R9 390 or GTX 970

[FreddyHunt]

It's in the title

[Octavialicious]

R9 390 for sure, unless you need nvidia specific features

[sarfraz]

R9 390 beats the gtx 970 in many games and has double the memory. 

[Daveeede]

maybe take a look at 1 of the other 1000 threads on this topic? Or at least give a bit more detail here.

[manikyath]

for what exactly?

 

- 390 has better bang for the buck, more vram, the amd ecosystem (freesync and the like)

- 970 has lower energy usage (not much, but for some it really matters), the nvidia ecosystem (g-sync, shield, specific driver features - if you need them you know them)

 

thats kinda the rough draft. while some go straight for performance per dollar (which isnt that bad of an insight into GPUs) some people -like me- have already earned back the price difference on their 970 after a year because stupid power costs, and need some very specific nvidia driver features to keep their displays working normally.

[Matt100HP]

Assuming you don't need nvidia's proprietary stuff, which I guess you don't or you wouldn't be considering a 390, get a 390.

[Moonzy]

reason for 970:

- nvidia features (Shield, Shadowplay, Gamestream co-op)

- more energy efficient

 

reason for 390:

- slightly more performance in games than 970

- slightly cheaper than 970

- have more vram (for resolutions higher than 1080p, this is a major point)

[manikyath]

9 minutes ago, Matt100HP said:

Assuming you don't need nvidia's proprietary stuff, which I guess you don't or you wouldn't be considering a 390, get a 390.

basicly that, unless he lives in an area where electricity is more expensive than diesel.

[Matt100HP]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

basicly that, unless he lives in an area where electricity is more expensive than diesel.

I'm going to assume the most people who have £250+ to spend on a GPU aren't exactly poor. 

 

That said, you are right, the 390 does drink the old eletricity juice at a greater rate than the 970. However, some of that cost can be recouped by not needing the heating on as much in whatever room your PC is in. 

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, Matt100HP said:

I'm going to assume the most people who have £250+ to spend on a GPU aren't exactly poor. 

 

That said, you are right, the 390 does drink the old eletricity juice at a greater rate than the 970. However, some of that cost can be recouped by not needing the heating on as much in whatever room your PC is in. 

well, i'll put it like this:

for me its cheaper to have a gas generator in the basement than to be hooked up to the power grid, and since i cant afford a gas generator its better for me to go for the slightly more expensive part, and have it pay the difference back over the next few months. (and after that start to be "profitable")

EDIT: oh, and i have gas heating, which yeah.. kinda dont want to swap that with something electric

[stealth80]

also consider the power usage if you opt to crossfire/sli

 

but 390 is the better card for gaming

[Humbug]

390

[Vellinious]

For 1080 gaming?  Either card will serve your purpose very well.  For resolutions higher than 1080?  I'd go with the 390.  That said, I wouldn't use a single 970 / 390 for 1440 gaming anyway, but.....that's specific to the user's needs and expectations.