Used R9 290 vs GTX 970

[Carfax83]

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%.

I could use that same argument and say that a non reference GTX 970 would also perform better because the enhanced cooling would allow it to boost to higher clock speeds.....which is true.

A G1 GTX 970 will boost to 1392 MHz without any adjustment from the owner..

 

[Carfax83]

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)

What drivers did you use? The latest NVidia drivers increase performance by quite a bit on Maxwell cards.

Anyway, here is a fairly recent review which pits an XFX R9 290 DD against an Asus GTX 970 Strix.

It has power numbers and everything. Basically, even when overclocked to 1125, the R9 290 could not decisively beat the STOCK clocked GTX 970 with the exception of Tomb Raider. And the Strix is one of the slowest aftermarket GTX 970 models..

Power load testing was a washout. The overclocked R9 290 was pulling 200w more than the GTX 970, and when using stock clocks it was pulling 100w more.

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).

It's not just about costs though. For example, I have a UPS backup system. If I had two R9 290s instead of two G1 GTX 970s, I'm sure my backup time would be significantly less as they use more power.

Also, overclocking should be significantly easier with the GTX 970 (depending on the model and cooling) as the TDP is just so low..

 

[SimianR]

I could use that same argument and say that a non reference GTX 970 would also perform better because the enhanced cooling would allow it to boost to higher clock speeds.....which is true.

A G1 GTX 970 will boost to 1392 MHz without any adjustment from the owner..

And the default boost is usually what, 1250mhz? What do you think your going to see a bigger performance gain on, a 10-20% overclock, or a card that isn't throttling itself by 30% plus an additional 10% overclock on top of that?

Either way - people really can't go wrong with a GTX 970 or R9 290.. if you want efficiency you can go the 970 route or if you want value you go with the R9 290, and both deliver amazing performance.

 

[RussianSensation]

I could use that same argument and say that a non reference GTX 970 would also perform better because the enhanced cooling would allow it to boost to higher clock speeds.....which is true.

A G1 GTX 970 will boost to 1392 MHz without any adjustment from the owner..

I don't even know what you arguing. In Canada the cheapest high quality 970s are $400+ CDN, with Windforce/MSI Gaming/Asus Strix $420-450. Are you going to completely ignore that the MSI gaming 970 at TPU is just 6% faster than a reference 290X at 1080p, basically tied at 1440p+? In HardOCP's reviews of max overclocked 290X vs. 970, the 970 couldn't win either. 290X is about 5-7% faster than a 290. I mean you purchased 580s SLI instead of half as expensive unlocked 6950s, $900 770 4GB SLI instead of $600 7970Ghz CF, and 970 SLI for $700 over $500 290s. We obviously know you will pay $200-300 more for 5-10% more peformance but in price/performance terms, you justifying some 5-10% advantage for 30-50% price differences are not logical for brand agnostic users looking for best value for the money. No one disputes that a 1.5Ghz 970 won't beat a 290, but that minor 10% advantage will cost a lot more.

It's amusing you trying to argue about 7-10% performance differences when comparing spending $220-250 vs. $400+ for a card. Not everyone loves NV as much as you do to justify paying such huge premiums for minor performance gains that are washed away by next gen games making both 970/290 "equally slow" (unless we talk about GW titles).

 

[Majcric]

Drunken post, but I'll pay more for stability as well. Performance is NOT everything. Whether it be a fan fail on a Sapphire card or that infamous black screen of death. Anyway, Nvidia are obviously overpriced but AMD need some work in the stability/ reliability area.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nvidia cards don't fail. Fact.

LOL. Tell that to my two GTX460 WindForce cards with failed fans.

 

[therealnickdanger]

LOL. Tell that to my two GTX460 WindForce cards with failed fans.

