-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
980 vs 390?
- Thread starter Scotteh
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
If it was me running 3 screens I'd go 390x rather than 390 but of the two you mention, ie the 390 and 980 I'd personally go with a 980, Unless you add a second card then a pair of 390's would be the best well priced option. 4gb's isn't a lot of rma for 3 screens which I presume are 1080p but then again you'll need to keep settings down enough to make it not such an issue. Ideally a 980ti would be the best 3 x 1080p option.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
I'd get neither! Stretch your budget some more and get a 980ti if you're wanting to push triple screens.
If his budget stretches to £500 then 2x390's (2x£250) would be about 10%-20% faster than a 980Ti at 4K..
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-178-PC&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=3059
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
It's not all about out right speed, or we'd all go down the multi-card route. You also have to factor in the negatives. Scaling issue's, power usage, heat output, noise, compatibility, motherboard Pcie slot spacing etc. The negatives far out way the positive of a pesky 10/20% speed boost, even more so with those house bricks you've linked. Powerful single card solutions will always be more flexible than multi-card.
Last edited:
Multi-gpu also has its benefits such as allowing those who don't want to spend £500+ on a card in one go. Some may buy a cheaper card for half the price and then maybe 6 months later buy another one cheaper and get a big performance gain.
Of course multi-gpu takes more power but if you calculate the energy costs involved, it's actually only about £30-£40 extra per year. Any power user would not even worry about that. Game support may be a problem but nowadays it's pretty good, especially now we have DX12 games coming.
From personal experience I had bought a gtx970 last year which I returned after the 3.5GB debacle. Then I bought a 2nd hand 7970 for £70 to crossfire and now get performance better than a gtx980 and also saving a huge £200.
Of course multi-gpu takes more power but if you calculate the energy costs involved, it's actually only about £30-£40 extra per year. Any power user would not even worry about that. Game support may be a problem but nowadays it's pretty good, especially now we have DX12 games coming.
From personal experience I had bought a gtx970 last year which I returned after the 3.5GB debacle. Then I bought a 2nd hand 7970 for £70 to crossfire and now get performance better than a gtx980 and also saving a huge £200.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
It's got nothing to do with energy costs as far as I'm concerned, it's about all the other pitfalls I highlighted, those cards you've linked run In Xfire would be madness. I've run a pair of 290X Lightning's which are the best air cooled 290X's out there. Heat out put and noise we're ridiculous amongst other things 'hence' why the majority don't run multi - cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
odd move, limiting yourself to 3gb of ram after returning a 970 for having 3.5gb. Still, for the money you cant really go wrong
sitll got my accellero'd 7950
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
I've tested a pair of 7970's with eyefinity and it ran like ****, no matter how much you lowered settings.
Hopefully times have changed since then.
Hopefully times have changed since then.
odd move, limiting yourself to 3gb of ram after returning a 970 for having 3.5gb. Still, for the money you cant really go wrong
At 1080P 3GB is enough and the reason I returned the 970 was more to do with Nvidia's behavior after the issue was highlighted than really being worried about 3.5GB. Also I was not entirely happy with the 970 after buying it since it didn't seem as smooth as my old 7950.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 2,301
- Location
- North West
At 1080p 3gb isn't enough if you want to max GTA V out! when I was on my 1080p monitor GTA V needed closer to 4gb vram to run full settings. Now it uses 4.6gb vram at 1440. In 99 percent of games 3gb is enough at 1080 though like you say. My brother also returned his 970 because of all that nonsense with them but he bought a 6gb card to replace it.
Last edited:
I don't know. GTA V seems to run pretty smooth for me at max detail even when it shows more than 3GB usage..The only game where the memory comes into play is Shadow of Mordor if I select ultra HD textures.
For now my current crossfire setup runs everything I want at max settings. Even in Witcher 3 I get 55-60fps with Hairworks on (AA disabled, tessellation set to 16x in CCC) and foliage distance lowered to High.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 2,301
- Location
- North West
I always run everything on full, if I can't run a game max I won't play it lol. Kinda OCD. That's when I know I need to upgrade ! GTA V does run really well, although have seen it run shocking on systems with 3gb vram or less before when it shows needing more.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 2,301
- Location
- North West
Quality card, good choice. Its alright I spent £3200 a few weeks ago on my PC! Included everything though with monitor etc. Can be an expensive habit! Which 980ti did you choose?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Good decision, the Ti's are a quality piece of kit enjoy.
