I am about to buy a graphics card. 970 vs R9 390.

[TaddMSI]

As the title says, I am just about to buy a new graphics card for my system... I am between the GTX 970 or the R9 390 but I can't decide which one and why should I get. I have around 350 U$D and my computer has this specs.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/24RBwP

 

Thanks in advance. 

[Mohenjo]

with that high end of a machine i recommend 390, You will end up loving the 8gb of vram plus get a little extra performance. 

[ReesZRB]

As the title says, I am just about to buy a new graphics card for my system... I am between the GTX 970 or the R9 390 but I can't decide which one and why should I get. I have around 350 U$D and my computer has this specs.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/24RBwP

 

Thanks in advance. 

R9 390 is slightly faster

[dappy10]

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-AMD-R9-390/2577vs3481

 

R9 390 is about 10% faster so i'd go with that

[Lotus]

You have a PSU capable of running dual R9 390 GPUs, so the biggest downside for you is not a problem at all. Get the R9 390.

[DaltonM]

Depends if you want the 970 features like gamestreaming (especially to android). To me and my extensive network set up the features outweigh the small performance gain of the AMD card. 

[TaddMSI]

I am just focused on plain gaming. I am not a streamer and nothing like that. I just want the best performance in the highest settings possibles in 1080p (Monitors above this resolution are REALLY expensive here in argentina)

[GodSpoon]

with that high end of a machine i recommend 390, You will end up loving the 8gb of vram plus get a little extra performance. 

 

^^ This is going to be the general consensus 

 

Although if shadowplay would be useful to you I would go for the 970

[KemoKa]

390 - slightly better performance now, larger frame buffer for higher resolutions later, same price or cheaper, and will get a massive performance boost with DX12. And it's an ungodly monster at compute performance.

970 - has Shadowplay and other Nvidia nicknacks, better OCing capability depending on the card, and lower power consumption.

 

Pick whichever one you need.

 

[GeorgeKellow]

Personally I'd go with the r9 390. Its got 8gb of freakin Vram dude! 

[Guest]

I would go for the 390. 

[Fictionvl]

Did you already build that system? 

 

if you haven't I'd recommend getting a better SSD, the kingston one isn't very fast from what I've seen from a friend.
get a samsung 850 evo if you can

 

also you don't need that much wattage, I'd recommend a 750W from seasonic or evga, should suffice even for a CFX or SLI 

 

last thing, I'd say go with the 390 if you have a 1440p monitor or above, for 1080p get the 970.

[CapricaBuccaneers]

Since max VRAM apparently is the deciding factor, you should get a Titan X and only a Titan X. Save up until you can afford one, or the replacement model if that much time has passed.

Bonus points if it's the hybrid or watercooled model so there is no thermal throttling.

[ivan134]

Swap out the SSD for an ADATA SP550 120GB. Swap out the power supply for an EVGA G2/GS 550W/650W unit. Get an MSI, Sapphire or XFX R9 390.

[Majestic]

with that high end of a machine i recommend 390, You will end up loving the 8gb of vram plus get a little extra performance. 

 

Except in all those new AAA games on-release which suffer from major driver issues, but I guess new AAA releases aren't important. As for the 8GB, can you people please provide some evidence for this? It gets repeated so many times, surely there is a plethora of evidence supporting this.

 

As for the OP, 850W? That's extremely overkill. Lose it for some 500W model and get a better CPU cooler (Noctua NH-U14S is the best value at the moment). About the graphics cards, i've pretty much condensed it in this post;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533899-r9-390-vs-gtx-970/page-3#entry7084736

[Mohenjo]

Except in all those new AAA games on-release which suffer from major driver issues, but I guess new AAA releases aren't important. As for the 8GB, can you people please provide some evidence for this? It gets repeated so many times, surely there is a plethora of evidence supporting this.

 

As for the OP, 850W? That's extremely overkill. Lose it for some 500W model and get a better CPU cooler (Noctua NH-U14S is the best value at the moment). About the graphics cards, i've pretty much condensed it in this post;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533899-r9-390-vs-gtx-970/page-3#entry7084736

the card outperforms the 970 in higher resolutions because of the vram, true hes only doing 1080p but it just outperforms. And its rare now that games only have issues with amd. Usually if a game has driver issues it would run shit on both platforms 

[Mohenjo]

Except in all those new AAA games on-release which suffer from major driver issues, but I guess new AAA releases aren't important. As for the 8GB, can you people please provide some evidence for this? It gets repeated so many times, surely there is a plethora of evidence supporting this.

 

As for the OP, 850W? That's extremely overkill. Lose it for some 500W model and get a better CPU cooler (Noctua NH-U14S is the best value at the moment). About the graphics cards, i've pretty much condensed it in this post;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533899-r9-390-vs-gtx-970/page-3#entry7084736

also if you read on you would know that he already owns the system so...

