290 or 970?

[The Running Man]

@The Running Man,

Two way street.

Nothing Nvidia proponents ever mention.

Oh I'm not saying it's cheaper, but that I'd send the extra.

 

[Uncle Petey]

I'd say anything above 1250 is pretty good. 1300+ is fairly exceptional as you just don't see many that will go that high.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Nah, good 290 is 1240-1250+. 1320+ for benching is what i consider good. And not too uncommon either apparently, all my cards have done atleast 1300.

Don't know where you're getting those numbers from. Cant see one 290p above 1300 core in the Heaven thread.

 

[Uncle Petey]

Pulse88 and Ranger are the only people I've seen here with 290's (not sure if 'X' off the top of my head) benching at 1300+.

 

[Rangerjr1]

Ive had 4 cards. 3 290x and 1 290.

First one did 1300/1700, second one did 1345/1775 both reference. third one did 1310/1710 which was lightning (Which i really really hate now after using it). And my 290p, that does 1335/1700 atleast, never pushed it properly. But it would do 1310 with +200mV under water

 

[Ayahuasca]

You've been incredibly lucky then as it doesn't seem anywhere near common for the 290p to reach that, most of them aren't even at 1200mhz in Heaven. Which is why I said 1200mhz+ is a good one.

 

[Rangerjr1]

You've been incredibly lucky then as it doesn't seem anywhere near common for the 290p to reach that, most of them aren't even at 1200mhz in Heaven.

Most people on here dont even know that Trixx gives you +200mV instead of the +100mV that MSI offers. That might be why... And most dont water cool.

 

[Geeman1979]

A 290 at 1200MHz is not going to match a 970 at 1500MHz in benchmarks. I'd say more like the 290 would need around the 1250 mark to match it.

 

[Ayahuasca]

OP said he'll be on air, not many people are going to want to put +200mv through a card which already outputs a lot of heat on air cooling.

I should have said 1200mhz+ is good for air.

 

[Rangerjr1]

A 290 at 1200MHz is not going to match a 970 at 1500MHz in benchmarks. I'd say more like the 290 would need around the 1250 mark to match it.

I say it can beat one at 1200mhz, or atleast match it. Beyond there the 970 would probably beat it.

Here's my ancient 290 score from back in december: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1425869

I think the clocks were 1330/1700. Core on here is 6.4% higher than what you say is required to beat a 970 @ 1500 core. Can you find a 970 that has 1595-1600 core clock (which is 6.4% higher core) to do a ghetto comparison? Also keep in mind that these drivers are ANCIENT. The new 14.9 has given quite a boost and i will do some more runs later this week.

 

[tommybhoy]

1250MHz on air here, but I know how to add proper volts:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/2120870

But I certainly don't game remotely near that, more like stock clocks as that's generally the best of everything@120Hz 1080p.

Going way off course here folks on what why and how, 290/970 perform very similar in actual gaming if that's any use to the op.

 

[Ayahuasca]

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4289705?

That's the highest graphics score 970 I've seen on here

Just under 1600mhz on the core and 8200 on the memory.

You won't notice a difference in gaming.

 

[Rangerjr1]

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4289705?

That's the highest graphics score 970 I've seen on here

Alright, so 61 score difference on the graphics between a 1330 290 and a 1594 970. If you add another 5%~ on the 290 because of the new 14.9 drivers (which i think is a fair amount) the 290 should barely edge it out. And even if 5% is a stretch basically any amount would make the 290 beat the 970.

I think we have come to a conclusion

 

[Ayahuasca]

Not forgetting the 970 is on day 1 drivers as well...

Bench scores for 970's on air at just under 1600mhz aren't rare either and many are game stable, same can't be said for a 1330mhz 290p.

 

[thefogo]

You've been incredibly lucky then as it doesn't seem anywhere near common for the 290p to reach that, most of them aren't even at 1200mhz in Heaven. Which is why I said 1200mhz+ is a good one.

Yeah I had 4 290s and not one did 1200mhz at max volts.

 

[Rangerjr1]

Yeah I had 4 290s and not one did 1200mhz at max volts.

Tell me friend, what exactly is "max volts"?

 

[Geeman1979]

I say it can beat one at 1200mhz, or atleast match it. Beyond there the 970 would probably beat it.

Here's my ancient 290 score from back in december: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1425869

I think the clocks were 1330/1700. Core on here is 6.4% higher than what you say is required to beat a 970 @ 1500 core. Can you find a 970 that has 1595-1600 core clock (which is 6.4% higher core) to do a ghetto comparison? Also keep in mind that these drivers are ANCIENT. The new 14.9 has given quite a boost and i will do some more runs later this week.

Two comparisons, although, dunno how close this 970 is to 1500MHz with boost clocks going on, someone will have to chime in who owns one to confirm it's around the 1500 mark.

970
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2827235

290 @ 1225/1600
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2464621

 

[thefogo]

Tell me friend, what exactly is "max volts"?

Whatever the max is for a 290 on Trixx. 1.3v I think?

 

[Rangerjr1]

Not forgetting the 970 is on day 1 drivers as well...

Bench scores for 970's on air at just under 1600mhz aren't rare either and many are game stable, same can't be said for a 1330mhz 290p.

1300+ 290s arent rare, thing is most people dont know how to clock them and they run on air (ill give you that). But what do you expect. These cards are 1 year old now.

 

[Rangerjr1]

Two comparisons, although, dunno how close this 970 is to 1500MHz with boost clocks going on, someone will have to chime in who owns one to confirm it's around the 1500 mark.

970
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2827235

290 @ 1225/1600
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2464621

Still, this score proves a point. Much never drivers at much lower clocks and its tailing my 290 with 105 core advantage and 100mhz memory advantage. This looks like a good 5% improvement, now imagine maybe anoter 2-3% from the 14.9 drivers and run 1330/1700? should be impressive.