Gigabyte Gtx 970 G1 or AMD R9 390?

[iiiankiii]

Been trying to pick one up used for under $180. Probably very very unreasonable but this gen sucks, and I need some performance to hold me over til gpus that can actually handle what I want at reasonable prices.

Of course it's possible if you're looking for a used 290. In fact, here's one in the FS forum by a fellow member for exactly $180!!

 

[tential]

Of course it's possible if you're looking for a used 290. In fact, here's one in the FS forum by a fellow member for exactly $180!!

Haha trust me, already have that tab up. I don't want to pay shipping. I'm being odd about it.
I'm curious how it performs with a power limit. Also, I need TWO R9 290s, and that's what bugs me.

Only thing I'm waiting for is the price of UHD650 65 inch 4K Freesync Wasabi Mango monitor. If it's like $3000, then this whole endeavor is a little expensive. If it's available at $1500-2000 like I expect, then I'll dive in! I want to know price/date though first so I know when my R9 290 purchase would be useful and how much it costs as the full setup since without a 4K monitor, I'm downsampling from 1800p which is why I want the Fury level products in the first place so I can downsample from 4K while I wait for a 4K monitor.

 

[RussianSensation]

I was actually wondering the same thing (970 vs 390 vs 290). I noticed that the asus 970 was on sale today for $320 and the msi r9 390 is $330 (didn't check the 290).

That's way way too expensive considering the great used Tri-X 290 linked for $179 or the $220 one on Newegg had (EDIT: looks like that deal is gone as the best deals sell out fast). For $100-110 going with a 970/390, you get 2-5% more performance for 50%+ price premium. That's the very definition of wasting $. 8GB of VRAM is also a marketing gimmick against 290's 4GB.

Computerbase's latest benchmarks confirm:

R9 290 OC (after-market 290) = 100%
R9 390 = 102%
GTX970 OC (after-market 970) = 104%

They also did separate testing which again confirmed that an after-market 290 ~ reference 290X. Incredible value at $180-220.

Then in 1.5-2 years, just sell that $180-220 290 for $100 and take the $100-150 saved from not buying a 970/390 and just invest into a future 16nm GPU that will be 50-75% faster than a 970/290 at the $350 level by Fall 2017. This strategy has never failed in the last 3 decades of GPU upgrading. What has failed is people paying $150-300 more for 15-20% more performance thinking they are more future-proof. Not going to happen.

The reason 390 scores better than a 290 is because in most reviews the 290 used is a reference card that throttles or they are using older AMD drivers for the 290 scores vs. newer drivers for the 390 because they are too lazy to retest older cards on newer drivers. Also, there is a small increase in performance from faster GDDR5. Clock for clock 290 and 390 are more or less identical.

All it takes is a 1030mhz clock on the 290 to match a reference 290X.

Under $200, the 290 becomes a godly deal for those looking at cards priced <$350. Of course, I'm talking about aftermarket cooler 290s; not the reference blower. I would recommend a $200 290 over a GTX 950/960, R9 280/285/380/390/x and the GTX 970. At $200, it becomes a no brainer unless you're one of those guys that must have the lowest TDP possible or have those janky PSUs.

R9 290 for $250 or less or EVGA B-stock 970 for $255 or so make every card in the $160-250 range irrelevant. The performance increase in those cards over 950/960/960 4GB/285/280X is massive.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-test/3/#abschnitt_tests_in_1920__1080

TechPowerUp, despite slight preference for NV cards, had this to say in their recent $800 Build Guide:

"At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. It also offers 4 GB of video memory. PowerColor added a factory overclock on top of that. If this doesn't highlight NVIDIA's terrible pricing for the GTX 960, nothing will."

For someone who is interested in picking up MGS V, Asus Strix 970 is going for $289 right now. Pretty good deal.

