# GTX 970 or R9 390 for 1440p ???



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

Hello all and thanks in advance for the help.

I have to give away my gtx770 to my best friend as a gift and im thinking in the gtx 970 or the r9 390. Im leaning to nvidia side from long time since the gtx 500 series , even though my last amd gpu was the 5870 and cant say anything bad of it. But right now the price on the 390 is nice and the performance too but that heat for me is a concern i really dont like hot cards not one bit. the only i saw in the reviews giving a good cooling solution was the Nitro 390 ( doesnt fit my case). On the other hand the GTx 970 suffers from coil whine and 3.5gb ( i know doesnt affect 1080p) but what about 1440p??? i dont wanna find myself returning the card and go like i ve read a lot of complains , go through the rma situation like 3 or 4 times. my budget is extremely hold to top $350 if i can pay less will be great. Right now im playing at 1080 but planning on getting a 1440p monitor soon. i really wanna know your comments and opinions on this matter since i know here are 390 and gtx 970 owners. theres the drivers matter too. love EVGA from nvidia and Sapphire from amd, anyway msi and ga are next, asus at last.

note( hate when i see a gpu getting close to 80C )


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Oct 10, 2015)

wow. maybe we can be best friend from now so you can give me gpu too in the future. lol.. kidding

on topic, i think you should just get 970. as you said you are leaning towards nvidia cause if you do get AMD, you will just keep blaming AMD for any driver issues blah blah..


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 10, 2015)

jormungand said:


> Hello all and thanks in advance for the help.
> 
> I have to give away my gtx770 to my best friend as a gift and im thinking in the gtx 970 or the r9 390. Im leaning to nvidia side from long time since the gtx 500 series , even though my last amd gpu was the 5870 and cant say anything bad of it. But right now the price on the 390 is nice and the performance too but that heat for me is a concern i really dont like hot cards not one bit. the only i saw in the reviews giving a good cooling solution was the Nitro 390 ( doesnt fit my case). On the other hand the GTx 970 suffers from coil whine and 3.5gb ( i know doesnt affect 1080p) but what about 1440p??? i dont wanna find myself returning the card and go like i ve read a lot of complains , go through the rma situation like 3 or 4 times. my budget is extremely hold to top $350 if i can pay less will be great. Right now im playing at 1080 but planning on getting a 1440p monitor soon. i really wanna know your comments and opinions on this matter since i know here are 390 and gtx 970 owners. theres the drivers matter too. love EVGA from nvidia and Sapphire from amd, anyway msi and ga are next, asus at last.
> 
> note( hate when i see a gpu getting close to 80C )



Well lets look at a couple of things:

1: Normally at stock the R9 390 is the better card and when overclocked to their respective maxes stay on par with a slight edge to the R9 390 (I believe at around 1450mhz for the GTX 970 vs 1175mhz for the R9 390 the 390 was very slightly ahead on average from what I saw on a few videos)
2: The GTX 970 uses less power by about ~50watts depending on the clocks of either card, but its also up to the coolers a lot of times when it comes to how much heat is dissipated as there are some really good coolers on the 390 and 970 while there are also bad coolers on both sides.
3: Drivers are a non-issue, both are equivalent at this point so your not gaining or losing anything by picking a side on the drivers at least
4: The 3.5gb issue vs the 8gb its obvious who has more and which is better but its all dependent on the games of course and if you plan to SLI/CFX possibly in the future.

If you want a cool and quiet R9 390, get the XFX R9 390 DD.  The reviews put the new designed cooler as a very cool and quiet card even overclocked to the max.
newegg sale of the card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150728&cm_re=R9_390-_-14-150-728-_-Product

Review of the card
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/...ipation_8gb_video_card_review/10#.Vhkr2jZdEuU

@Aquinus seems to enjoy his R9 390 and it stays very cool as well

If you asked me which I would choose of the two cards, I would get the 390 hands down.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

night.fox said:


> wow. maybe we can be best friend from now so you can give me gpu too in the future. lol.. kidding
> 
> on topic, i think you should just get 970. as you said you are leaning towards nvidia cause if you do get AMD, you will just keep blaming AMD for any driver issues blah blah..


Lol hes like my brother and the godfather of my son. Btw i will not blame amd blah blah lmao, but just was putting related issues on the table that many people talk about.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Well lets look at a couple of things:
> 
> 1: Normally at stock the R9 390 is the better card and when overclocked to their respective maxes stay on par with a slight edge to the R9 390 (I believe at around 1450mhz for the GTX 970 vs 1175mhz for the R9 390 the 390 was very slightly ahead on average from what I saw on a few videos)
> 2: The GTX 970 uses less power by about ~50watts depending on the clocks of either card, but its also up to the coolers a lot of times when it comes to how much heat is dissipated as there are some really good coolers on the 390 and 970 while there are also bad coolers on both sides.
> ...


Xfx uhhh i just remember bad things my only two dead gpus were xfx. I prefer msi but runs hotter, i watched jayztwocents review and temperature was 80c load. Remember my case is a rosewill challenger the air flow is decent.


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 10, 2015)

Sapphire Nitro 390. It has the best cooler.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

buildzoid said:


> Sapphire Nitro 390. It has the best cooler.


Lol i know but my case is a tuna can i cant go nitro. That cooler is bigger than a subway sandwich


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 10, 2015)

jormungand said:


> Lol i know but my case is a tuna can i cant go nitro.


The gigabyte 390 is by far the worst since it has locked voltage control. The MSI is your best option you'll probably have to tweak the fan profile if you wanna stay bellow 80C


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 10, 2015)

First I'll say that when I ran a single GTX970, it handled my 1440p screen just fine.  I have yet to find a game that wouldn't run smooth on a single GTX970 on it.*  The only reason I went SLI was to get 120Hz smoothly.

I would go for the GTX970. A 390 uses about 70w more power, and that translates into more heat. And that number gets bigger when you start adjusting voltages. Plus the 970 is a better overclocker.  The 390 overclocking results are all over the place, I've seen some that can't break 1100, and I've seen some that do 1250.  It is a big gamble, and yeah the ones that do 1250 hang with the 970 overclocked, but the ones that can't even do 1190 are blown away by an overclocked 970.  The 970 on the other hand is a lot more consistent with overclocking.  I have yet to find one that can't do 1450, and most can hit 1500.  And the 970s run so cool.  Even my mITX GTX970 with a single fan manages to stay around 70°C under full load with a fan quiet enough that I can't hear it in a close case.

Edit: *On max or near max settings.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> @Aquinus seems to enjoy his R9 390 and it stays very cool as well


I can't say I've been disappointed, that's for sure. The Witcher 3 isn't exactly, playable in surround but, it's smooth as butter at 1080p. I was able to get a smooth experience out of FarCry 4 in surround though. It does get warm and uses a good bit of power. Mine stays cool pretty well, even at stock fan profiles because my Antec 1200 moves a crap ton of air. The air coming out of my chassis gets very warm under load but, that's not just GPU either.

I've said this to other people and I'll say it to you as well. I don't think you'll be disappointed with what's out right now with either. That's is a big question as to the longevity of the 3.5GB thing whereas the 390 has 8GB of VRAM. Given the number of TMUs on the 390, I wouldn't dismiss that 8GB being worthless without crossfire as FarCry 4 just barely skimmed 4GB in some scenes and it was running pretty smoothly in surround.

Both are good GPUs and will do you well but for me there is lingering concern about the longevity of 4GB of VRAM. I got my first 6870 thinking 1GB was fine and a second thinking 1GB was fine when I could have gotten a couple more years out of them if they had 2GB instead of 1. So I've already had the VRAM problem and the 390 was an attempt to avoid it which is part of the reason why I got it over the 970.

I also would like to think that my contribution to AMD will help fund them to make some better hardware down the road. It's not like the 390 is bad.


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 10, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I would go for the GTX970. A 390 uses about 70w more power, and that translates into more heat. And that number gets bigger when you start adjusting voltages. Plus the 970 is a better overclocker.  The 390 overclocking results are all over the place, I've seen some that can't break 1100, and I've seen some that do 1250.  It is a big gamble, and yeah the ones that do 1250 hang with the 970 overclocked, but the ones that can't even do 1190 are blown away by an overclocked 970.



Unless you have one of the voltage locked 390's, all the ones I've seen (unless you find the bottom of the barrel one) will do ~1150.











jormungand said:


> Xfx uhhh i just remember bad things my only two dead gpus were xfx. I prefer msi but runs hotter, i watched jayztwocents review and temperature was 80c load. Remember my case is a rosewill challenger the air flow is decent.


