Overclock.net banner

R9 390 vs. GTX 970 [The Final Conclusion]

266K views 536 replies 96 participants last post by  daunow 
#1 ·
Here we go, let's finally decide which card should you pick.

For the sake of the discussion let's assume both cards cost the same and you are using a 1080p/60 monitor.
You are also planning on overclocking them to their limits and you are going to change your GPU in 2-4 years depending on what comes out. You would be playing games that push the card as far as it can go and you are on a pursuit of most FPS/[unit of money]

So which one is it and why?

390 with it's 8GB of RAM and proper DX 12 support
OR
970 with it's faster driver updates and lower TDP?

Here are some benchmarks provided by users in this thread:

PontiacGTX:
390 is winning in that scenario, however the GTX 970 was in short pcb version, so let's take these results with a grain of salt. The other GTX 970 provides similar results sometimes being faster and sometimes slower, but no game settings have been posted and the test was conducted in a slightly bigger resolution of 1920x1200.

So far is seems that the 390 is the winner here, wider bus, more VRAM and more benchmark results say for themselves.
 
See less See more
#6 ·
There really isn't a better card between the two, they both provide fantastic performance @ their price range, it simply depends on what you need and what games you play.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slay View Post

But what about OC? I've heard some bad things about the 390 and good things about 970.
the 290/390 oced shoudl be about the same at 1080 when the 970 is oced too unless the game is nvidia biased.but at 1440 or 4k might be better than a 970(mainly due to the vram on the 970)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_r9_390_pcs_8gb_review,26.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_970_oc_mini_itx_review,28.html
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noufel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

It should be a Tahiti Pro, so overclocking shouldn't be much of an issue.

Other than it also bumping power consumption generously, of course.
the 390 is a hawaii pro and for oc you'll be targeting 1150-1200 on the core with a voltage bump
thumb.gif
Absolutely right, my apologies. My memory isn't as good as it used to be for core names, lol
 
#9 ·
Really it all matters down to software at this point, which technologies do you prefer?

Nvidia has MFAA for example which is quite unique and works well.. TXAA is also quite lovely with certain games ( mostly GTA V ) ..

AMD is catching up in a lot of areas as well, can't say much more on that however.

So the 390 has 8 gigs of VRAM, but you'll be fine with 3.5 - 4 gigs..

People also seem to forget Nvidia's cards have memory texture compression which alows for more data storage so that should even things out.

You can OC both fairly high.

So it's up to you really.
rolleyes.gif
 
#11 ·
390>970 all the way
 
#12 ·
Going to have to go with the 390 on this. 8GB vram and 512-bit memory bus.

Combine that with similar performance between the 970 and 390, and the 390 is the better/more futureproof card IMO.
 
#14 ·
Definitely the 390
 
#15 ·
SO let's recap.

390>970 for pure gaming performance. Why?

Pros:

-Beats the 970 handily in most benchmarks
-Doesn't just have 4 full gigs of gddr5, but 8!
-Will probably age better with more vram and that seems to be the trend lately with AMD cards.

Cons:

-Power Draw
-Overclocking might be more limited when compared to the 970, but both fully overclocked I'm sure the 390 still wins

And this is coming from someone who has a 970.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by edo101 View Post

^don't listen to him. Go with the green. Green is always the best way to go for future stability and ownership.

Pascal is coming too. Buy a 970 now and then buy Pascal when it comes out. Don't wait for AMD to release a card. They might not even last that long
Ask Kepler owners about that.
thumb.gif
They are getting shafted in performance in the latest games.
biggrin.gif
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by edo101 View Post

Not entirely sure what you are implying. I am just trying to apply good sound OCN logic to help OP make a solid OCN decision
However hard you're trolling, you are right on that one, some OCN users will just say "Go NVidia because NVidia". Nice to see that 390 is winning so far.
 
#18 ·
The R9 390 does have 8GB of VRAM but you will never be able to fully make use of that before you max the core. I believe it is more for marketing than anything. Since this discussion also focuses on 1080p, you will never ever need 8GB of VRAM. Since you are talking about 1080p and single card setups you should not even be talking about the R9 390 as the 390 is just a factory OC'd R9 290 + extra 4GB of VRAM(which is completely useless esp. at 1080p.) for the most part with slight changes to power management for $90 more.