 

[you2]

Bit surprise you would recommend the 970 given that the 390 is only $30 more and 10+ fps in some games like thief @ 1440p:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,14.html
-
and even faster if I go with dx12 in newer games (next year).
-
I agree that the 290 is a better deal iff you can get one at a good price. The one you linked (for example) while a good price is too long for my case. Both the asus 970 and msi 390 will fit in my case. Btw the same benchmark I linked above shows the 390 noticably faster than the 290 but then again as you suggested maybe this is due to driver versions (not sure). I'm still thinking I should wait for the msi 390 if it drops $30 or $40 in the next month but not sure. I do like the idea of paying $200 over $300 but I think the prices you are quoting for the 290 are not really fair comparison (used cards for example which has an associated risk of abuse). I'm not against the 970 if it is a bit cheaper than the 390 but in at least some gaemes it appears the 390 is noticably faster.

That's way way too expensive considering the great used Tri-X 290 linked for $179 or the $220 one on Newegg had (EDIT: looks like that deal is gone as the best deals sell out fast). For $100-110 going with a 970/390, you get 2-5% more performance for 50%+ price premium. That's the very definition of wasting $. 8GB of VRAM is also a marketing gimmick against 290's 4GB.

Computerbase's latest benchmarks confirm:

R9 290 OC (after-market 290) = 100%
R9 390 = 102%
GTX970 OC (after-market 970) = 104%

They also did separate testing which again confirmed that an after-market 290 ~ reference 290X. Incredible value at $180-220.

Then in 1.5-2 years, just sell that $180-220 290 for $100 and take the $100-150 saved from not buying a 970/390 and just invest into a future 16nm GPU that will be 50-75% faster than a 970/290 at the $350 level by Fall 2017. This strategy has never failed in the last 3 decades of GPU upgrading. What has failed is people paying $150-300 more for 15-20% more performance thinking they are more future-proof. Not going to happen.

The reason 390 scores better than a 290 is because in most reviews the 290 used is a reference card that throttles or they are using older AMD drivers for the 290 scores vs. newer drivers for the 390 because they are too lazy to retest older cards on newer drivers. Also, there is a small increase in performance from faster GDDR5. Clock for clock 290 and 390 are more or less identical.

All it takes is a 1030mhz clock on the 290 to match a reference 290X.



R9 290 for $250 or less or EVGA B-stock 970 for $255 or so make every card in the $160-250 range irrelevant. The performance increase in those cards over 950/960/960 4GB/285/280X is massive.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-test/3/#abschnitt_tests_in_1920__1080

TechPowerUp, despite slight preference for NV cards, had this to say in their recent $800 Build Guide:

"At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. It also offers 4 GB of video memory. PowerColor added a factory overclock on top of that. If this doesn't highlight NVIDIA's terrible pricing for the GTX 960, nothing will."

For someone who is interested in picking up MGS V, Asus Strix 970 is going for $289 right now. Pretty good deal.

 

[Black96ws6]

I went through a similar decision. I first picked up the last new 290x at Fry's by my house thanks to their price-matching policy with NewEgg. It was an XFX Double Dissipation edition.

It was working fine until about 2 weeks ago, coincidentally when new drivers came out, along with a Windows 10 upgrade. Then I could not get it to work properly (booted to black screen). After much troubleshooting including going back to Win 8.1 and then some fun bios updates, I thought it was my old system. So I upgraded my system. Long story short, and after going through all that time and effort, it turned out to be a bad card.

So I went back, did the price-matching thing again, and got a good deal on an EVGA GTX 970 SSC edition.

Below I am attaching the results between the 2 cards. Not quite the same system anymore unfortunately, but with the details cranked up it's not cpu-dependent anyway. You can see the 970 destroys the 290x in both average and max fps, while the 290x destroys the 970 in min fps (not sure what's going on there). Both cards "stock" (although aftermarket)

290x:

GTX 970:

 

[clok1966]

But why did you buy it in the first place? I remember most reviewers complaining about high temperature and fan noise. The 7990 was the first sign(before the stock 290x) from AMD of completely loosing perspective as far as temps and noise are concerned.

I picked up a sealed boxed one for $250 from a bitcoin miner when he figured out there is no real money in it anymore.. I didn't mind the heat or power issues (upgraded from a ATI sli setup so was already on a 1200 PSU) as I mentioned I like ATI and have had no issues I cared to much about. But this card be a bad one or? kept killing ONE fan of 3, and always the same one. And as I mentioned warranty was great, they sent the whole fan setup each time (all 3 fans and mount).