I'll see your 460s and raise you a failed ATI Rage Fury MAXX, ATI AIW X800XT, ATI HD3850 and AMD HD6870. Meanwhile, my GeForce 256 64MB DDR, FX5200, 6800 Ultra, 7950GT, and 470 are all still operational (not currently in use, but all worked when replaced). I'm sure my old TNT would still be working today if I had it. Despite my experience, I don't actually think NVIDIA is better quality than AMD or vice versa. I've never bought a reference card, so I can really only blame/praise the vendors.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'd be interested to see that too.




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).

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the pics you posted. Not the summary graph in the article.
But you can obviously see, than 970 or 970 SLI doesn't take much worse than any other setup. A single 970 is only 2% slower in that summary than a 290X at 4K.
So, drops like a rock (as compared to other solutions) was an obvious exaggeration.

 

[Makaveli]

My personal experience with AMD make me go toward Nvidia whenever I can. I also always recommend quality over price. In the long term, I assume the 970 is the better option, no?

i'm not sure its the better option for $220 more that is a big difference in price even if one is used.

he could buy two 290's and go Xfire for the price of the 970 he quoted.

 

[Enigmoid]

I don't even know what you arguing. In Canada the cheapest high quality 970s are $400+ CDN, with Windforce/MSI Gaming/Asus Strix $420-450. Are you going to completely ignore that the MSI gaming 970 at TPU is just 6% faster than a reference 290X at 1080p, basically tied at 1440p+? In HardOCP's reviews of max overclocked 290X vs. 970, the 970 couldn't win either. 290X is about 5-7% faster than a 290. I mean you purchased 580s SLI instead of half as expensive unlocked 6950s, $900 770 4GB SLI instead of $600 7970Ghz CF, and 970 SLI for $700 over $500 290s. We obviously know you will pay $200-300 more for 5-10% more peformance but in price/performance terms, you justifying some 5-10% advantage for 30-50% price differences are not logical for brand agnostic users looking for best value for the money. No one disputes that a 1.5Ghz 970 won't beat a 290, but that minor 10% advantage will cost a lot more.

It's amusing you trying to argue about 7-10% performance differences when comparing spending $220-250 vs. $400+ for a card. Not everyone loves NV as much as you do to justify paying such huge premiums for minor performance gains that are washed away by next gen games making both 970/290 "equally slow" (unless we talk about GW titles).

Again with the hyperbole.

In Canada using PC Partpicker.

Cheapest 290 - $279
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-radeon-r9-290-windforce-db-99167-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 290X - $319
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-290x-975mhz-d3-103515-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 970 - $339
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-970-oc-6d-103049-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

There are no $220-250 290s to be found. Not every 970 is $400+

The windforce and strix 970 can be found under $400, let alone $420.

That puts a $60 difference between a 970 and a 290 and a $20 difference between a 970 and a 290X.

 

[Makaveli]

Again with the hyperbole.

In Canada using PC Partpicker.

Cheapest 290 - $279
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-radeon-r9-290-windforce-db-99167-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 290X - $319
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-290x-975mhz-d3-103515-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 970 - $339
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-970-oc-6d-103049-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

There are no $220-250 290s to be found. Not every 970 is $400+

The windforce and strix 970 can be found under $400, let alone $420.

That puts a $60 difference between a 970 and a 290 and a $20 difference between a 970 and a 290X.

I'm pretty sure the OP said he was looking at used 290's for the $220 price.

Your links are for retail products!

So even if we use the cheapest one you have found which is a much better price than the OP's 970 that is still $339vs $220.

That is still a large enough difference in price for me to choose the radeon if I was doing the purchasing.

 

[Subyman]

I'll poke my head in and say do the 970. I recommended 290's to two friends when they came out and they are not completely satisfied. One had streaming issues and ended up getting an nvidia which fixed the problem while the other had crossfire issues. I've owned two 290's and sold them. Moved to a single 780 and now I'm on 970's. I didn't like the 290s when I had them and am loving the 970's. Absolutely no issues.

