• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Used R9 290 vs GTX 970

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thanks for all the inputs guys. Finally I settled for the general idea of going used AMD. I chose a R9 280X DirectCU from a trusted seller. I have next day shipping for 185 CAD but I know the card is perfect. It will do all my friends needs for a more than decent price.
 
SolMiester said:
Wat?, how do you break that many cards?...seriously, is mining really that hard on the cards?
Click to expand...

It's not broken. It's refurb/used. Still under warranty and functional "As New".

Mining stress the fans moreso since ICs don't fail just because they are running as designed, within specs for the power circuitry. The reference blower is very resilient and very few "die" in my prior experience with mass retail. Generally I would be more concerned with open air blowers, under 100% fanspeed for 6+ months will wreck a few well known brand designs (won't name names).
 
Silverforce11 said:
It's not broken. It's refurb/used. Still under warranty and functional "As New".

Mining stress the fans moreso since ICs don't fail just because they are running as designed, within specs for the power circuitry. The reference blower is very resilient and very few "die" in my prior experience with mass retail. Generally I would be more concerned with open air blowers, under 100% fanspeed for 6+ months will wreck a few well known brand designs (won't name names).
Click to expand...


Sleeve Bearing Power Logic fans being run horizontally at 100%. 😉
 
Msi 970 fans kick in at 60%?,both?,anyways instant buy for me if that is the case and needed a card.fan problems grrr.noisy buggers.
 
raghu78 said:
OP just to prove how close R9 290 is to GTX 970, here is a benchmark of 2014 games done by gamegpu. At 1080p R9 290 is just 3% slower than GTX 970.

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html
Click to expand...

Right, the only reason they are "close" is because that review is using reference models, and the reference clock speed for the GTX 970 is only 1050/1178 MHz, which is much slower than what the chip itself is capable of running at.
 
Carfax83 said:
Right, the only reason they are "close" is because that review is using reference models, and the reference clock speed for the GTX 970 is only 1050/1178 MHz, which is much slower than what the chip itself is capable of running at.
Click to expand...

Sure, you mean just like how they are also using reference AMD R9 290's which run at 947MHz boost and are known to sometimes throttle the clocks even well below the 900 MHz range due to high thermals from the crap reference cooler? Both the 290 and 970 are capable of running well above reference speeds.
 
Jhatfie said:
Sure, you mean just like how they are also using reference AMD R9 290's which run at 947MHz boost and are known to sometimes throttle the clocks even well below the 900 MHz range due to high thermals from the crap reference cooler? Both the 290 and 970 are capable of running well above reference speeds.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making, is that you can potentially get a significantly greater amount of performance out of a GTX 970 than you can a R9 290 when both are overclocked.

The GTX 970 has a much lower TDP than the R9 290, whilst providing greater performance, and this is especially so when both are overclocked or running at high speeds.

That said, I do agree that the R9 290 is the bang for the buck champion at the moment. But if you care about energy consumption and overall performance, the GTX 970 is the better buy.
 
Carfax83 said:
The point I'm making, is that you can potentially get a significantly greater amount of performance out of a GTX 970 than you can a R9 290 when both are overclocked.

The GTX 970 has a much lower TDP than the R9 290, whilst providing greater performance, and this is especially so when both are overclocked or running at high speeds.

That said, I do agree that the R9 290 is the bang for the buck champion at the moment. But if you care about energy consumption and overall performance, the GTX 970 is the better buy.
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue that you'll see a much bigger performance gain on a non-reference R9 290 compared to a non-reference GTX 970. I'd hate to see how many times in those benchmarks the R9 290 throttled down to 600-700mhz because the default fanspeed is capped at 47%. Overclocked R9 290 Tri-X's are pretty competitive as well. There are less R9 290's that are worth overclocking though, I think the Sapphire Tri-X or the Vapor-X would be decent, but a lot of the other non-reference cards are not great so overall one would have an easier time overclocking a GTX 970.
 
