GTX 970 OR R9 390?? on 1080P

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

Hello I would like to ask which card is better for new games and much demanding. I thnk that the 970 will perform better in nvidia games and have gameworks options and physX and MFAA and better drivers..

But the amd's 8GB OF VRAM i think its very futureproof and the 512bit . I know i know all of you are gonna say that you dont need so may gb's of vram but I am gonna to keep it for a long time

Also 3,5gb issue... And SoM with 6gb vram... and gta v maxed out uses 8gb of vram (tested)

( Planning on keeping it for 7+years

*
There is a 50% chance to sell my 960 and get one of those thats why i am asking 4your opinion

ToxicFantom · Aug 25, 2015

GTX 970. Nvidias software is better. Runs cooler, quiter, consumes less power. The 8GB of VRAM on the 390 is unnecessary and will NEVER be used at 1080p gaming. Future proofing is a fallacy, remove the term from your vocabulary.

Rookie_MIB · Aug 25, 2015

Don't get so hung up on VRAM. Testing shows that even the 4GB max on the Fury products doesn't really hamstring it all that much. Ok, it also has a 4kbit memory bus for literal gobs of bandwidth but still, even the 4k games run very close the 980ti which has significantly more memory.

For all purposes, if you're playing at 1080p, either card will probably be fine, and for the most part you can just make your choice based on price and availability.

StarChief · Aug 25, 2015

That's funny, my GTA V maxed out only uses 3.4 gigs at 1080p

The transfer rate is also a non-issue, since it's been explained again and again that MAxwell is super efficient with ram and this is why it has such a narrow bus.

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

Rookie_MIB :

Yes but gta v uses 8gb of vram on tottally maxed out i said i want futureproofing cause i wont change gpu for like 8years
On 2009 games used max 1gb of vram now max 6gb (shadow of mordor ) imagine how it will be on 2020+

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

I told u tottally maxed out with advanced graphics and 8xmsaa (1080p)

StarChief · Aug 25, 2015

stavrosmast :

Do you not see my post with screenshot? Neither GTA V not Shadow of Mordor exceed 4 gigs of Vram at 1080p. I own both games, I played both games, I monitored Vram usage in both games. No game is going to use more than 4 gigs of Vram at that resolution in the near future.

Anti- aliasing is handled by my Nvidia control panel, that's it's off in game. It's cranked up for GTA V as high as it can go.

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

Thats what i told u i dont talk about near future i talk about far future... you didnt have advanced graphics on and 8xmsaa and i told u tottally maxed out

Mousemonkey · Aug 25, 2015

StarChief :

stavrosmast :

Do you not see my post with screenshot? Neither GTA V not Shadow of Mordor exceed 4 gigs of Vram at 1080p. I own both games, I played both games, I monitored Vram usage in both games. No game is going to use more than 4 gigs of Vram at that resolution in the near future.

Anti- aliasing is handled by my Nvidia control panel, that's it's off in game. It's cranked up for GTA V as high as it can go.

I guess you are not saying what he wants to hear.

StarChief · Aug 25, 2015

Besides, neither of those cards can handle either game at max settings at 1080p. When I max out all the advanced settings I get like 20 fps.

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

3,5gb are too low for me and future games

martinch · Aug 25, 2015

stavrosmast :

Just bear in mind that a GTX 280 (2008/9 - 7 years ago) is outperformed by a GT 740 now (~1,200 vs ~1,500 on PassMark). Assuming GPUs increase in power at the same rate, you may find that whilst it is still working, it will struggle somewhat with new games (in 7 years).

StarChief · Aug 25, 2015

stavrosmast :

I don't think you understand how video ram is used and how it works. But hey, if you FEEL like you need 8 gigs of Vram, then by all means get them! It's your money, we're just here to explain things.

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

martinch :

Yes its like saying a '98 ferrari with 800hp is still better than a smart 60hp we all know that

ToxicFantom · Aug 25, 2015

You made your decision before you posted the question. Thanks for wasting everyones time. Go ahead, have fun wasting your money.

stavrosmast · Aug 25, 2015

I just wanted your opinions also why a waste? Look 970's and 390's specs

Rookie_MIB · Aug 27, 2015

stavrosmast :

Here's the problem with what you're looking for:

While it is certainly true that CPU power has somewhat plateaued and that a 7 year old CPU can handle most current games, the GPU is what does most of the heavy lifting and actually has to drive all those pixels. You want us to recommend something that will be effectively just as powerful now as a GPU 7 years down the road.

Just take a look at the difference between the GTX 680 and the GTX 980. The GTX 680 was released in 2012, just three years ago, and it has about 55-60% of the power of the 980. That means extrapolating it out somewhat you could probably expect the GTX 680 to have about 30-35% of whatever comes out three years from now. That's not going to be usable by any stretch of the imagination.

So - what you're asking is near impossible, unless we recommend straight up overkill, as in pick the top of the stack of current technology TODAY and in doing so hoping that no radical changes come about in the GPU landscape. That's already not going to happen with HBM coming out in Nvidia and HBM 2.0 in AMD, along with the rise of higher resolution displays and more widespread 4k adoption. However, you're not even looking at the top of the GPU stack, you're looking to start around a GTX 970 or a R9-390, which is a full three tiers BELOW the top. (Titan, 980ti, 980 on Nvidia and FuryX, Fury, R9-295x2 on AMD). So - you want top tier performance now and seven years into the future while not picking top tier parts.

We just can't do it, you want inherently conflicting things, hence the waste of time.

(no offense intended btw, just pointing out the cold hard facts)

Bazookatooths · Aug 27, 2015

http://i57.tinypic.com/2lmo09k.png

Looks like games will be going over 3.5
Battlefield is already over at 1080p

stavrosmast · Aug 30, 2015

Thanks for the answers/help I saw a lots of reviews and fps benchmarks,usages,forums and cause I want to see a big difference from my 960, I will proboboly wait for nvidia pascal gpu's to come out on 2016

Rookie_MIB · Aug 31, 2015

That would be a smart move. Because if they put HBM throughout their entire product stack for Pascal, the equivalent of a current gen 970 in the stack will have 16nm FinFet and an unknown amount of HBM 2.0 memory. That means it'll run cooler, and use less power. The kicker is though - what is the interface going to be? Will they try and match the 4096 bit interface (slow and wide) or will they go a bit narrower and faster (1024 bit at quad rates or higher)?

stavrosmast · Sep 1, 2015

Dont know we will wait 5-6 months and see

Rookie_MIB · Sep 2, 2015

Lol. You mean -you'll- wait 5-6 months and see. I'm still rocking a HD6700 series - I just play really lightweight games for fun once in a while.

stavrosmast · Sep 2, 2015

Well If I was in America I would surely have a 970 cause the prices there are very low. Also in my country my build is considered very expesive

GTX 970 OR R9 390?? on 1080P

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Honorable

Honorable

Reputable

Honorable

Titan

Reputable

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Share this page