R9 390 vs GTX 970

looking for an upgrade to my GTX 660 and am torn between these two cards. Both are $330 at the moment and both only have one con pulling me toward the other:

I've heard AMD's drivers for the new series are terrible so far and some people have reported flickering on their monitors

And for NVIDIA the con is their screw up with the VRAM.

Any feedback welcomed

The driver for the R9 390 is still beta, so a proper stable driver will probably be available soon, I'm sure. I've been using an R9 290 for 8-9 months now with no driver issues, what so ever. I'm now running my 290 flashed with a 390x vBIOS and using the latest R9 300 series drivers with no issues and no flickering you speak of.

As for the 970, it's still a solid card and really shines in 1080p gaming as well as overclocking, while remaining cool and quiet. From all the performance data gathered on the 970, honestly, I wouldn't worry about the Vram issue. It's only in very specific situations (which are unrealistic to how you'd actually run said games) where it becomes a problem. But in the real world of gaming, it really isn't an issue.

If you like to OC and mainly play at 1080p, go with the 970. If you want more grunt for higher resolutions (1440p or higher) then I'd recommend the 390.

Keep in mind that the extra VRAM on the 390 will make it more suitable for OpenCL applications if you have any intentions on using it for rendering or whatnot.

I'd get the 390 because of the Vram. 3.5 gb is kinda meh these days.

What resolution are you gaming at? That really is the deciding factor here. If you're playing at 1080p or lower and don't plan to upgrade to a better monitor in the next few years then you're probably better off with a 970, if you're playing at 1440p or higher then 390 all the way.
The driver situation should be resolved pretty soon, I doubt that it'll be a serious issue for more than a few weeks since the 290 has had incredibly stable drivers for over half a year now.
Also, keep in mind that a 390 would be better suited for a multi-GPU setup. Not only is crossfire scaling better than SLI for the most part but you also get 8GB of VRAM vs 3.5, which is a massive difference if you put double the horsepower behind it. So, if you're planning on upgrading by adding a second GPU later down the line then that's another +point for the 390.

1 Like

currently playing at 1080p and am unsure if i will upgrade to 1440p however would like to have the option open.

R9-390.

You get more VRAM. It will perform better at higher resolutions. and you're actually gettiing what's advertised on the box unlike Nvidia. and from my understanding. AMD did some voodoo magic to make them good overclockers compared to the old 200 series R9-290.

At 1440p the 290 and the 970 are so damn close that a 390 will probably beat them. And if you were to step up to something higher (1440p ultrawide or 4k) the 390 would be the clear winner.
So, multi-GPU is not even a factor? Like adding a second GPU when you want to upgrade?

It's a tough choice, at 1080p you would have slightly better performance with the 970, but the 390 would be more "futureproof". There also is the power consumption thing, but at this point we can easily tell that that's not really an issue.

If you don't care about SLI or CF then it really comes down to features IMO. Look what features seem more appealing and what games you're going to play (whether they're optimized for AMD or Nvidia).

I don't see how the drivers for the 390 are an issue considering that it is a rebranded 290 and the drivers are fine with that.

no multi-gpu's my motherboard doesn't support cross or sli

Oh, okay.

Then, features and game support. And policies of the company you're supporting, if you care about that. And I'll be clear, you don't have to care, but it is a thing to consider for some people. Nvidia has this "walled garden" approach, meaning that they want a closed, (mostly) proprietary and controlled environment. AMD, at least recently, has been more open and generally consumer-friendly.

That's about it, performance in neutral games should be very similar, the difference in power consumption is basically irrelevant as long as you have a decent 500W PSU, so it all comes down to features.

The difference in power consumption does raise concerns about the heat that it will output into the room. If you leave somewhere hot, that could be a real concern. That said, a 390 shouldn't be all that much heat, but it definitely outputs more than a 970. Personally, I am concerned mostly about frames and features. I want free-sync, and I want decent frame rates. Everything else is an afterthought for me. (and I only say free-sync instead of G-sync because I don't like 1. proprietary solutions and 2. having to pay more as G-sync modules cost ~$100)

The difference between the two is <100W. That's a lightbulb, and you don't hear people complaining about one more lightbulb heating up their room. If you live somewhere extraordinarily hot and you have the cash to invest in a high-end PC then chances are you have an AC as well.
I've seen all these arguments before, none of them really hold up. It's a non-issue for a desktop PC that got completely blown out of proportion.

To everyone here: power and temps are not an issue. i have a 600 watt powers supply and live in ohio where temps are seasonal. i have heat for winter and ac for summer

Considering that I live somewhere rather hot (been 90-110 for weeks now), I would say that I for one am concerned about the heat that 100W makes. More heat = more air conditioning. Both of which means more electricity use. That might be fine for a lot of people, but having an electricity cap somewhere like an apartment makes every watt a concern, so 100W of heat means ~100W for air conditioning (because air conditioning uses roughly as much electricity as it cools) That could mean the difference between going over your electricity cap and not. Of course, this isn't important for many people, but those concerned with the environment or electricity use in general need to take that into consideration...... Now when you need to heat your room, you are killing two birds with one stone, so that is a different argument entirely.

Yeah, sorry, this little back and forth is more about the general debate about the important of power consumption. But if it isn't a concern for you, then great. One less thing to count off for the 390.

Driver issues can and will be fixed. Vram issues can not. If those are your two choices and based on reviews you've seen, go with the 390.

1 Like

about g-sync and free-sync. would i need a new monitor to support those features? my monitor is a dell s2240m. my gtx 660 has "adaptive" v-sync

Yes you need a special monitor for either of those.

In general GSync monitors are more expensive and have less inputs. (Both only work over DP, but generally FreeSync monitors also let you use HDMI and DVI but without the special frame features.)

Read reviews and be the judge for yourself. 390's are just 290's so if you find a 290 at a bargain price jump on it. 970's are still very powerful gpu's regardless of the last .5gb of vram being used differently to the other 3.5gb. Again read reviews and base the decison on what games you play and what gpu performs the best in those scenarios. And power consumption - yes 100w (eq of my whole house's ceiling led's or 1 fridge/freezer) may not sound like much but it does add up in countries/states with expensive power like here in OZ and you're the one who pays the bills.