Is the R9 390 comparable to the GTX 980?

[Frenzy724]

In my eyes, for almost $200, you only get 5-10 FPS more, maybe 20 FPS more when you try to push 4k, between the R9 390 and GTX 980. Why does everyone seem to compare the R9 390x, which I think is more of a contender for the 980 Ti, with the 980? And why do so many people think the 980 is in such a different class, just because of the price difference? I think they are really comparable cards, and that the price to performance of the R9 390, along with future-proofing of the 8GB vram makes it a much better deal, and in some cases even a better performer (give or take some overclockability)

What do you guys think in terms of comparing these 2 cards and which do you pick/prefer?

[Guest]

R9 390X is slightly faster than the GTX 970

(Also 8GB VRAM so better at higher res)

[Starelementpoke]

1 minute ago, Pearsonia said:

R9 390X is slightly faster than the GTX 970

(Also 8GB VRAM so better at higher res)

390*

 

2 minutes ago, Frenzy724 said:

In my eyes, for almost $200, you only get 5-10 FPS more, maybe 20 FPS more when you try to push 4k, between the R9 390 and GTX 980. Why does everyone seem to compare the R9 390x, which I think is more of a contender for the 980 Ti, with the 980? And why do so many people think the 980 is in such a different class, just because of the price difference? I think they are really comparable cards, and that the price to performance of the R9 390, along with future-proofing of the 8GB vram makes it a much better deal, and in some cases even a better performer (give or take some overclockability)

What do you guys think in terms of comparing these 2 cards and which do you pick/prefer?

Eh, most people just do it pricing wise. So it´s usually the 390x/nano vs 980.

[Lord_Karango17]

It is compared to the 980 because of its performance. the 980ti is comparable to a fury x in performance. that changes when you look at price/ perf, but people generally look at the raw fps before looking at price/ perf.

[Mr.Meerkat]

The 390 is the competitor of the 970 while the competitor of the 980 is the 390x ( a bit cheaper) /non-x fury (about $50 more expensive than the cheapest 980) /nano (around the same price/slightly cheaper) so how on earth did you decide the 390 is the competitor of the 980??

[Matt100HP]

The 980 has never been great value, to be honest. Even back when the 970 was the "value" high end card, the 980 didn't make much financial sense. It only makes less sense now the 390 exists, though the 390 is more of a 970 competitor, with the 390X a 980 competitor. 

 

Basically, in pure performance: 980>390>970.

 

But, in price to performance 390>970>980.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

390*

 

Eh, most people just do it pricing wise. So it´s usually the 390x/nano vs 980.

Erm no 390x

[Starelementpoke]

Just now, Pearsonia said:

Erm no 390x

No 390, 390 is the one that is slightly faster than the 970, 390x is as well, but at a higher price point so you don´t compare it in the tier.

[suchamoneypit]

9 minutes ago, Frenzy724 said:

In my eyes, for almost $200, you only get 5-10 FPS more, maybe 20 FPS more when you try to push 4k, between the R9 390 and GTX 980. Why does everyone seem to compare the R9 390x, which I think is more of a contender for the 980 Ti, with the 980? And why do so many people think the 980 is in such a different class, just because of the price difference? I think they are really comparable cards, and that the price to performance of the R9 390, along with future-proofing of the 8GB vram makes it a much better deal, and in some cases even a better performer (give or take some overclockability)

What do you guys think in terms of comparing these 2 cards and which do you pick/prefer?

970<=390<390X<980<980ti

 

the 390X fits in between the 970 and 980 in terms of performance. it is not a contender for the 980ti, the Fury is.

[Unhelpful]

1 minute ago, Pearsonia said:

Erm no 390x

No... The 390 is slightly faster than the 970.

[Mr.Meerkat]

15 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Eh, most people just do it pricing wise. So it´s usually the 390x/nano vs 980.

My point...you can get a non-x fury for the same of a mid-ranged priced 980 or slightly more than the cheapest 980

 

9 minutes ago, suchamoneypit said:

970<=390<390X<980<980ti

 

the 390X fits in between the 970 and 980 in terms of performance. it is not a contender for the 980ti, the Fury is.

*970<=390<390X<980<=r9 nano<fury<fury x<980ti performance wise

 

390<=970<390x<r9 nano=980<=fury<fury x=980ti pricing wise therefore there's no real reason to go with the 980 when the nano is around the same performance wise but cheaper or if you were planning on getting like a EVGA 980 or something then you can get a fury which is quite a bit more powerful for the same price

 

[David_K]

One thing is that the 980 has overclocking headroom, while the NANO even Water cooled is limited by its power delivery. Fury on the other hand is cut down fiji, but can actually maintain clocks with higher TDP, but still little room of Overclocking. 

