• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

GTX 970 4GB VS R9 390 8GB, please help me decide.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
You really need to re-read some of the above posts.

I did and aware to what it indicates. Seems 970 is the way to go from what i read in this form, but in other forms and some here as well the R9 390 has bit more of a lead. But seeing the performance chart and other websites as well the 970 has bout 6 to 8 fps gain VS the R9 390
 
I keep hearing this term "rebadged", but all the research i been doing and this jaytwocent review i seen, they say its more of a "refresh". I am hearing 50/50 on this rebrand vs refresh debate. Seems to be more of a refresh vs a rebrand. Cause i rather get the 970 if the R9 390 being more of a rebadged.

Watch this link and let me know what you think:
Its rebadged with different clocks and more vRAM. Period.

If you are upgrading to 4K, you will DEFINATELY want the 390 because of the vram. That said, a single 390 doesn't have enough horsepower to game at 4K so you will, after you go 4K, need two.

You really just need to make a choice. You have plenty of info from us and other forums and such. Don't get lost in the minutia. :)
 
Ok so you pulled a chart from an unknown benchmark with unknown settings. All we know is it's 1080. FYI, 99% of all these benchmarks are run at much higher settings than most will play at, especially if we're talking about the GPU's in question. I'm not trying to argue here just pose a different point of view. You're not going to change mine, and I'm not trying to change yours. There's a difference between real world gaming experience and benchmarks people run with ridiculous settings.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/18.html

:rolleyes:

EDIT:

I did and aware to what it indicates. Seems 970 is the way to go from what i read in this form, but in other forms and some here as well the R9 390 has bit more of a lead. But seeing the performance chart and other websites as well the 970 has bout 6 to 8 fps gain VS the R9 390



Depends on the game. I think they're about equal performance-wise. As Earthdog mentioned, if you go 4K, you'll benefit from the 8GB of vram.
 
Its rebadged with different clocks and more vRAM. Period.

If you are upgrading to 4K, you will DEFINATELY want the 390 because of the vram. That said, a single 390 doesn't have enough horsepower to game at 4K so you will, after you go 4K, need two.

I think as i mentioned earlier i am going to get a 144hz monitor for sure. 4k is bit too much for me, but would like to get that in the future, but for now the more realistic option that fits my budget is to get a 144hz monitor, and seems like these two cards are more then capable for that?
 
I think as i mentioned earlier i am going to get a 144hz monitor for sure. 4k is bit too much for me, but would like to get that in the future, but for now the more realistic option that fits my budget is to get a 144hz monitor, and seems like these two cards are more then capable for that?

Neither the 970 or the 390 is going to give you 144 FPS at 1080P if that's what you're asking.
 

I have stated several times not looking for an argument lol. Not getting sucked into one. You win sir! :clap:

FYI why didn't you slap up the COD chart.....? Because then my point is made right? Double what the monitor can handle......

How about a game that's not one of the toughest on the systems out there...........

This is the issue with benchmarks, they're all different use different settings and people cherry pick the performance in whatever game helps them prove their point. Roll your eyes all you want man, just trying to help someone make an informed decision, but you seem hell bent on driving home your own point of view with discrediting everyone else's ideas.

And none of these cards are overclocked according to your chart either right?

And the particular 280X I recommended is not on there is it?

:)
 
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/18.html

:rolleyes:

EDIT:





Depends on the game. I think they're about equal performance-wise. As Earthdog mentioned, if you go 4K, you'll benefit from the 8GB of vram.

interesting link you provided. Seems like when you turn on 4xAA or any of the other features that the game has to offer the R9 390 out performs the 970 a bit. Since GTA V is the game that i mostly play it seems like the 970 is the way to go, cause it looks like the 970 gains about 6 to 8 FPS more then the R9 390 when it comes to GTA V.
 
I have stated several times not looking for an argument lol. Not getting sucked into one. You win sir! :clap:

How about a game that's not one of the toughest on the systems out there...........

This is the issue with benchmarks, they're all different use different settings and people cherry pick the performance in whatever game helps them prove their point. Roll your eyes all you want man, just trying to help someone make an informed decision, but you seem hell bent on driving home your own point of view with discrediting everyone else's ideas.

And none of these cards are overclocked according to your chart either right?

And the particular 280X I recommended is not on there is it?

:)

280X will be about 20-30% slower than the 390/970. I mentioned it above, but if I'm building a new PC, I'm picking hardware which will let me max games, not maybe get 60 FPS if I turn enough settings down. That's budget-dependent, of course, but the OP's budget seems to be high enough where he can stick to the same rule.

But yes, a 280X would "double what his monitor is capable of" if he turns everything to low...

EDIT: ... or plays a game from 10 years ago, like COD (assuming you meant the original)...
 
Neither the 970 or the 390 is going to give you 144 FPS at 1080P if that's what you're asking.

Ya i was thinking either of these cards would run at a full 144 fps? But i guess not? I guess its matter of which card can constantly go over a good 60 fps for a 144hz monitor. Seems like 970 has the edge on that, but then again there is that memory video ram of the r9 390
 
Evil... For the record, many of the games in that link/GPU reviews from TPU are done manually as there are not any in game benchmarks. That said, in game benchmarks give a pretty good idea of what to expect. One just needs to look at the settings the review site runs it at so they know.

That said, overall it looks like the 970 is a bit faster, but in some titles it trades blows.

This is really a 6 of one half dozen of the other situation here gentlemen... :)
 
280X will be about 20-30% slower than the 390/970. I mentioned it above, but if I'm building a new PC, I'm picking hardware which will let me max games, not maybe get 60 FPS if I turn enough settings down. That's budget-dependent, of course, but the OP's budget seems to be high enough where he can stick to the same rule.

