R9 390 vs GTX 970 - Fight!

[tommybhoy]

When you take a step back, the higher vram card tanks the one that can't run the higher settings without falling off a cliff because of vram.

The other elephant in the room is if WD's is broken, why is one exact same core less broken than the other?

 

[Amatsubu]

When you take a step back, the higher vram card tanks the one that can't run the higher settings without falling off a cliff because of vram.

The other elephant in the room is if WD's is broken, why is one exact same core less broken than the other?

That's not exactly my point, the benchmarks you posted clearly indicate that both cards are incapable of locking the game at 60fps so it's like I said, running out of grunt happens before running out of vram. We can argue that one is a bit "smoother" (49fps average is not exactly smooth though) but it's still pointless. Besides, I don't actually believe Watch_Dogs needs all that vram, I ran it on my 970 without even getting close to the limit. All the fps drops were due to poor optimisation. It's an old, broken game and far from an ideal testing environment.

EDIT: It's just like TEH MIGHTY ULTRA TEXTUREZ in Shadow of Mordor;p Tried them at 1440p on my "gimped 3.5gb" 970 without any sort of stuttering but I was still running out of grunt with vram floating around 3.4-3.7gb;p You'll be having a hard time trying to use up all of the card's vram without running into "unplayable" or "not exactly smooth" territories.

As I said, Witcher 3, Crysis 3, GTA V and many others demonstrate the issue pretty well. Witcher 3 at 1440p uses around 2gb of vram and my 970 is strugging (and the game is not even maxed). No amount of memory will help in such case, only sheer grunt. Assuming that the requirements will shoot up in the future (which they will), the 390 with its supposedly "future-proof" 8gb of vram will be having a hard time producing smooth framerates, having in mind that it's already pretty easy to make it and the 970 run out of puff at 1080p without saturating all the available memory pool.

 

[tommybhoy]

Doesn't matter what your point is or games used for example, you/we do not know what the next future games vrams demands are.

Historically your view gets blootered anyway, it always, always happens, 3Gb 79's outlasted high end 2Gb 6 series, but the 4Gb cards chugged on and the folks it happens to-put up lots of 's when they say they should have gotten the one with more ram.

3Gb 7 series junked when they ran out of... notice the pattern...

As everyone doesn't share your fps target, some are more than happy playing 49fps average, millions are playing@30fps.

The answer to the question you didn't want to answer is MOAR vram, that's exactly how one core can play smoother than the other without huge single figure dips.

 

[TNA]

Funny argument really. More VRAM is always a good thing, if it does not cost much more or even less like in this scenario, why would one opt for over 50% less? Look at people who got the 4gb version of the 680 few years back, bet they are very happy that they did.

If the price of the extra vram cost 50-100 quid more I would understand, but that is not the case here.

 

[Amatsubu]

Doesn't matter what your point is or games used for example, you/we do not know what the next future games vrams demands are.

Historically your view gets blootered anyway, it always, always happens, 3Gb 79's outlasted high end 2Gb 6 series, but the 4Gb cards chugged on and the folks it happens to-put up lots of 's when they say they should have gotten the one with more ram.

3Gb 7 series junked when they ran out of... notice the pattern...

As everyone doesn't share your fps target, some are more than happy playing 49fps average, millions are playing@30fps.

The answer to the question you didn't want to answer is MOAR vram, that's exactly how one core can play smoother than the other without huge single figure dips.

If it doesn't matter what my point is then why do you bother bending your arguments to suit the discussion?

Firstly, I can easily reverse your claims: YOU don't know what future vram requirements will be like so maybe I'm right? And I most likely am, unless you believe that old cards somehow get more powerful as the time passes. To use more vram, you have to have a more powerful card. And for games to use more vram, they have to use more effects, better textures etc. The issue will remain exactly like it is now, only more pronounced. It's awfully simple really.