Well, try the MSI then as those seem to get a lot of praise.  But the auto fan is a little meh on the card so I would personally set my own fan curve if I was you.

Also I looked up the case you had, are you sure the Nitro won't fit, I don't think its that big?


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Unless you have one of the voltage locked 390's, all the ones I've seen (unless you find the bottom of the barrel one) will do ~1150.


 
Like I said, it varies a lot more on the 390 than the 970.  I've had a 390 that, regardless of how much voltage I gave it, it wouldn't go past 1100.  I've had a 390 that did 1250.  Sure, you can probably assume 1150 is going to be possible in most cases with voltage increases, but will a 390@1150 still compete with a 970@1500?  Even in Jay's video, the 970 overclocked is right there with the 390, and his 390 is at 1200 and the 970 is only at 1442.

Then, again, with voltage increase comes a very large heat increase.  Taking cards that are already struggling to stay in the 70°C range with reasonably quiet fans and upping the voltage gets you very close to 80°C+ with audible fans.

So what it comes down to is stock or overclocked the performance between the two is very similar, not anywhere near enough where a game that isn't smooth on one will be on the other. But the 390 puts out more heat, uses more power, and takes up more room in the case, and is almost always louder(especially when overclocked).  The only advantage is the 8GB, and at this point that is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 10, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Like I said, it varies a lot more on the 390 than the 970.  I've had a 390 that, regardless of how much voltage I gave it, it wouldn't go past 1100.  I've had a 390 that did 1250.  Sure, you can probably assume 1150 is going to be possible in most cases with voltage increases, but will a 390@1150 still compete with a 970@1500?  Even in Jay's video, the 970 overclocked is right there with the 390, and his 390 is at 1200 and the 970 is only at 1442.


As he said in the video, that was where the 970 was stable so it does vary from card to card.  But overclocking also has diminishing returns after awhile as well which shows considering how much overclocking is needed for it to compete with the 390 receiving a 150mhz increase while considering stock for stock the 390 is better.  It also comes down to how long the OP intends to keep the card and SLI/CFX.  Point is of the two cards they are both equal on most grounds with one containing more VRAM in exchange for a little higher power consumption.

Its a question of which is a better value.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 10, 2015)

jormungand said:


> Hello all and thanks in advance for the help.
> 
> I have to give away my gtx770 to my best friend as a gift and im thinking in the gtx 970 or the r9 390. Im leaning to nvidia side from long time since the gtx 500 series , even though my last amd gpu was the 5870 and cant say anything bad of it. But right now the price on the 390 is nice and the performance too but that heat for me is a concern i really dont like hot cards not one bit. the only i saw in the reviews giving a good cooling solution was the Nitro 390 ( doesnt fit my case). On the other hand the GTx 970 suffers from coil whine and 3.5gb ( i know doesnt affect 1080p) but what about 1440p??? i dont wanna find myself returning the card and go like i ve read a lot of complains , go through the rma situation like 3 or 4 times. my budget is extremely hold to top $350 if i can pay less will be great. Right now im playing at 1080 but planning on getting a 1440p monitor soon. i really wanna know your comments and opinions on this matter since i know here are 390 and gtx 970 owners. theres the drivers matter too. love EVGA from nvidia and Sapphire from amd, anyway msi and ga are next, asus at last.
> 
> note( hate when i see a gpu getting close to 80C )



Your not the only one concerned about 3.5gb

*Nvidia recently published a DX 12 Do's and Don't's*



			
				GameWorks said:
			
		

> Don’t rely on being able to allocate all GPU memory in one go
> 
> Depending on the underlying GPU architecture the memory may or may not be segmented



The memory management shifts to the application in DX12.  If you plan on keeping it well into the DX12


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Point is of the two cards they are both equal on most grounds with one containing more VRAM in exchange for a little higher power consumption.


 
70-100w is not "a little".  That's 40-60% more power, thats a lot.

But you are right, it does come down to which is the better value.  The OP has to weigh the drawbacks, because performance is basically the same.  The 390 definitely has more drawebacks(heat, noise, power consumption, size) than the 970(less VRAM, which doesn't affect performance).  And at the same time, the 970 is cheaper(at least at newegg) with an eVGA model going for $280 and a Zotac for $290, while the cheapest 390 I could find on newegg is $320.


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 10, 2015)

Performance is almost the same, but the 8GB card may be more usable in the ~future~ with the advent of DX12 gaming.
Future games may be written to take advantage of more RAM. (this is bound to happen) If that happens, 8GB will be what we all want.

The GTX is cooler and uses less power, but you may need to replace it sooner than you will the R9-390 card.

That Rosewill case can accommodate an 11.3 inch GPU.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 10, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> the 970 is cheaper(at least at newegg) with an eVGA model going for $280


Yeah, if you're planning on getting a refurbished GPU. All of the EVGA cards new start at ~320 USD on NewEgg. I would say the price on them is about the same.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

Well im planning on having the card for at least 2years( i cant change it in a year cuz if i do my wife sentenced me to death) and cxf/sli is not an option for me.


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 10, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> 70-100w is not "a little".  That's 40-60% more power, thats a lot.
> 
> But you are right, it does come down to which is the better value.  The OP has to weigh the drawbacks, because performance is basically the same.  The 390 definitely has more drawebacks(heat, noise, power consumption, size) than the 970(less VRAM, which doesn't affect performance).  And at the same time, the 970 is cheaper(at least at newegg) with an eVGA model going for $280 and a Zotac for $290, while the cheapest 390 I could find on newegg is $320.


Uhh...That's not true...

GTX 970 has less VRAM (Including a segmented VRAM system), Lower Stock performance, Coil Whine, and needs significant overclocking to match small overclocking from the R9 390.  Plus its more like 40 watts different dude to 50 depending on clocks but that's the same for *Both* cards when comparing their power consumption.



Aquinus said:


> Yeah, if you're planning on getting a refurbished GPU. All of the EVGA cards new start at ~320 USD on NewEgg. I would say the price on them is about the same.


Well there is the MSI Titanium edition for 309 on newegg new but no idea on that one or the cooler on it (Though its MSI so I am sure its fine).



jormungand said:


> Well im planning on having the card for at least 2years( i cant change it in a year cuz if i do my wife sentenced me to death) and cxf/sli is not an option for me.


In most situations, the 390 at that performance bracket and price bracket is still the better option especially if you want to keep it for awhile.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> Performance is almost the same, but the 8GB card may be more usable in the ~future~ with the advent of DX12 gaming.
> Future games may be written to take advantage of more RAM. (this is bound to happen) If that happens, 8GB will be what we all want.
> 
> The GTX is cooler and uses less power, but you may need to replace it sooner than you will the R9-390 card.
> ...


The card is 13.2inches


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

The only gtx970 i havent read about coilwhine is the msi 10 ME ,but its close to $350


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 10, 2015)

jormungand said:


> The only gtx970 i havent read about coilwhine is the msi 10 ME ,but its close to $350



The 100ME from MSI is the same PCB as the gaming if the gaming has coil whine then the 100ME does too it's just that no one has gotten a card that does it yet.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

Im.not planning on oc neither. I just wanna play for at least 2 years maybe a little more with some eyecandy at 1440.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 10, 2015)

buildzoid said:


> The 100ME from MSI is the same PCB as the gaming if the gaming has coil whine then the 100ME does too it's just that no one has gotten a card that does it yet.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 10, 2015)

i hate that noise


Xzibit said:


>


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Yeah, if you're planning on getting a refurbished GPU. All of the EVGA cards new start at ~320 USD on NewEgg. I would say the price on them is the same.


That is why I posted the Zotac. The 970 is cheaper.


GhostRyder said:


> Uhh...That's not true...
> 
> GTX 970 has less VRAM (Including a segmented VRAM system), Lower Stock performance, Coil Whine, and needs significant overclocking to match small overclocking from the R9 390.  Plus its more like 40 watts different dude to 50 depending on clocks but that's the same for *Both* cards when comparing their power consumption.



Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?













jormungand said:


> The only gtx970 i havent read about coilwhine is the msi 10 ME ,but its close to $350



I think coil whine was largely a first batch issue. I don't have noticeable coil whine on any of my 970s.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 11, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?



Its 70w on the method its being tested



			
				W1zzard said:
			
		

> Average: Metro: Last Light at 1920x1080 because it is representative of a typical gaming power draw. The average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen) is used. In order to heat up the card, the benchmark is run once without measuring power consumption.



Here is another test at a higher resolution.











If he is planning to play at 1440p in the future with the purchase of a new monitor, power consumption difference isn't that much.