[Lotus]

the card outperforms the 970 in higher resolutions because of the vram, true hes only doing 1080p but it just outperforms. And its rare now that games only have issues with amd. Usually if a game has driver issues it would run shit on both platforms 

It's not just the VRAM. If a poly is less than 4 pixels on-screen the 970 is better suited. A 970's shaders base unit is two pixels IIRC (so a 1 pixel triangle takes the same resources as a 2 pixel triangle, which takes less resources than a 3 pixel triangle) whereas AMD has 4 pixels (All triangles 4 pixels and smaller take the same minimum resources). Not entirely sure how it works, but it's the fundamental reason why the GCN architecture hates tesselation and maxwell doesn't. Raising the resolution actually lets the R9 390 stretch its legs better. It's not just a function of VRAM.

[don_svetlio]

R9 390 - better performance with DX11, SIGNIFICANTLY better performance with DX12
More than double the usable VRAM (the 3.5GB thing WILL be an issue sooner or later for you as it prevents proper caching into SYS RAM resulting in massive stutters when games really need the extra memory). Better scaling should you go dual-GPU.

970 will draw and output 70W less heat and power on average and does come with shadwoplay and CUDA (if you need them that is, most people don't. CUDA is used in a handful of things such as AutoCAD but most support OpenCL as well)

The 390 performs around 40% better in Sony Vegas however and that is worth considering

[Majestic]

the card outperforms the 970 in higher resolutions because of the vram, true hes only doing 1080p but it just outperforms. And its rare now that games only have issues with amd. Usually if a game has driver issues it would run shit on both platforms 

 

I said evidence, not you repeating the same thing again. Does that same evidence also show the R9-390 severely beating the Fury X, or the GTX 980? Because that card only has 4GB. 

 

I see different variables being of importance, 8GB not being one of them.

 

 

R9 390 - better performance with DX11, SIGNIFICANTLY better performance with DX12

 

Which results are you referring to here?

 

 

and does come with shadwoplay and CUDA (if you need them that is, most people don't. CUDA is used in a handful of things such as AutoCAD but most support OpenCL as well)

The 390 performs around 40% better in Sony Vegas however and that is worth considering

 

Yeah because most people won't use a easy-to-use recording software that has no performance impact and can easily be used to capture in-the-moment-recordinds you wouldn't capture otherwise. But they will use some expensive piece of software.

[Mohenjo]

 

I said evidence, not you repeating the same thing again. Does that same evidence also show the R9-390 severely beating the Fury X, or the GTX 980? Because that card only has 4GB. 

 

I see different variables being of importance, 8GB not being one of them.

 

 

 

Which results are you referring to here?

 

i dont really care enough to do that, it performs better just go look at benchmarks, and its obvious you are gonna disagree with anything i say so whats the point in even arguing. 

[don_svetlio]

 

I said evidence, not you repeating the same thing again. Does that same evidence also show the R9-390 severely beating the Fury X, or the GTX 980? Because that card only has 4GB. 

 

I see different variables being of importance, 8GB not being one of them.

 

 

 

Which results are you referring to here?

 

 

 

Yeah because most people won't use a easy-to-use recording software that has no performance impact and can easily be used to capture in-the-moment-recordinds you wouldn't capture otherwise. But they will use some expensive piece of software.

 

Most people aren't streamers or big on YT so that literally does not matter to them. Not to mention OBS is overall superior and FREE as well.

With one card you pay 320$ for 3.5GB + 0.5GB

With the second you pay 290$ for 8GB

Better value

[Majestic]

i dont really care enough to do that, it performs better just go look at benchmarks, and its obvious you are gonna disagree with anything i say so whats the point in even arguing. 

 

Most people aren't streamers or big on YT so that literally does not matter to them. Not to mention OBS is overall superior and FREE as well.

With one card you pay 320$ for 3.5GB + 0.5GB

With the second you pay 290$ for 8GB

Better value

 

Look at you two. Just can't even arsed to provide the evidence of the claims you're making. But you criticise me for riding you all day.

 

Oh, wait. If that's the case!

 

8350 is 180 euros and has 8 cores

6600K is 250 euros and has 4 cores.

 

Well, all those silly people buying 6600K's lol. Because surely, that's how you judge CPU's amirite.

[don_svetlio]

Look at you two. Just can't even arsed to provide the evidence of the claims you're making. But you criticise me for riding you all day.

 

Oh, wait. If that's the case!

 

8350 is 180 euros and has 8 cores

6600K is 250 euros and has 4 cores.

 

Well, all those silly people buying 6600K's lol. Because surely, that's how you judge CPU's amirite.

If you take a moment to stop being a thick pr*ck I'd be arsed to have a proper conversation with you but alas that day is not yet here.

[Mohenjo]

Look at you two. Just can't even arsed to provide the evidence of the claims you're making. But you criticise me for riding you all day.

 

Oh, wait. If that's the case!

 

8350 is 180 euros and has 8 cores

6600K is 250 euros and has 4 cores.

 

Well, all those silly people buying 6600K's lol. Because surely, that's how you judge CPU's amirite.

... congrats! You are disagreeing with a LOT of people! You win a prize! That prize? Being annoying and telling us to provide evidence when you dont provide any yourself! Good Job! 

 

and *criticize