Keep my R9 290x or sell it and get a GTX 970 OC edition?

[Cats869]

Hey guys,

After the release of the GTX 970, I noticed that the GTX 970 when overclocked, can almost perform the same as the R9 290x in some cases (and sometimes even better especially at resolutions less than 1440p/1600p).

I have 2x24 inch TN monitors both running at 1920x1080 and plan on getting a 3rd one so it will be 5760x1080 resoluion later so I can use it for eyefinity/Nvidia surround when gaming.

My current graphics card is the Sapphire R9 290x Tri-X OC and I bought it used for a total of $365 including shipping. It's been about a month and its running well though there are a few minor issues such as when disabling eyefinity, the main display of my dual monitor setup goes black. Another minor issue I noticed is that the main desktop screen artifacts after waking the computer up from sleep mode instantly after the computer goes to sleep mode though this issue only happened once out of a few dozen so it might just be negligible.

If I were to sell my card now, I can probably get it for $330ish which is not bad but I would lose some money but that is not too big of a deal since I had it for roughly a month now.

Now I was thinking about getting a GTX 970 (OC version such as from MSI/ASUS) for around $350-375 when I find a good deal.

The reason why I wanted to switch was partially the small issues that my card has and didn't want to risk having these small issues develop into bigger ones later for the next 3 years and that the GTX 970 is more future proof since it just has been released and I can expect much better game optimizations for it in the next year so its possible that the GTX 970 might even outperform the R9 290x later on unless AMD can still has a lot to optimize the R9 290x.

The R9 290x seems to be a bit better than the GTX 970 at the moment but it could possibly change later on.

Also, another reason why I wanted the GTX 970 because of the newer technologies (VXGI, MFAA, DSR) and that it consumes roughly half the wattage of what the R9 290x consumes. I would probably save 5-10 dollars on my electricity bill a year if I do switch to the GTX 970 but since it is not a rather large amount, it's just a minor reason.

Other minor reasons include Nvidia Shadowplay which seems to be better than AMD's GVR though again, this could be different later on since AMD released their GVR not too long ago and I'm sure they plan to optimize it and make it better. There is also Physx but that is not too important since it's only implemented in a few select games though it does make those games look better.

Reasons to keep the R9 290x is not have the hassle of selling the card to get another card and also Mantle support (though may or may not be significant in the future depending on game developers).

Anyway, I was wondering what do you guys think I should do.

Keep the Sapphire R9 290x Tri-x and possibly crossfire it with another R9 290x since the used R9 290x prices are dropping in the future or go for a GTX 970 (Zotac AMP, MSI Gaming, ASUS Strix) which I can also SLI those in the future as well but no need to do any multi GPU config yet.

Thanks for the help everyone!!

EDIT:
Because I will be gaming at 5760x1080 at times (not all the time, sometimes I'll be gaming just on one monitor depending on the amount of FPS I can get from a certain game), it might be better to stick with the R9 290x since they are known to be very good at running higher resolutions though again, who knows what driver optimizations the GTX 970 will have or the R9 290x will possibly have (if they still have any optimizations left for the AMD card)

2nd EDIT:
Please also type a response to my thread saying why you chose the option in the poll, thanks. I prefer good feedback.
Actually I need to make some corrections...

The ASUS Strix GTX 970 actually performs close to a stock R9 290x so my R9 290x which is overclocked, will outperform the GTX 970 OC almost at any resolution really but not by a large margin, only 1-3 fps different so that makes me lean a little more towards keeping the R9 290x but it's not really much of a difference so I'm still undecided.

 

[prit87]

If you own a r9 290x then no need to change it for gtx 970 not much of an upgrade a better option will be either to switch to gtx 980 or get another r9 290x .

 

[Cats869]

Yeah that's what I was thinking since the performance difference is very marginal, it really comes down to what features that each card bring to the table. The features that the GTX 970 are nice to have but I don't see the necessity to get them and when I upgrade my graphics card in the future, I will probably have them by then.

 

[clueless77]

When I found out that Tressfx wasn't proprietary (good form), I sold my 290x's to get a 980 that I'm going to SLI. The 980 may not be anywhere near as a value for price and performance as the 970, but I want the best single card performance while overclocked as not all games or platforms (Dolphin, PCXS2) are SLI or CF compatible.