AMD CCC also includes FRTC if his monitor is a set frequency he can enable it for extra power savings if that's a concern.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 11, 2015)

i wish i was your friend....im actually in the market for a GPU, and too broke to buy one... poor me.  the envy is real

as far as the issue in the title, id go with the 390 for the RAM, and unless im mistaken it has more HP...not much more, but more, and i thing they cost less, or there about the same price...yeah the 390 is the better deal.


----------



## NC37 (Oct 11, 2015)

At this point I wonder if newtekie works for nVidia because he's got a serious hard on for 970s...lol

I wouldn't even come close to considering a 970. Just because of the VRAM issue. I'm a nVidia user right now too and I don't mind their cards, but I've known a lot of people who dumped their 970s for 980s or who can attest how bad that performance hit is when it comes. If someone is telling you that it is a non issue and that 4GB is all you need right now, then they are likely a person that is prone to dumping their cards every gen and have the money to waste even if they make a bad purchase. 

The 3.5GB issue is going to be a worse problem within a year or two. The fact that it is already a problem now is not a good sign. Games are going to push past 4GB. You can count on that.

The 390 is also not a bad performer. Perhaps in a couple of titles a 970 can beat it but if you look at the majority of titles you'll often find 390s going head to head with 980s. Especially overclocked models. Clock it and you've got a 390X. The performance gap is not that big. You are also using a res that is higher than 1080 so i'd expect to see the VRAM issue affecting you sooner in the future. 1080 gamers and under might skirt by a little longer but higher than that, no way.

However, both gens are stopgap gens right now. If you can wait half a year, I'd wait. Much better boards coming. I'm not surprised that nVidia is canning their 2GB 960s because it is painfully clear how underspecced their cards are in the VRAM area. If you have to buy now, I'd buy 6GB and up cards.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> Its 70w on the method its being tested
> 
> Here is another test at a higher resolution.



It is 70w, even more when overclocking.  W1z's has probably the most accurate power measurement tests out there.  At the very least they are way more accurate than any review that still uses total system power.



NC37 said:


> At this point I wonder if newtekie works for nVidia because he's got a serious hard on for 970s...lol



If it helps ease your mind any, I've got more AMD GPUs than nVidia.  I have so many 970s because I got them cheap from people that seemed to think the memory issue was a big deal and wanted to sell the cards off.  Works for me, now I get to fold with them.



NC37 said:


> I wouldn't even come close to considering a 970. Just because of the VRAM issue.



It isn't really an issue.  Even at 4k the cards work beautifully.  The memory thing was blown way out of proportion.



NC37 said:


> who can attest how bad that performance hit is when it comes.



I have yet to find actual 970 uses saying the problem is really bad.  I see a lot of people that never even owned 970s saying the problem is terrible, I've seen people trying to run GTA:V of their hard drive try to blame the horrible stuttering on the 970, with screen shots of the memory used not even being anywhere near 3.5GB point.  The only game I ever had an issue with was Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra-HD texture pack installed, and that uses a down right stupid amount of VRAM for no noticeable visual benefit.  It was mainly just created for the purpose of using stupid amounts of VRAM.



NC37 said:


> The 3.5GB issue is going to be a worse problem within a year or two. The fact that it is already a problem now is not a good sign.



It isn't an issue now, and it likely won't be an issue in the future.  The GPU is going to run out of horsepower before the VRAM becomes an issue.



NC37 said:


> The 390 is also not a bad performer. Perhaps in a couple of titles a 970 can beat it but if you look at the majority of titles you'll often find 390s going head to head with 980s.



Actually, as I already pointed out, it is within 1-2% overall.  It doesn't come close to going head to head with the 980s in the majority of titles.  That is just completely BS.



NC37 said:


> You are also using a res that is higher than 1080 so i'd expect to see the VRAM issue affecting you sooner in the future. 1080 gamers and under might skirt by a little longer but higher than that, no way.



Yeah right, look at some of the performance analyses W1z does.  The Witcher III at 4K, maxed out, uses 1.75GB.  And that game looks freaking awesome. There has to be something to the fact that W1z has, on multiple occasions, recommended 970 SLI for 4K over other options like the Titan X.  He doesn't seem to think the memory is an issue. But, yeah, we're really going to need a shit ton of RAM if you want to go over 1080...:rollseyes:



NC37 said:


> I'm not surprised that nVidia is canning their 2GB 960s because it is painfully clear how underspecced their cards are in the VRAM area.



For 1080p the 960 is specced just fine.  And where is this news that nVidia is canning the 960?  Because I haven't heard it.

Anyway, I've said my piece.  Presented the OP with the information he needs, so I'm done here.  No point in arguing back and forth.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 11, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> It is 70w, even more when overclocking.  W1z's has probably the most accurate power measurement tests out there.  At the very least they are way more accurate than any review that still uses total system power.



If all you do is play Metro Last Light @ 1080p then they are the most accurate there is.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 11, 2015)

Go with a 290X if you can find one, else take the 390. Why? Because it has simply a LOT more power than a 970 in DX12 and some DX11 games. 4 (real) or 8 GB Ram is also a plus.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/

a only 1000 MHz clocked 290 wins against a high clocked 970 in the new Star Wars. 390s are clocked even higher. 290X too and are about 10-15% faster in that game.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/

here a 970 gets completely destroyed in Fable, a viable upcoming DX12 game. No strategy game like Ashes and not "powered by AMD". Simply the vastly bigger shader array of the 290/390 / 290X/390X is what matters here. Asynchronous compute will set GeForce cards behind even more. The 980 Ti is a exception in that matter, but of no relevance here. 

That said, I'd never buy a 970. Good cards for good prices now are 290X / 390 and 780 Ti. My 2 cents.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Go with a 290X if you can find one, else take the 390. Why? Because it has simply a LOT more power than a 970 in DX12 and some DX11 games. 4 (real) or 8 GB Ram is also a plus.
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/
> 
> ...



ty but in no scenario ill pick a 290x. i need a new gpu by november thats why i aint waiting for pascal release. too much time without pc. and having the options of the gtx 970 and the 390 out is what im focused on. Maybe by the time im changing again my gpu the dx12 matter is already no mistery for anyone and we can decide wich way to go and wich gpu performs the best at 1440 and if the vram more than 4gb is relevant or not. but again 290x right now uhmmmm no thanks , even cheap ill not even think about it.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 11, 2015)

Seems you don't like the 290X, can I ask why? It's the best card by far for about 250-300$ or €.  Else I'd take the 390, simple. About DX12/DX11: DX11 390 and 970 are about equal in most games, I'd still favour 390 here. DX12 the 390 can only go up because of how the architecture of AMD works, its by far in the favour of the GCN based cards. The 970 can't go up because it's already at 100% speed in DX11 usage, I'd say, 95% sure about this too. You have to buy for now and the future, for me clearly the 390 wins because it's (far) better in DX12 and about equal or faster in DX11.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 11, 2015)

buildzoid said:


> The 100ME from MSI is the same PCB as the gaming if the gaming has coil whine then the 100ME does too it's just that no one has gotten a card that does it yet.



No coil whine on the 100ME 970 in our house.  It's an excellent card, but I've got to give the nod to the R9 390 as the better card.

I tend to think though, as @newtekie1 points out, the desire for more and more VRAM is blown out of proportion, as is the 3.5GB/4GB VRAM issue of the 970.

The Witcher 3 is proof that a properly coded game doesn't need to use massive amounts of VRAM.  I tend to believe that more and more developers will learn to code more efficiently, keeping the exploaive perceived need growth of VRAM from continuing to grow.


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 11, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> That is why I posted the Zotac. The 970 is cheaper.
> 
> 
> Check again, stock performance puts both within 1-2% of each other. So basically the same. Also, it isn't 40-50w, it is 70w. Is it really that hard to check the review on this site before being rude?
> ...


I don't believe anything I said was directly rude, however I do believe your statements towards 970 vs 390 debates a bit too one sided since you keep claiming the 970 is just in every way superior minus VRAM which is not true.  Even the chart you showed above places it above the 970 at stock performance.  Not to mention that is one card and its specifically one of the lower variants of the 390 (Similar to the gigabyte one).  Most other sites show a much more different light (Plus its an OC variant that is cheap compared to a reference 970 even if its not much OCed they generally overcompensate for them).

Plus all other reviews out there seem to put them closer to 50watt difference give or take.  not claiming his are wrong, just claiming its all dependent on the cards supplied and the games tested etc.

