290 or 970?

[Gregster]

They are interlinked though. Most of the power consumed is lost as heat in electrical circuits and only a fraction is converted into work.

Look at the PCBs and cooling on the cards - its GTX680/GTX770 level.

Like I said either the GTX680/GTX770 is overrated or the GTX970/GTX980 are underrated.

My GTX660 is clearly not in the same TDP class as a GTX970.

My point was at Shankly and explaining how the TDP from each card was why the 970 was cooler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

Worth reading that for those that are interested and not as tired as me.

 

[arc@css]

I tend to alternate between brands, so seeing as my next card will be an Nvidia one, then the GTX970. I can certainly see why the 290 is so tempting though. One day I want to have two gaming rigs so I can have the best of both worlds.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

My point was at Shankly and explaining how the TDP from each card was why the 970 was cooler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

Worth reading that for those that are interested and not as tired as me.

I am quite aware of what it is and if you read about TDP you will also realise something else. AMD,Nvidia,Intel,Qualcomm,etc will ALL define TDP differently.

This is because they use different workloads to determine TDP. Some companies use a suite of software to measure "average" cooling requirements,whereas others use a "worse case scenario".

This is why the TPU card power consumption measurements are useful,as its a more even playing field,and gives you an inkling of what the cooling requirements are like.

The R9 290 does consume more power than a GTX780 or GTX970,so will dump more heat as a result,but its not a 145W vs 250W type of measurement though.

The difference between reference R9 290 and the various GTX970 cards is around 60W to 80W for the card alone,and that is done using accurate measuring equipment.

Many other sites us Kill-a-Watt devices which probably have a leeway of 10W to 20W either way.

 

[Gregster]

*Snip*

Good that you are aware and I thought it might be useful for anyone who is interested (hence me saying "worth reading for those that are interested").

I will bow out, as not in the mood for this.

 

[melmac]

lmao if we're using temps we've seen on other cards to compare I've seen 290's hitting 100c in some peoples rigs.

Making up stuff doesn't help your argument. 290's can't hit 100 degrees. The highest temp you will ever see is 95 degrees.

On the subject at hand, if I had to choose between the 290 and the 970 right now i would pick the 970. Unless of course cost is a factor and if it is saving £50-£60 might be a big deal for the OP.

They are both good cards and the OP will be happy either way.

 

[Jamielicious]

Either way a cheaper 290 makes it an option again for some people at least until the 970 starts dipping under £250.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Good. What about reliability? Has the 290 had any issues? I hear there is a problem with coil whine on the 970.

There were reports of people having problems with certain R9 290 cards after launch last year - not sure I have heard anything much in the last six months or so though.

However,I am sure some members here could point you in the right direction.

I never took that into consideration. I have a 650W Corsair PSU would that be enough for the 290?

It would be more than enough. Even the more pessimistic reviews for R9 290 power consumption are under 400W at the wall with a quad core Core i7(closer to 300W to 350W) although those are all with whatever factory clocks the cards ship with though(not user overclocked).

However,overall wait and see. ATM,there seems to be conflicting noise over the R9 290 price cuts ATM,so the GTX970 might still win the day(to the joy of many)!!

Patience is key here.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Making up stuff doesn't help your argument. 290's can't hit 100 degrees. The highest temp you will ever see is 95 degrees.

5c off unlike shanklys 10c off saying a review site reported 80c temps then changing it to max allowed temp or some ****

 

[Dave2150]

290 is the better choice.

 

[Rangerjr1]

My room isn't the biggest and I have never once felt that am too hot from them both running tbh.

Tbh Nope, isn't it something the max heat out put vs how well it runs?

So is a 75c 290 vs 970 @80c or 77c not the same amount heat output? Just the 970 needs less power to run?

Then why wont your candle that burns at 1000C heat your room up to 1000C but your oil oven or central heater at 20-25c will? This is magic :O

 

[jesus2nd]

However,overall wait and see. ATM,there seems to be conflicting noise over the R9 290 price cuts ATM,so the GTX970 might still win the day(to the joy of many)!!

Patience is key here.

I'm in the same boat as the OP and my patience is starting to wear a little thin...reckon it would be a case of hanging on into the new year? I've got the upgrade bug!

