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

[Coaxialgamer]

r9 390 seems to be the way to go

[Majestic]

390 seems like the better GPU in most cases to me!

r9 390 seems to be the way to go

 

Seeing as you two are so convinced you're giving the correct advice you don't even feel the need to explain yourselves, you'll have no trouble making counter arguments for this.

 

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

 

Or rebuttals to what transpired in this topic.

[Coaxialgamer]

Seeing as you two are so convinced you're giving the correct advice, you'll have no trouble making counter arguments for this.

 

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

 

Or rebuttals to what transpired in this topic.

features are one thing , but the 390 performs better on average.

[App4that]

features are one thing , but the 390 performs better on average.

No, it gets better fps on average. Performance is more than just fps. The 970 will be on average more stable and trouble free.

[Coaxialgamer]

No, it gets better fps on average. Performance is more than just fps. The 970 will be on average more stable and trouble free.

i personally do not use any Nvidia features and i do not buy games the day they come out. Not to mention pretty much everyone is recommending it.

[Majestic]

features are one thing , but the 390 performs better on average.

 

Read again what I wrote in that comment I linked. With factory overclocks, the performance difference is moot. So the features are the important part. So it's that entire list, vs. 8GB and freesync. With 8GB at the moment serving 0 benefits (cept for GTA 5 with some settings, oh please), and questionable benefits in the near-future when the cards are still relevant at high settings.

 

I still don't see why the 390 is an interesting product.

 

 

 

(A) i personally do not use any Nvidia features and i do not buy games the day they come out. Not to mention (B )pretty much everyone is recommending it.

 

That's A. personal projection and B. bandwagon appeal.

 

Both are def. no-go's when making recommendations.

[App4that]

i personally do not use any Nvidia features and i do not buy games the day they come out. Not to mention pretty much everyone is recommending it.

Good for you and bandwagon fallacy.

In the really real world where people want to pick their own games, not the ones their graphics card picks for them. The 970 is worth considering.

[Coaxialgamer]

Good for you and bandwagon fallacy.

In the really real world where people want to pick their own games, not the ones their graphics card picks for them. The 970 is worth considering.

I never said the 970 wasn't worth considering. The 390 just performs better at higher resolutions ( consider pretty much every benchmark).

Not to mention problems are fixed pretty quickly. People were pissed about JC3 not running well on amd, but its been fixed for some time now.

[App4that]

I never said the 970 wasn't worth considering. The 390 just performs better at higher resolutions ( consider pretty much every benchmark).

Not to mention problems are fixed pretty quickly. People were pissed about JC3 not running well on amd, but its been fixed for some time now.

Yes, and waiting for the fix is less enjoyable than playing the game, I say this from experience.

The 390 is a great card, just happens to have shit support from the manufacturer. And the only way to change that is to hold AMD accountable for that.

That said there's nothing wrong with getting the 390 if your choice in games supports the purchase.

[Coaxialgamer]

Read again what I wrote in that comment I linked. With factory overclocks, the performance difference is moot. So the features are the important part. So it's that entire list, vs. 8GB and freesync. With 8GB at the moment serving 0 benefits (cept for GTA 5 with some settings, oh please), and questionable benefits in the near-future when the cards are still relevant at high settings.

I still don't see why the 390 is an interesting product.

That's A. personal projection and B. bandwagon appeal.

Both are def. no-go's when making recommendations.

Not to mention better dx12 performance thanks to maxwells lackluster async compute support. My personal recommendation for OP would be to wait for polaris/pascal though,

[Majestic]

Not to mention better dx12 performance thanks to maxwells lackluster async compute support. My personal recommendation for OP would be to wait for polaris/pascal though,

 

Not to mention? Implying you already made a good point somewhere else? Which performance numbers are you talking about?

 

Still no reaction on any of the points I made in that comment. 

[App4that]

Not to mention better dx12 performance thanks to maxwells lackluster async compute support. My personal recommendation for OP would be to wait for polaris/pascal though,

Really? We've moved on to crystal balls now?

Better hardware didn't give AMD the vision to create day one drivers, or conjure up better performance than the 980ti with the Fury X.

*totaly a Star Wars reference*

[TheElt]

 

Read again what I wrote in that comment I linked. With factory overclocks, the performance difference is moot. So the features are the important part. So it's that entire list, vs. 8GB and freesync.

