GTX 970 or R9 390
I have a GTX 970, but I'll vote for the 390. You may not note the difference with the current games, but the extra 4gb will be useful in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Look at the monitor he chose. I seriously doubt games will be using more than 4GB at that resolution.
Even today, I doubt any game actually can use 4GB at that resolution.
http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough
Here is an article that should explain how it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
What part of "in the future" didn't you read? The "in the" or the "future"?
Comment has been collapsed.
I read it all right. I just don't believe that it is gonna happen in the near future enough to be a deciding factor in his purchase right now.
If he had a 4k monitor, then sure. But as it stands he will see zero benefit to making memory a decisive factor for the next few years.
Comment has been collapsed.
You made your points. But even so, he should take into account these things, and ask himself how long will he stick to his gpu. If the answer is just 3 or 4 years, he should go for the 970.
Comment has been collapsed.
how long do you usually keep a graphics card? it will take years until 8GB is relevant at all. by that time, the 390 is underpowered anyway. it can't hurt to have memory, of course. but the extra memory is not as relevant as you may think. i guess it will take at least 2-3 years until more than 3-4GB are needed at 1080p. and when that time comes, the 390 will be so slow that you will have to reduce the visual quality of modern games anyway, which then leads to less memory consumption. ^^
that reminds me of those horrible mid-range cards with a lot of memory. people bought a 650 4GB for the price of a 660 2GB, which was generally a bad choice, because they couldn't run games on ultra and/or high resolutions anyway. so they didn't even need the extra memory and would have been better off with the faster card. that situation is not too different from the 390 in a few years.
just my 2 cents...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you'll find that even @ 1080p more and more games are using upwards of 4GB at highest settings. Dying Light and Shadows of Mordor are apparently two such games right now that each use up to 6GB. This is less than 8GB for sure, but also greater than the 4GB limit on the 970.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
in case of shadow of mordor this is only the case with the ultra high-res texture pack, which is really not needed. i have a 970, and i can run that game on ultra with 60fps.
-
i measured dying light myself on highest settings. it used around 3-3.3GB at 2560*1080 (measured with gpu-z). at least that was my experience. i know some people claim otherwise. but so far i didn't read anything that the game uses up 6GB. but yeah, it's a valid example - but also a good example of bad programming. it used way more RAM than similar games use, and it even had some significant memory leaks.
-
these 2 games are the typical examples. but i think you will agree that they are the exception.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read the page I linked to. They tested shadow of mordor with the texture pack. Even at 4k resolution, 4GB was not an issue. At 1080p I think OP is pretty safe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where I live, I have to save money for a loooooong time before purchasing any hardware components. And the ones I replace, I use them to build another PC. The first GPU I got was an ATI Radeon HD 7850 (1gb), it was a gift from my older brother, and that was more than 4 years ago. And I had to save money for a year more or less to buy my GTX 970. It really depends on everyone's financial situation, you know.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, I figure I can't go wrong with the 390 and that Monitor. Hope it works out!
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't mean to say that 390 is the wrong choice. Just that I feel the extra memory isn't important enough to be a factor in the decision.
I am sure the 390 will serve you well. Both the 390 and 970 are very close in terms of performance, so you cant go wrong with either of them. Personally I'm using a 980 specifically for the Gsync and pretty happy with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've heard bad things from the 390. 2 people I know, took their 390 back.
Comment has been collapsed.
I heard bad things about the 970 they both have issue like any other GPU
If you make decision on what you hear and not what you know,that not a good way to lead a life just saying also check where i replied to the OP/ AMD again wins the best bang for the buck and actually either matches the 970 or beats it in pretty much all info i could dig up on it..
Comment has been collapsed.
i5 4460 at 188.97 on amazon... Maybe i am wrong, maybe it's useful information (?
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html
According to those benches the 390 either matches it or beats it and is cheap so AMD again wins the best bang for the buck award.
Here some more info
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review
Though if your going to be gaming in 4K or or something around there then obvious choice would be the 390 for the extra ram.
In any case all the info i could dig up 390 either meets or beats it so i vote for 390
Though i suspect most will just vote for 970 by default before doing any research just thinking that is must be better just because it is Nvidia
The choice is yours either card will do you justice but me i am more of the type that buys what going to give me the best performance for the least amount of money not because i am cheap but because it just good practice no since in paying extra for just a name or buying something else just based on name.
