390 the better card for longevity over 970?

lightsout said:
Ended up grabbing a 970, nvidia experience has always been better for me and evga has always treated me well so its win win!
Click to expand...


good luck with your purchase. I would have gone with a 390, but I'm biased because I have a high clocking 290 which destroys 970's :)
 
The 390 runs quite a bit hotter and draws more power, so I'm guessing the 970 will last a little longer just based on that.
 
pixelblue said:
The 390 runs quite a bit hotter and draws more power, so I'm guessing the 970 will last a little longer just based on that.
Click to expand...

Until you OC it to regain lost performance, then it uses just as much, if not more power...
 
pixelblue said:
The 390 runs quite a bit hotter and draws more power, so I'm guessing the 970 will last a little longer just based on that.
Click to expand...

So V8 cars don't last as long as 4 cylinder cars because they have more spark plugs that create heat?
 
cageymaru said:
So V8 cars don't last as long as 4 cylinder cars because they have more spark plugs that create heat?
Click to expand...


No wow what a convoluted analogy which doesn't even work machanical parts are nothing like silicon, go back to this, take this as a joke, http://www.topline.tv/dummies.html

Yes sustained temperature over time does have its affect on silicon and electrical components this has been know for close to a half a century now lol. Now will that affect these cards in their lifetime probably not.
 
Mods might as well just close this thread. No discussion of value is taking place and it's devolved into my prefered gpu brand is better than yours.
 
^ That is all the threads in this forum, but it is fun to read a lot of them. If someone wanted to get an objective opinion why would he ask on a forum anyway?, when there are review sites and YouTube channels like Digital Foundry.
 
itschop said:
Mods might as well just close this thread. No discussion of value is taking place and it's devolved into my prefered gpu brand is better than yours.
Click to expand...

For some maybe but, personally im really unhappy with AMD and still think he should have gone with the 390, only because there are already several games pushing the 970 to its memory limit and thats not going to get better meanwhile the AMD driver issue pissing me off should be getting better soon...

Silentbob343 said:
ugh, terrible car analogy is terrible.
Click to expand...

They all are. Theres no way to accurately compare cars to computer hardware or software yet someone always tries.
 
Disposed said:
For some maybe but, personally im really unhappy with AMD and still think he should have gone with the 390, only because there are already several games pushing the 970 to its memory limit and thats not going to get better meanwhile the AMD driver issue pissing me off should be getting better soon...



They all are. Theres no way to accurately compare cars to computer hardware or software yet someone always tries.
Click to expand...

I'll use some cartoons then.

nvidia 970/960

tumblr_static_ckzvuxmfhw8cs8c4oskc0og4k.jpg



amd 390

10671927_ori.jpg
 
tyber7: Really? Cartoons? Get a life man. Both are good video cards. R390 has the edge no doubt.
 
Disposed said:
Not even sure what he is trying to say.
Click to expand...

It's an ancient reference from the late 90s.

Basically Frank Grimes and Homer Simpson both work at a nuclear plant, Frank is more technically capable but Homer is still more popular and rewarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOgS8gTATv8


In the end, it did not matter what he put forward at the fair, he was homer simpson and so still won the award and the crowd and the prize.


It's not a perfect example since the 970 is a lot more capable and solid than a homer simpson, but the aspect where it's not enough to be better to get more sales/support/etc holds because of that special "something" beyond pure merit that exists in the minds of men about some intangible way x is better than y, as either a product or person.

The other takeaway is if you obsess over these differential perceptions too much you'll go insane. At some point you let the chips fall where they may and have others live with their choices. They might even prove to be right (though I still doubt it in this case, 2016 will be an interesting year to see how things fall for both the new and the old).
 
ebduncan said:
lol yes. more in line with a overclocked 980.
Click to expand...

Not really seeing how those clocks make it even close to "destroying 970s" definitely not seeing how it gets into overlcocked 980s performance level either.
 
I am pretty sure you get one free game with the 970. My 980ti came with only one game. Its a choice of two games but you only get one...
 
ebduncan said:
you sir have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5540312
14k graphics score.....

It would only be higher now with crimson drivers and all. Might have to do a rerun.
Click to expand...

