PurePC: GeForce GTX 970 vs Radeon R9 390 (Stock and OC)

[Sweepr]

The rivalry between the GeForce GTX 970 and Radeon R9 390 starts to resemble an ideological dispute, since any tests of these video cards, make your readers instead of coldly analyze the situation, take a lively but not necessarily substantive polemic. Interlocutors exhaust the various arguments fiercely defending their favorites, especially if you expect different results. Among the dozens of votes scrolls, however, some suggestions worth verify: the superiority overclocked GeForce GTX 970 over Radeon R9 390. The case recently took on importance because according to a handful of readers the use reference models penalizes NVIDIA, provided with the greater overclocking potential than AMD solutions. So I decided to carry out additional measurements squeezing the maximum out of both GPUs to finally close on the GeForce GTX 970 and Radeon R9 390.

16.1.1 Catalyst Hotfix - Radeon
Game Ready GeForce 361.75 WHQL - GeForce

At the base settings favorite is the Radeon R9 390, but when we take into account the full potential of overclocking, conduct includes the GeForce GTX 970. The Greens win then virtually all disciplines.

We must also remember that for the Radeon to showcase its full potential, it needs a more powerful processor than the GeForce satisfactory decidedly weaker units.

www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/geforce_gtx_970_oc_vs_radeon_r9_390_oc_test_kart_graficznych

 

[tential]

Sad to see no OC power consumption results.

The G1 is one of the best OCers too. It's one of the ones I usually recommend for Nvidia.

 

[csbin]

2560x1440

 

[Sweepr]

2560x1440

http://pic.yupoo.com/ztwss/FnUr2hbs/NItZ8.jpg

Same performance as the Radeon with OC here, but you were fast at picking one of the worst case scenario for the Geforce (GTA V). Here's a medal.

Overall a bit smaller difference at 1440p but the OCed Geforce still wins.

Steam Hardware Survey:
- Primary display resolution
1080p: 35.91%
1440p: 1.06%

 

[jantjeuh]

970 does well in older games, but in recent titles 390 seems to dominate.

 

[Erenhardt]

As expected, 390 is faster (minus tomb raider for some reason?) at stock.
And they OCed is a wash and unwarranted.

Not every 390 cracks at 1120MHz. And not every 970 is 1 Mhz shy of 1570.

 

[tential]

Same performance as the Radeon with OC here, but you were fast at picking one of the worst case scenario for the Geforce (GTA V). Here's a medal.

Overall a bit smaller difference at 1440p but the OCed Geforce still wins.

Steam Hardware Survey:
- Primary display resolution
1080p: 35.91%
1440p: 1.06%

Who cares what display you have?
Again, have you guys seriously never heard of VSR/DSR?

I'll never game at 1080p, even though I own only 1080p displays....

 

[Azix]

Those are all games that typically favored nvidia. FC4 is the odd one out I think. Outcome should be known especially with a 1569Mhz OC-ed 970.

basically if you listed those games and asked me to guess which card would win, it would be easy to guess.

 

[Termie]

As I recently ran a similar set of benchmarks, I'll add them to this thread:

http://techbuyersguru.com/state-game-report-290-vs-390x-vs-970-vs-980

While I only tested Witcher 3, GTAV, and Rise of the Tomb Raider, I conducted the OC tests on four cards: 290, 970, 390X, and 980.

Generally speaking, for the 970/290 the results are similar to what PurePC found.

 

[poofyhairguy]

As I recently ran a similar set of benchmarks, I'll add them to this thread:

http://techbuyersguru.com/state-game-report-290-vs-390x-vs-970-vs-980

While I only tested Witcher 3, GTAV, and Rise of the Tomb Raider, I conducted the OC tests on four cards: 290, 970, 380X, and 980.

Generally speaking, for the 970/290 the results are similar to what PurePC found.

Wow you have the 970 beating even the 390x sometimes at 1080p, and it isn't due to the CPU. Pretty shocking.

 

[xthetenth]

As I recently ran a similar set of benchmarks, I'll add them to this thread:

http://techbuyersguru.com/state-game-report-290-vs-390x-vs-970-vs-980

While I only tested Witcher 3, GTAV, and Rise of the Tomb Raider, I conducted the OC tests on four cards: 290, 970, 390X, and 980.

Generally speaking, for the 970/290 the results are similar to what PurePC found.

Those don't seem to square with a lot of the Tomb Raider benches I've seen. How recently did you test?

 

[Face2Face]

Both are great cards, though a 1500MHz GTX 970 is pretty beast. I wonder how long the GTX 970 will lead though? AMD has been doing a great job optimizing Hawaii.

 

[Termie]

Those don't seem to square with a lot of the Tomb Raider benches I've seen. How recently did you test?

Two days ago. That's not Tomb Raider, it's Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[kawi6rr]

I would pick the 390 since I don't overclock anymore.

 

[boozzer]

meh, as if we didn't know 970 doing ok in older, dx11 games.

Q: why is the oc version of 390 doing worst than 390 tri x most of the time? that is just bizarre.

 

[Goatsecks]

Interesting results, cutting against the grain of popular opinion on these here forums. I predict this thread getting locked in under 1 week.

Who cares what display you have?
Again, have you guys seriously never heard of VSR/DSR?

I'll never game at 1080p, even though I own only 1080p displays....

1080p is the most appropiate resolution for these cards.

 

[Goatsecks]

meh, as if we didn't know 970 doing ok in older, dx11 games.