Though in this case they both are about the same price depending on brand and so on,but like i said i would get AMD for extra ram it better to have more then you need then not enough and your not really pay a premium for it or huge one anyhow
Comment has been collapsed.
Just for the sake of mentioning it, as with most current GPUs, the R9 390 is not 4K ready. Even a 980Ti will have problems maintaining even 30fps unless you lower your graphics quality settings a bunch. A 980Ti probably the lowest you could go for 4K using a single GPU solution.
Now, two R9 390's in Crossfire for 4K? Sure, and it can be done for practically the price of one 980Ti.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well i suppose i should have been a little more direct on that but none the less thanks for adding your input and not being an ass about it and turn into your wrong and i am right thing,though i did add something around there so maybe not quiet 4k but maybe a step or so under,so 4K might have been pushing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
People will do exactly the same with AMD. I'm not reslly biased towards either brand, my desktop is Intel/Nvidia whilst my laptop is AMD. In this instance though I can only really comment on the 970 as that what I have. Sure I can point out stuff like extra ram and other technical points but I can't actually recommend something I've never used over something I have . Had I used neither or had I had issues with my 970 it would be another matter altogether.
Comment has been collapsed.
DirectX 12 Tests will keep making the R9 390 a clear winner on this.. but that's not real for right now (Games not using DX12 yet).
Funny how all comments push on R9 390's side .. but the vote is slightly going the other way.. People do like to express their opinion.. even if they don't really know what they're talking about. :P At least if they would say why.. fandom, previous experience.. who knows.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol .. take a chill pill.
First off, my comment was never directed at you and I have no idea why you taught it did.. it was in regards to the whole thread for what was there before I post my comment.
Secondly, I was advocating R9 390 too here.. why the hell do you take my comment as a personal attack? I don't know. Saying that it will keep getting the upper hand in this battle in the future doesn't mean it's losing the current battle.. they're pretty much on a same level for now, both having slight advantages.
And finally.. I said people like to express their opinion without really knowing what they were saying for all those people voting on the poll and not explaining their choice at all.. There are barely any people explaining why they would suggest the GTX 970 but it gets most votes and logic should be pushing towards the 390.. They have their right to feel otherwise but at least they should say why.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it was a reply to mine so it did seem so..
anyhow i got shit all mixed up anyhow..
In the end i was not mad or upset so if seemed like that then i am sorry,You would know if i was mad or upset as i would have not been so kind with words ..but i am usually one that does not get upset
Also in the future you might want to reply to the topic itself if you want to reply to everyone in general as when you reply to someone the way you did it can be seen as a reply to them.
So that would by one reason i saw it that way,because it was direct reply to what i said
Comment has been collapsed.
What if I told you... I don't understand about those?
NÃO MANJO DESSE ROLÊ AÍ, PARÇA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seeing your build, I'm assuming that you want 2 or more years out of your GPU, in that case, get the r9 390. Better upgrade path option and will last longer against 970 due to the higher vram it packs.
With the r9 390, you can upgrade your mobo then CPU, then ram then PSU and buy a 2nd pair of 390 so you can use your old one still. AMD is much better with crossfire scaling vs nvidia right now, though you are at mercy of crossfire profiles on newly released AAA games (gotta wait a few weeks, months before you get crossfire optimizations)
you get MSG V btw if you bought the 970, that's like $30 rebate if you plan to sell it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just ordered an R9 390! In pretty much all benchmarks the 390 either beats or is on par with the GTX 970 at 1080p. I've only seen few where the 970 beats the 390 and they were all around 1 or 2 fps. At any resolution above 1080p, the r9 390 will excel due the the 8gb of vram.
The extra ram on the R9 390 is what really sets the two cards apart. Whilst the 970 is advertised as 4gb of vram, 0.5gbs of it is much slower than the rest, therefore if you go above 3.5gb's you will find significant performance drops. The R9 390 has 8gb's of working vram which means it performs much better at higher resolutions and is better futureproofed.
Overclocked, the GTX 970 will porbably give a few more FPS over the R9 390, since the R9 390 won't overclock as well. But if you have no interest in overclocking then you will be better off with the 390.
However, if power is a worry for you, the R9 390 will use a lot more power compared to the GTX 970, but that's down to if you're that worried about 50 watts.
