasonable, I guess they were right about you.

How is 8GB not a pro? Is it a con then? What the actual hell is this logic. The more features and benefits you get while paying the same money for the product, it's becoming worth getting even more over the competing product REGARDLESS of the fact if you're going to use them or benefit from them, you still get them IN CASE you need them for THE SAME price.

[Asses_Of_Fire]

First off what's the percentage of people buying a 970 or 390 that will game in 4k?

 

Digital Foundry's a great source because they list these things, those 970's are at advertised clock speeds, and we all know most of them exceed that.

digital foundry is a baffoon that is bias as crap and fabricates his benchmarks in a very unfair and unlevel playing field. he is probably less reliable than teksyndicate is.

[ivan134]

R9 390

[Morgan MLGman]

i do not call BS on digitalfoundry i call a TIE on the whole 970 vs 390 flamegate, that's it, that's all.

There's a techpowerup review of Sapphire 390 released like one/two days ago or so, but I remember that we agreed it's not a reliable source to quote

[Majestic]

I rarely read your posts so I didn't know you, but the guys at some previous CPU-related thread mentioned that you're being fanboy-ish and unreasonable, I guess they were right about you.

 

 

How is it not a pro? Because the 970 also has benefits over the 390. Since they trade blows performance wise, it comes down to features. The 390 doesn't have much to offer other than freesync and 8GB. While the 970 has superiority in terms of efficiency, less heat output, more overclocking gains, shadowplay (no AMD's alternative is not as good, it never is), better day-one driver support. If you pit those benefits against the 8GB "boon" the 390 offers, it damn well better be worth it. And just assuming it will be useful in the near-future is a very bad argument, because those boons the 970 has are useful now.

[App4that]

I rarely read your posts so I didn't know you, but the guys at some previous CPU-related thread mentioned that you're being fanboy-ish and unreasonable, I guess they were right about you.

How is 8GB not a pro? Is it a con then? What the actual hell is this logic. The more features and benefits you get while paying the same money for the product, it's becoming worth getting even more over the competing product REGARDLESS of the fact if you're going to use them or benefit from them, you still get them IN CASE you need them for THE SAME price.

Think about this logically though, pull back and look at it. If the 8g doesn't offer a benefit then it doesn't matter. My memory use in Fallout 4 was on average 3.4g using my 290, with the 980ti it's almost 5g, even over that at times. Games use what's available. No one has proved that more VRAM being used is a benefit.

[Majestic]

Digital Foundy is probably the most reliable testing channel at this moment. I really like the way they explain how and why they tested the way they did, and they have very knowledgable explanations for whenever something odd occurs.

 

Def. my favorite atm, next to PCLAB.pl.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Didnt u know.... ;/

Knowledge = bias

To some people.

[ivan134]

R9 390

[App4that]

Benchmarks and tests done by sources are a reference, not the end all be all they've become recently. FPS is one thing to consider, not the only thing.

 

Come one guys, can we not make ourselves the same as console peasants fighting over Coke and Pepsi? Pretty please?