290x or gtx 970?

{NG}Fidel said:
Drivers? Really are we not done with this cliched line lol! Look at the Nvidia forums and check all the driver issues occurring right now, with that info I could go around acting like Nvidia drivers are terrible as well. The reality is neither set of drivers are 'Good' they both fluctuate and have problems.
Click to expand...

So true. nVidia has even killed cards in the past by botching the fan controls. About the worst I've seen from my radeon(s) is the black screen at wake bug - and unless the card is unstable its usually fixed after a bit of tinkering (disabling ULPS always did the trick for me).

nVidia has a slight feature edge in their driver (SSAO, DSR), but if you already dabble with mods and sweetfx then that point is moot as well.

Drivers are certainly still a factor, but in the end its best to look at benchmarks from games you want to play to see what gets you the most performance and quality for your budget.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I was pretty clear in my post...
At 1080P the 290 is a great option. The 290 would allow you to crank the settings to the max while enjoying perfect frame rates. He would also get Freesync and could also OC his GPU. It would not reach GTX970 levels but it would provide ample performance at 1080p and it would do the least damage to his wallet.
Click to expand...

Not in FC4, Assassin's Creed Unity, Dying Light...ect...ect...ect. You have to turn options down in all of those to get acceptable framrates in those games. Some of which have significant impact on how good a game looks.

You said more than enough...and that's just not true unless you're talking about older games.
 
I turn all the options in FC4 up at 1080p with my 7970. ACU is a terrible game with horrible programing. It's also very tailored to nvidia and most likely made to run inefficiently on AMD hardware. I've yet to play dying light though.
 
Ubividia I mean Ubisoft games run terrible in general, but especially more so on AMD hardware.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I turn all the options in FC4 up at 1080p with my 7970. ACU is a terrible game with horrible programing. It's also very tailored to nvidia and most likely made to run inefficiently on AMD hardware. I've yet to play dying light though.
Click to expand...

That's all I needed to read.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
The 290X is not loud, that depends on which model you purchase. Just like you admit that some GTX970s have an annoying high pitch coil whine and the consumer must look for the quieter models. So that kind of throws your first sentence out the window. As for the heat, yeah its hot no argument here. Drivers? Really are we not done with this cliched line lol! Look at the Nvidia forums and check all the driver issues occurring right now, with that info I could go around acting like Nvidia drivers are terrible as well. The reality is neither set of drivers are 'Good' they both fluctuate and have problems.
Click to expand...

Even with the Sapphire Tri-X cooler my 290X was still "loud" compared to my GTX 970's under load. Temps are not the issue, but heat is. The excess heat will further increase fan duty throughout your system; that's what the loud and hot issue is.

Also, why you didn't address my concerns about the infrequency of new AMD drivers (including new CF profiles)? Nvidia driver support is better overall. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact.
 
n=1 said:
The answer depends on whether you want best bang for buck and if you care about power draw and thermals at all.
Click to expand...

+!

The 290X can be had at $280 (and under) and most of us are having zero issues and zero buyer's remorse, myself included, YMMV.
 
I had a 270x between my 780ti and 980. I never had driver issues with any of them.

[H] showed there was only a slightly higher hit with enhanced god rays for FC4 on AMD. That was the only gameworks tech that caused more of a hit.

Also people shouldn't compare multi GPU on one brand to single card of another... Both brands have issues with multiGPU. I know because I chuckle to myself every time I see people bitching about SLI and reinforces my decision to go 980 rather than sli 970.
 
dmonkey said:
Even with the Sapphire Tri-X cooler my 290X was still "loud" compared to my GTX 970's under load. Temps are not the issue, but heat is. The excess heat will further increase fan duty throughout your system; that's what the loud and hot issue is.

Also, why you didn't address my concerns about the infrequency of new AMD drivers (including new CF profiles)? Nvidia driver support is better overall. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact.
Click to expand...

CF profiles for game works games maybe. CF is slightly slower at adding profiles but neither company ever has profiles for every and any game. You can simply Google to see people running into game profile problems with both CF and SLi. Multi GPU is just a risky proposition for any gamer that wants full speed in any title. NVidia driver support is not better overall that's not a fact it's a subjective opinion. Or should I screen shot the nvidia forums and show the great drivers people are dealing with? Also many 290x are quietyourt, I can show the results of reviews that prove that some 970's are louder.
Cabezone said:
That's all I needed to read.
Click to expand...
OK good for you. Cover your eyes to the truth if you like.

Dayaks said:
I had a 270x between my 780ti and 980. I never had driver issues with any of them.


Also people shouldn't compare multi GPU on one brand to single card of another... Both brands have issues with multiGPU. I know because I chuckle to myself every time I see people bitching about SLI and reinforces my decision to go 980 rather than sli 970.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head.
 