The R9 390 is also going to run hotter than a GTX 970, which again, is of concern to you, you may be better off with a 970. However, AMD have managed to make the R9 390 cooler than the old 200 series!
The drivers on the AMD side are pretty good too. Whilst they are not as good as Nvidia's they aren't bad.
Also, I'm not sure about where you're from (I assume it's Canada), but the R9 390 was cheaper than the GTX 970!
A lot of people will tell you that the GTX 970 is better just because it's a Nvidia card and won't bother doing any research.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just bought the R9 380 4gb version :D i had won 200 from betting in Vegas so the card only cost me 50 bucks out of my pocket. I cant wait till it comes in the mail cause it will go so well with my FX 8350 :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you overclocker? Radeons 3XX are nothing more than factory-overclocked R2XX, so there's nothing you can overclock - according to tests, if you take R290X and overclock, you can easily get 390.
Also, don't look too much at that 8GB RAM - 3XX are just too weak to be able to use all that RAM (forget about playing in more than 1900x1000).
If you're not an overclocker, it's not a bad deal.
I'm kinda disappointed with 3XX - hoped for something big, got same-old. Looks like AMD just have their console money, so they don't even bother to fight with Nvidia. And that drives prices up :(
Comment has been collapsed.
My guess is that he's not an overclocker based on the non-K series CPU and the H81 based motherboard. Neither have many features for overclocking (if any at all). Well, aside from the ability to change just the base clock on the CPU that is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless you're playing at resolutions in excess of 1080p (i.e. 1440p+, 4k, or multi-monitor) on a 120/144Hz monitor, it won't make a difference which card you choose. I've built several rigs with both cards, and the difference for most games is negligible (if any) at 1080p. If you're looking at 4k gaming, you're going to need two of those cards anyway - neither is good for 4k or multimonitor gaming for the latest games.
The things to look at between those cards would be noise (the fan/cooler assembly build quality), heat (directly tied to noise - a hotter card will run the fan faster/louder), power consumption (directly tied to heat) and which company you prefer to buy from. Also consider which drivers you prefer using, how often they update, and whether or not they release timely drivers for newer games (if you purchase newer games). A smoking new video card isn't going to do a whole lot of good if the drivers suck or are behind on the current game releases. Also consider the customer service and warranty available for whichever brand you buy -- low prices are great and all, but don't do you much good when the card fails and you need speedy RMA service.
TLDR version: either of those cards are excellent mid/high-end cards to game with at 1080 and even 1440p. You can't go wrong with either of them, so pick the one with the best features, warranty, and drivers. If either comes with a free game, it's a bonus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Give this man a cigar!
Seriously, this is the best advice right here!
Comment has been collapsed.
Just go with whichever is cheapest in your area. They are fairly similar in performance.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just got a GTX 970 and the best thing about it is not the increased FPS but the fact that I no longer have to deal with AMD's crappy software and ever-lengthening driver releases.
Comment has been collapsed.
A GTX 970 uses about 150 watts
A R9 390 uses about 275 watts
That's why I'll never use AMD's things, I don't want a 1KW PSU.
Comment has been collapsed.
1000W PSUs are really normal, so sooner or later You'll just have to get one. For that AMD card a 600W PSU is enough, so it's nothing massive :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, power requirements for PC components are dropping, not going up (in general). It's far more likely we'll be seeing lower wattage power supplies rather than higher in the coming years. The lower power requirements have become a huge selling point with manufacturers, what with everyone "going green" and all that politically correct crap. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
While it's true that 1 GW power supplies are quite common, I would add that it's not just a matter of PSU.
A lot of people who would choose the 390 over the 970 point out that it's cheaper. Well, that's false economy unless you get your electricity free of charge.
Electricity is pretty cheap here, but assuming a use of 2 hours a day at full power, a 125 W difference means that it would be about £80/year more expensive (which is huge).
Comment has been collapsed.
Really how does another 125 watts translate to 1kw PSU lol
I have a 7950 and it runs just fine on my 750watt and even that is a bit much for it.and it uses about the same maybe little less but close enough.
There are other reason to maybe want one but it is not needed for this card and even so 1KW PSU does not mean you will use 1KW it will still only use as much as the hardware draws so if you have a 1Kw PSU but only draw 450 watt that all you will be using.
Comment has been collapsed.
For an i5-4460 with meagre 8 GB RAM? Both cards are pointless with a bottleneck like this. More like R9 270 or GTX 780/960.