Q: why is the oc version of 390 doing worst than 390 tri x most of the time? that is just bizarre.

Many of these games are still very popular titles. It is also cool to see some new oc vs oc results. More data is always good, no?

 

[xthetenth]

Two days ago. That's not Tomb Raider, it's Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Right, sorry, I'm too lazy for my own good sometimes. I wonder if a patch after the release one or an NV driver release boosted it.

 

[Bacon1]

So a massively (50%) OC'd 970 that is better than a 980 compared with a tiny (11%) OC on a 390. Yep those are legit results and what everyone would expect.

Really like how they don't even have a picture of the cards used, just a generic reference blower that never even released for the picture of the 390.

If all Maxwell cards can OC so well, why are they sold at low clocks? Why aren't they clocked out of the box higher?

Thats the reason its important to test sold clocks as average users don't overclock themselves, and thats why Nvidia cards already "boost" clocks when gaming.

 

[tential]

Interesting results, cutting against the grain of popular opinion on these here forums. I predict this thread getting locked in under 1 week.



1080p is the most appropiate resolution for these cards.

Maybe if you're a 970 user in which lower resolutions favor you. For me, I bought the 290 for 1440p vsr.

The 970 is probably capable of the same thing even although I really don't know how dsr looks vs vsr and wasn't impressed. Maybe that's why Nvidia users care less about dsr? Because the main gpu, the 970, scales poorly with resolution while you get good scaling with resolution with gcn so you can use vsr to eek out more performance?

I just don't see why you'd restrict yourself to 1080p on any card when dsr came out. I raved about dsr when it came out. Are Nvidia users seriously not that happy about dsr? I was furious at amd for not having the option and was going to switch over when amd came out with it. Then I was furious amd has artificial restrictions that limit the r9 390 from hitting 4k vsr.

I mean, this can vastly clean up images of games why would you ignore it?

BRB, getting 90 fps at 1080p on a 60hz screen(just being real you said were at 1080p 60hz gaming) and not using vsr/dsr to further max settings.

Jesus..... Crazy.

Edit: like fallout 4. You mean to tell me you guys played that on a 970 at native 1080p if you have a 1080p monitor instead of dropping God rays a little and using dsr to get to 1440p?

 

[Goatsecks]

Maybe if you're a 970 user in which lower resolutions favor you. For me, I bought the 290 for 1440p vsr.

The 970 is probably capable of the same thing even although I really don't know how dsr looks vs vsr and wasn't impressed. Maybe that's why Nvidia users care less about dsr? Because the main gpu, the 970, scales poorly with resolution while you get good scaling with resolution with gcn so you can use vsr to eek out more performance?

I just don't see why you'd restrict yourself to 1080p on any card when dsr came out. I raved about dsr when it came out. Are Nvidia users seriously not that happy about dsr? I was furious at amd for not having the option and was going to switch over when amd came out with it. Then I was furious amd has artificial restrictions that limit the r9 390 from hitting 4k vsr.

I mean, this can vastly clean up images of games why would you ignore it?

BRB, getting 90 fps at 1080p on a 60hz screen(just being real you said were at 1080p 60hz gaming) and not using vsr/dsr to further max settings.

Jesus..... Crazy.

Edit: like fallout 4. You mean to tell me you guys played that on a 970 at native 1080p if you have a 1080p monitor instead of dropping God rays a little and using dsr to get to 1440p?

Seems like the 970 and 390 in most of the games in these benches get around 45-65fps at 1080p. So yea 1080p is the most appropiate for gaming on a 60hz monitor judging by these results.

DSR is indeed a cool tech, I am happy that it means so much to you.

just being real you said were at 1080p 60hz gaming

no I didnt.

Edit: engrish.

 

[tential]

That's great that you look at a benchmark with all maxed settings. In the real world, we pick our optimal settings. Once I picked optimal settings for fallout 4 I was well above 60 fps. These settings were recommended by Nvidia users(because like who even owns amd gpus on casual forums). So I know other 970 users are using settings like these.

No one just maxes all sliders.
Like you said, they're getting 45-65 fps you have to make some adjustments, and usually you kill the most expensive feature there is (Nvidia sponsored features sadly or high levels of aa or some crazy other thing). Boom over 60 fps. You're telling me you don't utilize that extra power once you kill off the most demanding to least image quality setting?

 

[Head1985]

GTX970 is just beast after oc.AT 1500/8000 it will beat GTX980.Good for 320USD card.

 

[boozzer]

Many of these games are still very popular titles. It is also cool to see some new oc vs oc results. More data is always good, no?

http://steamcharts.com/app/377160
http://steamcharts.com/app/391220#3m
http://steamcharts.com/app/243470
http://steamcharts.com/app/292030

you can check others if you want. still very popular my foot. you can use them as benchmarks for DX11 for sure, but please leave the claim of popularity out. it isn't going to help your argument.

I can't get BF4 stats because it is on origin.

 

[Qwertilot]

1080 is what the 970 is mostly aimed at surely? Maybe 1440. Maxwell might be very efficient but ultimately the 970 is still a medium sized card, slightly limited bandwidth etc.

As an aside, some of the early gcn love does puzzle me. The 2/390 have been (are) good value, but that's very much despite their architecture rather than because of it. If gcn matched Maxwell as an architecture they'd be comfortably ahead of the 97/80.

Hopefully it'll all be much closer next gen.