R9 390 vs GTX 970 - Fight!

[Amatsubu]

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.

"Very limited instances" is almost exactly the same as "won't matter". I gave arguments too, but all you do is say I have none. Please just run the Witcher 3 or Crysis 3 maxed or any other high-end game and tell me how much difference will more vram make in such situations? It's one of my arguments, constantly neglected. You just say I don't have any arguments and back up your claims using an old, broken game. I just find it a bit hypocritical. Especially that this was the only evidence to counter my assumptions.

@Dave: I know you love the 390 and all, but when games start using such amounts of ram it will be a thing of the past, sorry.

I can provide you with a video of Shadow of Mordor at 1440p with ultra textures supposedly requiring 6gb of vram on my gimped card with no stuttering. Same story with GTAV. I'm running out of grunt, not out of vram. It just doesn't work like that, and it's not only me.

Why do I hit the performance limit of my card before I hit the vram limit in MGSV, GTAV, Crysis 3, Witcher 3 and others? Can you explain? And will I be getting more framerate as time flies or less? And when I finally use up the vram at some point in time, will the card still produce playable frames? I'd assume not, and I suppose it'll be the same story with a 390.

Having more at the same price is great and the 390 is good card too, I'm just saying I doubt it'll change things in the long run. It COULD be an advantage, but I simply think it won't, having tried some modern games. That's all.

Didn't want to **** anyone off, sorry.

 

[Ian Evey]

Wow, do any of you really think a 970 or a 390 will play a newly released title at playable fps on ultra settings.

Seems old lessons learned are easily forgotten.

By the time you have used 4gb of vram the fps will start to take a nosedive due to the card not being fast enough.

Was the same with the 680 2gb and 7970 3gb yet even now those 2 single cards runs out of grunt before the vram is used up.

It really is that simple.

 

[Gregster]

Wow, do any if you really think a 970 or a 390 will play a newly released title at playable fps on ultra settings.

Seems old lessons learned are easily forgotten.

By the time you have used 4gb of vram the fps will start to take a nosedive due to the card not being fast enough.

Was the same with the 680 2gb and 7970 3gb yet even now those 2 single card runs out of grunt before the vram is used up.

It really is that simple.

Spot on and some here know this and some are just deluded by brand loyalty

 

[Amatsubu]

That's what I'm trying to prove, but to no avail. I guess, it could be an advantage of sorts but I just refuse to believe in fairytales. Some do.

EDIT: Still doesn't change the fact the 390 is a good card and a decent choice vs. the 970 at the same price. I just have to watch out since using common sense is highly frowned upon here;p

 

[TNA]

Wow, do any of you really think a 970 or a 390 will play a newly released title at playable fps on ultra settings.

Seems old lessons learned are easily forgotten.

By the time you have used 4gb of vram the fps will start to take a nosedive due to the card not being fast enough.

Was the same with the 680 2gb and 7970 3gb yet even now those 2 single cards runs out of grunt before the vram is used up.

It really is that simple.

Oh I agree. This is very much likely to be the case. That is not what the debate is about.

 

[Ian Evey]

Imagine a world with an 8gb hbm fury x. Now that card could do with 8gb but even then it would run out of gpu power so really unless your an x fire user its poiintless.

tbh the fury x would have done a lot more sales than the 4gb card if availability was good at launch.

 

[uksoldierboy]

It would have been nice to have 8gb on the Fury X, but tbh i've not come close yet to hitting the limit even in games like GTA V and Witcher 3 maxed @1440P.

I guess when it does become an issue we'll have pascal/Arctic Islands then anyway.

 

[Amatsubu]

Oh I agree. This is very much likely to be the case. That is not what the debate is about.

It was exactly what the debate was about

 

[TNA]

That's what I'm trying to prove, but to no avail. I guess, it could be an advantage of sorts but I just refuse to believe in fairytales. Some do.

EDIT: Still doesn't change the fact the 390 is a good card and a decent choice vs. the 970 at the same price. I just have to watch out since using common sense is highly frowned upon here;p

Lol. Funny talking about "attacking" and then saying that.

Makes it pointless debating really. Judging by people's responses it is obvious people just want to read what they want.

I am out

It was exactly what the debate was about

Don't think you have been understanding what has been said if you think this then. As I never argued that.

 

[Gregster]

That's what I'm trying to prove, but to no avail. I guess, it could be an advantage of sorts but I just refuse to believe in fairytales. Some do.

EDIT: Still doesn't change the fact the 390 is a good card and a decent choice vs. the 970 at the same price. I just have to watch out since using common sense is highly frowned upon here;p

If it was the case, a flagship card like the Fury X would be more pointless than a 970. Costs way more, it is a fair bit faster than a 970 but will be redundant as quick as the 970 because some here think that VRAM is the only thing that matters.

