R9 390 vs GTX 970?

[AlfaKayzer]

Few days ago, some guys were helping me choosing new pc parts.
My local store already has some new GPUs.
But now i dont know which one should i buy.
Which one is better now and will have a better "futureproof"? Because i really hope i can play at least 4 years.

GPUs:

R9 390:
-Gigabyte Radeon R9 390 G1 Gaming 8 GB


GTX 970:
-EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 4 GB

-Asus GeForce GTX 970 STRIX 4 GB

-EVGA GeForce GTX 970 FTW 4 GB

-Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 G1 Gaming 4 GB

-Zotac GeForce GTX 970 AMP! Extreme Core Edition 4 GB

Thank you again guys!

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por alfaphantom:

All right guys i guess ill go for the R9 390 because, as you said, games need more and more vram.

But i heard a lot about Gameworks and how it does affect AMD GPU's performance, is that true?

Gameworks effects most GPU's in a bad way honestly. not just AMD. my 970 tanks in most Gameworks games with some of the stuff on also. anyway, most Gameworks settings like PhysX, Hairworks, etc can be turned down or off if needed. but if you're going to be a 390 or a 970 it will do fairly good with Gameworks. don't expect to get awesome performance in gameworks unless you have a 550+ dollar GPU in general. I never use Gimpworks on any of my PC's. Nvidia or AMD.

[AlfaKayzer]

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Escrito originalmente por alfaphantom:

All right guys i guess ill go for the R9 390 because, as you said, games need more and more vram.

But i heard a lot about Gameworks and how it does affect AMD GPU's performance, is that true?

Gameworks effects all gpus lmao. not just AMD. anyway, most Gameworks settings like PhysX, Hairworks, etc can be turned off if needed. but if you're going to be a 390 you won't have any issues with Gameworks. if anything its a slight performance hit which can always be tweaked in radeon settings via tessellation control or just by turning it off.

Ok, anyway thank you guys for helping me with this choice!

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por alfaphantom:

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Gameworks effects all gpus lmao. not just AMD. anyway, most Gameworks settings like PhysX, Hairworks, etc can be turned off if needed. but if you're going to be a 390 you won't have any issues with Gameworks. if anything its a slight performance hit which can always be tweaked in radeon settings via tessellation control or just by turning it off.

Ok, anyway thank you guys for helping me with this choice!

Good luck and enjoy your new gpu!

[Azza ☠]

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Escrito originalmente por Azza ☠:

It's quite simple really, it comes down to...

1080p? GTX 970 is better
1440p? R9 390 is better

8GB video memory is complete marketing, till you get to higher resolutions or multiple monitors, while using Crossfire of multiple cards, else it will never be fully used.

On the other hand, the GTX 970 is actually a remodel of the GTX 780 3GB, with an extra 0.5GB thrown in for free and an additional 0.5GB slower memory pool last reserve. Hense why you should use it only at 1080p resolution for optimal performance. Some of the custom duel fan models at this resolution can get up to GTX 980 performance. Making it the best cost to ratio graphics card of 2014.

Except for the fact that the 390 beats out the 970 in most 1080p benchmarks also. BTW, how is having 8gbs just "Marketing" ? games have been using more and more Vram over the years. it's been steadily rising. GTA5 and Shadow of mordor require more than 4gbs of ram for absolute max settings. he want's something more future proof its clear going the 8gb Vram route is the logical choice.

Look, eitherway you go you're going to have a very nice GPU. the 390 is just more bang for the $.

1080p resolution with Ultra Textures will still only use approx 1GB to 3.5GB, rarely getting up to 4GB. Unless you have a very poorly optimized game code, this should be more than enough.

Nvidia designed the 4GB cards for 2-way SLI or Nvidia Surround (3 monitors + 1 accessory display).

6GB is ideal for 2 or 3-way SLI or Crossfire.

8GB or 12GB video memory graphic cards would only come into play with a SLI or Crossfire setup. It's more ideal for 4k UltraHD resolutions or 3 to 4-way SLI / Crossfire setups. Since the video memory doesn't stack, the memory is shared between them all.