 

[videopho]

^
Vote for 970 myself too.
One single 970 at ULTRA setting (1080p), playing BF4 (in 3d vision) still gets 88fps (measured by FRAPs).
Amazing card!

 

[Gikaseixas]

AMD is doomed when people prefer a $400 card vs a $200 with almost same performance

 

[Rvenger]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the pics you posted. Not the summary graph in the article.
But you can obviously see, than 970 or 970 SLI doesn't take much worse than any other setup. A single 970 is only 2% slower in that summary than a 290X at 4K.
So, drops like a rock (as compared to other solutions) was an obvious exaggeration.

I am not going to argue with you but the 970 goes from being greater or better than a 290x at 1080p to being worse at 4k than a 290. That was my observation. If you don't believe me then I don't know what to tell you because I tested both cards here on my own in real world scenarios and also ran Unigine Valley and 3dmark scores which reflected as such too.

Mind you these are 100% reference clocks on both cards.




I run 2x 970 on my main rig @ 4k. I am satisfied with the performance since I am saving around 200w at the wall and it runs considerably cooler and quieter than the 290s. That to me is a great tradeoff.

 

[wand3r3r]

Again with the hyperbole.

In Canada using PC Partpicker.

Cheapest 290 - $279
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-radeon-r9-290-windforce-db-99167-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 290X - $319
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-290x-975mhz-d3-103515-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 970 - $339
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-970-oc-6d-103049-1301.htm?affiliateid=7474144

There are no $220-250 290s to be found. Not every 970 is $400+

The windforce and strix 970 can be found under $400, let alone $420.

That puts a $60 difference between a 970 and a 290 and a $20 difference between a 970 and a 290X.

Those numbers he used were from the two options in the OP.

 

[Jhatfie]

I'll poke my head in and say do the 970. I recommended 290's to two friends when they came out and they are not completely satisfied. One had streaming issues and ended up getting an nvidia which fixed the problem while the other had crossfire issues. I've owned two 290's and sold them. Moved to a single 780 and now I'm on 970's. I didn't like the 290s when I had them and am loving the 970's. Absolutely no issues.

I loved my crossfired 5850's, 6950's and 7950's, but had nothing but stutter with 6850's in crossfire. I ran two MSI 970 Gaming's in SLI for a couple weeks and could not get them to stop crashing in games. Individually they worked perfect and were fantastic cards, but in SLI even when left stock the bottom card would undervolt causing instability no matter how much I messed with voltage or clock settings. I dumped them (selling for more than I got them for, thanks eBay!) for my current Strix 980 that managed to get open box for $450, which has been rock solid. The two 290's I have owned have been problem free, although I never put them in crossfire as I only owned one at a time.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I am not going to argue with you but the 970 goes from being greater or better than a 290x at 1080p to being worse at 4k than a 290. That was my observation. If you don't believe me then I don't know what to tell you because I tested both cards here on my own in real world scenarios and also ran Unigine Valley and 3dmark scores which reflected as such too.

Mind you these are 100% reference clocks on both cards.




I run 2x 970 on my main rig @ 4k. I am satisfied with the performance since I am saving around 200w at the wall and it runs considerably cooler and quieter than the 290s. That to me is a great tradeoff.

Very good unbiased post.

 

[Enigmoid]

Those numbers he used were from the two options in the OP.

Ah... Didn't see that. The point remains however that Russian is greatly inflating the cost of a 970.

IMO with the $220-250 used price the 290 is the better deal in my opinion.

 

[Silverforce11]

It's not a fair comparison to be pitting used vs new, there's a depreciation associated with used products.

At ~20% price delta, I would go with a 970 over R290.
But at ~$35% or more, it's definitely a win for R290.

The reason for me is the close performance but much reduced power use for 970, it matters when I pay $0.32 a kWh.

 

[boozzer]

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.

please, can anyone provide power draws of both cards at those over clock speeds? idle and full load please. pretty please.