 

[tommybhoy]

Wow, do any of you really think a 970 or a 390 will play a newly released title at playable fps on ultra settings.

Seems old lessons learned are easily forgotten.

By the time you have used 4gb of vram the fps will start to take a nosedive due to the card not being fast enough.

Was the same with the 680 2gb and 7970 3gb yet even now those 2 single cards runs out of grunt before the vram is used up.

It really is that simple.

For clarity, NOT stating same/equal performing core is faster, stating that the higher vram can remain playable without the massive dips.

Completely seperate argument of ones faster than the other and playing new titles on ultra when with the cards you quoted are the prime example of what didn't need swapped out over the other because it required using lesser settings to remain playable due to oversaturation of the vram.

Even the 7950 that cost less than half the price of the 680 2Gb can play newer titles with higher IQ.

Oh I agree. This is very much likely to be the case. That is not what the debate is about.

Short memmories in here and old quotes would tell a story if quoted.

 

[Amatsubu]

Lol. Funny talking about "attacking" and then saying that.

Makes it pointless debating really. Judging by people's responses it is obvious people just want to read what they want.

I am out



Don't think you have been understanding what has been said if you think this then. As I never argued that.

I can same the same about you. Quite curious what hidden message you found in my post then but whatever. Bye.

 

[TNA]

If it was the case, a flagship card like the Fury X would be more pointless than a 970. Costs way more, it is a fair bit faster than a 970 but will be redundant as quick as the 970 because some here think that VRAM is the only thing that matters.

Some? Name me a few and show examples where they are saying this? Only one here maybe I can see you are talking about is Dave

 

[Gregster]

It would be rude to name names and if you can't see it, maybe you don't understand what is what?

 

[humbug]

I came from a 290 to a GTX 970, they are both great cards........../

All this talk of VRam is a bit is a bit pointless, the GTX 970 has plenty, the 390 has more.

GTX 970 Pro's:

Power efficient.
GeForce Experience App.

R9 390 Pro's:

Powerful GPU.
VRam amount good for CrossFire / helps with normal res texture caching.

 

[Ian Evey]

It would have been nice to have 8gb on the Fury X, but tbh i've not come close yet to hitting the limit even in games like GTA V and Witcher 3 maxed @1440P.

I guess when it does become an issue we'll have pascal/Arctic Islands then anyway.

As a crossfire user it would have made sense but like you say if your on 2 fury x's and have not reached the 4gb limit then what chance has a 390 have for acceptable fps.

I do believe the furys have better compression though so that has obviously helped a lot.

Anyway im glad this thread did not turn into a 'fight'

 

[TNA]

It would be rude to name names and if you can't see it, maybe you don't understand what is what?

I suppose it would be rude, you are right. From what I read my understanding was you was potentially referring to me. Should have just said that instead of what i did, my bad.

 

[Ian Evey]

I came from a 290 to a GTX 970, they are both great cards........../

All this talk of VRam is a bit is a bit pointless, the GTX 970 has plenty, the 390 has more.

GTX 970 Pro's:

Power efficient.
GeForce Experience App.

R9 390 Pro's:

Powerful GPU.
VRam amount good for CrossFire / helps with normal res texture caching.

Totally agree, if buying 1 card then pick one you like as they both perform well.

If using 2 then the 390 is a no brainer.

 

[Gregster]

I suppose it would be rude, you are right. From what I read my understanding was you was potentially referring to me. Should have just said that instead of what i did, my bad.

I have been avoiding this thread because of earlier garbage but I always get miffed when VRAM gets mentioned and wrongly. I have debated this for the last 5+ years lol

In essence, assuming Crossfire is working well and whoever is going to run 4 cards and very high resolutions, I would tell them to grab the 390s every day but for one GPU, that extra VRAM is pointless.

 

[Ian Evey]

For clarity, NOT stating same/equal performing core is faster, stating that the higher vram can remain playable without the massive dips.

Completely seperate argument of ones faster than the other and playing new titles on ultra when with the cards you quoted are the prime example of what didn't need swapped out over the other because it required using lesser settings to remain playable due to oversaturation of the vram.

Even the 7950 that cost less than half the price of the 680 2Gb can play newer titles with higher IQ.



Short memmories in here and old quotes would tell a story if quoted.

At a playable framerate? I would like to see the 7950 vs 680 on some newer games although it has to be said that amd really improved on the 7xxx range drivers, makes you think if they had that performance 3 months after launch i dont think many would have bought the 670 / 680 cards.