The point is for the OP's benefit so we should suggest the best performing card for that benefit (Or what fits the OP's requirements).



rtwjunkie said:


> No coil whine on the 100ME 970 in our house.  It's an excellent card, but I've got to give the nod to the R9 390 as the better card.
> 
> I tend to think though, as @newtekie1 points out, the desire for more and more VRAM is blown out of proportion, as is the 3.5GB/4GB VRAM issue of the 970.
> 
> The Witcher 3 is proof that a properly coded game doesn't need to use massive amounts of VRAM.  I tend to believe that more and more developers will learn to code more efficiently, keeping the exploaive perceived need growth of VRAM from continuing to grow.



While I share your ideals I doubt it will happen.  Its going to come down to what is handed to developers and with time becoming more and more of a constraint we get sloppy coding.  Games could use less VRAM but they continue to increase and they probably will continue forward unfortunately.


----------



## PCGamerDR (Oct 11, 2015)

I had the same question a few months ago and went with the r9 290.

I'd say you could try to find a brand new r9 290 instead of the 390 as it could be a LOT cheaper than the 390 and possibly the 970 but yeah the 970 has weird vRAM amounts with less power consumption and better OC while the 390 has more vRAM with slightly higher power consumption and less OC headroom. The only game that has filled about 3.9Gb vRAM @2560x1600 is Shadow of Mordor, TW3 and Mad Max get up to 2.4GB.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 11, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> While I share your ideals I doubt it will happen.  Its going to come down to what is handed to developers and with time becoming more and more of a constraint we get sloppy coding.  Games could use less VRAM but they continue to increase and they probably will continue forward unfortunately.



If ARK is any indication they pretty much gave up until UE does it for them.  While you have Lionhead actively submitting their changes to UE and UE adding it to their engine.  DX12 is going to further separate the good & bad developers.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 11, 2015)

970 or 980.  It's why I just spent 500can for a 970 even though thats more than I have to live on for a month after rent.  Charge cards are nice!


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Seems you don't like the 290X, can I ask why? It's the best card by far for about 250-300$ or €.  Else I'd take the 390, simple. About DX12/DX11: DX11 390 and 970 are about equal in most games, I'd still favour 390 here. DX12 the 390 can only go up because of how the architecture of AMD works, its by far in the favour of the GCN based cards. The 970 can't go up because it's already at 100% speed in DX11 usage, I'd say, 95% sure about this too. You have to buy for now and the future, for me clearly the 390 wins because it's (far) better in DX12 and about equal or faster in DX11.


is just a matter of spending money in new tech. for me 250/300 for a 290x right now is like ... why i didnt payed 300/330 for a 390 or the gtx 970 if i had the money. remember i dont take the r9 290x cuz ill not change my card at least for 2 years. and those two are more reliable for the upcoming games/dx12 etc.....


----------



## Devon68 (Oct 11, 2015)

From your posts it seems you already made up your mind for the R9 390 so it's only the matter of which brand to choose.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Devon68 said:


> From your posts it seems you already made up your mind for the R9 390 so it's only the matter of which brand to choose.


LOLOL!! not yet thinking on MSI both sides.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 11, 2015)

night.fox said:


> if you do get AMD, you will just keep blaming AMD for any driver issues blah blah..


well ... no, in all the years i used a AMD GPU i had no driver complain unlike my current period with a Nvidia GPU (980) ahah! (latest AMD GPU was a 290 for me )

tho i would also recommend Nvidia in that instance except that i would recommend a 980 for 1440p, as i use DSR 1323p which is close to 1440p
don't settle for less than 4gb ... ok ... bad joke  tho i hope you don't plan to run a 1440p heavily moded full detail Skyrim on a 970 
or a 390/390X since both are above (slightly) a 970 and no ... i will not "cost" you a lot on your yearly electricity bill if you go AMD (that's a "half" cliché, it will cost more but it's marginal )

edit: "LOLOL!" ... maybe you should stop DOTA after sleep and start LOL instead  (joking joking )


----------



## Ebo (Oct 11, 2015)

OP

If you can wait until next generation comes out, then you can have my card for free, just pay the shipping.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 11, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> tho i hope you don't plan to run a 1440p heavily moded full detail Skyrim on a 970
> or a 390/390X since both are above (slightly) a 970


High res textures in Skyrim at 5760x1080 ran flawlessly on my 390. Almost never would it fully peg out the GPU or consume more than 2.5-3GB of VRAM. Just saying.

For what it's worth, Farcry 4 did on rare occasions touch 4GB of VRAM in surround. I seriously don't think we're that far off from some games taking advantage of that. Even some UE4 demos that have run flawlessly on my 390 have used over 3GB of VRAM. The Witcher 3 looks good because it's a lot of post processing, tessellation, and geometry effects whereas a game like Farcry 4 is a little more texture heavy so, it depends on the game.

My simple point is that I don't think it will be long before we see games utilizing more than 4GB of VRAM and AMD cards tend to be a little heavier handed with the number of TMUs than ROPs so, it's entirely possible that as more VRAM is used for texturing that loss in performance may be relatively minimal if there are resources in the GPU getting under utilized because all of the effects TW3 relies on that is more compute/geometry related as opposed to texture related.

The 390 and 970 both have their strong points, best not to lose sight of that. 970 has more pixel pumping power, that's without a doubt but, it doesn't compare to the 390's compute or texturing capability so, it depends on the game and how much AA you're applying because nVidia's faster ROPs tend to give them an advantage on things like AA.


----------



## Flow (Oct 11, 2015)

Well jormungand , I just ordered the msi 390 Gaming card. I too was looking between 970 and 390 cards. But overall the 390 cards seemed to fare slightly better in various reviews.
I'm not one of the persons that believe more than 3GB video ram will be needed for future games, but I'm satisfied with 8GB nonetheless.
The power requirements is different though, the 390 consumes/needs more than the 970 cards. With the small difference in performance this could be a dealbreaker, if you're into that or have a psu that's barely cutting your needs.

If you go 390, I would recommend the msi card, which seems to do well overall according to various reviews. Noise levels and cooling seems adequate for this card.
As for the 970, I looked at the asus strix, which seems a good card also.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 11, 2015)

Flow said:


> If you go 390, I would recommend the msi card, which seems to do well overall according to various reviews. Noise levels and cooling seems adequate for this card.


I would have to say that is an accurate assessment as an owner of one. Big card is big though. The heatsink and card alone take up 2 slots, the partial use of the third is really just for the shroud and the fans. Either way, it's a decent cooler.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Oct 11, 2015)

jormungand said:


> theres the drivers matter too.


If drivers matter don't even consider AMD.  Their driver support sucks.  They only release drivers every 4+ months!  And the company is in serious danger of going under, which means no driver support at all.


----------



## happita (Oct 11, 2015)

Either get the Sapphire NITRO R9 390 or the MSI R9 390 and be done with it already..

I would personally lean towards the Sapphire because every card I've owned by them have been nothing short of great.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Ebo said:


> OP
> 
> If you can wait until next generation comes out, then you can have my card for free, just pay the shipping.


Many thanks man but i cant wait ..... really apreciate your help many thanks again but i myself am a vicious addict to at least spend one hour playing everyday. I can go to bed without it or ill be feeling in the morning a emptiness in me, seriously.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

happita said:


> Either get the Sapphire NITRO R9 390 or the MSI R9 390 and be done with it already..
> 
> I would personally lean towards the Sapphire because every card I've owned by them have been nothing short of great.


The nitro was my first choice believe me. But it doesn't. FIT!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Well i think im gonna go amd this time. I have till November and will be a great moment to buy something with the blackfriday deals at newegg. Maybe i can save a little who knows, for my monitor and grab a nice one. Msi is the one ill be buying since people here have it and say good things about it, and i watched jayztwocents video and the fact that msi cools the vram directly and the other components convinced me.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

Or just maybe see te msi gtx 970 for $300 or less and grab a shotgun and kill the beast. I have a one month window so lets seeeeeeeee . THANKS EVERYONE i hope this helps everyone who was in my same exact position. Gpus wars is gooddddddd low the prices already newegg!!!! Im cominggggg. 
Posdata:: any advise on a 1440 monitor or i just have to make another thread????


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=24-236-453
Or this one
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=9SIA24G2U48831
What you think???


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> well ... no, in all the years i used a AMD GPU i had no driver complain unlike my current period with a Nvidia GPU (980) ahah! (latest AMD GPU was a 290 for me )
> 
> tho i would also recommend Nvidia in that instance except that i would recommend a 980 for 1440p, as i use DSR 1323p which is close to 1440p
> don't settle for less than 4gb ... ok ... bad joke  tho i hope you don't plan to run a 1440p heavily moded full detail Skyrim on a 970
> ...


Dota is dota and LOL is LOL never LOL, lol
Ill never be LOL you get it lol.