 

[nashathedog]

Don't for one minute think that going with a 290 to save a few quid (if they end up cheaper) is a good move, I bought a Twin frozer 290x and temps are no better than reference cards, Plenty of people will say things like well you must have got a bad one etc but it turns out there's a lot of bad ones out there. On the cards 1030 out of the box clock with the fan increased to 50% it was still hitting 94 degrees and throttling (in a Corsair C70 case with 6 aftermarket fans). It's the first time I've been really disappointed with an AMD card, I regret buying it and advise going for the newer Nvidia option (that's based on hearsay not experience with Maxwell though).

 

[MOOGLEYS]

My Sapphire 290 Tri-x would run 1150Mhz on the core and sit at around 75.c.

I would say your MSi was a bit naff tbh.

 

[Rangerjr1]

Don't for one minute think that going with a 290 to save a few quid (if they end up cheaper) is a good move, I bought a Twin frozer 290x and temps are no better than reference cards, Plenty of people will say things like well you must have got a bad one etc but it turns out there's a lot of bad ones out there. On the cards 1030 out of the box clock with the fan increased to 50% it was still hitting 94 degrees and throttling (in a Corsair C70 case with 6 aftermarket fans). It's the first time I've been really disappointed with an AMD card, I regret buying it and advise going for the newer Nvidia option (that's based on hearsay not experience with Maxwell though).

From my point of view your point against 290s as a whole because your MSI sucked has no credibility. Simply because MSI really isnt that great.

 

[LtMatt]

Making up stuff doesn't help your argument. 290's can't hit 100 degrees. The highest temp you will ever see is 95 degrees.

On the subject at hand, if I had to choose between the 290 and the 970 right now i would pick the 970. Unless of course cost is a factor and if it is saving £50-£60 might be a big deal for the OP.

They are both good cards and the OP will be happy either way.

Actually the highest temp is 94C, at this stage the core/voltage will lower enough to maintain 94c at the set fan speed in CCC. (assuming a reference card)

 

[ICEx21]

From my point of view your point against 290s as a whole because your MSI sucked has no credibility. Simply because MSI really isnt that great.

Yup I probably won't go MSI again, sold one of them recently as I wanted a decent return on it and it was getting toasty at times but with the recent price drops I may go for another Sapphire Tri X as that cooler seems to be a lot better.
I am still trying to fight of the urge to go green with the newest Nvidia cards though.

 

[nitram100]

The Nvidia fan boy is strong in this thread.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Yup I probably won't go MSI again, sold one of them recently as I wanted a decent return on it and it was getting toasty at times but with the recent price drops I may go for another Sapphire Tri X as that cooler seems to be a lot better.
I am still trying to fight of the urge to go green with the newest Nvidia cards though.

I have a 970, 980 and 290 and tbh in game at 1440p 60Hz I cannot tell them apart.

Shadow of Mordor actually runs better on the AMD cards even though it is an NVIDIA sponsored game.

 

[Scramz]

My Sapphire 290 Tri-x would run 1150Mhz on the core and sit at around 75.c.

I would say your MSi was a bit naff tbh.

You can get a Tri-X for £227 which I think is a better deal than the 970 currently.

I have moved from a 290 Tri-x to a MSI 970 and I am glad I made the switch.

Don't get me wrong, the 290 TriX is a fantastic card, very cool and silent in comparison to other R9's.

Personal I have found that the 970 is much much cooler, and I found it was quieter than the already quiet Trix.

Plus I love the DSR feature, the quality of image is very noticeable on a 1080p monitor.

As for performance, I was lucky enough to win the silicon lottery with my 970 as I am stable gaming at 1620/8050 with no added volts. Max temps are peaking at 63c with gaming with 4k DSR and the fans are not peaking 50% and are still dead silent.

For me the move cost me £50, and for the less heat and DSR a lone it was worth it. Then again I am one of them guys who would rather spend around £50 each gen release the have the newer tech than wait 2/3 years and folk out £300-/+.

 

[LtMatt]

I have a 970, 980 and 290 and tbh in game at 1440p 60Hz I cannot tell them apart.

Shadow of Mordor actually runs better on the AMD cards even though it is an NVIDIA sponsored game.

Thanks for that excellent feedback Moogleys. We'll have a crossfire profile for Shadow Of Mordor soon and it will offer even better performance.