If I give you concrete examples and you say it doesn't matter the what should I believe in? Fairytales? Care to tell me how a game that uses up 2gbs of vram at 1440p and makes a card run out of steam is going to runy any faster on a 8gb one? I'm really interested


Secondly, my view doesn't get blottered since what you say rarely happens (unless you're talking about resale value, this is just complete cobblers) because 99% of the time you change cards because you run out of grunt, not out vram. This is the most commonly shared view. Ironically, when I had a similar argument with a bloke using similar arguments as yours, a guy chimed in and said he has yet to change a card due to vram limitations

And if you want to play the "you don't know" card, then how do you know what other people's fps target is? Especially on an enthusiast forum, where some users are obsessed with 144hz and uber-high details? And do you honestly believe people buy stuff like the 970/390 to play at 30fps? And if you do play at 30fps you're going to have a hard time using the available vram, anyways

If you argue about VRAM as a factor in smooth gameplay then why do yu dissmiss the problem of fps drops, saying that people have different fps targets? Seems a bit contradictory. "Oh, my card's barely chugging along but I'm set for the future because I have more VRAM, MWAHAHAHAH!" Come on man, be sensible. Frequently dropping significantly below 60 fps is not smooth, face it.

My point still stands and you don't need history to prove it, just a brief run in some current games.

 

[Amatsubu]

Funny argument really. More VRAM is always a good thing, if it does not cost much more or even less like in this scenario, why would one opt for over 50% less? Look at people who got the 4gb version of the 680 few years back, bet they are very happy that they did.

If the price of the extra vram cost 50-100 quid more I would understand, but that is not the case here.

And when whas this a part of our argument? I accept the 390 as a pretty good card and would recommend it over the 970 if you believe vram will make a difference, provided it's the same price. My only point is that its 8gb will have little importance in terms of performance.

And can the 680 use all of its 4gb and still produce a smooth experience? The 970 will trash the 4gb 680 while supposedly having only 3.5gb vram, how's that possible? Magic? No, the 680 is just too weak to tap into all that, and that's what I'm arguing about. Besides, the 680 was really powerful when it launched, now we're talking about a 2-year old rebrand. Let's test the 390 against a 4gb Fury X, which will be more powerful? Will having more ram allow you to push the same settings as that card and saturate significantly more than a half of your memory?

EDIT: It'll be the same when we test the 390 against its successors in 1-2 years time, its ram won't make a difference.

 

[humbug]

Unless you are running in CF for 4K 8GB of VRam isn't necessary.

However more is better then less, a Game Engine is not content with using enough buffering when it has more buffer at its disposal, its why often you see cards with more VRam use more than another with less in the same game, so what? one might ask.
Well, if its buffering more its doing it because it can and there is a reason for it, the more caching of textures and objects its doing while it doesn't need to the less of that its doing when it does, its pre-loading and that's a good thing, its puts less stress on it when its stressed, its not flushing its buffer when it could be rendering instead.

All this can make for a smother experience.

Now, in campaign games i prefer IQ over FPS, so i get the IQ settings and the VSR res up as high as i can, with my GTX 970 i have never thought "I need more buffer" i have never experienced the (GTX 970 3.5GB buffer stutter) but i also get a felling it isn't as future proof as i would like it to be.

 

[TNA]

And when whas this a part of our argument? I accept the 390 as a pretty good card and would recommend it over the 970 if you believe vram will make a difference, provided it's the same price. My only point is that its 8gb will have little importance in terms of performance.

And can the 680 use all of its 4gb and still produce a smooth experience? The 970 will trash the 4gb 680 while supposedly having only 3.5gb vram, how's that possible? Magic? No, the 680 is just too weak to tap into all that, and that's what I'm arguing about. Besides, the 680 was really powerful when it launched, now we're talking about a 2-year old rebrand. Let's test the 390 against a 4gb Fury X, which will be more powerful? Will having more ram allow you to push the same settings as that card and saturate significantly more than a half of your memory?

EDIT: It'll be the same when we test the 390 against its successors in 1-2 years time, its ram won't make a difference.

I understand what you are saying, but still don't buy the it does not matter part. Seems no matter what anyone says you are set in your opinion, that will not change and that is fine.

I know someone who had two 680's and was happy with performance, but because of the limited vram had to upgrade. There are other examples of vram coming in handy but as I said you won't have any of it, so no point

 

[Amatsubu]

I understand what you are saying, but still don't buy the it does not matter part. Seems no matter what anyone says you are set in your opinion, that will not change and that is fine.

I know someone who had two 680's and was happy with performance, but because of the limited vram had to upgrade. There are other examples of vram coming in handy but as I said you won't have any of it, so no point

Yes, because that someone had two and I can understand perfectly well that 2gb is not enough for SLI 680 ;p

I am set in my opinion, but aren't we all? I also provided quite sound examples of vram not always coming in handy and saving the card's performance, but will it change your point of view? I believe not so we'll just have to agree to disagree

I get that having more vram might be beneficial but I'm just trying to be logical. If we can make such cards struggle now, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume they're going to be struggling more and more in the future, regardless of theoretical buffering potential etc. The grunt just won't be there to "feed" the vram. You'll have to compromise more and more settings to maintain smooth fps and that kind of defies the purpose of having copious amounts of memory to push graphical stuff.