----------



## RCoon (Oct 11, 2015)

jormungand said:


> Dota is dota and LOL is LOL never LOL, lol
> Ill never be LOL you get it lol.



Perhaps I should remind you that the forum rules dictate that you use the edit button. No double or triple posting, let alone six posts in a row.

Theres an edit button as well as a multi quote button.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 11, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Perhaps I should remind you that the forum rules dictate that you use the edit button. No double or triple posting, let alone six posts in a row.
> 
> Theres an edit button as well as a multi quote button.


My apologies sir , just got anxious ill take in mind rules for next time. thanks


----------



## Flow (Oct 11, 2015)

Eric_Cartman said:


> If drivers matter don't even consider AMD.  Their driver support sucks.  They only release drivers every 4+ months!  And the company is in serious danger of going under, which means no driver support at all.


Let me see, 15.4, 15,5, 15.7 then 15.7.1 and where are we now?
Oh wait, you were joking 

Goodluck on your purchase jormungand.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Oct 11, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> First I'll say that when I ran a single GTX970, it handled my 1440p screen just fine.  *I have yet to find a game that wouldn't run smooth on a single GTX970* on it.



Uh, Shadow of Mordor for one. I've seen it cause pretty bad stutter even at 1080p due to the VRAM cap. Granted there aren't a whole lot of games that use THAT much VRAM, but there are a fair number of poorly optimized games still being released, and going forward, I wouldn't feel too good having 3.5GB for 1440p.

At 1440p or higher, the 390 starts showing it's value.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 12, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> Uh, Shadow of Mordor for one.





newtekie1 said:


> The only game I ever had an issue with was Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra-HD texture pack installed, and that uses a down right stupid amount of VRAM for no noticeable visual benefit. It was mainly just created for the purpose of using stupid amounts of VRAM.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 12, 2015)

> is just a matter of spending money in new tech. for me 250/300 for a 290x right now is like ... why i didnt payed 300/330 for a 390 or the gtx 970 if i had the money. remember i dont take the r9 290x cuz ill not change my card at least for 2 years. and those two are more reliable for the upcoming games/dx12 etc.....



Well, I'd bet before the 4 GB of a 290X starts to be too less for 1440p the card is either broken or too slow. 8 GB is totaly overrated. Basically you fall for their marketing, it's useless now 99% of times and I'm sure will be (with these cards) in future, because they are too weak in the distant future when 8 GB is really needed. So, thats why I said go and buy the 290X. And about 970: the 970 isn't really good for DX12. There are 2 benchmarks and both show that all Maxwell cards besides 980 Ti suck in DX12. And the 970 sucks in some DX11 games too - there are no games where the Hawaii-based Radeon cards suck, other than Project Cars maybe, but I don't care about that game, because they messed it up. 

Whatever, if you made your mind up for a 390 I'd go with a MSI or Gigabyte Windforce one. MSI clearly needs some more power and is bigger, because of the higher core frequency. The Gigabyte, Asus, Sapphire etc. models are more balanced and need less power. So, in your position with your limited space I'd take a MSI or GB, the Asus is too expensive, the Sapphire, as you said, too long. Good luck.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 12, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> High res textures in Skyrim at 5760x1080 ran flawlessly on my 390. Almost never would it fully peg out the GPU or consume more than 2.5-3GB of VRAM. Just saying.


well Skyrim HD text all DLC SMIM + around 200 additional ESM and ESP (text, high poly count poser follower sync animation etc etc etc) + ENB 0.266 (sharpshooter or RealVision depend if i play or do some screens )on DSR 4K or the one between 4K and 1323p is a tad after 3.5 for me ... so a 970 would go south for me ... a 970 is no consideration at and after 1440p it's a 1080p card (tho even there i would get a 980 even if the 980 for me are nearly double the price of a 970 atm)

but ... for me the 970 does not exist (unlike the 470 570 670 and 770 ... where nvidia didn't f***** up the *70 serie ) so the only "real" options in that price range ( or lower ... since retailer tend to think nvidia is gold) are the 390 and eventually the 390X

and no : driver issue are not a issue on my 290 i used the Omega for a long time with zero issues until people started to hiss about "how long did AMD wait until updating drivers "... but, if it ain't broken ... why fix it?

but nvidia? well ... i used the 344.88 for a long time too .... since any 35X.XX were pure s**t, until the 355.98 (oh ok you need 2 number, decimal and unit, to be same and ending in a 8 to be good ? 344.88 355.98 ...   ) and that right after i got the 980 ...

so driver issue? nvidia i got them ... AMD not even one (and with latest driver all the time )

edit: call me lucky with AMD but the only GPU line i needed to do a rollback driver was Nvidia .... and not only once ....


----------



## jormungand (Oct 14, 2015)

For the ones interested like me in the exact measure of the Nitro i found this on a russian video. the measure is in centimeters. i mean 30cm or 305mm


----------



## m&m's (Oct 14, 2015)

jormungand said:


> i found this on a russian video



Definitely not russian, 99% sure it's polish.


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 14, 2015)

m&m's said:


> Definitely not russian, 99% sure it's polish.


Slavic language? RUSSIAN!


----------



## N1GHTRA1N (Oct 14, 2015)

I purchased two MSI GTX 970 4G GAMING cards a month ago. I run 2560x1600 and they are awesome. A single card will run 1440p without issues. I did some benchmarking with one card and it was as fast or faster than my Crossfired MSI 6970 Lightning cards. I also overclock to 1300MHz (1515MHz Boost) and 8000MHz memory and they run great, and mostly quiet even at high RPM.

I also do not experience any coil whine like in the video above. I do get a wierd whining sound sometimes on quiet loading screens, but that is coming from my speakers and happened with my previous cards too. I think it is a shielding problem with my sound card.


----------



## happita (Oct 14, 2015)

What is the biggest size you can fit into your case? I found that these were both under 30cm:

MSI (27.71cm or 277mm)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874

ASUS (29.97cm or 299mm)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121974


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 14, 2015)

jormungand said:


> View attachment 68497
> 
> 
> 
> For the ones interested like me in the exact measure of the Nitro i found this on a russian video. the measure is in centimeters. i mean 30cm or 305mm


 
Then unfortunately it looks like it will not fit since people quote the case can handle up to 11-1/4 inches.  Part of the problem is the Nitro cooler sticks out on the end which causes its length to go way up.  The MSI cooler is probably going to be your best bet (Since your not sure on XFX).
I will still say if your willing to give it a try go for the XFX.  They had one recent generation of problems but after that it has been smooth sailing and this new cooler seems to be top notch from the reviews I have seen of it.



happita said:


> What is the biggest size you can fit into your case? I found that these were both under 30cm:
> 
> MSI (27.71cm or 277mm)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874
> ...


 
I believe the Asus to is just slightly a the limit for the op since the case supports up to about 290mm


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 14, 2015)

happita said:


> What is the biggest size you can fit into your case? I found that these were both under 30cm:
> 
> MSI (27.71cm or 277mm)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874
> ...


Don't forget to factor in any drives that may be behind the GPU. For me with the MSI card, I have only a tiny bit of room between my RAID-5 drive connectors and my GPU.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 14, 2015)

This is how i have set mine.


----------



## happita (Oct 15, 2015)

Then I'd say go with the MSI R9 390. The power connectors go out to the side instead of towards the hard drive cages, giving you enough room for the card to fit comfortably.


----------



## rooivalk (Oct 15, 2015)

MSI 390 is generally a good overclocker as well (not that 390 is really great in overclocking realm).


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Oct 15, 2015)

Flow said:


> Let me see, 15.4, 15,5, 15.7 then 15.7.1 and where are we now?
> Oh wait, you were joking
> 
> Goodluck on your purchase jormungand.



http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/previous?os=windows

According to AMD themselves:

15.7.1 on 7/29/15(Which was just a bug fix for 15.7, the latest an now almost 3 months old)
15.7 on 7/8/15
14.12 on 12/9/14(That's 7 months between drivers!)
14.9 on 9/29/14(That's 3 months between drivers!)
14.4 on 4/15/14(That's 5 months between drivers!)
13.12 on 1/14/14(Thats 3 months between drivers!)

No, I'm not joking. 

AMD's track record over the past several years has been terrible. 

They might have recently gotten slightly better by unofficially releasing betas, but even those are spread out, and they only did it because tech news sites started reporting how bad their driver support was.

When a new AAA title comes out, nVidia has a game ready driver out the same day, maybe the next day.

Rarely a peep from AMD, your just stuck using the old drivers hoping the game runs smoothly and there aren't any game breaking driver issues.