 

 

[DocSwag]

Don't know where you got the 390x is comparable to the 980 ti... cuz it isn't.

The 390 is a slightly better 970. The 390x is a little worse than the 980 but not by too much.

[Conan1600]

2 hours ago, suchamoneypit said:

970<=390<390X<980<980ti

 

the 390X fits in between the 970 and 980 in terms of performance. it is not a contender for the 980ti, the Fury is.

this guy is correct.

 although in shear fps the 390 eeks out barely a few over the 970, but you must take into account features as well so if you like amd or nvidia software.

 in raw power atm on dx 11 this is dead on 

as for the 980 it depends on the price you pay. on evga b stock you will see the 980 go for 350.00 to 375.00...at that price (although it takes a lot of cents) it make a lot of sense to buy it

[PlayStation 2]

16 minutes ago, Conan1600 said:

this guy is correct.

 although in shear fps the 390 eeks out barely a few over the 970, but you must take into account features as well so if you like amd or nvidia software.

 in raw power atm on dx 11 this is dead on 

as for the 980 it depends on the price you pay. on evga b stock you will see the 980 go for 350.00 to 375.00...at that price it make a lot of sense to buy it

Couldn't agree more. It's not about just raw performance, it's also about features. I'd personally get far more usage out of OpenCL and Freesync than CUDA or G-Sync, but that's just me. OP may feel differently.

[Noirgheos]

20 hours ago, David_K said:

One thing is that the 980 has overclocking headroom, while the NANO even Water cooled is limited by its power delivery. Fury on the other hand is cut down fiji, but can actually maintain clocks with higher TDP, but still little room of Overclocking. 

 

 

Yeah, except compare an OCed Fury non-x or Nano to a 1500MHz 980. They perform around the same. You do know AMD needs less "MHz" to get the same amount of frames right?

[David_K]

@Noirgheos

Fury X 

Spoiler

 

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 5.1%.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html

VS 

 

980 

Spoiler

 

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 14.6%.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html

 

 

So one gives you a 15%, and the other 5 , even if you got a "bad" 980 , it will still have more room for Overcloking, don't forget the Nano/Fury are more expensive than the 980, so saying 1500MHz 980 vs 1150 Fury is the same is not making your point better. as the 980 is performance wise against a 390X and not a GPU with 3rd more the shader units. 

 

this Maxwell clocks vs fiji clocks are bullshit, Clock scaling vs performance of each architecture does not matter at all here. what does matter as how much performance do you get when you OC it, and ye. Fiji does not do it well. 

 

And you could call me nVidia Fanboy as people on the internet usually do, The truth is that i love AMD, I prefer them as a company and the things they try to do (Freesync, OpenCL and such) but at the same time, when I upgraded my GPU few weeks a go, I had to chose between a 390 that would probably be bottle necked by my aging i5 3470 and running my S12-520 520W seasonic PSU at max load most of the time, between a card that is more efficient and would utilize my cpu better, the decision came and you are welcome to check what card I have chosen. 

 

Sure there are times when AMD needs to be defended, But they also made mistakes themselves, buying ATI when it was worth as much as AMD itself, Bulldozer... Once they were a strong competitor in the server space, now nobody wants the inefficient excuse of architecture bulldozer is at the server space,and server space are a huge market with major deals, this space is where performance/heat/power matters, and can also help to build to good reputation in the consumer space, GCN and the console design wins are the only thing that will keep them alive for now, in the hopes of zen to deliver what has been promised so much times. but at the end, the people would buy the product that is marketed better, not the one that is being better, and sadly we all know from times far before, where AMD had better CPU's and GPU's nVidia/intel always had a better market share and higher profits, all things that lead AMD where they are today, in huge debts. 

 

[Guest]

Nah.

380,380X vs 960

390 vs 970

390X,Fury,Nano vs 980

Nano,Fury X vs 980Ti (Titan X,not really but sometimes)

 

Fury X2 vs Titan X/Titan X2?

[WynLore]

3 hours ago, David_K said:

@Noirgheos

Fury X 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 5.1%.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html

VS 

 

980 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 14.6%.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html

 

 

So one gives you a 15%, and the other 5 , even if you got a "bad" 980 , it will still have more room for Overcloking, don't forget the Nano/Fury are more expensive than the 980, so saying 1500MHz 980 vs 1150 Fury is the same is not making your point better. as the 980 is performance wise against a 390X and not a GPU with 3rd more the shader units. 

