-
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.
Which GPU £280 budget
- Thread starter madsin
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,277
I currently have one of the MSI R9 390 and I've had ATI/AMD cards for the last 10 years and I've had zero problems with drivers, admittedly I don't have Xfire.
Noise isn't an issue either its the quietest card I've ever had due to the fan profile it doesn't even kick in until the core hits 60 degrees!
Ignore the FUD is my advice.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 1,971
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I've had amd cards myself for years and I've had nvidia for the last year too. Absolutely no difference in drivers for each. Any issues I've had with games playing up had been down to Windows or other programs.
My 7970 crossfire system works perfectly fine and plays everything. Scores in benches like 980s too which ain't bad for such old cards for about 120 a pair.
My 7970 crossfire system works perfectly fine and plays everything. Scores in benches like 980s too which ain't bad for such old cards for about 120 a pair.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Who's everyone? The 970 has the Maxwell architecture which is the most advanced GPU ever made. I don't think Microsoft will be dropping Nvidia anytime soon with their Direct X 12.
Common sense tells you this guy doesn't want to go Cross-Fire or Sli, it's in his OP. And it's 4GB that the 970GTX has, which is more than enough for at least a few years @1080.
To the OP, the card (Zotac) I recommended comes with a 5 year warranty which no other manufacturer offers to my knowledge.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,810
- Location
- Planet Earth
I would go with the R9 390 too - the GTX970 is more useful in SFF builds were the shorter cards and lower TDP are very useful in comparison. The G-Sync argument also is all fine and dandy but there is a significant premium to be had on the monitors,and Freesync is significantly cheaper,and as time progresses the tech will mature too. Remember,G-Sync has been out longer and had its niggles at the beginning too,but quite a few companies are now introducing Freesync monitors.
The fact that G-Sync needs a custom FPGA,means the cost probably won't be as easy to decrease over time. You are also locked into G-Sync too - since AMD and now Intel will support Freesync/adaptive v-sync,there is more chance Nvidia might support it at some point,than AMD or even Intel supporting G-Sync themselves.
Remember,Freesync is just the AMD software interface for adaptive v-sync which is a part of a VESA standard.
Regarding uarchs, uarchs have strengths and weaknesses,you can't just say one is more advanced than the other,otherwise its just parroting marketing bumpf.
The fact that G-Sync needs a custom FPGA,means the cost probably won't be as easy to decrease over time. You are also locked into G-Sync too - since AMD and now Intel will support Freesync/adaptive v-sync,there is more chance Nvidia might support it at some point,than AMD or even Intel supporting G-Sync themselves.
Remember,Freesync is just the AMD software interface for adaptive v-sync which is a part of a VESA standard.
Regarding uarchs, uarchs have strengths and weaknesses,you can't just say one is more advanced than the other,otherwise its just parroting marketing bumpf.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Both will perform within striking difference of each other and have their strengths and weaknesses.
Out of the two i'd go with the 970.
Out of the two i'd go with the 970.
Last edited:
Why ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
The cost of GSync will reduce over time depending on how popular it is. If everyone had a weekend demo of it, they'd buy it on Monday! And I've just got a 60hz one because of 4K! 144hz must be beautiful....
Problem here is that some here will be acting as sales people for certain gpu brands. It's best to check out the reviews and look into whats happening with DX12 features as well as past history of the 970 VRAM not being the full advertised 4GB of fast ram.
I would not recommend the 970 mainly because it's been overtaken by the 390 which is faster and has more VRAM and the benefit of hardware Async shaders, etc. In the future the 8GB would easily handle 4K gaming if you went crossfire. If you read up on DX12 Async shaders you will find that the general consensus is that some current Nvidia cards could struggle in upcoming DX12 games since the implementation is software based. You may find that you have to upgrade again in a years time rather than 4 years as some would have you believe.
All AMD cards however have GCN architecture which has been used since the old Tahiti core (7950/7970) right upto the new Fury cards. The PS3 and Xbox One also use AMD GCN gpu's which means console ports will favor AMD cards. GCN does support hardware Async Shaders.
With regards to the G-sync/Freesync debate, you will find that Freesync does the same thing as G-sync but is an open VESA standard so more monitor makers will be including it, especially since Intel has also announced it will support it.
Some recently announced Freesync monitors are even as cheap as standard monitors :
http://hexus.net/tech/news/monitors/85898-aoc-launches-freesync-anti-blue-light-monitors-priced-99/
G-sync on the other hand has been around for over 2 years yet prices are still very high since it's proprietary and monitor makers have to pay Nvidia to use it. The G-sync feature cannot be used with an AMD or Intel GPU so you would be stuck with buying Nvidia cards.
Last edited:
AMD GPU's/APU's and Intel iGPU's.
But realistically I think once Freesync gets traction I think even Nvidia will be have to support Adaptive sync (Freesync) eventually. It's not as if it's a proprietary tech which they can't use. It's Nvidia themselves who want to keep their G-sync alive and charge a fee for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
PAST being the keyword.