Lets say that ya'll AMD fanboys are right, developers are for some reason making their games run shitty on AMD hardware for....I guess just to be dicks.

Nvidia cards are still the better choice to run those games.
 
Cabezone said:
Lets say that ya'll AMD fanboys are right, developers are for some reason making their games run shitty on AMD hardware for....I guess just to be dicks.

Nvidia cards are still the better choice to run those games.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic you are calling AMD supporters fanboys, yet state regardless Nvidia is better. What specific reason(s) is the 970 better? Are you stating this regarding pure performance? Price to performance? What are your specifics?

edit: For clarification, I'm a fanboy of value. I started pc gaming with a 7950, went to a 770, and recently have been using a 7990. All purchases made by analyzing price to performance.
 
However you want to slice it the 970 is better than the 290x.

If you want to talk about the "value" or a regular 290 vs a 970...that's a judgement call. They're not otherwise comparable as the are not near the same price point.

Dismissing AMD shortcoming by blaming Nvidia is nonsense.
 
^you might want to read the ExtremeTech article again

GameWorks, however, doesn’t just offer Nvidia customers an advantage — it curtails developer freedom and sharply limits AMD’s ability to optimize as well. Even if Nvidia never deliberately sabotages GameWorks code to run poorly on AMD or Intel GPUs, the inability to optimize these functions is itself a genuine competitive disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Anyway a couple pages of predictable bullshit later OP still isn't any further along than he was. I'll stop propagating this trollfest and stand by what I said originally:

- If you're after absolute best bang for buck and don't care about power draw or heat, get the 290 (not 290X)
- If you play a lot of Ubividia/GameWorks games that run terrible on AMD cards because devs are dicks, get the 970
- If power draw or heat matters to you get the 970
 
Last edited:
I forgot to address OP's actual question in my post but agree with n=1's no nonsense response. :)
 
The regular 290 is not better bang for the buck...it's just a cheaper slower card.

For the OP; if you want to spend less than 300 get the 290. If you want to spend more than 300 get the 970. I think we agree on that.
 
Last edited:
Cabezone said:
However you want to slice it the 970 is better than the 290x.
Click to expand...
Would you please provide specifics?

Cabezone said:
If you want to talk about the "value" or a regular 290 vs a 970...that's a judgement call. They're not otherwise comparable as the are not near the same price point.
Click to expand...
How exactly are they not comparable?

Cabezone said:
Dismissing AMD shortcoming by blaming Nvidia is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Who is blaming Nvidia for AMD's shortcomings?
 
Cabezone said:
The regular 290 is not better bang for the buck...it's just a cheaper slower card.

For the OP; if you want to spend less than 300 get the 290. If you want to spend more than 300 get the 970. I think we agree on that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Got a nice "Bonus" at work the other week and wanted to treat myself.
 
Personally, I would buy a 980, then a used 290x, then a 970.

But if you can't afford a 980 or want a brand new card I'd get the 970.

But the best option is to wait for AMD to release their new cards, because Nvidia will release 980TI making the 980's and used 980's dirt cheap, and 970's practically free.

BUT BY GOD, what ever you do, don't get a reference cooled 290x. (or any card for that matter, but 290x is like a jet engine)
 
If you have no doubt that you will NEVER stick a second card in there for SLI/xfire, then I would suggest a 290x MSI lightning if you can get one cheaper than gtx 970. If you think you MIGHT want to stick a second card sometime down the line then I would suggest either a gtx 970 ...or a gtx 980 if you can pull it off. Realistically through all this garbage about which one is better (970 vs 290x) they are close enough in performance that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

However if you do find your graphics underpowered in the future, dual card xfire 290x generates a LOT of heat and pull a LOT of power. Even a 750 watt PSU (which many people used to say was plenty for dual gpu solutions) isn't going to cut it. You're going to want closer to 1000w and a case thats going to move a lot of air. So more than one 290x card is going to need special conditions (which maybe you have, its unclear from your sig what your case and PSU are) but either way, xfire 290x is a hot, power hungry, and louder solution. The 290x with a well cooled, quiet custom heatsink is quiet enough in single card for most people, especially one like the MSI lighting and there have been some killer deals on them lately.

So 290x vs gtx 970 = hot and power hungry vs possible vram issues, performance is about equal.

A gtx 980 has neither problem, has better performance, will be better for a possible dual card solution, but is much more expensive. The 390x is rumored to be out in March but we have no real idea of cost or performance (there was another rumor it would be out in June and it could possible be much later than that).

Pick your poison.
 
If you stick to 1080P you can choose the 970, if you want to up the resolution then definitely 290x

The only reason to choose the 970 over the 290x is if you're more concerned about power consumption than the actual performance.
 
I think putting power draw aside, the obvious choice and best bang for your buck is the for sure the 290X. There do seem to be a handful of games that do prefer NVidia cards, so maybe take that into consideration when making your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top