If you OC them both to the max I have no doubt the 970 will win more often than not esp. at 1080p and 3.5GB of VRAM will not be a problem at 1080p.

If you consider the R9 290 at around $80-$90 cheaper than a R9 390 then it definitely represents a better value than the GTX 970. However, if you are comparing a 1500MHz+ 970 to a 1200MHz R9 290/390 @ 1080p only then 970 will definitely win more often than not.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

The R9 390 does have 8GB of VRAM but you will never be able to fully make use of that before you max the core. I believe it is more for marketing than anything. Since this discussion also focuses on 1080p, you will never ever need 8GB of VRAM. Since you are talking about 1080p and single card setups you should not even be talking about the R9 390 as the 390 is just a factory OC'd R9 290 + extra 4GB of VRAM(which is completely useless esp. at 1080p.) for the most part with slight changes to power management for $90 more.

If you OC them both to the max I have no doubt the 970 will win more often than not esp. at 1080p and 3.5GB of VRAM will not be a problem at 1080p.

If you consider the R9 290 at around $80-$90 cheaper than a R9 390 then it definitely represents a better value than the GTX 970. However, if you are comparing a 1500MHz+ 970 to a 1200MHz R9 290/390 @ 1080p only then 970 will definitely win more often than not.
Not true at all. It's super easy to hit the vram wall in GTA V and heavily modded games. And the 390 is way closer to a 980 than a 970. Overclocked or not.

Also, 3.5gb vs 4gb makes or breaks ultra textures in SoM
tongue.gif
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

stuff
This

After OC the 290/390 will likely fall behind the aftermarket 970s at 1080p, although the 390 is a much better dual-gpu candidate and handles high resolutions better. For anyone considering a single card now, I would recommend an aftermarket 290x over the 390. You can get a 290x PCS+, Tri-X OC, or Lightning LE for the same price as a 390 currently, although they will probably begin to disappear as production has switched over to the 300 series.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkston View Post

This

After OC the 290/390 will likely fall behind the aftermarket 970s at 1080p, although the 390 is a much better dual-gpu candidate and handles high resolutions better. For anyone considering a single card now, I would recommend an aftermarket 290x over the 390. You can get a 290x PCS+, Tri-X OC, or Lightning LE for the same price as a 390 currently, although they will probably begin to disappear as production has switched over to the 300 series.
How well do those OC, I see one in my future
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

The R9 390 does have 8GB of VRAM but you will never be able to fully make use of that before you max the core. I believe it is more for marketing than anything. Since this discussion also focuses on 1080p, you will never ever need 8GB of VRAM. Since you are talking about 1080p and single card setups you should not even be talking about the R9 390 as the 390 is just a factory OC'd R9 290 + extra 4GB of VRAM(which is completely useless esp. at 1080p.) for the most part with slight changes to power management for $90 more.

If you OC them both to the max I have no doubt the 970 will win more often than not esp. at 1080p and 3.5GB of VRAM will not be a problem at 1080p.

If you consider the R9 290 at around $80-$90 cheaper than a R9 390 then it definitely represents a better value than the GTX 970. However, if you are comparing a 1500MHz+ 970 to a 1200MHz R9 290/390 @ 1080p only then 970 will definitely win more often than not.
CoD AW, SoM, Modded Skyrim, Far Cry 4, AC:U & GTA V all can get 3.5 GB+ at 1080p and make the 970 stutter pretty badly due to its uneven memory configuration. 8 GB is not useless at 1080p as you are implying. The main reason why I got rid of the 780 Ti from my main rig was the 3 GB and guess what that extra .5 GB the GTX 970 has over the 780 Ti is not much better, give it a few months ahead and it is going to suffer just like the 780 Ti, you won't be able to turn on Ultra textures in games.
8 GB while might not be fully utilized but at least the R9 390 is a much safer option than the 970 which has barely enough VRAM to run current games textures at High-Ultra at 1080p with 80%+ VRAM utilization.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: NightAntilli
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by aDyerSituation View Post

Not true at all. It's super easy to hit the vram wall in GTA V and heavily modded games. And the 390 is way closer to a 980 than a 970. Overclocked or not.