 

this Maxwell clocks vs fiji clocks are bullshit, Clock scaling vs performance of each architecture does not matter at all here. what does matter as how much performance do you get when you OC it, and ye. Fiji does not do it well. 

 

And you could call me nVidia Fanboy as people on the internet usually do, The truth is that i love AMD, I prefer them as a company and the things they try to do (Freesync, OpenCL and such) but at the same time, when I upgraded my GPU few weeks a go, I had to chose between a 390 that would probably be bottle necked by my aging i5 3470 and running my S12-520 520W seasonic PSU at max load most of the time, between a card that is more efficient and would utilize my cpu better, the decision came and you are welcome to check what card I have chosen. 

 

Sure there are times when AMD needs to be defended, But they also made mistakes themselves, buying ATI when it was worth as much as AMD itself, Bulldozer... Once they were a strong competitor in the server space, now nobody wants the inefficient excuse of architecture bulldozer is at the server space,and server space are a huge market with major deals, this space is where performance/heat/power matters, and can also help to build to good reputation in the consumer space, GCN and the console design wins are the only thing that will keep them alive for now, in the hopes of zen to deliver what has been promised so much times. but at the end, the people would buy the product that is marketed better, not the one that is being better, and sadly we all know from times far before, where AMD had better CPU's and GPU's nVidia/intel always had a better market share and higher profits, all things that lead AMD where they are today, in huge debts. 

 

I honestly like AMD, I really do. And as a fan of AMD, I keep saying that AMD should've never bought ATI or atleast thought things through with their attempts. I mean, at some point, I don't know if a merging of two companies is the same or different as buying a company straight out, but damn... it looks like they can barely sustain either one. I "talk shit" about AMD for being idiots in a sense that I fucking care about them. Nvidia, though... they got the tech and the knowledge... but damn, its like they don't have much left in their heart to actually care more for gamers (Working directly [more intimately] with developers in ways such as gameworks is more of a dick move than anything, really.) and are just dicking around with their cash. I don't wanna put money into that company anymore, but if AMD just keeps on being short with their stuff... I feel that I have no choice but to go Nvidia for the least amount of headaches. Sadly, AMD's been on some dumb shit over the year/s, if not Peter Molyneux-ing their shit (not necessarily lying, just over-promising like no tomorrow to a degree) and hoping it sells. Its like both companies are trying to tell me to go back to console gaming for the hell of it.

That said, a 390 isn't entirely behind the 980. The 390 is a pretty good card, great for 1080p, pretty decent for 1440p, but at the end of the day... its still behind the 980 and even its bigger brother, the 390X. Not comparable, really.

[Nena Trinity]

4 minutes ago, WynLore said:

I honestly like AMD, I really do. And as a fan of AMD, I keep saying that AMD should've never bought ATI or atleast thought things through with their attempts. I mean, at some point, I don't know if a merging of two companies is the same or different as buying a company straight out, but damn... it looks like they can barely sustain either one. I "talk shit" about AMD for being idiots in a sense that I fucking care about them. Nvidia, though... they got the tech and the knowledge... but damn, its like they don't have much left in their heart to actually care more for gamers (Working directly [more intimately] with developers in ways such as gameworks is more of a dick move than anything, really.) and are just dicking around with their cash. I don't wanna put money into that company anymore, but if AMD just keeps on being short with their stuff... I feel that I have no choice but to go Nvidia for the least amount of headaches. Sadly, AMD's been on some dumb shit over the year/s, if not Peter Molyneux-ing their shit (not necessarily lying, just over-promising like no tomorrow to a degree) and hoping it sells. Its like both companies are trying to tell me to go back to console gaming for the hell of it.

That said, a 390 isn't entirely behind the 980. The 390 is a pretty good card, great for 1080p, pretty decent for 1440p, but at the end of the day... its still behind the 980 and even its bigger brother, the 390X. Not comparable, really.

But the R9 390X is cheaper and more value, but the true competition I guess is the R9 Nano & Fury!

[Sauron]

The 390x is only barely faster than the 390, and it is a little closer to the 980. But overall the performance difference isn't that large between them all, I'd go for the 390.

[WynLore]

14 hours ago, Nena360 said:

But the R9 390X is cheaper and more value, but the true competition I guess is the R9 Nano & Fury!