But yes, a 280X would "double what his monitor is capable of" if he turns everything to low...

Lol....I never said the 280X would double where are you getting this from. I said a 970/390 could and your own link has charts in other games besides GTA V to prove it. Way to cherry pic what you quote and twist words around.

:thup:

- - - Updated - - -

Evil... For the record, many of the games in that link/GPU reviews from TPU are done manually as there are not any in game benchmarks. That said, in game benchmarks give a pretty good idea of what to expect. One just needs to look at the settings the review site runs it at so they know.

That said, overall it looks like the 970 is a bit faster, but in some titles it trades blows.

This is really a 6 of one half dozen of the other situation here gentlemen... :)

All I was getting at, is if he's got a 60HZ monitor he could save $100 and still get 60HZ with a less expensive card. If he's going to 4K none of the cards mentioned in this thread will handle it unless paired and even then for how much time.
 
Yep, you'll be happy with either (390 or 970), OP. At Ultra settings, in modern games, they'll both give you 60 FPS +.

You'll have to read up a bit more on high refresh rate monitors, but my opinion (and this is a topic where opinion matters a bit) is it would still be a better experience @ 144Hz vs. 60 Hz, even if your FPS is 60-75. Like I said, read up on 144Hz displays, however, because it is a tricky topic.
 
All I was getting at, is if he's got a 60HZ monitor he could save $100 and still get 60HZ with a less expensive card. If he's going to 4K none of the cards mentioned in this thread will handle it unless paired and even then for how much time.
Agreed.

To add to that though, the OP plans on keeping it for at least 3 years. So getting a lower end card will only hurt him as time goes on as games become more complex he will start to not hit 60 FPS quicker. Its not a 'holdover' card. Its a keeper, he has the budget, so, IMO, getting the best card he can afford is the most prudent choice for this user. ;)

Yep, you'll be happy with either (390 or 970), OP. At Ultra settings, in modern games, they'll both give you 60 FPS +.

You'll have to read up a bit more on high refresh rate monitors, but my opinion (and this is a topic where opinion matters a bit) is it would still be a better experience @ 144Hz vs. 60 Hz, even if your FPS is 60-75. Like I said, read up on 144Hz displays, however, because it is a tricky topic.
+1
 
WELL.... looks like i might go with the R9 390 since its 50buks cheaper VS the 970 around here in Canada. I am going to do more research just to make sure that i am firm with my decision. Cause the last thing i want to do is get the card and then 4 to 5months from now having to upgrade again due to lack of performance. I want to just get a card and not have to worry to upgrade in at least 3 years from now.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm something interesting i just ran into when doing my research on the PowerColor R9 390 :


Should i worry about this issue? Although sound isn't that big of a deal for me, should i worry about this coil whine sound?
 
WELL.... looks like i might go with the R9 390 since its 50buks cheaper VS the 970 around here in Canada. I am going to do more research just to make sure that i am firm with my decision. Cause the last thing i want to do is get the card and then 4 to 5months from now having to upgrade again due to lack of performance. I want to just get a card and not have to worry to upgrade in at least 3 years from now.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm something interesting i just ran into when doing my research on the PowerColor R9 390 :


Should i worry about this issue? Although sound isn't that big of a deal for me, should i worry about this coil whine sound?

There are reports of coil whine with Maxwell cards as well. It's luck of the draw really. I wouldn't let it factor in to your decision.


EDIT:

While I think you're making the right choice given your current needs/budget/pricing, I do want to re-iterate that you probably will be turning down settings in 2-3 years with either of these cards.
 
Cause the last thing i want to do is get the card and then 4 to 5months from now having to upgrade again due to lack of performance. I want to just get a card and not have to worry to upgrade in at least 3 years from now.
Let me be honest here... :)

1. 390 8GB or 970 4GB, you will not have to upgrade in 3/4 months. As you can see from the links provided here and your own research, the cards perform very close to each other with the edge at 1080p going slightly to the 970 (in the games that TPU tested). If you have to upgrade one card in 3/4 months, you would have to upgrade the 'faster' one in 3/4 months... they are that close. Look at what was linked... 3% difference. that is 3 FPS if you are talking 100 FPS or 1.5 FPS difference at 60 FPS. Think about it.

2. If you want a card to last you 3 years at Ultra Settings for modern games at that time. These cards won't do it either. Your budget will need to increase. A 7970/280x was released 3 years ago. They can't run many modern titles at Ultra settings at 60 FPS+ as you require.
 
A 7970/280x was released 3 years ago. They can't run many modern titles at Ultra settings at 60 FPS+ as you require.

Exactly. I built systems for two friends about 2 years ago with 280Xs when they were getting into BF3/4. They were able to set everything to Ultra @ 1080P and maintain a pretty stable 60 FPS. With Battlefront, they're having to turn things down to Medium-High to maintain the same frame rate.

Game devs like to push things (and I'm glad they do). To maintain the same performance for longer than a year and a half to two years, you really have to upgrade at about that same frequency.
 
This is the card I was referring to in post #13:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-380x-4gb-review,1.html

I will agree with EarthDog, for 3-4 years with no upgrade you're not setting realistic goals. If that's what you want you need to spend more and get something like a 980 Ti...... even then with the new wave of HBM suppose to drop this year not exactly a move "I" would make right now. As for the 970/390 get whichever appeals to you most. For your uses you will not go wrong with either.

Good luck :thup:
 
Back