 

[Silverforce11]

In my experience when pushed to around 1.2ghz with +75mV on the core, R290 draws ~350W. If pushed with +100mV, it can suck up to 400W. The sweetspot for my cards is 1.1ghz with no vcore, ~250W.

 

[Subyman]

AMD is doomed when people prefer a $400 card vs a $200 with almost same performance

I believe I got my 970's for $345 USD each and I sold my 290's when the mining boom was going on for nearly $500USD each. I can only speak for the cards themselves, not their value based on regional price differences. I was speaking to my experience with the market I'm in.

FWIW, the prices you are talking about are new vs used. Comparing new prices on newegg (in my region), the two cheapest are: 970 @ $329 and the 290 @ $279. I'd certainly pay the $50 difference based on my experience owning the cards. The OP's experience may be different due to a variety of reasons. I do not think the 970 is worth 2x more than the 290 if that is the OP's only option.

 

[Subyman]

I loved my crossfired 5850's, 6950's and 7950's, but had nothing but stutter with 6850's in crossfire. I ran two MSI 970 Gaming's in SLI for a couple weeks and could not get them to stop crashing in games. Individually they worked perfect and were fantastic cards, but in SLI even when left stock the bottom card would undervolt causing instability no matter how much I messed with voltage or clock settings. I dumped them (selling for more than I got them for, thanks eBay!) for my current Strix 980 that managed to get open box for $450, which has been rock solid. The two 290's I have owned have been problem free, although I never put them in crossfire as I only owned one at a time.

I heard about the undervolting issue due to SLI from some users. I never experienced it for whatever reason or never noticed it. I haven't experienced any instability that wasn't due to overclocking that I can remember. Maybe they fixed it with patches? In any case, I haven't seen the OP mention his friend needing SLI capability.

 

[Carfax83]

I don't even know what you arguing. In Canada the cheapest high quality 970s are $400+ CDN, with Windforce/MSI Gaming/Asus Strix $420-450.

Enigmoid already called you out on these prices :whiste:

Are you going to completely ignore that the MSI gaming 970 at TPU is just 6% faster than a reference 290X at 1080p, basically tied at 1440p+?

We're talking about the 290x now? I thought we were discussing the 290?

And that comparison may look different now with the 347xx drivers, which increase performance significantly for Maxwell cards..

In HardOCP's reviews of max overclocked 290X vs. 970, the 970 couldn't win either. 290X is about 5-7% faster than a 290

Which review was this?

I mean you purchased 580s SLI instead of half as expensive unlocked 6950s

Best decision I ever made, since AMD doesn't even support their VLIW cards anymore whilst NVidia is still supporting Fermi. The guy who bought them from me must still be smiling, if he still has them that is.. ^_^

$900 770 4GB SLI instead of $600 7970Ghz CF

CF was broken when I bought my GTX 770 4GB cards, and the 7970 GHz cards were not 300 a piece..

970 SLI for $700 over $500 290s

Actually it was more like 200 bucks since I sold my GTX 770 4GB cards for 530 USD.

We obviously know you will pay $200-300 more for 5-10% more peformance but in price/performance terms, you justifying some 5-10% advantage for 30-50% price differences are not logical for brand agnostic users looking for best value for the money

Right, because we all know that AMD and NVidia cards are exactly the same other than the slight differences in performance

No one disputes that a 1.5Ghz 970 won't beat a 290, but that minor 10% advantage will cost a lot more.

LOL @ 10%. It's going to be more than that dude..

It's amusing you trying to argue about 7-10% performance differences when comparing spending $220-250 vs. $400+ for a card. Not everyone loves NV as much as you do to justify paying such huge premiums for minor performance gains that are washed away by next gen games making both 970/290 "equally slow" (unless we talk about GW titles).

I didn't say it was just about performance. I said power usage has a lot to do with it as well.. The R9 series uses an obscene amount of power when overclocked..

Also one other reason to choose the 970 is that it has full DX12 compatibility, whereas the 290 has partial support.