There is no getting around the fact that AMD has terrible driver support for their cards.


----------



## vega22 (Oct 15, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't really an issue.  Even at 4k the cards work beautifully.  The memory thing was blown way out of proportion.



it's not and it will only get worse in the future with dx12, older games unable to use that vram of course are never going to have problems but those days are behind us.

dx12 will require the devs to work around the problem by limiting how much vram is used for what features on some cards, like the 970 which won't be able to use features that it should with a full, single 4gb buffer.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 15, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> it's not and it will only get worse in the future with dx12, older games unable to use that vram of course are never going to have problems but those days are behind us.
> 
> dx12 will require the devs to work around the problem by limiting how much vram is used for what features on some cards, like the 970 which won't be able to use features that it should with a full, single 4gb buffer.


 
You are forgetting one thing.  The price range of the 970 is in the category where MOST (not all, I know) of the buyers are people who replace their card every two years.  We're at over a year from release now.  By this time next year (2 years after release), I predict we will have only a dozen, no more than a score of DX12 games, with most allowing play at DX11 as well.

By the time there are enough DX12 games for your dire prediction to need to be dealt with, the owners will mostly have upgraded.


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 15, 2015)

Eric_Cartman said:


> http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/previous?os=windows
> 
> According to AMD themselves:
> 
> ...


First of all, those are just the WHQL certified, they have drivers out pretty regularly and that certification means nothing...

Second, the only major point to drivers when it comes to games are multi-card profiles and bug fixes.  NVidia tends to release what they call a "Game-Ready" driver every time they make a profile or some quick fix versus AMD who releases things in bulk more times than naught (Unless there is an urgent bug fix or big game coming out).  I don't like my laptop screeching about a GeForce driver every other day that only adds an SLI profile.  AMD's driver support has been just fine for years without major issue and has been updated more than enough to keep up with game releases.



rooivalk said:


> MSI 390 is generally a good overclocker as well (not that 390 is really great in overclocking realm).


Depends what you define as a good overclocker in the end.  Nvidia has some fantastic overclocking this round but the gains from going almost 500mhz are not that big especially when you see cards from the other sides competing in the overclocking front with just 100-200mhz.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 15, 2015)

no way to push up your budget to a good deal on a 980 range and avoid this problem entirely? Were I you that's what I'd be doing...


----------



## Kanan (Oct 15, 2015)

yogurt_21 said:


> no way to push up your budget to a good deal on a 980 range and avoid this problem entirely? Were I you that's what I'd be doing...


The 980 isn't a really good price/performance card. Rather would I go all the way up to an 980 Ti or at least a Fury Tri-X - but I'd never buy a 980, it's barely better than a 300$ GTX 970 or 780 Ti.
That said, The next option would be the 390X, after that the Fury Tri-X and then a 980Ti - just ignore the 980 it's not worth it.

@Cartman: 
You're a cheap AMD-hater / Nvidia-fanboy your trashtalk is nonsense because you ignored the Beta-drivers - but I'm sure that was intended, because you just want to troll or boost your ego with your shit talk. 

AMD-Beta drivers are almost the same as their normal ones - I used them for years and never had any problems. And they come regularly. And on the other side, lots of new drivers don't mean it's good - it means a lot must be done. This isn't always good. So, it's not for AMD to release a driver every day, it actually could be an good thing. This is another perspective. Things are relative.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 15, 2015)

Kanan said:


> The 980 isn't a really good price/performance card. Rather would I go all the way up to an 980 Ti or at least a Fury Tri-X - but I'd never buy a 980, it's barely better than a 300$ GTX 970 or 780 Ti.
> That said, The next option would be the 390X, after that the Fury Tri-X and then a 980Ti - just ignore the 980 it's not worth it.
> 
> @Cartman:
> ...



Actually, you're only partly correct. The 980 is not a good value.  However its performance is ALOT more than "barely better" than a 970.  Its performance is quite a bit more than a 970. 

As someone who has both cards, I can actually say that.

However, in gameplay you are not likely to notice...only if you are actually watching framerates.


----------



## ne6togadno (Oct 16, 2015)

@OP
if you dont want to oc (i think i saw you said you dont want to, but i cant find the post atm) get gigabyte wf. if you manage to save about 400$ get 390x.
my 290x is cold and very quite card. the only time i've seen it above 70 C (72 C) was during gpuz render test. in games it doesnt brake 65-68 C (even in witcher 3)


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 16, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, you're only partly correct. The 980 is not a good value.  However its performance is ALOT more than "barely better" than a 970.  Its performance is quite a bit more than a 970.
> 
> As someone who has both cards, I can actually say that.
> 
> However, in gameplay you are not likely to notice...only if you are actually watching framerates.


annnd i totally agree ... 

i might add not a good value unless you get it in a huge bargain .... that or a giveaway... if it didn't happen to me i would still rock my 290


----------



## vega22 (Oct 16, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> You are forgetting one thing.  The price range of the 970 is in the category where MOST (not all, I know) of the buyers are people who replace their card every two years.  We're at over a year from release now.  By this time next year (2 years after release), I predict we will have only a dozen, no more than a score of DX12 games, with most allowing play at DX11 as well.
> 
> By the time there are enough DX12 games for your dire prediction to need to be dealt with, the owners will mostly have upgraded.



people will have no choice but to upgrade, they will feel some value from the card because of that time scale for sure. but their options will be upgrade or miss out on things their mates are getting.

at the same time people who spent around the same money on amd cards will still be playing fine. maybe even gaining performance from the switch to dx12 as amd built their cards for it.

we all know what the 970 is, and what is in its future.

it should of been the next 8800gt, but nvidia do not want people being able to sit on 1 card for a number of years, they want you to feel the need to upgrade every other year.

great way to do business if you can find enough fools to believe you :/


----------



## GLD (Oct 16, 2015)

The 390's use some juice. Mine does at least. My rig with a Sapphire 2G 7850 vanilla used ~275w running 3DMark Firestrike, pulling 42xx points. My rig now with a Sapphire 8G R9 390 OC uses ~475w while running 3DMark Firestrike, pulling 78xx points. The 390 is a good card, it's just bottlenecked in my rig.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 16, 2015)

The 980 has a full speed full 4GB memory, is around 15% faster than the 970 at 1440P, has no coil whine, and deals and refurbs/deals on new can be had for the mid 400's US. So your value summary is incorrect or ignoring known issues. 

As for the comparison to the 390X the 980 is 6dbA quieter, around 2-5% faster at 1440P, uses half the peak wattage (184 v 370 on the 390X), is ~22C cooler at load, and can be had for only 50-80$ more.

I get the performance per dollar issue between it and the 970, 15% more performance for 40-50% more price. But to me losing coil whine, getting full 64 ROPs and full speed 4GB memory would be worth it. Not to mention at 1440P 15% can mean the difference between playable and not. Or at least playable at good aa/af levels and playable with aa/af off, impacting the final product you're presented with.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 16, 2015)

I concur to you partly - you correctly acknowledge its only slightly faster (around 15-25% depending on custom cards compared - I ignore ref cards), but then you continue to praise relative things such as coil whine and "full speed memory and 64 rops". The first thing (coil whine) is depending on the custom card, so this is only a partly truth - both, 970 and 980 could be bad, and BOTH could be good. The speed of the memory and 64 rops aren't further important, the speed difference still is only 15-25% - not enough to warrant a high price of over 500€ for a decent custom card. The 980 was without alternative before the 980 Ti was introduced, it was simply the highest card, therefore the price was justified, because "THE" highend card deserves to have a price premium. But now? For 500€ I'd never buy it, I get a Fury Tri-X for 545€, it's faster and with DX12 even more so and I have a good chance of enabling some shaders on it, making it even better. Basically, before I'd buy that, I'd buy a 290X, 780 Ti, 390, 390X or Fury Tri-X ... or I'd save some money and get the best, the 980 Ti. But I'd never buy a 970 or 980, both aren't the best at their pricepoints (anymore).

PS. Noise is depending on custom model again - and wattage isn't that important to waste lots of money on it. A 390X is about as fast as a 980 and has double the ram. The 290X is almost half the price and is a bit slower or faster, depending on the game. Basically you've put a lot of relative arguments, that don't stand to the truth. Nvidia has a strong point: it's the 980 Ti. The rest? I'd get AMD, because it scales better in DX12 and is on ~equal speed now. This is nothing new, it was like that a lot of times (GTX 580 vs 6970, 780 Ti vs 290X). Nvidia wins the best GPU price with the 980 Ti again, but at the lower price points they basically suck a bit. That said, the GTX 700 gen was better balanced - you had 780 Ti, 780 and 770 - now you have the best, or a card that is 40% slower, the 980. It's a great fall. Bad that there is no 980 Pro (with ~2300 shaders activated like the 780) - but good for AMD.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 16, 2015)

@Kanan, truth is, we really don't know what scales better than what yet in DX12.  Too few benchmarks, no real games yet (the one out was AMD assisted in development, and is basically a nenchmark to measure cpu calls).