Comment has been collapsed.
uhm, no. ^^ the 4460 is not as slow as you might think. it's not that much slower than a 4690, and that's more than enough for most modern games. the 8GB RAM are the bigger problem, but if you don't run many programs at a time, i don't think you will really notice that in most games (also nothing is upgraded easier than RAM). his choice (390/970) is quite ok for this pc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not as slow as the 4690, that is true. The difference there is around 10-15% I think? But for a 390 I was thinking more of the line of a 4790 and there the difference is like 33%-ish? More? That is significant. We are talking about a high-level card now and higher-medium CPU. They don't exactly correlate.
Comment has been collapsed.
since so many games are GPU-limited anyway, i really don't see the problem. i still have a i5-3570, and a GTX 970, and it's extremely rare that my CPU is the limiting factor in games.
Comment has been collapsed.
A "meager 8GB RAM"? I have yet to find one game that needs a total of 5GB RAM. How is 8 "meager"?
Comment has been collapsed.
8 GB is the current recommended for most AAA, and this is moving up rapidly. Some MMOs will barely run on that amount. 8 GB for a year or so is the starting bare minimum for a gaming PC and gods forbid if you like to keep several tabs open in your browser while playing. Now a decent gaming PC needs 16 GB for mid-term or the option to upgrade your memory from 8 GB within a year or so.
Comment has been collapsed.
System spec recommendations have never meant a thing. System spec recs state that I can't run Dying Light on max and yet I can. Systems specs of almost every new AAA title tell me that my CPU won't be able to run the game, yet it runs it on max. My old computer had 4GB RAM and it only ever found itself as a bottleneck due to Arma 2. 4GB is the max I have ever seen any game, AAA or indie consume. 8GB RAM will be more than enough for many years to come.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's it, it's not recommendations. The official recommendations still state 4 GB everywhere. It's the actual need. Win 8.x/10 may run on 2 GB with one-two tabs open and maybe a Word on top, but in actual use even office work cannot be done under 4 GB. Gods know, my company tried it with 2 GB and failed. Miserably. Now we have 4/8 GB machines and sometimes we still hit the memory cap, and we do only documentation. My home 8 GB is good for gaming and I'm light on browsing and having other programs open, so I can manage in the 5-7 GB range, but I can feel it getting restrictive.
Comment has been collapsed.
My browser only ever takes up 0.8GB with the amount of tabs I usually have open so I have never been restricted in any way. Even on my most demanding games I still have at least 3GB free at all times.
Comment has been collapsed.
390 is slightly more powerful with the bonus of added VRAM, but 970 eats less power and overally better performance (noise and temperature wise). I think you cannot go wrong with either of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
390 definitely. Better performance in gaming for sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
The 390 has slightly better performance and more VRAM, but much more power consumption (if that matters to you).
However, if you want MGSV for free and Nvidia game stream support, go for the 970.
Also, keep in mind that if you go with a 970 you can save a ton on the PSU and go for 450W. Finally, you should really invest just an extra $20 (either by saving on the PSU by going with a 970 or getting a cheaper case), since your current one doesn't support your CPU out of the box and doesn't include USB 3.0 headers.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are arguments that can be made for not going for a lower capacity PSU as well. For instance, PSUs are typically at their greatest efficiency around 40 to 60% load. The more you load a PSU closer to its limit, the less efficient it gets. Besides that, the closer you get to a PSU's peak capacity, the harder it works. More work = more heat = more fan = more noise. And why not future proof while choosing a PSU? I think his current choice of a 650W PSU is about right to allow upgrading that entire system with slightly more powerful components in the future and still have some headroom.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not going to argue with anyone here about VRAM usage but in my experience there is a lot of misinformation.
When people say you can only use up to 4gb @ 1080 it is complete bullshit.
So here are some screenshots of VRAM usage from an 8gb Nvidia GPU running on an 1920x1080 display.
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare @ 1080
Grand Theft Auto 5 @ 1080 using Nvidia DSR 4K
I haven't bothered testing Shadow of Mordor yet and probably wont bother but I hope this helps you a little in the choice you make.
Both cards look good to me btw, I am an Nvidia fanboy tho : )
Comment has been collapsed.
Build almost done. Can't decide on the GPU
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Valygar/saved/Zt4Qzy
Comment has been collapsed.