So update on the 970: not good. Card runs games well enough (speed frames wise) but its a crash fest. I did a clean up on all drivers (video) removed the old card, put the new one in and weeee installer kept crapping out. Googles a bit and its common enough, several threads on it with several ideas on how to fix. I did a manual install with stock NV drivers and finally got it to go. Wow crashes in all Draenor zones, more reading, also lots of post in forums, cache problem, shut off Shader cache no more crashing. Hit up WoTanks, crashing.. I had over 6 months of uptime with my old 7990, not a single crash (i had jury rigged a 80MM fan onto it as i got sick of swapping card out, actually ran cooler). Fired up L4D2 (stone age game) crash... some issue with shaders.. shut off cache of shaders by game and it seems to solve it or make it so I havent seen it again yet. All 3 games crashed in as little as 2-3 minutes to as long as an hour, shutting this off has made them all seem to work. As all the games worked fine up to this point (ne card, new drivers) i have to lean towards that. SO I swapped the card with a new one.. same thing.. I also tried a clean up of drivers again and reinstall in safe mode. no change. Shutting of shader cache is only solution i can find. SO far im not noticing any huge hit in performance and am not noticing much game visually so thats ok, but i have just exchanged the hoops im jumping through. I guess I will have to be content with the less power and heat (which is a nice plus). The thing that really sticks with me, google shows many people with the same issues and no solutions from NV, just "its you not us" the shader fix was in a WOW forum and a few other game forums.

So performance wise, slight step down, but less heat and power (and quieter by a long shot) so Im good with that. The shader issue, not so happy but can live with. I wonder if more memory would have solved this?


sorry for long post, in all my reading to fix this i just thought I would mention it as I see others have the same issues. Lots of threads, but very few "fixes".

 

[tential]

I picked up a sealed boxed one for $250 from a bitcoin miner when he figured out there is no real money in it anymore.. I didn't mind the heat or power issues (upgraded from a ATI sli setup so was already on a 1200 PSU) as I mentioned I like ATI and have had no issues I cared to much about. But this card be a bad one or? kept killing ONE fan of 3, and always the same one. And as I mentioned warranty was great, they sent the whole fan setup each time (all 3 fans and mount).

So update on the 970: not good. Card runs games well enough (speed frames wise) but its a crash fest. I did a clean up on all drivers (video) removed the old card, put the new one in and weeee installer kept crapping out. Googles a bit and its common enough, several threads on it with several ideas on how to fix. I did a manual install with stock NV drivers and finally got it to go. Wow crashes in all Draenor zones, more reading, also lots of post in forums, cache problem, shut off Shader cache no more crashing. Hit up WoTanks, crashing.. I had over 6 months of uptime with my old 7990, not a single crash (i had jury rigged a 80MM fan onto it as i got sick of swapping card out, actually ran cooler). Fired up L4D2 (stone age game) crash... some issue with shaders.. shut off cache of shaders by game and it seems to solve it or make it so I havent seen it again yet. All 3 games crashed in as little as 2-3 minutes to as long as an hour, shutting this off has made them all seem to work. As all the games worked fine up to this point (ne card, new drivers) i have to lean towards that. SO I swapped the card with a new one.. same thing.. I also tried a clean up of drivers again and reinstall in safe mode. no change. Shutting of shader cache is only solution i can find. SO far im not noticing any huge hit in performance and am not noticing much game visually so thats ok, but i have just exchanged the hoops im jumping through. I guess I will have to be content with the less power and heat (which is a nice plus). The thing that really sticks with me, google shows many people with the same issues and no solutions from NV, just "its you not us" the shader fix was in a WOW forum and a few other game forums.

So performance wise, slight step down, but less heat and power (and quieter by a long shot) so Im good with that. The shader issue, not so happy but can live with. I wonder if more memory would have solved this?


sorry for long post, in all my reading to fix this i just thought I would mention it as I see others have the same issues. Lots of threads, but very few "fixes".

