How does the 290X stack against the 970 at 1080p as of now?

[dfg666]

.......

[thekeemo]

It should perform like a 390x at a lower clock and limited to 4gb

[Morgan MLGman]

Not due to the bandwith only, it's simply more powerful. I've personally had both cards and the 290X is faster. It does get hotter and draw more power though.

/thread

[LokiFire]

Equal.

[sushisharkjl]

I did have the previous generation card, the 770, at one point (building a system for a friend) and comparing it with my 290x, I'd get about a 10%-20% increase in benchmarks and FPS in most triple-A titles (keep in mind this was in 2013-2014) on the AMD card. Given nVidia's current rate of progression, I think the 290x would still outperform the 970 but by a much slimmer margin, as it was neck-n-neck with the 780 and the 780 peforms ever so slightly better than the 970. 

[Morgan MLGman]

I did have the previous generation card, the 770, at one point (building a system for a friend) and comparing it with my 290x, I'd get about a 10%-20% increase in benchmarks and FPS in most triple-A titles (keep in mind this was in 2013-2014) on the AMD card. Given nVidia's current rate of progression, I think the 290x would still outperform the 970 but by a much slimmer margin, as it was neck-n-neck with the 780 and the 780 peforms ever so slightly better than the 970. 

GTX 780 is slower than R9 290 atm. R9 290X is faster than a GTX 970 and a GTX 780Ti on current drivers.

[sushisharkjl]

GTX 780 is slower than R9 290 atm. R9 290X is faster than a GTX 970 and a GTX 780Ti on current drivers.

 

Right, forgot about the nVidia nerfs.

[ivan134]

It depends on the clock speeds. Most 290 and 290z ship @ 947 mhz. If you are able to overclock to keep the same speeds as the 390 and 390x, performance is exactly the same. Most 290 and 290x dont have good enough coolers to do that.

[LokiFire]

Right, forgot about the nVidia nerfs.

They were not nerfed, NVIDIA just does not optimize for Kepler anymore just like they stopped with Fermi, i wish people would get their head out of their asses.

[azurezeed]

Better than the 970 but more power hungry and not as efficient

[LokiFire]

[Lotus]

If you can get a reasonable overclock, it'll beat the 970 fairly handily. I'm running my R9 290 at 1090 MHz and that beats many GTX 970s already and it's not that high of an overclock.

[App4that]

Right, forgot about the nVidia nerfs.

Really, so a 780ti right there with a Fury X is nerfed. Hate to see it not nerfed

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/535725-geforce-game-ready-driver-36175-whql/?p=7107375

[LokiFire]

It would seem this forum likes guessing, and is siding with AMD lol.

[Morgan MLGman]

SNIP

Old review = Old drivers.

Look at a recent one:  (note that the higher the resolution, the higher the difference.)

Also, note that it's a reference 290X they're using. Hot, throttling, reference 290x. An aftermarket one matches a 390X in performance if overclocked to the same values.

[LokiFire]

Old review.

Look at a recent one:  (note that the higher the resolution, the higher the difference.)

As i said both equal, if you call 1% better then there is something wrong here, he is at 1080p.

[Morgan MLGman]

As i said both equal, if you call 1% better then there is something wrong here, he is at 1080p.

I added a newer graph, it's 2% now. It's faster, no doubt about it and it's getting faster cause of AMD improving their drivers. And read what I also edited, it's a reference one they're testing. I can tell you from my own, first-hand testing with both cards that the 290X is faster. In fact my 290X after good overclocking surpassed a reference 980 by 4%. (in userbenchmark)

[dfg666]

.......

[LokiFire]

I added a newer graph, it's 2% now. It's faster, no doubt about it and it's getting faster cause of AMD improving their drivers. And read what I also edited, it's a reference one they're testing. I can tell you from my own, first-hand testing with both cards that the 290X is faster. In fact my 290X after good overclocking surpassed a reference 980 by 4%. (in userbenchmark)

Your testing means nothing, don't ever say that to anyone with no actual evidence to back it up, the 970 is still neck and neck with the 290x.

[Morgan MLGman]

Your testing means nothing, don't ever say that to anyone with no actual evidence to back it up, the 970 is still neck and neck with the 290x.

You're here since december, I already had my 290X at the time. I posted several pictures and a video with benchmarks comparing those two cards several times here.

For example, AVG FPS with 290X in Tomb Raider (2013) was higher than MAX FPS with a GTX 970. Some users that were around at the time might remember those benches I showed, lost them now (did a reinstall)

[LokiFire]

You're here since december, I already had my 290X at the time. I posted several pictures and a video with benchmarks comparing those two cards several times here.

For example, AVG FPS with 290X in Tomb Raider (2013) was higher than MAX FPS with a GTX 970. Some users that were around at the time might remember those benches I showed, lost them now (did a reinstall)

Just so you know a 970 OC's too and last time i checked OC far further than AMD GPU's.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just so you know a 970 OC's too and last time i checked OC far further than AMD GPU's.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with those GPUs. If you think I only overclocked the 290X, then sorry but we've got nothing to talk about.

To make it simpler, I had my 290X @ 1150/1450 and my 970 @1500/8000. I was curious what's faster too so I tested both cards extensively. 290X won so I stuck with it.

[LokiFire]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with those GPUs. If you think I only overclocked the 290X, then sorry but we've got nothing to talk about.

To make it simpler, I had my 290X @ 1150/1450 and my 970 @1500/8000.

Well done but still no evidence mate, i'm not bashing you personally, just your own word is not enough here.

 

And well you have an FX 8350, that's like me pairing a GTX 980 with my Phenom II, actual performance will be lower anyway LOL.

[Charlie27364]

Pretty much same performance but the R9 290X spits out more heat and takes in more watts.

[Morgan MLGman]

Well done but still no evidence mate, i'm not bashing you personally, just your own word is not enough here.

 

And well you have an FX 8350, that's like me pairing a GTX 980 with my Phenom II, actual performance will be lower anyway LOL.

You really don't want the 290X to be faster, do you? I showed you actual, recent benchmarks, you called BS. I told you that I tested both cards and you called BS. I'm too lazy and don't care enough to look for those results I had.

And what does the CPU have to do with it? Both cards tested with it so the results are as similar as possible. Also, if CPU was a factor here, it would be in favor of the GTX 970 because Radeon GPUs are known to work better with lower CPU overhead.