Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

R9 290 VS GTx 770

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 26, 2014 10:49:28 AM

I am finalizing my gpu decision and I am seeing so many different opinions and biased reviews online. Overall I believe that the R9 290 is of better quality but the 770 is quieter and runs cooler.

Basically down to :

XFX R9-290A-EDFD 4GB double dissipation (or) Asus R9290-DC2OC-4GD5 4GB direct CU II

VS

EVGA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Superclocked ACX Video Card

Suggestions? Also Pros of Cons of either?
Thanks in advance!

More about : 290 gtx 770

June 26, 2014 10:50:36 AM

290 has more gpu power and more videoram 290 for the win :) 

m
0
l
June 26, 2014 10:53:48 AM

iceclock said:
290 has more gpu power and more videoram 290 for the win :) 



Of the two I listed which one would you recommend?
m
0
l
Related resources
June 26, 2014 10:55:16 AM

290 more futureproofing and more power for ur dollar :) 

m
0
l
June 26, 2014 10:56:45 AM

The 290 is more or less the equivalent to the 780, not the 770. So from a performance standpoint, the 290. But if you can get the 780, I'd go with that.
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 10:57:46 AM

if u read he said 770 :p 

m
0
l
June 26, 2014 10:59:02 AM

The 290 has better value and performance across the board. The GTX 770 is quieter and runs cooler. I would still get the GTX 770 over the 290. It probably isn't fair but I still feel burned by historic driver issues with AMD/ATI cards.
m
0
l

Best solution

June 26, 2014 11:03:15 AM

pleein123 said:
I am finalizing my gpu decision and I am seeing so many different opinions and biased reviews online. Overall I believe that the R9 290 is of better quality but the 770 is quieter and runs cooler.
Thanks in advance!


no the 290 is not better quality than a 770 but it is more powerfull, NVidia cards are better build that's why they a better quality but this is a no brainer go for the 290 unless you will only play NVidia's gamework games then yeah a 770 beats a 290 on UE4
Share
June 26, 2014 11:23:27 AM

skit75 said:
The 290 has better value and performance across the board. The GTX 770 is quieter and runs cooler. I would still get the GTX 770 over the 290. It probably isn't fair but I still feel burned by historic driver issues with AMD/ATI cards.


I see that you also have the 770. What is the performance like on ultra with well known games?
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 11:24:11 AM

iceclock said:
290 more futureproofing and more power for ur dollar :) 



I agree that 290 is more powerful but which model should I get? Double Dissipation or Direct Cu II
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 11:37:01 AM

pleein123 said:
skit75 said:
The 290 has better value and performance across the board. The GTX 770 is quieter and runs cooler. I would still get the GTX 770 over the 290. It probably isn't fair but I still feel burned by historic driver issues with AMD/ATI cards.


I see that you also have the 770. What is the performance like on ultra with well known games?


I game on a 1920x1080p 60Hz 24" monitor and also have a 1280x1024 60Hz 19" monitor connected to the GTX 770. I play League of Legends, BF4 & BF3, War Thunder in Ultra settings and Skyrim with HD texture Pack all at 60 FPS. The card never goes over 63-64C.
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 2:34:48 PM

If you want higher then 60HZ, AMD has refused (still refusing with 4k?) to push more then 60Hz with it's drivers. So us older folks with 120Hz or better screens to make sure we can see you all trying to 'bambi' us are stuck with Nvidia for good. Also second bad thing I came across on AMD is the 290s apparently are built to overheat, so much so the onboard processing purposefully monitors the temps and based on the fan speed, will 'throttle back' the 290s performance to ensure it only maxs at 94c. But if you turn up (100%) the fan, you then get a JET ENGINE blowing high sound all the time when trying to get the 'advertised performance' of a 290, which still will throttle back (hardwired in) if the card tries to exceed (say your OCing) above 90c or so.
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 4:06:17 PM

Tom Tancredi said:
If you want higher then 60HZ, AMD has refused (still refusing with 4k?) to push more then 60Hz with it's drivers. So us older folks with 120Hz or better screens to make sure we can see you all trying to 'bambi' us are stuck with Nvidia for good. Also second bad thing I came across on AMD is the 290s apparently are built to overheat, so much so the onboard processing purposefully monitors the temps and based on the fan speed, will 'throttle back' the 290s performance to ensure it only maxs at 94c. But if you turn up (100%) the fan, you then get a JET ENGINE blowing high sound all the time when trying to get the 'advertised performance' of a 290, which still will throttle back (hardwired in) if the card tries to exceed (say your OCing) above 90c or so.


Yeah after reading all of these i'm actually convinced to not get either and just jump up a little above my budget to a gtx 780. Think that's a little overboard? I'm planning on getting the intel i7 4790k as well.
m
0
l
June 27, 2014 12:50:19 AM

pleein123 said:


Yeah after reading all of these i'm actually convinced to not get either and just jump up a little above my budget to a gtx 780. Think that's a little overboard? I'm planning on getting the intel i7 4790k as well.


nope using an MIS 780 gaming right now @1080p and if I turn everything way up it just manages to get past 60fps in most games, im assuming games coming out next year(witcher3 and the like) will push my 780 to the point ill start running at high and not just ultra
m
0
l
!