Also, 3.5gb vs 4gb makes or breaks ultra textures in SoM
tongue.gif
OC vs OC the 970 wins pretty much every time against the R9 290. Is it worth the extra $100? In terms of bang/buck, no probably not. The 970 at the same price is definitely a better deal than the R9 390.

Why would it change with a rebranded card just because the OC is higher from the factory and it has an extra 4GB of VRAM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggiddi View Post

How well do those OC, I see one in my future
MSI LE edition cards are not binned. LE basically takes the lightning cooler and lighting PCB and slaps it on a non-binned GPU. I would expect average OC ability but the cooler itself is pretty good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadlessKnight View Post

CoD AW, SoM, Modded Skyrim, Far Cry 4, AC:U & GTA V all can get 3.5 GB+ at 1080p and make the 970 stutter pretty badly due to its uneven memory configuration. 8 GB is not useless at 1080p as you are implying. The main reason why I got rid of the 780 Ti from my main rig was the 3 GB and guess what that extra .5 GB the GTX 970 has over the 780 Ti is not much better, give it a few months ahead and it is going to suffer just like the 780 Ti, you won't be able to turn on Ultra textures in games.
So now people are suggesting 8GB of VRAM for 1080p just so they can max up AA all the way? I know the 3.5GB config can make the 970 stutter but it is easily avoidable.

People act like the extra 512MB of VRAM from 3.5GB > 4GB is going to make a break a game.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

OC vs OC the 970 wins pretty much every time against the R9 290. Is it worth the extra $100? In terms of bang/buck, no probably not. The 970 at the same price is definitely a better deal than the R9 390.
.
the 390 is faster by 5% than a 290x. Maybe you should go read some reviews.

Also, you avoided the vram problem.

Oh and your "easily avoidable" argument doesn't make any sense when a 970 and a 390 cost around the same, and the 390 doesn't limit you graphically.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadlessKnight View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iinversion View Post

The R9 390 does have 8GB of VRAM but you will never be able to fully make use of that before you max the core. I believe it is more for marketing than anything. Since this discussion also focuses on 1080p, you will never ever need 8GB of VRAM. Since you are talking about 1080p and single card setups you should not even be talking about the R9 390 as the 390 is just a factory OC'd R9 290 + extra 4GB of VRAM(which is completely useless esp. at 1080p.) for the most part with slight changes to power management for $90 more.

If you OC them both to the max I have no doubt the 970 will win more often than not esp. at 1080p and 3.5GB of VRAM will not be a problem at 1080p.

If you consider the R9 290 at around $80-$90 cheaper than a R9 390 then it definitely represents a better value than the GTX 970. However, if you are comparing a 1500MHz+ 970 to a 1200MHz R9 290/390 @ 1080p only then 970 will definitely win more often than not.
CoD AW, SoM, Modded Skyrim, Far Cry 4, AC:U & GTA V all can get 3.5 GB+ at 1080p and make the 970 stutter pretty badly due to its uneven memory configuration. 8 GB is not useless at 1080p as you are implying. The main reason why I got rid of the 780 Ti from my main rig was the 3 GB and guess what that extra .5 GB the GTX 970 has over the 780 Ti is not much better, give it a few months ahead and it is going to suffer just like the 780 Ti, you won't be able to turn on Ultra textures in games.
8 GB while might not be fully utilized but at least the R9 390 is a much safer option than the 970 which has barely enough VRAM to run current games textures at High-Ultra at 1080p with 80%+ VRAM utilization.
I dunno, you did just quote three trash games, one game with huge memory leaks, and one that is trash for optimization.

I will argue with you until the end of time that you can do just fine on 2GB VRAM and 3GB VRAM at 1440p, even more so on 1080p.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by aDyerSituation View Post

the 390 is faster by 5% than a 290x. Maybe you should go read some reviews.

Also, you avoided the vram problem.
Yes. Do you know why?

Because it is has 1GHz faster memory and 50MHz faster core by stock.

Increase the 290X memory by 1GHz and 50MHz core and the 290X will be faster. I don't know why this so hard for some people to wrap their head around.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top