 

I still don't see why the 390 is an interesting product.

 

Actually, stock vs stock the 970 and 390 trade blows well. Getting lucky in the lottery with both chips (Core/Mem) (970 @1586/2042 | 390 @1253/1699) in Firestrike at least the 390 scores barely under 1k higher GPU score. That's at 1080p, up the resolution and the 390 gains more plus has no 3.5GB gimp.

 

The 390 is recommended so much because you can get one with an aftermarket cooler for cheaper than a 970 with a blower cooler, it has more VRam, scales better in crossfire, can generally overclock quite well, driver support isn't half bad. Not going to list DX12 support because frankly it's dumb to use it as a deciding factor because neither fully support it, people that want DX12 will upgrade to the next gen cards

[Coaxialgamer]

Not to mention? Implying you already made a good point somewhere else? Which performance numbers are you talking about?

Dude, im not going to respond if you're going to be like that. As for numbers pretty much all dx12 benchmarks out right now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9740/directx-12-geforce-plus-radeon-mgpu-preview/4

It is a fact that maxwell doesn't do well because of async compute performance. Drivers have improved this, but as long as Nvidia doesnt pay devs to gimp performance on amd cards, dx 12 games should run better on gcn than maxwell.

Still no reaction on any of the points I made in that comment.

[VagabondWraith]

Got damn, I'm gone for a week and the first topic in this forum is "390 v 970." How about we create a "sticky" running thread up top so we can debate this topic to death, make false and unproven claims, throw insults at each other & provide benchmarks that are and aren't relevant.

 

Good lawdy this topic... <_< <_<

[Majestic]

Actually, stock vs stock the 970 and 390 trade blows well. Getting lucky in the lottery with both chips (Core/Mem) (970 @1586/2042 | 390 @1253/1699) in Firestrike at least the 390 scores barely under 1k higher GPU score. That's at 1080p, up the resolution and the 390 gains more plus has no 3.5GB gimp.

 

The 390 is recommended so much because you can get one with an aftermarket cooler for cheaper than a 970 with a blower cooler, it has more VRam, scales better in crossfire, can generally overclock quite well, driver support isn't half bad. Not going to list DX12 support because frankly it's dumb to use it as a deciding factor because neither fully support it, people that want DX12 will upgrade to the next gen cards

 

Got these numbers for me? Firestrike, better scaling, emperical evidence it's the 8GB VRAM that makes the 390 allegedly score better in higher resolutions.

 

Driver support during day-one not half bad you say? Some people playing Fallout 4 would surely disagree.

 

 

Got damn, I'm gone for a week and the first topic in this forum is "390 v 970."   How about we create a "sticky" running thread up top so we can debate this topic to death, make false and unproven claims, throw insults at each other & provide benchmarks that are and aren't relevant.

 

Good lawdy this topic...  <_<  <_<

 

Tried to ask mods, they don't want to play.

 

 

Dude, im not going to respond if you're going to be like that. As for numbers pretty much all dx12 benchmarks out right now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9740/directx-12-geforce-plus-radeon-mgpu-preview/4

 

 

Ah, the Ashes of the singularity benchmark. Yes, AMD scaled so well didn't it. But that wouldn't have anything to do with their terrible Drawcall throughput on DX11 would it?

 

http://www.pcper.com/files/review/2015-08-16/ashesheavy-gtx980.png

 

http://www.pcper.com/files/review/2015-08-16/ashesheavy-r9390x.png

 

Look at the framerates at DX11 for the 980 and 390X card. And tell me that's not why the scaling appears to be so wonderful. It's the very same reason AMD is doing such a terrible job in games with High CPU loads. It's not "gimpworks", it's their drivers.

 

The actual difference between DX12 results, is very slim.

[Coaxialgamer]

Really? We've moved on to crystal balls now?

Better hardware didn't give AMD the vision to create day one drivers, or conjure up better performance than the 980ti with the Fury X.

*totaly a Star Wars reference*

Again, look at pretty much all dx12 benchmarks out there.

[Coaxialgamer]

Got damn, I'm gone for a week and the first topic in this forum is "390 v 970." How about we create a "sticky" running thread up top so we can debate this topic to death, make false and unproven claims, throw insults at each other & provide benchmarks that are and aren't relevant.