As to the 980, i and others have already said monetarily it's a bad deal, and yes, there are a few cards that beat it.  Still doesn't make it not desirable for some. 

That's what is great, we can all like and be happy with different things.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> @Kanan, truth is, we really don't know what scales better than what yet in DX12.  Too few benchmarks, no real games yet (the one out was AMD assisted in development, and is basically a nenchmark to measure cpu calls).
> 
> As to the 980, i and others have already said monetarily it's a bad deal, and yes, there are a few cards that beat it.  Still doesn't make it not desirable for some.
> 
> That's what is great, we can all like and be happy with different things.


Your statement is already old.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
Is that a AMD game too?  I guess all DX12-games will be AMD games... and thats not even a joke, the architecture simply is more suited to it and/or gains more from it than Maxwell. Maybe even Kepler gains more from DX12 than Maxwell.



> That's what is great, we can all like and be happy with different things.


We don't talk about toys or barbies here. We talk hardware. All that really matters here are numbers, science, proof. So, sorry if I talk "bad" about your hardware, but I don't care much about feelings here.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Your statement is already old.
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
> Is that a AMD game too?  I guess all DX12-games will be AMD games... and thats not even a joke, the architecture simply is more suited to it and/or gains more from it than Maxwell. Maybe even Kepler gains more from DX12 than Maxwell.
> 
> ...


Not hurting my feelings one bit. Im way too old for immature games like yours.  Fanboyism is for young people who don't know what really matters in the world.

What I'm telling you is it's going to be awhile till we know what truly is better than what in DX12.  It's called a TREND.  A handful is not indicative and doesn't show what is prevalent among DX12 games IN GENERAL.  Hard data from multiple sources does that.

And numbers are not all that matters. Know why? It's not a competition.  What matters is what hardware people are happy with.  That's why so many types and varieties exist...we're not all the same, and choice is personal.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2015)

It's rather immature to call me immature because I made a joke. It shows your not that "mature" as you think you are. Mature is when you are old and can always chill down and be easy on things. Clearly not what you're doing here.

This thread is about the now. The "trend" as you call it, directs based on this DX12 bench to AMD, so if I were to decide, or talk, about the now, my opinion is what you can read above. What you say, all in all, is right though. But decisions are made on the present, and predicted future, all what I try to do is just work with the data I have, some general experience and some informations I've collected.



> And numbers are not all that matters. Know why? It's not a competition. What matters is what hardware people are happy with. That's why so many types and varieties exist...we're not all the same, and choice is personal.


Again, it was a joke, but only partly. What I say is true too. People tend to be too emotional about hardware sometimes, being fanboyish after a while and tend to see the things as they wanna see them. My opinion was just a contrast to that. And I don't care about brand btw. - so if you called me a fanboy, get your informations straight next time. Thats TriFire Radeon "Evergreen" on the pic, I had GF 256, GF 3 Ti, GF 7800GT/7900GT, 8600GT, GTX260 216 BE and now a GTX 780 Ti. So probably I care less of brands than everyone else here.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2015)

Kanan said:


> We don't talk about toys or barbies here. We talk hardware. All that really matters here are numbers, science, proof. So, sorry if I talk "bad" about your hardware, but I don't care much about feelings here.



Sorry, but that was not a joke. You are now trying to diminish what you said in that paragraph that was clearly disparaging.  By your assumption that my feelings were hurt, it also clearly showed an allegience to a brand, because you belittled choice insisting numbers are all that matters.

So no, I saw no joking at all in your statement. What I see now is you SAYING it was a joke.  This is common nervous behavior amongst people that realize they just stepped in shit by saying the wrong thing.  It's minimalization, and lack of personal responsibility for one's actions.

Fiinally, on the subject of which is better, I am on record in the other very similarly-named thread saying the R9 390 would be the better card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/high-end-build-gtx970-vs-r9-390.216645/#post-3355404


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> lot of bla


No, that is just your interpretation of things, nothing more. It was a joke and I don't care at all if you believe me. And your superiorority-arrogance based on your silly assumption that you are more mature than me is just that - silly.
It's easy to counter you, I don't need any "diminishing of words" or "minimalization" on my part. Partly you already do that yourself with your philosophically limited sight of the world, based on "age" and other superficial things that aren't really important.
And btw. your behaviour is common for a old man, thinking he is superior, just because he is old - that silly and easily foreseeable behaviour doesn't make me nervous at all. It's too common to do that. And sorry that I indeed hurt your feelings - just make it more obvious every time you post and argue against it. Okay. 

Still, brand is not important, what matters is performance and reliability. DX12, the facts that can be seen right now, AMD has an edge. AMD cards are rather future built and NV is more based on the now - you can easily see that on R9 290X which was built on Mantle and DX12 in mind, and NV, just doing a brand new architecture maximized for DX11 and concentrating to do a new architecture (Pascal) for DX12. Also having hardware Asynch Compute (and I dont buy it that its "deactivated" in Maxwell - it just isn't there, basically this is a marketing strategy of NV) is a good thing and improves performance, compared to GeForce cards. I don't say what AMD does is better, basically they live in the future and NV lives more in the now, philosophically. For someone buying a new card every 1-2 years NV is better - for someone keeping an card longer than that, I'd say AMD is better. It depends. But based on DX12 I'd say AMD is better situated right now, because they clearly invested in it, not NV. NV just followed. The benchmarks just cover that.

And finally: your behaviour is fanboyish not mine. Basically you defend your GTX 980 all the time, and all your arguments are NV-biased, while me is sporting a GTX 780 Ti and is speaking good of AMD cards and partly NV cards like Kepler. Just to set the facts straight, you can't see.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2015)

Lol, youve been here how long? When is this "all the time?" Had you actually been a part of this site since before August, you'd know it's new, and therefore can't "always" be defending it.  You'd also know what card I had for a long time prior.  It's a hunk of metal and plastic.  There's no emotion there.  And I constantly talk positively about AMD.  Check for yourself.

Double LOL, you still haven't hurt my feelings. Someone in my line of work learns not to take things personally.  I'm also well practiced at the behaviors of people...there is a commonality to all.  For insrance, when people say "relax, it was just a joke" is one of the most common minimalizations of what was done.  Are you aware that 90% of a joke is based on what a person really feels and means?

As you'd notice, if you had gone to the link of the similar thread I provided, I too think the 390 is better for 1440p.  I only made an initial correction the other day on your statement the 980 is barely better than a 970, because that is the statement of someone who can recite facts, but has no personal experience.  If you had, you'd know the actual performance is more impressive compared to 970 than what numbers show.

On your assertion that current gen AMD MAY be more ready for DX12 than Maxwells and Keplers, you are probably correct.  There is not enough of a trend in benchmarks prove this yet though, and a fair and learned person would recognize it's too early to call a winner in DX12 benchmarks for either side.

However Nvidia have admitted they have made the best dx11 cards they can, which tends to prove your statement correctly for the current gens.  With their R&D budget they can afford to be like that.  They know, as I have asserted many times on this forum that by the time enough DX12 games are out to matter, then Pascal will be out.  That actually does sound like great planning, and excellent business sense.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Lol, youve been here how long? When is this "all the time? Had you actually been a part of this site since before August, you'd know it's new, and therefore can't "always" be defending it.  It's a hunk of metal and plastic.  There's no emotion there.


It's not important how long I'am here, I base my things on the things you write down here and now. I never used the word "always" in connection to defending anything. Stay to the facts. Don't imagine things if you're out of arguments.
And just because you say there is no emotion, it's not true. Actually there is, but you don't want to admit it. Absolutely sure of that, though. I'm experienced in these things too.



> Double LOL, you still haven't hurt my feelings. Someone in my line of work learns not to take things personally.  I'm also well practiced the behaviors of people...there is a commonality to all.  For insrance, whwn people say "relax, it was just a joke" is one of the most commone minimalizations of what was done.  Are you aware that 90% of a joke is based on what a person really feels and means?