From all I heard about how bad AMD's drivers are, they always seem to work for me.

If I could force Triple Buffering for Witcher 2 that'd be great!

 

[you2]

While interesting data; that is @ 1080p. My specific needs are at 1440p. I believe (correct me if I am mistaken) the amd is known to scale better at higher resolution.

I went through a similar decision. I first picked up the last new 290x at Fry's by my house thanks to their price-matching policy with NewEgg. It was an XFX Double Dissipation edition.

It was working fine until about 2 weeks ago, coincidentally when new drivers came out, along with a Windows 10 upgrade. Then I could not get it to work properly (booted to black screen). After much troubleshooting including going back to Win 8.1 and then some fun bios updates, I thought it was my old system. So I upgraded my system. Long story short, and after going through all that time and effort, it turned out to be a bad card.

So I went back, did the price-matching thing again, and got a good deal on an EVGA GTX 970 SSC edition.

Below I am attaching the results between the 2 cards. Not quite the same system anymore unfortunately, but with the details cranked up it's not cpu-dependent anyway. You can see the 970 destroys the 290x in both average and max fps, while the 290x destroys the 970 in min fps (not sure what's going on there). Both cards "stock" (although aftermarket)

290x:

GTX 970:

 

[NomanA]

Regarding the $200 XFX R9 290DD which I got recently, it's currently running at 1030MHz (9% overclock for this card) while undervolted 25mV. I am still tweaking this and might settle down at a lower clock, if I can use even lower voltage.

At that overclock, the graphics score in Heaven matches my previous 1465MHz boosted GTX970, and only 3-4% behind in Firestrike. The card is silent and temperatures don't go above 72C when overclocked (68C at stock) when running these benchmarks continuously.

I am extremely impressed by this particular XFX card. Getting it for less than $200 was an unbelievably good deal. And not to forget that I can now finally use VESA adaptive sync monitors.

 

[RussianSensation]

It was working fine until about 2 weeks ago, coincidentally when new drivers came out, along with a Windows 10 upgrade. Then I could not get it to work properly (booted to black screen).

So I went back, did the price-matching thing again, and got a good deal on an EVGA GTX 970 SSC edition.

Sucks to hear about your 290X card. BTW, Unigine benchmarks are fun but are of 0 value for actual gaming performance for several reasons:

1) NV/AMD can spend time optimizing drivers for synthetic benchmarks and which firm has more financial/engineering resources can easily come out ahead when targeting a synthetic benchmark;

2) There is no game in the world based on Unigine Valley game engine. Therefore, the performance standing of GPUs in that benchmarks is irrelevant to gauge real world gaming performance.

3) Synthetic benchmarks try to extrapolate next generation graphical effects in newer games but over time they become outdated (for reason #2) and because we get more and more new PC games that helps us determine how well a card is aging.

I would say overall it's hard to go wrong with 970/290X/390 cards but right now given NV's poor showing in the first DX12 game, not so great showing in Black Ops 3 beta, and 390 generally beating 970, I would pick 390 over 970 if they are priced closely @ ~$300.

390/970/290/290X are still great picks for the price especially if you can snag a 970 for $255-290. At $320-330, I would not buy a 970.

From all I heard about how bad AMD's drivers are, they always seem to work for me.

Almost always coming from people who either haven't used an AMD card in 4-5 years, or have never owned an ATI/AMD card and keep repeating the meme from late 90s/early 2000s when ATI existed. Funny enough the same posters defend/ignore Kepler crippling, were oblivious to NV's lack of full RGB support over HDMI, were oblivious/ignorant to NV's horrendous 2D IQ up to GTX200 cards, etc. At least there is no documented AMD driver that has ever killed GPUs or laptops/screens.

Don't forget, that on driver default settings, NV leans heavily towards texture/filtering optimizations so if you have an NV card, make sure to enable the Quality/Highest IQ/Texture quality in the drivers unless you love blurry textures/filtering in your games. I personally think both AMD/NV cards need to be tested with maximum texture/filtering quality maxed on in the drivers but many GPU testers continue to ignore this request from PC gamers.