-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Triple Screen - 970 vs 390
- Thread starter mediamatt
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 87
Almost certainly the 390.
Memory constrains will hit the 970 hard at the res you'll be playing at
Memory constrains will hit the 970 hard at the res you'll be playing at
Whilst my 970 (clocked at 1500/7500) is fine for my Surround setup I would probably steer more towards the 390 if I was buying new (I have a Titan backup if I need more VRAM)
(Please note I have not attempted,GTA5 (PS4) Witcher 3 (Xbone) or Tomb Raider (not interested) so mileage may vary.
Honestly though if buying new I would want something faster than either card if limited to a single PCI-E configuration. Something like a R9 Nano would be better suited to drive this resolution without the outlay required to step up to the R9 Fury-X or 980Ti.
(Please note I have not attempted,GTA5 (PS4) Witcher 3 (Xbone) or Tomb Raider (not interested) so mileage may vary.
Honestly though if buying new I would want something faster than either card if limited to a single PCI-E configuration. Something like a R9 Nano would be better suited to drive this resolution without the outlay required to step up to the R9 Fury-X or 980Ti.
The 390 wasn't made for 1080P... If it was, it wouldnt have 8GB of VRAM... 
Mine copes very well at 4K, aside from a few titles which I have to play at 1440P.
And no I'm not one of those people who thinks 30FPS is playable. I will only settle for 60FPS.
7680X1080 is exactly equal to 3840x2160, so one 390 would do, but I'd get two if funds allow so that you can grank the settings right up!
Mine copes very well at 4K, aside from a few titles which I have to play at 1440P.
And no I'm not one of those people who thinks 30FPS is playable. I will only settle for 60FPS.
7680X1080 is exactly equal to 3840x2160, so one 390 would do, but I'd get two if funds allow so that you can grank the settings right up!
Last edited:
The 390 wasn't made for 1080P... If it was, it wouldnt have 8GB of VRAM...
Mine copes very well at 4K, aside from a few titles which I have to play at 1440P.
And no I'm not one of those people who thinks 30FPS is playable. I will only settle for 50FPS+, preferably 60FPS.
Well, either you have a beast of a 390 or use quite low IQ settings since my GTX 970 at 1500mhz averages 25-28 fps at 4k DSR in Rise of the Tomb Raider at MEDIUM settings;p If you can play most games at constant 50-60fps at that sort of res (even 1440p is pushing it most of the time) on a single 390 then hats off to you
EDIT: If it was made for 4k it'd have more than twice the grunt to go with all the VRAM;p
I haven't played that particular game, but I can play older games such as Skyrim w' graphical mods maxxed out at 4K with 60+ FPS, and I can play new games like Fallout 4 on medium settings at 4K with 50FPS~ or high settings in 1440P.
Like I said, two would be ideal if the OP wants to crank the settings right up. At that sort of resolution, 8GB of VRAM is very useful, and a couple of 390's is probably the cheapest way to power that kind of res effectively.
Like I said, two would be ideal if the OP wants to crank the settings right up. At that sort of resolution, 8GB of VRAM is very useful, and a couple of 390's is probably the cheapest way to power that kind of res effectively.
Last edited:
Your 970 has about 2.5GB of usable VRAM though... Which is probably the issue
I don't even...
I meant 3.5GB...
Still I don't even...
I meant 3.5GB...
Yup, that's why the 390 averages 1-3fps more at that res, it's because of the VRAM
Back on topic, two 390s might be a good choice but I'd buy two now instead of waiting. New cards might be coming pretty soon. Other than that, a 980Ti to avoid multi-gpu problems.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,727
- Location
- Gillingham, Kent
The 980Ti would be the best single card for a triple screen setup, but out of the 970 or the 390, I would go for the 390 without question.
I've got crossfired 290's powering a three screen setup, and a couple of games recently (Just Cause 3 and Arkham Knight) have not supported multi-GPU, so I've been forced to play them at 5760x1080 on a single GPU and been pleasantly surprised how well a single 290 copes at that res. Admittedly, in Just Cause 3 I am running 30-40FPS most of the time, but that's because it's so pretty I refuse to drop the quality settings below maximum!
That said, your 3 Ultrawides will be running a noticeably bigger number of pixels than I am, so your performance will be lower and hence your expectations will need to be too. If you're after maximum quality, then you'll need to stump up for multiple GPUs or at least a 980Ti, but from the two options you've given the 390 is the better one for your setup and you'll just have to live with dropping settings to High/Medium in newer games accordingly.
I've got crossfired 290's powering a three screen setup, and a couple of games recently (Just Cause 3 and Arkham Knight) have not supported multi-GPU, so I've been forced to play them at 5760x1080 on a single GPU and been pleasantly surprised how well a single 290 copes at that res. Admittedly, in Just Cause 3 I am running 30-40FPS most of the time, but that's because it's so pretty I refuse to drop the quality settings below maximum!
That said, your 3 Ultrawides will be running a noticeably bigger number of pixels than I am, so your performance will be lower and hence your expectations will need to be too. If you're after maximum quality, then you'll need to stump up for multiple GPUs or at least a 980Ti, but from the two options you've given the 390 is the better one for your setup and you'll just have to live with dropping settings to High/Medium in newer games accordingly.