I didn't hurt your feelings, so thats why you react just like a person that has hurt feelings, okay. I'll say it again: just try and try, it won't get any better. Obvious that you are offended, that's why you attacked me in the first place, me being immature etc. It's immature to being emotional and don't admit it, being hurt and don't admit it. You are old? But then, you aren't that mature you think I'd say. Actually you act like a grown child. This is not intended as a attack on you, just what I see. It's not bad to be childish, at least sometimes. I'm childish myself at times. But I can admit it, can you?
And yeah, I'am aware that jokes are based on the truth. Still it was a joke, meaning you don't have to get offended by it, or take it 100% serious - but you did it anyway. That's the problem. Important is, HOW you say things, not what you say. I mean I can go to a person and criticize fairly, or I can attack. I can do a joke about things with a little critique in it, or I can drive it totaly serious. Its always good to be friendly, whether critizizing or not, that's what I mean. And jokes should be accepted as jokes, I mean if you don't then you don't like my humour or don't understand it, but I'm no liar when I say it was a joke.



> As you'd notice, if you had gone to the link of the similar thread I provided, I too think the 390 is better for 1440p.  I only made an initial correction the other day on your statwmwnt the 980 is barely better than a 970, because that is the statwment of someobe who can recite facts, but has no personal experience.  If you had, you'd know the actual performance is more impressive cimpared to 970 than whT numbers show.


And I thanked your post and accepted that - did you see me anywhere argueing against that again? No. So, yes, I accept that a 980 is clearly faster (about 15-25% which I wrote earlier too). But its price/performance is still not the best.



> On your assertion that current gen AMD MAY be more ready for DX12 than Maxwells and Keplers, you are probably correct.  There is bot enough of a trend in benchmarks prove this yet.


Of course, it's not proven, not proven enough at least. But I'm pretty sure to be right on this point. Still, it's just my well experienced opinion, nothing more, yes.



> However Nvidia have admitted they have made the best dx11 cards they can, which twnds to prove your statement correctly.  With their R&D budget they can afford to be like that.  They know, as I have asserted many times on this forum that by the time enough DX12 ganes are out to matter, then Pascal will be out.  That actually does sound like great planning, and excellent business sense.


Yes, to that I concur completely. All in all, I like both companys. AMD for their hardware innovations like HBM, Asynch Compute, new API (and forcing Microsoft to do DX12, or do it faster at least) etc. and NV for their great software/hardware implementations like Physx, TXAA, MFAA, greatly optimized architectures with good energy improvements. But I'm no fanboy of either company. I had a lot of GeForce cards as stated before, then I had Radeon for about 6 years now and back to GeForce once again.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Basically you defend your GTX 980 all the time, and all your arguments are NV-biased,



Actually, yes, you did say i was always defending a hunk of metal by saying "all the time". See?  Those are your words.  You got offended because I asked how long you've been here. There was a purpose to that. It was to point out you make an assumption about what my GPU is/has been. By extension, had you been here, you wouldn't have made a presumptive statement like that.

And really, it's all good! You have not angered me or offended me.  I, by the nature of my work, point out behavior which is not friendly or cordial or which can cause hard feelings. What I am is brutally honest, which can offend others sometimes as it.obviously did you, because remember you first said I was offended.  

For the record, I did not say you were immature. I described immature GAMES like yours.  It's a subtle difference which misunderstandings in language can cause. It's pointing out behavior of a person, not describing the person.

I wish you a good night. It's time to be with the family.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, yes, you did say i was always defending a hunk of metal by saying "all the time". See?  Those are your words.  You got offended because I asked how long you've been here. There was a purpose to that. It was to point out you make an assumption about what my GPU is/has been. By extension, had you been here, you wouldn't have made a presumptive statement like that.


Yes those are my words, but they are true - because it's just based on the here and now. I stay with my opinion on that matter. Why do you always think I'm offended? Do you take a perverse pleasure in seeing emotions in people, that you don't have or act you don't have, so you can see yourself as superior? Seems to me likely. But you are not. I'm still sure you were offended. Me, no, not really. It was more like "fun" to me - everything, that is. 



> And really, it's all good! You have not angered me or offended me.  I, by the nature of my work, point out behavior which is not friendly or cordial or which can cause hard feelings. What I am is brutally honest, which can offend others sometimes as it.obviously did you, because remember you first said I was offended.


Yes I said you were offended, and you use that to think I was, but I'm not. But still you defend yourself too much - as a more or less fact based on my experience, if people defend too much, the opposite is true. So yes, you were angered. At least a bit. But you don't have to admit that, okay with me. I accept, that you want to uphold your imagined superiority over basically everyone else, I guess - based on your work etc. I think that is very true. 



> For the record, I did not say you were immature. I described immature GAMES like yours.  It's a subtle difference which misunderstandings in language can cause. It's pointing out behavior of a person, not describing the person.
> 
> I wish you a good night. It's time to be with the family.


It's a difference, but not by much. Still it was a attack on my person, you can start a poll on that, if you want. 99% of persons would have taken that as an insult. So don't try - using your words - minimizing it down. It is what it is. Good night.  At least we have an agreement on NV vs. AMD things.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 17, 2015)

As a 970 owner,  I'd say go 980ti for 1440.  I love my strix,  runs all my games maxxed out at about 51c tops because I like to set my fans high,  but gives me better boost,  so why not.  My 7 case fans are also loud,  so I never hear the card anyways.  Most everything runs at 100+ fps,  but there are cases,  especially on a few select games where I hit 4gbs ram usage,  that it stutters bad.  I feel it's pretty dam top of the line for 1080,  but 1440 probably not.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 17, 2015)

Kanan said:


> Yes those are my words, but they are true - because it's just based on the here and now. I stay with my opinion on that matter. Why do you always think I'm offended? Do you take a perverse pleasure in seeing emotions in people, that you don't have or act you don't have, so you can see yourself as superior? Seems to me likely. But you are not. I'm still sure you were offended. Me, no, not really. It was more like "fun" to me - everything, that is.
> 
> 
> Yes I said you were offended, and you use that to think I was, but I'm not. But still you defend yourself too much - as a more or less fact based on my experience, if people defend too much, the opposite is true. So yes, you were angered. At least a bit. But you don't have to admit that, okay with me. I accept, that you want to uphold your imagined superiority over basically everyone else, I guess - based on your work etc. I think that is very true.
> ...



Is English your first language? I've been reading @rtwjunkie's replies to you and you seem to be misunderstanding him.
This in turn is causing a circular argument where his words are being used in the same arguments you are writing.
He at no point inferred superiority, his post about age was to distance himself from certain behaviours.
Likewise, I think perhaps there is a great misunderstanding of what you are posting. I know that my written word is often misunderstood emotionally where meaning is attached where none was meant.
Let's rest your discussion and get back on topic.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Let's rest your discussion and get back on topic.



Excellent suggestion! Thanks.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 17, 2015)

What @the54thvoid said. @rtwjunkie has already stated that given the options that the 390 is probably going to be a better option given the price. Not exactly sure why this argument is even here since the 980 isn't an option because if it were, so would the 390x. The 970 and 390 are similar in price which is why the OP was asking. @Kanan don't try to bait people into an argument. Not only do I not like it, the moderators don't tend to like it either and name calling is unacceptable and doesn't reflect mature behavior. Not to mention that @rtwjunkie tends to be a pretty nice guy until you start talking down to him.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the common consensus is that the 390 is probably going to last longer thanks to what it has under the hood whereas the 970 very well might not last as long because of the fewer ROPS, TMUs, and memory but makes up for it with clocks.

People tend to forget this and I'll remind them now, the 390 has 160 TMUs. The 970 has 104 TMUs. With that said, what card do you think is going to handle more and higher resolution textures better? Not just that but more textured polygons even without higher resolution textures. Then remember that the 390 has 8GB of VRAM on it. I'll concede that AMD doesn't do the anti-aliasing thing well but, but there are a lot of things GCN does very well. So depending on the game and how it was developed, either the 970 or 390 would be a good option.

As for DX12, I reserve judgement for when games are actually released and using it before I make any determinations on how much AMD cards really will benefit from it. I'm sure it depends on the engine and features being utilized.


----------



## jormungand (Oct 17, 2015)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874&cm_re=r9_390-_-14-127-874-_-Product

$329 less $20 MIR >>>> $309.99

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGF0UAE/?tag=tec06d-20

$320 less $20 >>>>$299.99

what do you think ????  or i drive to tigerdirect and grab it for this price + taxes  
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9777412&CatId=11972
anyway i can wait a little longer.....


----------



## GhostRyder (Oct 17, 2015)

jormungand said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127874&cm_re=r9_390-_-14-127-874-_-Product
> 
> $329 less $20 MIR >>>> $309.99
> 
> ...


Go for the Amazon one


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 17, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Go for the Amazon one


seconded


----------