Hense also understand video memory swaps to system memory during gaming. In order to avoid the swap to hard drive, there should also be enough system RAM to stack upon. Rule of thumb is double the video memory.

4GB video memory - 8GB system memory is optimal.
6GB or 8GB video memory - 12-16GB system memory is optimal.
12GB video memory - you would want at least 16GB sysytem memory.

A 390 doesn't beat a factory overclocked 970 at 1080p. Even the 390x struggles to beat 970 at 1080p resolution, while using twice as much power and heat levels.

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por Azza ☠:

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Except for the fact that the 390 beats out the 970 in most 1080p benchmarks also. BTW, how is having 8gbs just "Marketing" ? games have been using more and more Vram over the years. it's been steadily rising. GTA5 and Shadow of mordor require more than 4gbs of ram for absolute max settings. he want's something more future proof its clear going the 8gb Vram route is the logical choice.

Look, eitherway you go you're going to have a very nice GPU. the 390 is just more bang for the $.

1080p resolution with Ultra Textures will still only use approx 1GB to 3.5GB, rarely getting up to 4GB. Unless you have a very poorly optimized game code, this should be more than enough.

Nvidia designed the 4GB cards for 2-way SLI or Nvidia Surround (3 monitors + 1 accessory display).

6GB is ideal for 2 or 3-way SLI or Crossfire.

8GB or 12GB video memory graphic cards would only come into play with a SLI or Crossfire setup. It's more ideal for 4k UltraHD resolutions or 3 to 4-way SLI / Crossfire setups. Since the video memory doesn't stack, the memory is shared between them all.

Hense also understand video memory swaps to system memory during gaming. In order to avoid the swap to hard drive, there should also be enough system RAM to stack upon. Rule of thumb is double the video memory.

4GB video memory - 8GB system memory is optimal.
6GB or 8GB video memory - 12-16GB system memory is optimal.
12GB video memory - you would want at least 16GB sysytem memory.

True, but GDDR5 is much, much faster than most normal ram. (DDR3 etc) so it's always good to put as much buffer on the GPU's Vram as possible. there are already a couple games that can use more than 4gbs of Vram. even on 1080p. and if the OP Decides to upgrade for a higher resolution monitor down the road he will have that extra ram / bus size on the gpu also.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

r9 390 is the winner of two. anyone says otherwise does not know **** about technology.

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Except for the fact that the 390 beats out the 970 in most 1080p benchmarks also. BTW, how is having 8gbs just "Marketing" ? games have been using more and more Vram over the years.

Both statements are wrong. GTX 970 and R9 390 have the same gaming performance. In some games GTX 970 is faster in others R9 390. On paper AMD card can look better (more memory bandwidth, more cores, more ROPs, more TMUs). I don't say about VRAM size, because it, as it was already said, is pure marketing - R9 390 has no enough power to effectively use it in the games (it can be used in GPGPU, however).
In reality, this "paper superiority" is not translated into a higher FPS. Why? Because larger Maxwell cache compensate lesser memory bandwidth, CUDA cores have better performance (only for rendering and single precision GPGPU), etc. And on the whole Maxwell is more advanced architecture than rapidly aging CGN.
But this does not mean that the GTX 970 is better. Thanks to R9 390 low cost they are on par.
Choose what you prefer.

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

r9 390 is the winner of two. anyone says otherwise does not know **** about technology.

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Except for the fact that the 390 beats out the 970 in most 1080p benchmarks also. BTW, how is having 8gbs just "Marketing" ? games have been using more and more Vram over the years.

Both statements are wrong. GTX 970 and R9 390 have the same gaming performance. In some games GTX 970 is faster in others R9 390. On paper AMD card can look better (more memory bandwidth, more cores, more ROPs, more TMUs). I don't say about VRAM size, because it, as it was already said, is pure marketing - R9 390 has no enough power to effectively use it in the games (it can be used in GPGPU,

Again, this is just an un-informed lie. Here is a video of the 390 using 6+gb of Vram in game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt5n7lTGLx0

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

r9 390 is the winner of two. anyone says otherwise does not know **** about technology.