Good lawdy this topic... <_< <_<

I know right. This is why i hate amd vs nvidia topics, because no one is truly right or wrong.

[App4that]

Again, look at pretty much all dx12 benchmarks out there.

Really, and how many is "all" and how many are in circulation?

Anyone can make claims on something that's not available.

And answer my question. The Fury X on paper is better than the 980ti, yet my Hybrid tears the head off a Fury X and shits down its throat.

Care to comment on why that might be?

[Coaxialgamer]

Really, and how many is "all" and how many are in circulation?

Anyone can make claims on something that's not available.

And answer my question. The Fury X on paper is better than the 980ti, yet my Hybrid tears the head off a Fury X and shits down its throat.

Care to comment on why that might be?

It does.

One of the reasons might be that gcn core scaling isnt great on gcn.

That would explain why the fury x doesn't perform much better than a fury/390x

[TheElt]

Got these numbers for me? Firestrike, better scaling, emperical evidence it's the 8GB VRAM that makes the 390 allegedly score better in higher resolutions.

Driver support during day-one not half bad you say? Some people playing Fallout 4 would surely disagree.

Got them right here, even a 970 at 1610MHz scores lower than a 390 at 1253MHz. And just look at any benchmarks for 1440p and up, the 390 will start to draw ahead more

http://hwbot.org/submission/3025185_maurosx_3dmark___fire_strike_radeon_r9_390_13777_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/3099039_darkvenom_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_970_13476_marks

I never said AMD had better day one drivers, that's not a thing they do, and it's also not a thing some people want. I sure as hell never bother because it's a pain in the ass.

[Coaxialgamer]

Really, and how many is "all" and how many are in circulation?

Anyone can make claims on something that's not available.

And answer my question. The Fury X on paper is better than the 980ti, yet my Hybrid tears the head off a Fury X and shits down its throat.

Care to comment on why that might be?

I have an article right here

http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

[Majestic]

Got them right here, even a 970 at 1610MHz scores lower than a 390 at 1253MHz. And just look at any benchmarks for 1440p and up, the 390 will start to draw ahead more

http://hwbot.org/submission/3025185_maurosx_3dmark___fire_strike_radeon_r9_390_13777_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/3099039_darkvenom_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_970_13476_marks

I never said AMD had better day one drivers, that's not a thing they do, and it's also not a thing some people want. I sure as hell never bother because it's a pain in the ass.

 

Those are 3Dmark scores, meaning the entire test. Including the combined test. It's a 4.7 vs. a 4.8ghz 5960X, that accounts for the difference. 3Dmark is also prone to variance. No two tests are the same.

 

Still nothing on 4GB vs 8GB. Also, those people also overclock memory heavily, something you can't do on air. Something a little less anecdotical and prone to variance would be better.

 

 

It does.

One of the reasons might be that gcn core scaling isnt great on gcn.

That would explain why the fury x doesn't perform much better than a fury/390x

 

No it's because he's playing on 1080p. Which means with an overkill card like that, high framerate. And there is one thing AMD's drivers don't do well, and that is produce high framerates, not with current CPU's.

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/gfx_sapphire_fury/charts/c3r_1920vh.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/gfx_sapphire_fury/charts/bf4_1920u.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/gfx_sapphire_fury/charts/f4c_1920u.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/gfx_sapphire_fury/charts/fc4_1920u.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/gfx_sapphire_fury/charts/gta5w_1920vh.png

[App4that]

I have an article right here

http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

You missed my point. Having better specs has done nothing for AMD. That's because they ignore the one thing Nvidia concentrates on, a working relationship with developers. Maybe AMD gets out there and shakes some hands and the performance improves. But it's wrong to even mention DX12 at this point. We can only guess.

[Majestic]

You missed my point. Having better specs has done nothing for AMD. That's because they ignore the one thing Nvidia concentrates on, a working relationship with developers. Maybe AMD gets out there and shakes some hands and the performance improves. But it's wrong to even mention DX12 at this point. We can only guess.

 

Has nothing to do with backdoor politics or developer relationships. They just have higher drawcall throughput. It shows in the API overhead tests of Futuremark.

 

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9112/73050.png

 

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9112/73019.png

 

Look at DX11ST and MT with the nvidia cards and amd cards. Nvidia pulls 2.2million on DX11MT, whilst amd only gets 1.1million. Half the drawcalls.