GTX 970 or R9 290X for watercooling?

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 18:08

Hi, I'm building a new rig and unfortunately I'm stuck on the GPU. I have a budget of £350ish max to buy and watercool a GPU for my new loop. This narrowed it down to these cards (unless I have missed any).

Please can you help me determine which one is better?

Also thermals/power draw is not an issue (We have 1000W to fuel this) and it will be in a loop with 540mm of radiator.

Any help will be greatly appreciated and I'm sorry for this contributing to the many threads like this but I have yet to find a definitive answer

P.B · 27 Jun 2015 at 18:38

Are you doing this for an aesthetic reason ?

As neither would be great for watercooling brand new.

But if I had to go for one I would say 290x as the pcb is a lot more beefey and with custom bios's you can push them quite hard and respond well with water as there a big hot and power hungry card so would be more worth the money.

On the other hand the 970 is cool and quite to start with and the only thing you'll gain is the aesthetics of it. and even the 970 gaming edition pcb douesnt look as beefy as the stock 290x pcb.

Hope this helps in anyway.

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 19:01

P.B said:
Are you doing this for an aesthetic reason ?

As neither would be great for watercooling brand new.

But if I had to go for one I would say 290x as the pcb is a lot more beefey and with custom bios's you can push them quite hard and respond well with water as there a big hot and power hungry card so would be more worth the money.

On the other hand the 970 is cool and quite to start with and the only thing you'll gain is the aesthetics of it. and even the 970 gaming edition pcb douesnt look as beefy as the stock 290x pcb.

Hope this helps in anyway.

Hi, thank you for your prompt response

Yes the watercooling is more for aesthetics and the noise compared to price/performance. So the R9 290X is more beefy but their is no significant advantage to either card?

Mtom · 27 Jun 2015 at 19:13

Under water the 290x is much better. It has more grunt, it is better for higher resolutions.

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 19:19

Mtom said:
Under water the 290x is much better. It has more grunt, it is better for higher resolutions.

So it would be better than the GTX 970 for the PC

Ian Evey · 27 Jun 2015 at 19:40

Honestly they are about the same in games upto 1440p res even with water cooling.

Even though i favour nvidia a little more i would probably choose a 290x over a 970 with water cooling

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 20:00

Ian Evey said:
Honestly they are about the same in games upto 1440p res even with water cooling.

Even though i favour nvidia a little more i would probably choose a 290x over a 970 with water cooling

Then I shall go for the 290X

, thanks for your help. Just on another note, because the thermals of the 970 are lower does that mean I could overclock it higher? :confused:

P.B · 27 Jun 2015 at 21:01

No due to the way no idea like to control there cards it make a lot harder to overclock. granted the 970 is exceptional on air but water doesn't help that where the 290x is the opposite

if you can put the budget get a msi lightning edition and waterblock would suit your build I saw a build with two white water cooled ones and just imagine that in your build would go a treat

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 21:21

P.B said:
No due to the way no idea like to control there cards it make a lot harder to overclock. granted the 970 is exceptional on air but water doesn't help that where the 290x is the opposite

if you can put the budget get a msi lightning edition and waterblock would suit your build I saw a build with two white water cooled ones and just imagine that in your build would go a treat

Hehe, I wish I could afford two but alas my budget is almost drained

However I can probably stretch to an MSI lightning for one R9 290X

, although the reference model will be easier to get a hold of

Ian Evey · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:07

If you had members market access a 290x go for a lot cheaper 2nd hand hence you could have had 2 for the price of one.

MrMD · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:11

TechMinerUK said:
Then I shall go for the 290X , thanks for your help. Just on another note, because the thermals of the 970 are lower does that mean I could overclock it higher?

Not really,your not likely to get much higher clocks from a 970 on water than on air most the time with 970 your limited by the silicon lottery rather than thermals.

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:27

MrMD said:
Not really,your not likely to get much higher clocks from a 970 on water than on air most the time with 970 your limited by the silicon lottery rather than thermals.

Hmm, so I suppose it makes little sense to watercool the 970 other than for the aesthetics whereas the R9 290X will perform better. The issue is I'm indecisive as I can't help but be concerned about buying a chip that is slightly older :confused:

MrMD · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:30

TechMinerUK said:
Hmm, so I suppose it makes little sense to watercool the 970 other than for the aesthetics

As good a reason as any

I did and dont regret it

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:38

MrMD said:
As good a reason as any

I did and dont regret it

Fair point, have you overclocked it ?

MrMD · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:43

TechMinerUK said:
Fair point, have you overclocked it ?

Yep,clocks in my sig

I was running those on air no problems either.I could up the voltage and squeeze some more out the core and ram,but its not really worth it,plus Extra V gives me coil whine :eek:

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 22:45

MrMD said:
Yep,clocks in my sig

I was running those on air no problems either.I could up the voltage and squeeze some more out the core and ram,but its not really worth it,plus Extra V gives me coil whine

So it is, I am blind

Have you experienced any issues with the 3.5GB/4GB card layout. Also which do you think would be better, the R9 290X or GTX 970

MrMD · 27 Jun 2015 at 23:01

TechMinerUK said:
So it is, I am blind

Have you experienced any issues with the 3.5GB/4GB card layout. Also which do you think would be better, the R9 290X or GTX 970

Nah but im only playing at 1080p.If your at 1440p i'd defiantly reccomend 290x over a 970.For general gaming performance they are pretty much equal.

You should see how cheap you can find 290x for,pretty sure you could source a 290x and a block for cheaper than a 970 and a block.

TechMinerUK · 27 Jun 2015 at 23:04

MrMD said:
Nah but im only playing at 1080p.If your at 1440p i'd defiantly reccomend 290x over a 970.For general gaming performance they are pretty much equal.

You should see how cheap you can find 290x for,pretty sure you could source a 290x and a block for cheaper than a 970 and a block.

Yep, quite a large difference as the R9 290X seems to have dropped in price by a surprising amount :eek:

Makes the 970 seem almost expensive as the 980

TechMinerUK · 28 Jun 2015 at 09:49

MrMD said:
Nah but im only playing at 1080p.If your at 1440p i'd defiantly reccomend 290x over a 970.For general gaming performance they are pretty much equal.

You should see how cheap you can find 290x for,pretty sure you could source a 290x and a block for cheaper than a 970 and a block.

Just a final question. Would the GTX 970 Strix edition be a better option to the R9 290X Core edition?

nomadd · 28 Jun 2015 at 10:00

TechMinerUK said:
Just a final question. Would the GTX 970 Strix edition be a better option to the R9 290X Core edition?

I have the MSI 970 Gaming. Runs very cool, and very quiet on air. Silent outside of gaming, as it doesn't need any active cooling then. I wouldn't even dream of wasting the time or money on water cooling it - only then to have to listen to pump whine, fans, etc. But hey, that's just me.

Surely if you have a little extra cash to burn beyond the purchase price of a 970, you'd be simply better off spending the money on getting a 980 (even second-hand)? That is bound to give you better performance than any overclocked 970 (and of course you could overclock the 980 if you felt the need..)