Last edited:
Carfax83 said:
The point I'm making, is that you can potentially get a significantly greater amount of performance out of a GTX 970 than you can a R9 290 when both are overclocked.

The GTX 970 has a much lower TDP than the R9 290, whilst providing greater performance, and this is especially so when both are overclocked or running at high speeds.

That said, I do agree that the R9 290 is the bang for the buck champion at the moment. But if you care about energy consumption and overall performance, the GTX 970 is the better buy.
Click to expand...

Obviously this is just one bench, but here is a good comparison between my factory OC'd MSI Gaming 970 which boosted to about 1315Mhz and my factory OC'd PowerColor 290 PCS+ (1040Mhz stock) with about the same performance.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3127054 <--- 970 (11758 graphics score)
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2046431 <--- 290 (12015 graphics score)

The 290 for sure uses a bunch more power at load, but even if you gamed 6 hours a day, 365 days a year that extra 100W is only about $18/yr more here in Washington (since idle usage is only about 10W different). For someone like me, that actually games at most 20 hours a week, that is only like $8-9/yr difference in local energy costs (.1kw x $.08 kw/hr x 20hours x 52weeks = $8.32). The 970 is a better overall card for sure; It's more efficient, runs cooler and offers better performance, but at recent sale prices I think the 290 is hard to beat for USD $230-ish or so several are going for after rebates. Shoot even NewEgg has a Gigabyte 290x for $254 after rebate and mobile code today.
 
Carfax83 said:
The point I'm making, is that you can potentially get a significantly greater amount of performance out of a GTX 970 than you can a R9 290 when both are overclocked.

The GTX 970 has a much lower TDP than the R9 290, whilst providing greater performance, and this is especially so when both are overclocked or running at high speeds.

That said, I do agree that the R9 290 is the bang for the buck champion at the moment. But if you care about energy consumption and overall performance, the GTX 970 is the better buy.
Click to expand...

According to HwBot, the average 970 overclocks to 1442Mhz on the core which is 22% over stock. The average 290 overclocks to 1117Mhz which is 18% over stock. The 970 really doesn't have a clear lead in overclockability. Power consumption it wins hands down though.
 
On NCIX's boxing week sales you can get a Zotac 970 for 360$ and a power color 290 for 240$ There's 290x's around 320. Also interesting a gigabyte mini 970 for 340$
 
Elfear said:
According to HwBot, the average 970 overclocks to 1442Mhz on the core which is 22% over stock. The average 290 overclocks to 1117Mhz which is 18% over stock. The 970 really doesn't have a clear lead in overclockability. Power consumption it wins hands down though.
Click to expand...
do you have the power usage for those overclocks? would love to see what is the actual difference.
 
Elfear said:
According to HwBot, the average 970 overclocks to 1442Mhz on the core which is 22% over stock. The average 290 overclocks to 1117Mhz which is 18% over stock. The 970 really doesn't have a clear lead in overclockability. Power consumption it wins hands down though.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the GTX 970 performance at 4k falls off like a rock compared to the R9 290.
 
boozzer said:
do you have the power usage for those overclocks? would love to see what is the actual difference.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see that too.


Keysplayr said:
Does it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y_GEvObFRQ
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_970_SLI/8.html


Must be one of them floating rocks. Seems it hangs with a 290X at 4K. And yes, you would want to SLI or CF these at 4K for the best performance. That goes for 290,290X,970,980, 780,780Ti.
Click to expand...

I think you kind of proved his point with the 2nd link. 😉 970 SLI is neck and neck with the 295X2 at 1080p but is 50% slower at 4k.

Across a range of games at GameGPU, the drop isn't terrible but it is a 6% spread between 1080p and 4k (970 vs 290).
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Videocards-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Videocards-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_3840.jpg
 
ChuckFx said:
Thanks for all the inputs guys. Finally I settled for the general idea of going used AMD. I chose a R9 280X DirectCU from a trusted seller. I have next day shipping for 185 CAD but I know the card is perfect. It will do all my friends needs for a more than decent price.
Click to expand...

If its a brand new card from a PC components retailer that is a good price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top