"Crimson" is just an overlay, a new interface -- hell, it doesn't even completely replace the old CCC, as parts of the "classic" interface remain for certain advanced options. It is not a magic "go faster" potion for AMD's more recent GPUs, as much as they would love you to think it is. Were there some actual driver changes to go along with the release of the Crimson interface? Sure, but they were minor and incremental, just another normal patch/bugfix release. The way people talk about "Crimson" around here is ridiculous.
 
silent-circuit said:
"Crimson" is just an overlay, a new interface -- hell, it doesn't even completely replace the old CCC, as parts of the "classic" interface remain for certain advanced options. It is not a magic "go faster" potion for AMD's more recent GPUs, as much as they would love you to think it is. Were there some actual driver changes to go along with the release of the Crimson interface? Sure, but they were minor and incremental, just another normal patch/bugfix release. The way people talk about "Crimson" around here is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, in some of my games the frames seem more consistent. Nothing remotely close to Mantle, but definitely more smooth. I think it may have broken Euro Truck Simulator 2 for me though. My frame rates in that game went down a ton. Then again they added in more paint jobs and stuff which usually breaks that game until the next performance patch. The odd thing about that game is that even though the frame rate tanked after installing Crimson, the game runs smoother. Odd stuff.

Also Crimson has a much wider feature set than the old drivers. For example you can set individual overclocks for games. No more complaining that your overclock works in every game but Battlefield. Save your special 3DMark overclock settings for when you want to speed test your machine.
 
Disposed said:
14k s not really destroying the 970s. Nor is it on par with overclocked 980s that are pushing 16k scores.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5160030

Still impressive, especially considering how terribly my XFX 390 overclocks.
Click to expand...

most 980's score between 13-16k, the bench I showed you showed 14000. I normally get around 14500, or so and this was months ago in july. Drivers have improved since then and that should bump my score a tad. I can clock higher with this card with this max being around 1325mhz core and 1700 memory.

silent-circuit said:
"Crimson" is just an overlay, a new interface -- hell, it doesn't even completely replace the old CCC, as parts of the "classic" interface remain for certain advanced options. It is not a magic "go faster" potion for AMD's more recent GPUs, as much as they would love you to think it is. Were there some actual driver changes to go along with the release of the Crimson interface? Sure, but they were minor and incremental, just another normal patch/bugfix release. The way people talk about "Crimson" around here is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

who say anything about it be magic, I just said they have new drivers so it probably time to rerun.

I think the folks on these forums are attuned to the hardocp 290/390 overclocks and benchmarks. The cards are a different beast under water cooling with much higher clocks being achieved by people.
 
ebduncan said:
you sir have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5540312
14k graphics score.....

It would only be higher now with crimson drivers and all. Might have to do a rerun.
Click to expand...

Lol my crappy 970 running at 1511/3900 that throttles during 3Dmark due to power limit, and it still manages 13,300 graphics score.

I'm sure the actual good 970s can easily get 14,000 no problem. :eek:
 
The 970 has to be cheaper than the 390, otherwise most people would go with 390. They both do similar numbers stock and oced, idk why people are getting butthurt here.
Only reason people would lean towards 390 is the 3.5gb ram thing, even though it might not be a factor at all in 1080p gaming, but people are really afraid about spending their money on the wrong product, which makes sense.
Nobody really cares about power consumption till it forces you to buy a new PSU, then it becomes an added cost. If someone is worried about their power bill due to a GPU, i think their best bet would be to stop working at McDonalds.
 
I think its hilarious this thread is still going, how dare an AMD product match or be a better value than the mighty nVIDIA!
 
People don't know what they're talking about leading to fanboyism or fanboyism making people talk shit knowingly?
 
Well, I just purchased an XFX R9 390 that I have cross fired with my Reference XFX R9 290x. Running them with a I7-6700k at 4.7GHz, my graphics scores nearly doubled in 3D Mark 11 and 3D Mark 13. Also, my games such as Crysis 3 now play at nearly double the FPS of what I had with just my one R9 290x. Oh, and I am gaming at 4k so Crossfire helps tremendously.

An i3 would not even cut it for this setup. :)
 
ManofGod said:
Well, I just purchased an XFX R9 390 that I have cross fired with my Reference XFX R9 290x. Running them with a I7-6700k at 4.7GHz, my graphics scores nearly doubled in 3D Mark 11 and 3D Mark 13. Also, my games such as Crysis 3 now play at nearly double the FPS of what I had with just my one R9 290x. Oh, and I am gaming at 4k so Crossfire helps tremendously.

An i3 would not even cut it for this setup. :)
Click to expand...

