graphics card

[diabloinfinnity]

gtx 970 EVGA SSC 4gb - £270. 1.14gz core

R9 390 sapphire nitro 8gb - £310. 1.04gz core

 

what would you go for and reasons why?

[alexc026]

6 minutes ago, jackreading007 said:

gtx 970 EVGA SSC 4gb - £270. 1.14gz core

R9 390 sapphire nitro 8gb - £310. 1.04gz core

 

what would you go for and reasons why?

if you want good drivers and support get the 970

390 is generally more powerful than the 970 but in some games 970 wins

also just a side note: the 390 does not fully utilize the 8gb of memory so it doesnt really make a big difference in games

id recommend the 390 but it is purely your decision

[HPWebcamAble]

If you're at 1080p resolution, I'd go with the 970 because the performance difference isn't very noticeable.

 

If you're gaming at higher than 1080p, go with the 390 for it's increased VRAM

[givegomezthegun]

Of the 2 I would take the 970.  In this specific instance, solely because it's cheaper by a decent amount.  

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, alexc026 said:

if you want good drivers and support get the 970

390 is generally more powerful than the 970 but in some games 970 wins

also just a side note: the 390 does not fully utilize the 8gb of memory so it doesnt really make a big difference in games

id recommend the 390 but it is purely your decision

But an important not is the GTX 970 only has 3.5gb of fast memory. The last 512mb is much slower to the point where it is pretty much unusable. 

[alexc026]

1 minute ago, HPWebcamAble said:

If you're at 1080p resolution, I'd go with the 970 because the performance difference isn't very noticeable.

 

If you're gaming at higher than 1080p, go with the 390 for it's increased VRAM

increased vram does not mean it will perform better at higher resolutions

thats like saying just because 390 has more vram than a 980ti that the 390 will perform better at 4k

that is not true

fps and performance is determined more by the actual gpu than the vram obviously vram does matter but to use that vram the gpu has to be powerful enough otherwise it wont take advantage of the extra vram

[HPWebcamAble]

2 minutes ago, alexc026 said:

increased vram does not mean it will perform better at higher resolutions

thats like saying just because 390 has more vram than a 980ti that the 390 will perform better at 4k

that is not true

fps and performance is determined more by the actual gpu than the vram obviously vram does matter but to use that vram the gpu has to be powerful enough otherwise it wont take advantage of the extra vram

True, neither a 390 or 970 will preform well at 4k but the 390 has the advantage.

It also makes more sense to crossfire 390's since they have plenty of VRAM

[alexc026]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_Joe_90 said:

But an important not is the GTX 970 only has 3.5gb of fast memory. The last 512mb is much slower to the point where it is pretty much unusable. 

that is true but performance hits with the 970 will only happen if you try cranking the settings in a demanding game to the max

if you use the nvidia optimized settings in geforce experience you shouldnt encounter any performance hits

[HKZeroFive]

Definitely the GTX 970. Both cards trade blows so an extra 40 quid isn't going to get you any extra performance.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, jackreading007 said:

gtx 970 EVGA SSC 4gb - £270. 1.14gz core

R9 390 sapphire nitro 8gb - £310. 1.04gz core

 

what would you go for and reasons why?

If i were you I would wait till June for Paschal/Polaris. Even if you don't want those new cards the prices of the 970 and 390 will drop.

[Legolessed]

26 minutes ago, jackreading007 said:

gtx 970 EVGA SSC 4gb - £270. 1.14gz core

R9 390 sapphire nitro 8gb - £310. 1.04gz core

 

what would you go for and reasons why?

i would go for the gtx 970. dont pay extra for nothing more than what the cheaper option is.

[Imakuni]

16 minutes ago, alexc026 said:

if you want good drivers and support get the 970

The last few Nvidia drivers have been trash. Like, shjt even for bad standards... Nvidia USED to have better drivers, I bet that they are on equal, if not worse ground now.

1 minute ago, HKZeroFive said:

Definitely the GTX 970. Both cards trade blows so an extra 40 quid isn't going to get you any extra performance.

^this.

[alexc026]

Just now, Imakuni said:

The last few Nvidia drivers have been trash. Like, shjt even for bad standards... Nvidia USED to have better drivers, I bet that they are on equal, if not worse ground now.

i have a 960 and i personally have not experienced a single driver crash or issue

the reason nvidia is better is because they have launch day drivers for most triple a games and nvidia has more driver updates than amd which means more problems fixed faster

[Imakuni]

2 minutes ago, alexc026 said:

i have a 960 and i personally have not experienced a single driver crash or issue

the reason nvidia is better is because they have launch day drivers for most triple a games and nvidia has more driver updates than amd which means more problems fixed faster

Yes, launch day... Like a certain Beta Driver that got the WHQL tag a day after release. Or breaking OpenCL support for Maxwell. Or 60 pages worth of complaints (previous were only at around 30).

[darealsoulless]

Go with the 970. Drivers are WAY better and a lot of games are now optimized with a heavy Nvidia bias, and your system won't sound like a mid-1940s multi-engine airplane.

[HKZeroFive]

4 minutes ago, alexc026 said:

i have a 960 and i personally have not experienced a single driver crash or issue

the reason nvidia is better is because they have launch day drivers for most triple a games and nvidia has more driver updates than amd which means more problems fixed faster

GeForce Experience has been nothing but a pain for me.

 

NVIDIA's drivers are more or less equal to AMD's now. The fact that AMD's Crimson drivers was a massive step up doesn't help either.

[HKZeroFive]

4 minutes ago, GR1MES said:

Go with the 970. Drivers are WAY better and a lot of games are now optimized with a heavy Nvidia bias, and your system won't sound like a mid-1940s multi-engine airplane.

Drivers are not better. NVIDIA has been severely underperforming in the drivers area lately.

 

This video completely contradicts the myth that AMD cards are loud. In this case, the 970 sounds like a dying robot:

 

[-rascal-]

22 hours ago, GR1MES said:

Go with the 970. Drivers are WAY better and a lot of games are now optimized with a heavy Nvidia bias, and your system won't sound like a mid-1940s multi-engine airplane.

My Sapphire Nitro R9-Fury would like to have a word with you.

None of the three fans turn on when the computer is idle or under light load (i.e. web browsing, Twitch.tv, etc).

Overclocked to 1125 MHz on the Core (from the stock 1020 MHz) with a +25% Power Limit, and with the GPU at 100% load (Unigine Valley), and it max out at 53*C with 50% fan speed.

 

Rainbow Six: Siege is a nVidia promoted game, yet it works perfectly fine on Max settings on my card.

 

[ivan134]

4 hours ago, -rascal- said:

My Sapphire Nitro R9-Fury would like to have a word with you.

None of the three fans turn on when the computer is idle or under light load (i.e. web browsing, Twitch.tv, etc).

Overclocked to 1125 MHz on the Core (from the stock 1020 MHz) with a +25% Power Limit, and with the GPU at 100% load (Unigine Valley), and it max out at 53*C with 50% fan speed.

 

Rainbow Six: Siege is a nVidia promoted game, yet it works perfectly fine on Max settings on my card.

 

Dont you just love it when people parrot the nonsense they hear in their echo chambers and make fools of themselves.

[don_svetlio]

On 4/24/2016 at 5:47 AM, GR1MES said:

Go with the 970. Drivers are WAY better and a lot of games are now optimized with a heavy Nvidia bias, and your system won't sound like a mid-1940s multi-engine airplane.

I strongly disagree - drivers are quite crappy (using them on my laptop - same driver, different GPU) - have had to reinstall the OS 3 times so far.