Nevertheless, I'd still call AMD idiots. They really should've never bought ATI. Its pretty much playing catch-up nowadays and even AMD being technologically ahead of Nvidia thanks to HBM, performance-wise... not really. They have a card that beats the 980 at pretty much the same price point and a card that keeps up with 980 for significantly much less in terms of price. What the hell? I'm sorry, but that seems to be more of a monetary resource drain than a profit since the 390X is barely, just barely behind the Fury, which beats the 980. If the Fury X did perform better than the Titan X, the cut-down Fury could've been the competitor for the 980 Ti... but nope, it didn't really turn out like that. Hell, the Fury Nano is even competition for the 980, but it seems to be the only card in its size that can and could fit into tiny form factor builds for gamers that want to play on ultra settings but don't like having rigs as big as something like a micro-atx build and would want something to be crammed to something as small as a Sugo SG13. Nevertheless, yeah... AMD never really should've bought ATI. The last victory I saw them in was the 290X beating the 780 and the original Titan, and I was so fucking happy when they did that.

Don't get me wrong, I love AMD ALOT. As much as I talk shit about AMD, I personally hate Nvidia's practices like proprietary bullshit (PhysX anyone? GSync? I like Shadowplay, but come on... I'd rather have Raptr DVR or whatever AMD's solution against Shadowplay because its open standard [despite performing worse if its an Nvidia card being used, but still], but for goodness sakes, sometimes I wish AMD would get their shit straight) and other shit. And yeah... they've somewhat alienated their own product line. The 980 seems pointless because if you overclock a 970, it'd perform as good as the 980, and the 980... no matter how much you overclock it, it won't even be close to the 980 Ti. The 950 and the 960 seem to be odd choices for budget cards because for around an extra $50 +/-, the 960 will pretty much always beat the 950. The Titan X seems pointless unless you can justify the extra VRAM and the price. Despite all that, they've got loyal fanboys who'd even do the marketing for them (seriously, does Nvidia even need a marketing team? Their advertisements could be the announcement from their website and the fanboys would be the ones doing the advertising for them from there...) so they aren't losing money. I got a 970 as a gift and I've been stuck with a 7970 prior to that while waiting for Polaris. I'm just using the 970 out of necessity and despite that I'm happy with it, I still won't monetarily support Nvidia for being dicks with their proprietary bullshit. It won't hurt them for going with open standards like Freesync. Hell, they could save more money while they're at it when they do so and basically earn more.

[Nena Trinity]

7 hours ago, WynLore said:

Nevertheless, I'd still call AMD idiots. They really should've never bought ATI. Its pretty much playing catch-up nowadays and even AMD being technologically ahead of Nvidia thanks to HBM, performance-wise... not really. They have a card that beats the 980 at pretty much the same price point and a card that keeps up with 980 for significantly much less in terms of price. What the hell? I'm sorry, but that seems to be more of a monetary resource drain than a profit since the 390X is barely, just barely behind the Fury, which beats the 980. If the Fury X did perform better than the Titan X, the cut-down Fury could've been the competitor for the 980 Ti... but nope, it didn't really turn out like that. Hell, the Fury Nano is even competition for the 980, but it seems to be the only card in its size that can and could fit into tiny form factor builds for gamers that want to play on ultra settings but don't like having rigs as big as something like a micro-atx build and would want something to be crammed to something as small as a Sugo SG13. Nevertheless, yeah... AMD never really should've bought ATI. The last victory I saw them in was the 290X beating the 780 and the original Titan, and I was so fucking happy when they did that.

Don't get me wrong, I love AMD ALOT. As much as I talk shit about AMD, I personally hate Nvidia's practices like proprietary bullshit (PhysX anyone? GSync? I like Shadowplay, but come on... I'd rather have Raptr DVR or whatever AMD's solution against Shadowplay because its open standard [despite performing worse if its an Nvidia card being used, but still], but for goodness sakes, sometimes I wish AMD would get their shit straight) and other shit. And yeah... they've somewhat alienated their own product line. The 980 seems pointless because if you overclock a 970, it'd perform as good as the 980, and the 980... no matter how much you overclock it, it won't even be close to the 980 Ti. The 950 and the 960 seem to be odd choices for budget cards because for around an extra $50 +/-, the 960 will pretty much always beat the 950. The Titan X seems pointless unless you can justify the extra VRAM and the price. Despite all that, they've got loyal fanboys who'd even do the marketing for them (seriously, does Nvidia even need a marketing team? Their advertisements could be the announcement from their website and the fanboys would be the ones doing the advertising for them from there...) so they aren't losing money. I got a 970 as a gift and I've been stuck with a 7970 prior to that while waiting for Polaris. I'm just using the 970 out of necessity and despite that I'm happy with it, I still won't monetarily support Nvidia for being dicks with their proprietary bullshit. It won't hurt them for going with open standards like Freesync. Hell, they could save more money while they're at it when they do so and basically earn more.

I hate all corporations... (AMD does bad thing but so does Apple, Intel & Nvidia they are all bad...)