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Except for the fact that the 390 beats out the 970 in most 1080p benchmarks also. BTW, how is having 8gbs just "Marketing" ? games have been using more and more Vram over the years.

Both statements are wrong. GTX 970 and R9 390 have the same gaming performance. In some games GTX 970 is faster in others R9 390. On paper AMD card can look better (more memory bandwidth, more cores, more ROPs, more TMUs). I don't say about VRAM size, because it, as it was already said, is pure marketing - R9 390 has no enough power to effectively use it in the games (it can be used in GPGPU, however).
In reality, this "paper superiority" is not translated into a higher FPS. Why? Because larger Maxwell cache compensate lesser memory bandwidth, CUDA cores have better performance (only for rendering and single precision GPGPU), etc. And on the whole Maxwell is more advanced architecture than rapidly aging CGN.
But this does not mean that the GTX 970 is better. Thanks to R9 390 low cost they are on par.
Choose what you prefer.

Not to mention the Maxwell cards don't natively support Async shaders on a hardware level. they're going to have to rely on software / driver implementation which is never as good as true hardware support. it's clear who the winner is in the 300$ price range is.... it's AMD.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Again, this is just an un-informed lie. Here is a video of the 390 using 6+gb of Vram in game.

"Again"? Last time you said that Core i3 don't support hyper threading and quickly stopped the discussion when you're given a link to Intel ARK.
This time you seems going to teach CUDA programmer. :D

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

Again, this is just an un-informed lie. Here is a video of the 390 using 6+gb of Vram in game.

"Again"? Last time you said that Core i3 don't support hyper threading and quickly stopped the discussion when you're given a link to Intel ARK.
This time you seems going to teach CUDA programmer. :D

just proving you wrong about the "Vram" statement you made. don't get upset. don't bother attacking me either, thats just childish. anyone can claim anything online. i'm an astronaut.... see how easy that was? just because you claim you're an IT, programmer, Cuba programmer doesn't make it true. i can claim anything on here. so stop trying to make yourself out to be something special that you have no way to prove. it's pointless.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

just proving you wrong.

Probably you have time to check whether Core i3 support hyperthreading or not? If you admit that you was wrong last time, it will be easier for you to understand that you are wrong now.

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Moe Szyslak:

just proving you wrong.

Probably you have time to check whether Core i3 support hyperthreading or not? If you admit that you was wrong last time, it will be easier for you to understand that you are wrong now.

Why are you even bringing that up? you wan't to attack me on a statement i made about a dual core cpu? go attack me on that thread then. you changing the subject here isn't what's needed. it's actually is against Discussion forum guidelines to derail a discussions subject. so please refrain yourself from such childish attempts at trying to pick a fight w/me . Get back on topic or just don't post.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

dont forget ps4 and Xbox one are based on the same amd CGN architecture.

What consoles has with R9 390? Is their existence proves that this card is faster than the GTX 970? Rave.

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

dont forget ps4 and Xbox one are based on the same amd CGN architecture.

What consoles has with R9 390? Is their existence proves that this card is faster than the GTX 970? Rave.

You need to read more clearly. this is what he said "dont forget ps4 and Xbox one are based on the same amd GCN architecture."

never did he state it was an r9 390. quit firing from the hip trying to pick fights man. atleast slow down and read the comments and understand them before getting all defensive lmao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specifications

[Moe]

Escrito originalmente por Partha12d07:

''Moe Szyslak'' is just a nvidia fanboy. he will keep defending nvidia no matter what. this discussion should end here.

i think you got the wrong person bub. i've been telling the OP to go with the R9 390 the entire discussion lmao. i think you mean't that towards - Vadim

PS: i own both the R9 390 and GTX 970... i much prefer the AMD equivilent. so no fanboyism on my behalf. they both make great products but between the 970 or the 390 its clear whe winner is.