If it was that simple we'd have the 390 constantly outperforming the 980Ti but does it happen? Not to mention that you can make the 980Ti struggle before using its vram and it's a lot more powerful card. If that happens with such a GPU, then I think it's pretty safe to say the 390 won't be able to get anywhere close to the limit with playable frames.

If we somehowe time travelled two years into the future, which card in your opinion would be faster, the 6gb 980Ti or the 8gb 390, assuming that overall requirements shoot up with vram requirements (which they will)?

Now, if both the 970 and 390 were twice as powerful as they are and one had 3.5/4gb and the other had 8gb, I wouldn't be even bringing my argument up, but they aren't.

Well, I guess more vram might be useful for modding, but then again if you push enough mods your card might still struggle in terms of raw performance before using all the vram.

Sorry for such long ponitificatons, brevity is not one of my strong points

 

[mahius]

I have a 970 and I run all my games at pretty much max settings 1080p, some at higher resolution with DSR. I've never gone over 3.5GB VRAM and I've played some taxing games like GTAV, Crysis 3, Planetside 2. Different games run better on one or the other, so check the benchmarks out for the games you play. Far Cry 4 runs better on AMD and Witcher 3 seems to be better on Nvidia for example.

There are other factors besides performance when choosing between these 2, including noise/cooling and possibility of coil-whine. From what I hear, the 970 is more likely to have coil whine (only at ridiculously high FPS >2k). The 390 generally runs hotter and consumes more power though (less heat/power efficient). NV cards get GeForce Experience features like Shadowplay and Gamestream. Best 970s to get are the MSI Gaming, Gigabyte G1 or the Asus Strix. The MSI Gaming cooler is also on the 390, I'd recommend it, since it runs semi-passive (Strix cooler the same). No fan till 60 degrees temp, but this can be changed. It's quiet on load too. I never hear mine.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Except when it isn't running out of grunt, you don't understand how it works.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/06/11/asus_strix_gtx_780_oc_6gb_review_exclusive/3#.Vi6RKPnhCUk

Nice example that shows a lot of the people on Nvidia side were just talking out there bums regularly whenever it came to running out of power before vram. Still I note it can have the msaa / aa turned down just a fraction but that still makes no excuse for if you start adding mods / future titles that could require more vram.

This does put future proofing on the side of 390 as has always been a point for it.

 

[TNA]

Nice example that shows a lot of the people on Nvidia side were just talking out there bums regularly whenever it came to running out of power before vram. Still I note it can have the msaa / aa turned down just a fraction but that still makes no excuse for if you start adding mods / future titles that could require more vram.

This does put future proofing on the side of 390 as has always been a point for it.

Exactly.

No one is saying a 390 will magically beat a 980ti in the future or anything like that. All is being said is the extra vram will come in handy in certain situations and it is better to have than not vs less than half the proper vram 970 has. Not like it will cost extra, so why not? Simples

 

[Amatsubu]

There is no such thing as future-proofing but believe what you want.
If it was all cobblers you'd be able to max Crysis 3/Witcher 3/GTA V and others on a 390 WHILE going above 4gb regularly with room to spare. Then you could be talking about future-proofing. Since it's not the case I don't know what certain situations you're talking about, other than crossfire or extreme modding (to which the above still applies).

And if as you say, the 390 will still be struggling against a 980Ti with less ram, then how it's supposed to use more with playable frames?

Well, I guess it's no use arguing simple points. We'll see in the future. I'm not debating 970 vs. 390, I'm debating 8gb on a not so powerful card, which all of you don't seem to get. VRAM is not the be-all-end-all, and it this case it's more of a marketing gimmick. Simple as.

And lol at Watchdogs as a "nice example".

Cheers

 

[Insanties_birth]

There is no such thing as future-proofing but believe what you want.
If it was all cobblers you'd be able to max Crysis 3/Witcher 3/GTA V and others on a 390 WHILE going above 4gb regularly with room to spare. Then you could be talking about future-proofing. Since it's not the case I don't know what certain situations you're talking about, other than crossfire or extreme modding (to which the above still applies).

