290/290x VS 970

ShivP · 26 Jun 2015 at 18:57

I would certainly take the 390 at 1440p, the 8GB VRAM could come in handy vs the 3.5/4 on the 970

Andy7 · 26 Jun 2015 at 19:08

970 all day long

Lokken86 · 26 Jun 2015 at 19:11

Andy7 said:
970 all day long

Why? 390 is faster and has 8gb.

mururoa · 26 Jun 2015 at 19:41

Lokken86 said:
390 is faster and has 8gb.

No it's not, 970 overclocks to 1500 MHz core easily, matching GTX 980 and still draws much less power than the 390. 8GB is not needed, just ask AMD, besides these gpus run out of grunt far before 8GB could be utilized even in theory. Multi-gpu is a different thing but then 980Ti would be cheaper than 2x390 and faster when overclocked, not to mention consume like half the amount of power.

Winky_The_Winking_Turtle · 26 Jun 2015 at 20:11

Might get a 970 then. Would rather be on the safe side with my PSU and works out cheaper then.

Only concern now is deciding whether or not to go 1440p. It's really nice but the whole "3.5gb" puts me off slightly, and I'm guessing 970 is more than enough/will last longer @ 1080p?

Quixote · 26 Jun 2015 at 20:12

mururoa said:
No it's not, 970 overclocks to 1500 MHz core easily, matching GTX 980 and still draws much less power than the 390. 8GB is not needed, just ask AMD, besides these gpus run out of grunt far before 8GB could be utilized even in theory. Multi-gpu is a different thing but then 980Ti would be cheaper than 2x390 and faster when overclocked, not to mention consume like half the amount of power.

Stock vs stock on the exact cards is the only fair comparison.
Most people don't overclock GPUs and often those that do only think they have a stable overclock until they hit a game that makes it fall over.
Not worth the bother IMO.
But, if you think you will overclock that would tip the balance towards the 970.
8GB probably is unneeded on these cards but anything over 3.5/4GB ? at 1440P ? ever ? It only has to be 4.5GB to be useful. If the cost difference is small, it's definitely a feather in the 390's cap.

Lokken86 · 26 Jun 2015 at 20:32

mururoa said:
No it's not, 970 overclocks to 1500 MHz core easily

Rubbish.

Snubber · 26 Jun 2015 at 20:42

In exactly the same boat...can't decide between a 970 or a 390. Just too close to call. If the new 390's bundled a game (Dirt Rally for instance) I would plump for that...as it stands its neck and neck and I just cannot decide..lol

Bonjour · 26 Jun 2015 at 20:55

For 1080p I'd get a 970.

For 1440p I'd plump for the 390.

Snubber · 26 Jun 2015 at 21:00

Bonjour said:
For 1080p I'd get a 970.

For 1440p I'd plump for the 390.

What about 1920 x 1200p....???

Bonjour · 26 Jun 2015 at 21:01

Snubber said:
What about 1920 x 1200p....???

Now you have me stumped...

Er... 970?

Quixote · 26 Jun 2015 at 21:09

Bonjour said:
Now you have me stumped...

Er... 970?

2560 * 1440 = 3,686,400

1920 * 1200 = 2,304,000

1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600

So 1920 * 1200 is much closer to 1080p.

I should probably get out more.

opethdisciple · 26 Jun 2015 at 22:34

970 all the way if up to 1440p.

Above that I could go 980 or 980ti if money allows.

Quixote · 26 Jun 2015 at 22:39

I think both 390x and 980 struggle to make a case against 390 and 970 value for money wise, at any res including 1440.

coupe69 · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:19

Second hand 980 from mm for around 300 quid would be the best bet!

Poneros · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:34

So many clueless people talking about PSUs... sigh.

We obviously had no issues whatsoever with what we threw at it and we reached roughly 500 Watt which is 20% from its theoretical maximum capacity. While passing 450 Watt load we do can confirm that the power efficiency is remains very good as it performed smack down where it needs to be in-between other bronze tested models

Your Corsair is fine if you want to go for a 290x.

area512003 · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:48

mururoa said:
No it's not, 970 overclocks to 1500 MHz core easily, matching GTX 980 and still draws much less power than the 390. 8GB is not needed, just ask AMD, besides these gpus run out of grunt far before 8GB could be utilized even in theory. Multi-gpu is a different thing but then 980Ti would be cheaper than 2x390 and faster when overclocked, not to mention consume like half the amount of power.

Lokken86 said:
Rubbish.

Lokken86, I've got two MSI 4G Gaming 970's (see my sig) which both OC to 1511MHz without issue

Defo 970 @ 1080P/1200P Op

40Four · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:56

area512003 said:
Lokken86, I've got two MSI 4G Gaming 970's (see my sig) which both OC to 1511MHz without issue

Defo 970 @ 1080P/1200P Op

My brother has the MSI 4G also and runs it at exactly 1500Mhz for games.

nashathedog · 27 Jun 2015 at 01:19

Personally I'd choose a 970 over a 290 or 290x, However I'd consider a 390 over all three options and definitely over the 200 series cards so it would be a toss up between a 390 and a 970.

For 1080p or 1920x 1200 I'd be happy to go with a 970 or 390.
For higher resolutions like 2560x1080 (21:9) or 1440p etc I would leapfrog the 390x and 980 and go for a Fiji X or a 980ti.

If money isn't a concern then I'd go for those for 1080p as well but if we are worrying about price (as I would be) then those choices are going to run the resolution mentioned nicely.

Sky01454 · 27 Jun 2015 at 02:12

mururoa said:
No it's not, 970 overclocks to 1500 MHz core easily, matching GTX 980 and still draws much less power than the 390. 8GB is not needed, just ask AMD, besides these gpus run out of grunt far before 8GB could be utilized even in theory. Multi-gpu is a different thing but then 980Ti would be cheaper than 2x390 and faster when overclocked, not to mention consume like half the amount of power.

I think overclocking to that level is not a good idea with the op psu so i think 390 is a good choice.

Competitor rules

290/290x VS 970

Soldato