8GB for a 390 is far too much of an overkill, even for 2. If you filled 8GB of hi resolution textures into the 8GB the combined processing of the GPU, or GPU in this case would not be able to handle it. It was a cheap selling ploy. Do you think NVidia are stupid, releasing top of the range 980ti with 6GB of VRAM? No, they are sensible and not trying to fool people.
Exactly, old tech. Have you seen the opening credits for Metal Gear Sold V? Do you think they would put NVidia there if they thought the game would be crap on the hardware? The game runs flawless on my 980ti in Ultra 4K with my G-Sync monitor, which basically gives you the illusion of gaining 20-30FPS.
Like I've said, the Maxwell GPU architecture of the 970/980 is the most advanced in existence. And with ports like Metal Gear Sold V, Mad Max, Assassins Creed Unity, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition... running amazing on GeForce cards, obviously the developers have got a handle on the Maxwell architecture already.
Gsync costs more for more than that reason, it actually performs better too. Maybe your a AMD rep(what a stupid thing to say).
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
deleted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
AMD GPU's/APU's and Intel iGPU's.
But realistically I think once Freesync gets traction I think even Nvidia will be have to support Adaptive sync (Freesync) eventually. It's not as if it's a proprietary tech which they can't use. It's Nvidia themselves who want to keep their G-sync alive and charge a fee for.
If you had a choice of a 970GTX with a 144hz Gsync monitor or a R9 390 with a Freesync monitor, what would you choose?
This time round im really looking for a single card solution.
The whole 3.5GB issue is irrelevant at 1080p on single card setups i belleve.
The whole kinda dishonest way nvidia dealt with is very relevant.
I really dont think that 4k is here yet or that we have the full hardware to implament it
this gen.
I think 1080p is were its at right now today but i dont think you need a £500 or £600
graphics card to acheve it.
The 2 card i have in mind both retail about the same.
A free game will not sway my decision.
I been with nvidia for the last 4 to 5 years ive never had any problems.
When i used ATI it was the same just alittle more toastie.
Ive also had 2 gtx 295,s in sli and thay aint cool by any standerds.
It all boils down to what im getting for my £.
The msi MSI Radeon R9 390 Gaming Edition 8192MB has a back plate + 4.5 exst mem
Has at this time better suport for dx12.
The MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming Edition has 4096MB or be it 3.5 plus 5 what ever bit,
overclocks well maybe a bit cooler and a free game.
At 1080p i dont realistically think i will ever see the benefit of 8192MB but i do think
maybe just maybe as the drivers for the r9 390 mature it could become a real star.
The GTX 970 seems a solid gpu and i really cant find a bad review i stand by what ive
said at 1080p i dont think 3.5 gb mem is a problem.
I here all the who ha about a second card for 4k but i dont belleve eather off these will
have the grunt to be a viable option.
For me this is really a stop gap for realisticly 3 years.
i hope xmas or early next year to maybe get a nice 144hz 1080p monitor.
So to be honest right now the r9 390 is £259.99 inc VAT the gtx 970 is £275.99.
Both hit what i belleve to be the price + power sweet spot for 1080p.
I need to go to bed to think this over lol.
Thankyou guys
The whole 3.5GB issue is irrelevant at 1080p on single card setups i belleve.
The whole kinda dishonest way nvidia dealt with is very relevant.
I really dont think that 4k is here yet or that we have the full hardware to implament it
this gen.
I think 1080p is were its at right now today but i dont think you need a £500 or £600
graphics card to acheve it.
The 2 card i have in mind both retail about the same.
A free game will not sway my decision.
I been with nvidia for the last 4 to 5 years ive never had any problems.
When i used ATI it was the same just alittle more toastie.
Ive also had 2 gtx 295,s in sli and thay aint cool by any standerds.
It all boils down to what im getting for my £.
The msi MSI Radeon R9 390 Gaming Edition 8192MB has a back plate + 4.5 exst mem
Has at this time better suport for dx12.
The MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming Edition has 4096MB or be it 3.5 plus 5 what ever bit,
overclocks well maybe a bit cooler and a free game.
At 1080p i dont realistically think i will ever see the benefit of 8192MB but i do think
maybe just maybe as the drivers for the r9 390 mature it could become a real star.
The GTX 970 seems a solid gpu and i really cant find a bad review i stand by what ive
said at 1080p i dont think 3.5 gb mem is a problem.
I here all the who ha about a second card for 4k but i dont belleve eather off these will
have the grunt to be a viable option.
For me this is really a stop gap for realisticly 3 years.
i hope xmas or early next year to maybe get a nice 144hz 1080p monitor.
So to be honest right now the r9 390 is £259.99 inc VAT the gtx 970 is £275.99.
Both hit what i belleve to be the price + power sweet spot for 1080p.
I need to go to bed to think this over lol.
Thankyou guys
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
All sensible, but the 8gb has not got potential.
I'm off too now, to think about it lol
- Status