The advantages for me were:

1. Less heat

2. Less immediate power consumption allowing me to remove one of the two PSU's I had to use for CF. 50 bucks for a CX500M compared to 150 or so for an 1000 watt, say what you will. You'd have to be really frugal to factor in the kw/h cost for running a card annually, almost to the point of absurdity.

3. The features, especially DSR.

I was actually really happy with the performance of those cards, despite what can be said against them, but I'm not looking back until AMD becomes more receptive to the wants and needs of the people who buy their products, which isn't to say that they'd do it out of some sort of consumer advocacy but to make money and undercut their competition. In the end, it's up to you, but were I thinking of staying with a 290x and going CF, AMD would have to offer a lot more competitive price points to keep me on board.

So if you're thinking of selling, do it soon.

 

[Cats869]

I guess the Tri-X does a great job at cooling for a R9 290x card, temperatures comparable to other decent cards like the GTX 970 so thats good. Power consumption is pretty bad though but it just means a few more dollars per year.

I wonder if these features that Nvidia introduced will be later implemented in the R9 390x but anyway, I doubt they will come to the R9 290x. I should have waited for the GTX 900 series before purchasing but at least I paid about the same price as a GTX 970 when I bought my R9 290x so it's alright.

I guess I would get more performance if I were to do a R9 290x SLI versus a GTX 970 SLI I think.

 

[clueless77]

There's no reason as to why downsampling couldn't be implemented into CCC for the R9 series or equivalent, it's already possible through driver hacks and whatnot and newer versions of Catalyst have actually broken support for them. Whether that's intentional or not, it's something I don't know. Thing is, if downsampling is integrated they're going to roll it out on the new cards to encourage people to upgrade, which is a shitty move if it stays exclusive considering that at least a more simplified version of it is possible on older cards. Same thing with DSR and the 900 series, it was stated by either Nvidia or someone at Nvidia that DSR could be rolled out for GTX 700's, but as to whether that will actually happen in the future is something that remains to be seen.

This couples in with what's known as planned obsolescence but probably at somewhat of a lesser degree, which is pervasive within the tech industry and a huge drain on resources and enlarging carbon footprints while having a direct impact upon ecosystems. If you stay with the 290x and eventually CF, I'm sure you'll be happy with it and covered in performance for quite the foreseeable future. For you to switch to the 970 would be more for the efficiency and features, if there is a discrepancy in performance for the one over the other it's negligible. On paper, you'd think the 290X would outperform the 970, but in benchmarks it's slightly beating it in most comparisons, although I'm not sure if they're overclocking the X or not.

Like it matters though, amirite? So yeah, in the end.

 

[prit87]

I guess the Tri-X does a great job at cooling for a R9 290x card, temperatures comparable to other decent cards like the GTX 970 so thats good. Power consumption is pretty bad though but it just means a few more dollars per year.

I wonder if these features that Nvidia introduced will be later implemented in the R9 390x but anyway, I doubt they will come to the R9 290x. I should have waited for the GTX 900 series before purchasing but at least I paid about the same price as a GTX 970 when I bought my R9 290x so it's alright.

I guess I would get more performance if I were to do a R9 290x SLI versus a GTX 970 SLI I think.

R9 300 series are going to be released in November so if i were you i would wait for that long who knows what improvements AMD will bring with r9 300 series.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-pirate-islands-radeon-r9-300-series.html

 

[finnigen007]

No reason to switch. The difference is minimal. I would rather consider upgrading the cooler on the 290x. Maybe water cooling.then you can overclock it a little and you easily beat the 970.

 

[Cats869]

I have decided to keep my R9 290X or at least until something major happens like nice price drops for the GTx 970 which won't be happening for sometime. I probably won't do water cooling, or at least anytime soon since the air cooler is good enough for me. I don't mind 75C even though water cooling is better.

I calculated that a heavily overclocked MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G is equivalent or a little faster than the R9 290X for high resolutions so no need for me to get a GTX 970 unless most of the time I will be playing at lower resolutions. I have 3 Displays or about to soon.

I think I may just get another R9 290X to crossfire later on once they drop a little more in price.

Anyway, thanks for all your feedback guys. I somehow cannot pick the best solution like how others can in other threads strangely but maybe that's because of the poll. Anyway, thanks again for all the help.

 

[Neocloud]

I have decided to keep my R9 290X or at least until something major happens like nice price drops for the GTx 970 which won't be happening for sometime. I probably won't do water cooling, or at least anytime soon since the air cooler is good enough for me. I don't mind 75C even though water cooling is better.