Does your Ref 290x perf same as the r9 390, at stock speeds? Mine goes up easily to 1030/1500 (ref 290) with like +15mv, but i am thinking on spending 40$ and get a GELID cooler. I would like to know some heaven/valley fps numbers with just your 390 too if you can, i just want to compare it with a 290 at same clocks.
I wil lsurely get a 4790k as soon as i am not broke
 
a3venom said:
Does your Ref 290x perf same as the r9 390, at stock speeds? Mine goes up easily to 1030/1500 (ref 290) with like +15mv, but i am thinking on spending 40$ and get a GELID cooler. I would like to know some heaven/valley fps numbers with just your 390 too if you can, i just want to compare it with a 290 at same clocks.
I wil lsurely get a 4790k as soon as i am not broke
Click to expand...

It is actually a little bit slower. (For instance, I had a graphics score on 3D Mark 11 of just over 17000 on the 390 but about 15400 on the 290x. Combined, they get almost 30300 so the scaling is excellent.) I would say get the GELID cooler but only if they have a good VRM cooling section. Also, I installed the 290x on the bottom and set the max fan speed to about 75%. (Noisy, yes, but not intolerably so.)
 
I bought a used 970 a couple months back (upgrading from 670) to game at 1920x1200x60Hz. Very happy with my purchase so far but am considering a monitor upgrade once either the 27" 1440p IPS 144Hz displays (like the new Asus, 279PQ or whatever) come down in price or a good ultra-wide IPS high refresh display is out. Gsync vs. FreeSync might actually cause me to consider going back to AMD for the first time since a 9700 Pro. It will really depend on the total cost of GPU + display since I realize this 970 won't cut it for higher refresh rates.
 
a3venom said:
^ That is all the threads in this forum, but it is fun to read a lot of them. If someone wanted to get an objective opinion why would he ask on a forum anyway?, when there are review sites and YouTube channels like Digital Foundry.
Click to expand...

I like to hear from actual users not someone who handled the card for a review. Also reviews are mainly done at launch and things change over time with driver updates, etc.

I am very happy with the purchase. I may be missing a little bit of horsepower vs. the 390 but I was ready for a change from AMD anyways.

By the time this card is not enough I will be upgrading anyways so no big deal. I figure it should be plenty for the next year.
 
lightsout said:
I like to hear from actual users
Click to expand...

So you ignored most of the actual users and listened to a couple people making goofy arguments. :p

lightsout said:
By the time this card is not enough I will be upgrading anyways so no big deal. I figure it should be plenty for the next year.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right but i highly doubt it. As you have been told by most people here that cards already shown its limitations in several games this year.

lightsout said:
I may be missing a little bit of horsepower vs. the 390 but I was ready for a change from AMD anyways.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. You didnt want opinions you just wanted a venue to justify what you really wanted. Its perfectly fine to want what you want but this whole thread is a farce.
 
Disposed said:
So you ignored most of the actual users and listened to a couple people making goofy arguments. :p

And there you have it. You didnt want opinions you just wanted a venue to justify what you really wanted. Its perfectly fine to want what you want but this whole thread is a farce.
Click to expand...

So you are doing the same as you are accusing him of doing, listening to one side of what people are saying and not the other? ;)
 
ManofGod said:
It is actually a little bit slower. (For instance, I had a graphics score on 3D Mark 11 of just over 17000 on the 390 but about 15400 on the 290x. Combined, they get almost 30300 so the scaling is excellent.) I would say get the GELID cooler but only if they have a good VRM cooling section. Also, I installed the 290x on the bottom and set the max fan speed to about 75%. (Noisy, yes, but not intolerably so.)
Click to expand...
That is impressive as I have gotten 30361 with my dual fury x. Lol this needs some investigation. Just ran it and something is not right
 
lightsout said:
I like to hear from actual users not someone who handled the card for a review. Also reviews are mainly done at launch and things change over time with driver updates, etc.

I am very happy with the purchase. I may be missing a little bit of horsepower vs. the 390 but I was ready for a change from AMD anyways.

By the time this card is not enough I will be upgrading anyways so no big deal. I figure it should be plenty for the next year.
Click to expand...

At the risk of re-ingniting the flames, how are you finding that 970? Have you tried OC-ing?

At the end of the day, I'd say you made the right choice since you're playing at 1080p. 970 and 390 are about tit-for-tat there, but the 970 will run with less power/heat. Any higher resolution, I'd say a 290/390 would have been your better bet, but as you say, you'll likely be upgrading before you feel a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top