And if as you say, the 390 will still be struggling against a 980Ti with less ram, then how it's supposed to use more with playable frames?

Well, I guess it's no use arguing simple points. We'll see in the future. I'm not debating 970 vs. 390, I'm debating 8gb on a not so powerful card, which all of you don't seem to get. VRAM is not the be-all-end-all, and it this case it's more of a marketing gimmick. Simple as.

And lol at Watchdogs as a "nice example".

Cheers

Go ahead and buy a gtx 950 while others buy a 390 with 8gb ram and see which lasts longer then. Stupid comment as regardless of how much you can guarantee it will hold up there is still obvious benefits to having the security of the extra spec than there is in buying the worse option. As evidenced by the link provided by tommybhoy there can sometimes be issues with having less vram. I pointed out myself you could just turn down the msaa but it still doesn't disregards the fact some future titles or modding could benefit from it.

no one on the thread titled 'R9 390 vs GTX 970' is commenting about the 980ti as it's clearly a better option but it's stupid to expect a card £200 more or so to be anything but better. vram doesn't factor into that argument as it's got enough vram to handle it's performance but the argument is just whether the 970 definitely will for all situations including the future. Even if vram in your mind is a gimmick then we can still go by the better performance for same price and have the 'gimmick' be there just for security. Only an idiot would argue that having more performance and more security for the same price is somehow worthless.

 

[TNA]

There is no such thing as future-proofing but believe what you want.
If it was all cobblers you'd be able to max Crysis 3/Witcher 3/GTA V and others on a 390 WHILE going above 4gb regularly with room to spare. Then you could be talking about future-proofing. Since it's not the case I don't know what certain situations you're talking about, other than crossfire or extreme modding (to which the above still applies).

And if as you say, the 390 will still be struggling against a 980Ti with less ram, then how it's supposed to use more with playable frames?

Well, I guess it's no use arguing simple points. We'll see in the future. I'm not debating 970 vs. 390, I'm debating 8gb on a not so powerful card, which all of you don't seem to get. VRAM is not the be-all-end-all, and it this case it's more of a marketing gimmick. Simple as.

And lol at Watchdogs as a "nice example".

Cheers

Dude, we already gave you some valid reasons as to why having the extra VRAM will come in handy in certain scenarios, you seem to be going round in circles. Say the person wanted to add another 390 to his computer, would he not be better of by having the extra VRAM? No one is saying it is the be-all-end-all (far from it), you are just assuming things here now. If you are not paying more for the extra vram, what is exactly the problem here? Don't get it

 

[Amatsubu]

Jeez, and when did I say that it's not good having more ram for the same price? At least try to understand what you read. I'm just saying it won't matter in the long run. You believe it will be a definite advantage and that's where we differ.

What valid argumets did you give except that watchdogs benchmark? Because I gave quite a lot of easily provable argumets too, which you just chose to neglect



And didn't I say that SLI/Xfire is the ONLY reason you'd want 8gb (you still won't be able to use it up even then)? So why do you mention it again? I said it won't matter on a single card. The 980Ti was used to demonstrate the issue, if you still don't get it then all the best to you.

When fanboys like that Dave bloke chime in saying the 390 is uber-superior and 970 is gimped blahblablah, nobody seems to pay attention. When I'm trying to prove a simple point, I'm getting attacked, jeez

 

[Amatsubu]

expect a card £200 more or so to be anything but better. vram doesn't factor into that argument as it's got enough vram to handle it's performance but the argument is just whether the 970 definitely will for all situations including the future. Even if vram in your mind is a gimmick then we can still go by the better performance for same price and have the 'gimmick' be there just for security. Only an idiot would argue that having more performance and more security for the same price is somehow worthless.

Yeah, comparing differently priced cards is just as stupid as telling me to buy a 950 and see which lasts longer If the 970 struggles in the future, the 390 will as well as they're roughly on equal footing in terms of performance, simple as.

And only an idiot wouldn't be able to grasp what I'm arguing " That's exactly why I said I'd recommend the 390 over the 390 at the same price

 

[Insanties_birth]

Jeez, and when did I say that it's not good having more ram for the same price? At least try to understand what you read. I'm just saying it won't matter in the long run. You believe it will be a definite advantage and that's where we differ.