I calculated that a heavily overclocked MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G is equivalent or a little faster than the R9 290X for high resolutions so no need for me to get a GTX 970 unless most of the time I will be playing at lower resolutions. I have 3 Displays or about to soon.

I think I may just get another R9 290X to crossfire later on once they drop a little more in price.

Anyway, thanks for all your feedback guys. I somehow cannot pick the best solution like how others can in other threads strangely but maybe that's because of the poll. Anyway, thanks again for all the help.

I just bought a EVGA GTX 970 after upgrading from a Gigabyte ATI HD7870 OC and I really can't tell the difference that much between. I am kind of sorry that I got the 970 now because it was 350 dollars with shipping and tax from newegg. I was thinking of getting store credit for it(since EVGA does not refund this card) and buying a 290X instead. Anyones thoughts?

 

[Aviv]

keep your R9

 

[Cats869]

Just an update: I actually got the GTX 970 MSI 4G card. While I was very hesitant in getting this card, one major reason became very clear recently. I had issues with the card where my computer just wasn't stable because of video drivers and such (mostly black screening). At that point, I didn't mind losing some dollars here and there to get stability. It's a shame that the R9 290x Tri-X card wasn't stable enough; I guess I wasn't one of those lucky people who got a perfect card. Anyway, I bought the GTX 970 and loving it so far.

 

[buratino2015]

I bought the GTX 970 and loving it so far.

May be my question is a bit late...
But what is your opinion about gtx970 vs 29 290x?

I have Asus R9 290 (not X) and think is it worth to replace it on GTX970.
Mainly I play BF4 on 1920x1080.

 

[uglyduckling81]

You should refer to the Toms Hardware article on best gaming GPU for your $$.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
They state unless a card is at least 3 tiers higher than what you are currently running you probably won't notice much of a difference.
That advice can vary a little on specific cards but its good advice overall.
Your question about moving from a 290 to a 290x or 970 means you would be moving 0 tiers.
Don't waste your money. If you are looking for an upgrade you should be looking at a 295 or a Titan Z, both of which are stupidly overpriced.

 

[buratino2015]

Thnx for the answer and useful link.

P.S. Situation actually is not so simple because I can sell my r9 290, add about 100$ and get brand new gtx970. So I can get a new card with lower power consumption and about 5..10% more FPS in BF4.

P.S.2. But I like my asus r9 290 too much )) So likely I'll not change it on gtx970.

 

[mr91]

In my opinion if you're going to switch get the GTX 980 if your budget permits.

 

[buratino2015]

In my opinion if you're going to switch get the GTX 980 if your budget permits.

IMHO GTX980 is too overpriced. I can afford it but I don't want.
GTX980 is more suitable for 4K displays.

 

[uglyduckling81]

I think your making a good choice.
Sure you can save some power but In reality your probably talking a few dollars a year. Frame rate wise your probably talking 5 frames a second difference in BF4. 60 or 65 FPS makes no difference.

 

[mr91]

I think your making a good choice.
Sure you can save some power but In reality your probably talking a few dollars a year. Frame rate wise your probably talking 5 frames a second difference in BF4. 60 or 65 FPS makes no difference.

Titan X is for 4k, 980 is for 1080p and 1440p in my opinion.

 

[disturbed force]

The 290x catches up with the 980 at 4k (Or eyefinity/surround) for half the price. Power wise the 290x is about 100watts more, if your hydro is $.20 kWh every 1000 hours you game would cost an extra $20

 

[mr91]

Just an update: I actually got the GTX 970 MSI 4G card. While I was very hesitant in getting this card, one major reason became very clear recently. I had issues with the card where my computer just wasn't stable because of video drivers and such (mostly black screening). At that point, I didn't mind losing some dollars here and there to get stability. It's a shame that the R9 290x Tri-X card wasn't stable enough; I guess I wasn't one of those lucky people who got a perfect card. Anyway, I bought the GTX 970 and loving it so far.

I'm glad the GTX 970 is Satisfactory, it uses a lot less power and produces less heat.
Perhaps the 290x was creating too much heat in your case and causing problems for your system...

 

[manmeetpaul]

Please, keep the 290x,its better in terms of hardware. Heat is an issue but it doesn't kill other parts. It's already better in 50% titles and at higher resolutions( because of better hardware). And dx12 will make it soooo much better. Dont bother with selling and getting a worse card.