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

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Meh, PCLabs result is nowhere near accurate for AMD cards and CPUs. Many tech forums stopped using them as ref years ago.

So they are bias?

[i_build_nanosuits]

So they are bias?

it's hard to have accurate data these days, so many things going on when rendering video games now...especially when cards perform so close to each other they trade blows from game to game depending on the test bench, settings, drivers and game versions (patches)...linking benchmarks over and over again for all the different outlets won't solve this the 970 and the 390 perform too similar in games to declare a winner.

[Shakaza]

Ah what the fuck, who the hell is even listening on this forum. This forum is a giant AMD echo-chamber anyway.

I'm listening. Seriously, every time I read one of your posts on this thread, I thought, "Yeah, that's an interesting point. Let's see how people who have a different perspective counter it." But, all I'm greeted with is the same old circlejerk, repeated ad nauseum. A lot of what you said was even left unanswered, which really irks me.

 

I generally consider myself to be impartial, and all I'm seeing from you is an attempt to dig deeper into these issues and provide a counterargument to what is considered the norm. Weren't you one of the first people on this forum to start arguing that Intel's CPUs are generally far superior to AMD's, especially in "i5-4670k vs. FX-8350" threads? And look how that turned out. Almost everybody recommends Intel's offerings over AMD's now. That alone should clue people in as to what your true intentions are, but it appears that most people discount what you say for being an anti-AMD shill or something.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

it's hard to have accurate data these days, so many things going on when rendering video games now...especially when cards perform so close to each other they trade blows from game to game depending on the test bench, settings, drivers and game versions (patches)...linking benchmarks over and over again for all the different outlets won't solve this the 970 and the 390 perform too similar in games to declare a winner.

That benchmark has the 980 ti getting only 68 fps on 1080p so I'm pretty sure that whole benchmark is inaccurate or they really screwed up their testing.

[i_build_nanosuits]

That benchmark has the 980 ti getting only 68 fps on 1080p so I'm pretty sure that whole benchmark is inaccurate or they really screwed up their testing.

i've seen it and it's bullshit. even at 1440p this ain't happening (at least not on my machine)

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

i've seen it and it's bullshit. even at 1440p this ain't happening (at least not on my machine)

I've seen my friend's machine with a 980 and 4690k getting 80fps (high settings)

Unfortunately its a strike out for pclabs.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I've seen my friend machine with a 980 and 4690k getting 80fps (high settings)

Unfortunately is a strike out for pclabs.

you know what i trust more than gaming benchmarks? GPU BENCHMARKS.

Those don't lie about performance, they have much less variables...they won't fluctuate performance wildly based on drivers and CPU and ram speed and what not...they concentrate on raw GPU performance to accomplish different task on a wide variety of calculations...THEN once you know which card is faster in benchmarks you can look game by game and draw a trend of what the drivers and other variables are...i like to use gpu.userbenchmark because it's 100% user submitted results so it's can't be flawed those cards discussed in this topic have over 2500 submission each...so they have been installed and tested on a wide variety of system in different conditions by various users which make this a GOOD average for us to look at and see performance, here:

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-390-vs-Nvidia-GTX-970/3481vs2577

 

as you can see they give a 5% advantage to the R9 390, so on a hardware level the 390 is slightly more powerful...add to that a layer of crap, drivers, gameworks and shit...and the results are all over the place!

[ivan134]

I've seen my friend's machine with a 980 and 4690k getting 80fps (high settings)

Unfortunately its a strike out for pclabs.

Maybe by now you've figured out what the trap is. He's argumentative with anyone and everyone and the tint on his glasses are so green that he can't see the logical fallacies in the things that he says. For example, no matter what benchmark you show him, he will tell you that it's invalid and only one out of many, despite the fact that he only ever uses benchmarks from that pclabs which as you now know is inaccurate.

 

He's sitting there and pouting that no one is refuting his "points" and thinks it make him right when people are actually just ignoring him after learning that logic and facts mean absolutely nothing to him.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Maybe by now you've figured out what the trap is. He's argumentative with anyone and everyone and the tint on his glasses are so green that he can't see the logical fallacies in the things that he says. For example, no matter what benchmark you show him, he will tell you that it's invalid and only one out of many, despite the fact that he only ever uses benchmarks from that pclabs which as you now know is inaccurate.

 

He's sitting there and pouting that no one is refuting his "points" and thinks it make him right when people are actually just ignoring him after learning that logic and facts mean absolutely nothing to him.

and who are we talking about here?

[ivan134]

and who are we talking about here?

Majestic

[i_build_nanosuits]

Majestic

pclab and techpowerup always been sketchy though...i trust toms hardware, digitalfoundry and pcperspective a whole lot more personally...but like i said, so many variables in gaming benchmarks these days...when compairing cards that perform this close to one another it's just too easy to cherrypick and show one stronger than the other...it's all bullshit

[xAcid9]

So they are bias?

In general, yes.