What valid argumets did you give except that watchdogs benchmark? Because I gave quite a lot of easily provable argumets too, which you just chose to neglect



And didn't I say that SLI/Xfire is the ONLY reason you'd want 8gb (you still won't be able to use it up even then)? So why do you mention it again? I said it won't matter on a single card. The 980Ti was used to demonstrate the issue, if you still don't get it then all the best to you.

When fanboys like that Dave bloke chime in saying the 390 is uber-superior and 970 is gimped blahblablah, nobody seems to pay attention. When I'm trying to prove a simple point, I'm getting attacked, jeez

I understand exactly, you're just arguing poorly. On the one hand you're arguing it's impossible to future proof via the vram (i.e. indicating we can't just presume there will be situations where games use more vram but also not limited by performance despite evidence to the contrary being posted above) but despite this uncertainty surrounding future proofing you're relying on the old 'just trust me cos I got no evidence' argument when it comes to stating it won't have any benefit? Again, flies against the face of the evidence presented previously so you can understand why people would be confused with your presumptions. I never stated it was a definite advantage, I have always mentioned it 'could' be of advantage which is an uncertain term but still believe it better to have the security rather than not (and here we have someone else misunderstanding what they read).

Also another poor argument is trying to insinuate that not being able to use the full 8gb is somehow going the make going above 4gb (or even 3.5gb) where it would still be of benefit meaningless. So if I start using 4 or 4.5gb vram it's not good enough because I can't use the full 8? Sadly it'd still be better than what would happen with the 970 rendering it a moot point.

No one is attacking you but just pointing out that the statements you're making aren't entirely correct and not truly going to change the benefits of the 390 which it sounded more like what you was trying to do.

Yeah, comparing differently priced cards is just as stupid as telling me to buy a 950 and see which lasts longer If the 970 struggles in the future, the 390 will as well as they're roughly on equal footing in terms of performance, simple as.

And only an idiot wouldn't be able to grasp what I'm arguing " That's exactly why I said I'd recommend the 390 over the 390 at the same price

considering your statement was making it out as if having the extra vram and performance was meaningless it's good to point out other cards with less vram and performance. Otherwise if that doesn't tickle your fancy then we can point to card with MORE performance and less vram just as in the example above and show how it can still be beneficial to have the vram. I was going the opposite way to highlight the need of both elements but your comment whereas the 980ti is just in a diferent situation as it has the vram anyway so isn't really a key example of anything.

 

[TNA]

Jeez, and when did I say that it's not good having more ram for the same price? At least try to understand what you read. I'm just saying it won't matter in the long run. You believe it will be a definite advantage and that's where we differ.

What valid argumets did you give except that watchdogs benchmark? Because I gave quite a lot of easily provable argumets too, which you just chose to neglect



And didn't I say that SLI/Xfire is the ONLY reason you'd want 8gb (you still won't be able to use it up even then)? So why do you mention it again? I said it won't matter on a single card. The 980Ti was used to demonstrate the issue, if you still don't get it then all the best to you.

When fanboys like that Dave bloke chime in saying the 390 is uber-superior and 970 is gimped blahblablah, nobody seems to pay attention. When I'm trying to prove a simple point, I'm getting attacked, jeez

I am certainly not attacking you, just trying to have a debate here. Not sure how that is attacking. Not seen anyone insult you in anyway.

You are saying extra vram won't matter in the long run, this is why people trying to engage in a civilised dialog with you trying to give you valid reasons as to why this is not an accurate statement to make. What would be more accurate is to say there is very limited instances the extra vram will come in handy.

 

[Dave2150]

8GB > 4GB. Only NVIDIA fans would say otherwise, as it's common sense that having double of something is better.

Of course there's no game today that makes use of 8GB VRAM - I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

The benefit of 8GB of VRAM is when games start using >4GB - as in 4.2, 4.5, 4.8GB. That day will come, and already has for some titles at 1440P+.

Most of those who say the 390X cannot use it's full 8GB without suffering low fps are simply naive - they are looking at benchmarks where the method the reviewer used to get VRAM that high was to slap on obscene amounts of aa - which of course tank performance.

What their minds cannot fathom is that textures etc will continue to increase - so when game will use 4-5GB of VRAM, the 970 and 980 will stutter like no tomorrow, meanwhile the 390/390x will continue to provide a steady playable FPS.

This has happened many times over the course of the PC gaming history. Just try and run a modern game at ultra textures on a 2GB or even 3GB card - stutterfest.