GPU pegged. What gives?

[max_headroom]

As some of you may know, I evaluated the 970 and the 390 and settled with the 390.  I was reviewing my screen shots and video captures during that time and I noticed one thing.  The GPU of the AMD card was always pegged at 100% while the Nvidia GTX 970 rarely ever broke 80%.

 

I did see the vram of the 970 go up as high as 3.4GB and never stuttered.

I saw the 390's vram peak as much as 3.8GB.  To be honest it probably had more micro stutter than the 970.

 

I went with the 390 because of vram and "future proof".  Not to mention XFX did a decent job of cooling it, including the ram.

 

However, if the 970 was reaching the ceiling of its vram, had it been given more vram, it could possibly obliterate the 390.  The 390 was up to its ears in water just with 1080p (everything turned up).

I'm guessing if the 970 had a full 4gb of usable vram, nobody would have bought the 980.

 

Do I regret my purchase?  Yes and no.  Neither card is a bad choice.  However, Nvidia could have had something far far more capable had they decided not to gimp it.

 

[Sportiva]

What CPU do you have and what games are you playing?

[jjohnthedon1]

Do u have vsync on ? 

[max_headroom]

2 minutes ago, Sportiva said:

What CPU do you have and what games are you playing?

4690K ocd 4.5ghz

GTAV

Crysis 3

BF4

Metro

Ryse

[max_headroom]

2 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Do u have vsync on ? 

I leave it on during game play.

When I was evaluating both cards, I did tests with vsync on and off and did averaging on excel.

[jjohnthedon1]

Well if u have 60 fps and vsync on its because u don't need all the power

[max_headroom]

Just now, jjohnthedon1 said:

Well if u have 60 fps and vsync on its because u don't need all the power

That's exactly what baffles me.  Both cards are capable at even higher resolutions.  Naturally I was expecting the gpu of both cards to be relatively relaxed while crunching 1s and 0s for only 1080p.  So if it doesn't need all that power, why was the 390 pegged?

 

Pegged may not mean that it's struggling.  After all, the 390's performance was butter smooth.  It just surprised me to see such high usage.

[ThinkWithPortals]

7 minutes ago, max_headroom said:

 

Well, I have a 390 too and I find it slightly odd that yours is pegged at 100%. My 390 can play Rocket League on Ultra at 2560x1080 60fps butter-smooth without exceeding 60 to 70 percent usage.

Still, the games you play might be more intensive than the ones I do and if your card isn't overheating and is performing as it should I wouldn't worry.

[jjohnthedon1]

8 minutes ago, max_headroom said:

That's exactly what baffles me.  Both cards are capable at even higher resolutions.  Naturally I was expecting the gpu of both cards to be relatively relaxed while crunching 1s and 0s for only 1080p.  So if it doesn't need all that power, why was the 390 pegged?

 

Pegged may not mean that it's struggling.  After all, the 390's performance was butter smooth.  It just surprised me to see such high usage.

Do u have locked 60 fps ? 

Remove vsync and ur usage will go up to 100

the r9 390 may have lowered its clock speed but still been using all of the gpu showing 100 percent usage but at a lower clock

where as the 970 will use its full clock speed but less of its resources 

hope that makes sence 

[max_headroom]

2 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Do u have locked 60 fps ? 

Remove vsync and ur usage will go up to 100

the r9 390 may have lowered its clock speed but still been using all of the gpu showing 100 percent usage but at a lower clock

where as the 970 will use its full clock speed but less of its resources 

hope that makes sence 

It certainly does.

[max_headroom]

I must say that the 390 (XFX) is a beautiful card.  $280 after MIR, 8gb vram and a back plate.  The 970 was $290 after MIR and it was only the SC model without a back plate.

390 is an awesome deal.