[ivan134]

pclab and techpowerup always been sketchy though...i trust toms hardware, digitalfoundry and pcperspective a whole lot more personally...but like i said, so many variables in gaming benchmarks these days...when compairing cards that perform this close to one another it's just too easy to cherrypick and show one stronger than the other...it's all bullshit

Flip techpowerup and tomshwardware. W1zz is the reviewer at techpowerup and he gets accusers from both sides of the aisle who accuse of him bias, and he's always very transparent with his methods. His method also seems to be the most rigorous because not only does he test the most games of any other reviewer, but he completely retests them for EVERY benchmark that he does, to make sure the results are always current. Most reviewers just use the results from previous benchmarks. For that alone, I have a great deal of respect for him.

 

TomsHardware has one way too many questionable benchmarks from the past that I don't bother with them anymore. With Jayz2cents, TechPowerUp, PCPer and DigitalFoundry there are more than enough reputable sources to make up for it.

[alanz25]

GTA 5 cannot be put to full max at 1080p without running into the 3.5GB issue, at those settings the card is more than capable of 40+fps at stock but tanks to single digits. I would test on more games but I don't own any modern AAA titles that push VRAM that hard (Like Shadow Of Mordor). People can say it isn't an issue, but if you want to max some games you can't, and in SLI it's even more of an issue unless DX12 fixes that and lets VRAM stack

 

Stock speeds (1392MHz) and volts my card gets up to 63% TDP, or roughly 157.5W. Stock volts, 1580MHz core and 2050MHz memory gets to 72% TDP, or roughly 180W. And 1610MHz @1.265v with 2065MHz memory clocks in at 80% TDP, or roughly 200W.

 

Maxwell is efficient because voltages, touch the voltage and all that goes out the window. The power gap is at most 100w worst case, most of the time in the realm of 40-60W which is literally nothing, because there are no constraints on power draw or heat output that would make that difference an issue

hmm, my setup is similar to yours and i have no problems with gta v

[Nena Trinity]

8GB vram! yes, more #numbers, more #cores. AMD's only selling point. How does it matter though beyond the marketing value, for the 10th time i've asked you people.

Async compute, unproven tech for games that haven't released yet. Strong point.

both 390 and 970 suck at 1440p/4K high settings, even my 980 @ OC struggles to maintain 60 in even 2013 titles (tomb raider)

1080p it's pretty much dead even on factory clocked cards at best, 970 winning by landslide at worst (GTA 5, Fallout 4, "gimpworks" titles that were nominated games of the year but i'm sure noone plays witcher 3)

crossfire scaling is lacklustre given the driver overhead in some games. Not that SLI is much better, single GPU ftw.

Freesync, AH ys that technology that was only available thanks to G-sync, and is still requiring R&D from scaler manuf. to approach G-sync. The panels that do 1-144hz on freesync aren't fucking cheap, only the 75-90hz panels are.

And how can you say better day-one driver support, but at the same time say the card performs better. Obviously not with bad day-one driver support. Or are AMD buyers always months late with buying games?

Ah what the fuck, who the hell is even listening on this forum. This forum is a giant AMD echo-chamber anyway.

Well you listed ShadowPlay as a Nvidia only feature, AMD has the exact same feature using the exact same tech. The only thing that is not the same is the program used, there is a reason AMDs recording software even work on Intel and Nvidia GPUs... (this forum is paid by Intel not AMD get outta here!)

[Nena Trinity]

pclab and techpowerup always been sketchy though...i trust toms hardware, digitalfoundry and pcperspective a whole lot more personally...but like i said, so many variables in gaming benchmarks these days...when compairing cards that perform this close to one another it's just too easy to cherrypick and show one stronger than the other...it's all bullshit

Umm you told me Digital Foundry was crap before also PCperspectives Ashes of the Singularity DX12 benchmark was pure bullshit... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4zCZ2_gomKE

40fps my ass even my 860K with GTX 960 got 45fps. And as you can see FX-8370 gets almost twice the score...

[xAcid9]

Umm you told me Digital Foundry was crap before also PCperspectives Ashes of the Singularity DX12 benchmark was pure bullshit...

40fps my ass even my 860K with GTX 960 got 45fps. And as you can see FX-8370 gets almost twice the score...

Unless you're using the same game build and driver version as PCPer tested, then you can't compare your result.

[Coaxialgamer]

Only the 3 first is right, also unless he play Just Cause or any other tesselation heavy game I see no reason to not grab 390 over 970!

Shitstorm in 3...2...1..

[Nena Trinity]

Unless you're using the same game build and driver version as PCPer tested, then you can't compare your result.

Meh they probably had a ASUS Formula... I doubt my cheap ass 970 board can beat it unless the version of the game they tested did not have DX12 fully implemented...

[Nena Trinity]

Shitstorm in 3...2...1..

You are silly! *pets you on the head* :3

[MiniSchnazer]

Not sure if I should put this here, but... about Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

The battle between the GTX 970 and the R9 390 is fascinating. With frame-rates unlocked and settings maxed at 1080p, the Nvidia card provides a 47.5fps average, matched up against 48.8fps on AMD - but it doesn't tell the full story. Some sections of gameplay see the GTX 970 pull ahead by up to 5fps, while interior scenes, cut-scenes and close-ups see the R9 390 dominant. The contest is even more interesting in that Rise of the Tomb Raider is known to use asynchronous compute - a hardware-level feature absent on Nvidia hardware and fully implemented on the R9 390.

 

 

I have 390. I would be ok with 970 too...