I know there are a number of other threads discussing this but there seems to be a massive disparity of opinion when it comes to these three cards. As far as I'm aware, the cards have similar in-game performance but each have their own pros and cons, which are as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong):
R9 290X
- Many sources seem to assert that it yields similar FPS results to the R9 390
- Runs hottest and noisiest when under load
- Uses most power when under load (although not a lot more than the R9 390)
- Hardest to overclock (due to the previous two points)
- Cheapest (I can get it for £34 less than the R9 390)
- Good at high resolutions (although I'll be playing at 1080p)
R9 390
- Many current sources say that it yields slightly better performance than the GTX 970
- Runs cooler and quieter than 290X, but hotter and noisier than 970
- Uses less power than 290X, but significantly more than 970
- Harder to overclock than GTX 970
- Most expensive (I can currently get it for £7 more than the GTX 970)
- 8GB of VRAM, therefore best at high resolutions and perhaps better future-proofing
GTX 970
- Many current sources say that it yields slightly worse performance than the R9 390
- Runs coolest and quietest
- Uses the least power
- Easiest to overclock
- A bit cheaper than the R9 390 (by £7) but more expensive than the R9 290X (by £27)
- Not so good at high resolutions
My concerns are as follows:
1) I'm aiming to build a PC for both gaming and music production/recording. The only time I need my PC to be running quietly is when I'm doing production/recording. Seeing as the GPU will be hardly used during these times, would there be any noise difference getting the 970 over the R9's?
2) Overclocking aside, are there any other benefits for having a low power consumption other than having slightly lower electricity bills (and obviously a lower-wattage PSU)?
3) I'm on a budget. Taking all of the above into account and seeing as they perform similarly, should I just be going for the cheapest card I can get?
R9 290X
- Many sources seem to assert that it yields similar FPS results to the R9 390
- Runs hottest and noisiest when under load
- Uses most power when under load (although not a lot more than the R9 390)
- Hardest to overclock (due to the previous two points)
- Cheapest (I can get it for £34 less than the R9 390)
- Good at high resolutions (although I'll be playing at 1080p)
R9 390
- Many current sources say that it yields slightly better performance than the GTX 970
- Runs cooler and quieter than 290X, but hotter and noisier than 970
- Uses less power than 290X, but significantly more than 970
- Harder to overclock than GTX 970
- Most expensive (I can currently get it for £7 more than the GTX 970)
- 8GB of VRAM, therefore best at high resolutions and perhaps better future-proofing
GTX 970
- Many current sources say that it yields slightly worse performance than the R9 390
- Runs coolest and quietest
- Uses the least power
- Easiest to overclock
- A bit cheaper than the R9 390 (by £7) but more expensive than the R9 290X (by £27)
- Not so good at high resolutions
My concerns are as follows:
1) I'm aiming to build a PC for both gaming and music production/recording. The only time I need my PC to be running quietly is when I'm doing production/recording. Seeing as the GPU will be hardly used during these times, would there be any noise difference getting the 970 over the R9's?
2) Overclocking aside, are there any other benefits for having a low power consumption other than having slightly lower electricity bills (and obviously a lower-wattage PSU)?
3) I'm on a budget. Taking all of the above into account and seeing as they perform similarly, should I just be going for the cheapest card I can get?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram