390 the better card for longevity over 970?

No you actually are terrible at this. Saying the 7970 has been a long running card is no blanket statement. Saying based on its performance and the fact it is still the same architecture would lead one to believe that the likelihood of newer cards may too last a while is not a blanket statement.

Let me tell you what you are doing here. You don't have an argument, at least a valid one, against the 390 having the greater possibility of longevity so you try to make any argument to that fact seem mislead without any counter of your own. Sorry mentioning the new tech in a product does not necessarily speak to longevity. Even I conceded that the 970 could (pay attention to the word could here) actual last longer than the 390, simply because: we aren't psychics so no way to say for sure. But based on simple logic and trends the 390 has the upper hand in this discussion as it pertains to longevity. Hell most posters here seem to agree.

And by the by I know plenty of tech and how GPUs work more than enough to answer most questions devoid of bias, whereas you seem to lack that ability.

So unless you have something of substance I will consider points made and move on.


Do you want me to calculate the specs out based on resolutions and then compare that to different games? I think you should do that, just like why you don't understand what a half node is vs a full node and the differences of the two.....

As I stated before, go do some work on your own and you will see why certain things happen.

Just because your screenname is JustReason, doesn't mean that is what is going on in your head.
 
With a lot more games liking Vram memory I would say the 390 has better legs for future proofing.

But if you look at the recent SW Battlefront benchmarks, a 280x with 3GB was almost on par with a Titan with 6GB. So future proofing to me (or longevity) can be hit and miss.

Also remember the 970 has the 3.5/.5GB issue on some games (I Think the recent SW Battlefront showed it).

If you ask me. I would not purchase another card until next gen comes out. With HBM 1 and 2, and on the new 16nm process from both companies. I would just hold out.

Or if you need a card now buy a cheap 290. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161459&cm_re=r9_290-_-14-161-459-_-Product

Good luck!


I second that, only get card right now if its an absolute must. And a 290 is definitely a better buy then either of these two cards at that price.
 
Do you want me to calculate the specs out based on resolutions and then compare that to different games? I think you should do that, just like why you don't understand what a half node is vs a full node and the differences of the two.....

As I stated before, go do some work on your own and you will see why certain things happen.

Just because your screenname is JustReason, doesn't mean that is what is going on in your head.

And still you don't make a point but vague references that seem to have nothing to do with the point that was being made. Seriously do you have anything or you just squirming.

Seriously I know you know Nvidia well, seen your posts for quite sometime. Sometimes helpful in getting a better understanding. But then at times like these instead of adding to the debate you turn into this pro-Nvidia-at-all-costs poster and honestly it is ugly. It is time for you to step away.
 
And still you don't make a point but vague references that seem to have nothing to do with the point that was being made. Seriously do you have anything or you just squirming.

Seriously I know you know Nvidia well, seen your posts for quite sometime. Sometimes helpful in getting a better understanding. But then at times like these instead of adding to the debate you turn into this pro-Nvidia-at-all-costs poster and honestly it is ugly. It is time for you to step away.


Err did you see my last post lol?

I think you really should change your screenname to something like........

You are just blind man, not just blind, I would go so far to say...... something that would probably get me an infraction, so I won't but others have said it here too.


So I'm taking it you won't write out the specs and analysis what is happening in different games based on those specs? Probably can't even do it anyways lol.

Just in case you missed my last post.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041986197&postcount=42

do you need me to quote it?

Yeah I'll qoute it just in case you throw Reason out the window

I second that, only get card right now if its an absolute must. And a 290 is definitely a better buy then either of these two cards at that price.
 
Last edited:
390 > 970. I also think DX12 will be more friendly in the long run with GCN 1.1 over Maxwell. Now a used cheap 290 or 290x maybe a good ticket for some great game play until next generation 14/16nm nodes and maybe first refresh occurs.
 
Currently trying to decide if i want a 390 or 970, and one thing i'm confused about is the role of the memory. Assume i get a game that goes over 4GB (or 3.5GB rather. What is this i don't even...), what happens then? Massive frame drop? Stuttering?
 
Currently trying to decide if i want a 390 or 970, and one thing i'm confused about is the role of the memory. Assume i get a game that goes over 4GB (or 3.5GB rather. What is this i don't even...), what happens then? Massive frame drop? Stuttering?

Yes and yes.

For the most part on a single card by the time you are using 3.5gb of memory, frame rate would probably be in the unplayable zone. For multiple cards having more memory is better since you have the capability to effectively use the added memory asset. The 8gb on the 390 comes more into play with two or more cards, Eyefinity/4K resolutions and maxing out quality features which even then you may run out of performance before ram. For single card 3.5gb on the 970 is plenty, later on though it can be limiting if you pick up a second card dirt cheap and up your resolution.
 
Currently trying to decide if i want a 390 or 970, and one thing i'm confused about is the role of the memory. Assume i get a game that goes over 4GB (or 3.5GB rather. What is this i don't even...), what happens then? Massive frame drop? Stuttering?

The gimped memory is already an issue in games like Assassin's Creed and even Shadows of Mordor with the high res textures.

I can't believe people are even considering buying that gimped card from a company with blatantly deceptive tactics like this.
 
Yes and yes.

For the most part on a single card by the time you are using 3.5gb of memory, frame rate would probably be in the unplayable zone. For multiple cards having more memory is better since you have the capability to effectively use the added memory asset. The 8gb on the 390 comes more into play with two or more cards, Eyefinity/4K resolutions and maxing out quality features which even then you may run out of performance before ram. For single card 3.5gb on the 970 is plenty, later on though it can be limiting if you pick up a second card dirt cheap and up your resolution.

Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.
 
Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.

What a complete joker thinking that AA does not eat more Vram, you are totally wrong period.
 
What a complete joker thinking that AA does not eat more Vram, you are totally wrong period.


No it eats up more, but it doesn't double if you are using SLi or Crossfire. Since its being done a per frame basis, that doesn't change. I think you need to have your reading glasses checked.

You can actually get away with less vram per card with multiple cards, as long as the resolution and settings of the game itself doesn't push the bounds of the amount of vram.
 
Currently trying to decide if i want a 390 or 970, and one thing i'm confused about is the role of the memory. Assume i get a game that goes over 4GB (or 3.5GB rather. What is this i don't even...), what happens then? Massive frame drop? Stuttering?

Ok generally what happens when the Vram gets full from a technical stand point is what was in Vram gets shifted to system Ram and then this gets swapped as needed. This is why you can get stutters because of the latency of transferring from ram to vram across the PCI-E lanes. Minimums will be lower too because of this obviously.

It isn't as big a deal if you are careful in setups and tweaking. (Playing SKYRIM) I used to have XFX7770 x2 and trust me there was a lot of swapping, but didn't impact my game much. Had to do a lot of tweaking with the PCI voltages and OCs and some .ini tweaks. Took hours but it can be done.

But in all honesty likely you wont have too much of a problem with the 970 memory-wise if you are smart with ingame settings. Now I am the type that rather have more than less, hence why I got the 290, so the 8gb Vram would prob swing me to the 390 over the 970. Just understand it isn't as doom and gloom as some posters make things out to be.
 
Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.


No it eats up more, but it doesn't double if you are using SLi or Crossfire. Since its being done a per frame basis, that doesn't change. I think you need to have your reading glasses checked.

You can actually get away with less vram per card with multiple cards, as long as the resolution and settings of the game itself doesn't push the bounds of the amount of vram.

Who said anything about AA needing double the Vram, no one so its you who needs glasses and you did say that AA does not need more Vram which is factually wrong and the last part the whole point of getting Multi GPU with more Vram per card is so that going over the Vram is less likely and that they can push the the ingame quality setting, Res and the AA as much as the Multi GPU grunt can handle.

I have upgraded 4 times over my PC gaming years because of running out of Vram way before GPU grunt on multi GPU systems.
 
Last edited:
I've owned a 970, 980, and 290x.

After "trying" all three, i settled on a 970. I was really worried about the 3.5 segmentation issue, but in real world gaming I have never noticed it at 1440p. Lets be honest, with the 970/390 you are not going to be running everything at max. The 970 has the segmentation stigma and the 390 has the re-brand stigma. I say buy whatever one you can get the best deal on. If you haven't settled in with a brand yet, then there is really not much of a real world difference here as they are priced to compete.

For me, my last two AMD cards (7970 & 290x) had coil whine, driver issues, and were hot boxes. My last three nVidia cards (660ti, 970, & 980) were all around pleasant experiences. However, I downgraded my 980 to a 970 b/c the price to performance ratio didn't make sense. I will try AMD again, but right now i'll stay on the green side.

Disclaimer: This post is my opinion from my experience and is not law. ;p
 
Who said anything about AA needing double the Vram, no one so its you who needs glasses and you did say that AA does not need more Vram which is factually wrong and the last part the whole point of getting Multi GPU with more Vram per card is so that going over the Vram is less likely and that they can push the the ingame quality setting, Res and the AA as much as the Multi GPU grunt can handle.

I have upgraded 4 times over my PC gaming years because of run out of Vram way before GPU grunt on multi GPU systems.


I stated on a per card basis, what does that mean? SLi and crossfire.

So you are saying Fury X in Crossfire will need more ram then? I want to see your argument for this one. Because I don't think it needs more Vram, unless you are going to insane settings like 5k.

And yah I know you are not going to go down this road with me,come on its stupid.
 
The gimped memory is already an issue in games like Assassin's Creed and even Shadows of Mordor with the high res textures.

I can't believe people are even considering buying that gimped card from a company with blatantly deceptive tactics like this.

It was already gimped due to its name 970, it's been a gimped 980 the entire time. I will agree some of the newer games use quite a bit of memory. It's probably the consolitis

Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.

regardless of the crossfire method, there are several types, split frame, alternate frame etc. Both gpus memory pools are the same, They do not combine, they mirror one another. The reason you want more VRAM with multiple cards is because you now have the performance to put the settings higher which will use more VRAM.

No it eats up more, but it doesn't double if you are using SLi or Crossfire. Since its being done a per frame basis, that doesn't change. I think you need to have your reading glasses checked.

You can actually get away with less vram per card with multiple cards, as long as the resolution and settings of the game itself doesn't push the bounds of the amount of vram.

no having multiple cards will not help you if you run out of vram. The game will lag spike so hard it's like hitting a brick wall. The advantage of multiple cards is being able to have the gpu power to drive higher settings, which in turn uses more vram.. Maybe in the future with DX12 games this will be a non-issue, as it's said the GPU memory pool will combine then.
 
Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.

I stated on a per card basis, what does that mean? SLi and crossfire.

Your per card basis means sweet FA as you were trying to use it as a way to say that AA does not use more Vram as samples are done on a per frame bases which is complete BS in regards AA needing more Vram than no AA and per card basis makes no difference to the amount that AA needs.
 
Last edited:
It was already gimped due to its name 970, it's been a gimped 980 the entire time. I will agree some of the newer games use quite a bit of memory. It's probably the consolitis



regardless of the crossfire method, there are several types, split frame, alternate frame etc. Both gpus memory pools are the same, They do not combine, they mirror one another. The reason you want more VRAM with multiple cards is because you now have the performance to put the settings higher which will use more VRAM.



no having multiple cards will not help you if you run out of vram. The game will lag spike so hard it's like hitting a brick wall. The advantage of multiple cards is being able to have the gpu power to drive higher settings, which in turn uses more vram.. Maybe in the future with DX12 games this will be a non-issue, as it's said the GPU memory pool will combine then.

Indeed.
 
Your per card basis means sweet FA as you were trying to use it as a way to say that AA does not use more Vram as samples are done on a per frame bases which is complete BS in regards AA needing more Vram than no AA and per card basis makes no difference to the amount that AA needs.


I agree with AA needs more vram, it is because the buffer sizes increase based on the amount of AA used, as with AF, but will you tell me how much those buffer sizes are?

Now to do MSAA and SSAA, the formula is easy.

Sample count*Resolution*bytes per pixel used by buffers. (it ain't all that much)

spatial sparse AA is different and much harder to calculate for but it can be figured out, I will let you try to see if you can do the first before you do the next.

After you get me those numbers then we can talk about these things, MSAA, SSAA, spatial AA buffer sizes on one card vs. SLi and Cross fire based on AFR and SFR.
 
Thought i would chime in being a hands on layman. I have owned both camps, multiple times, currently on green but I don't have any brand loyalty.

My problem with AMD being a layman, they crap out on some games, this has been true of every generation of ati amd card i have owned regardless of power (i usually buy in the 700$ plus range and drive the card for 4-5 years).

My problem with nVidia, shady practices and the tendency to driver creep their older cards preformance. Hasn't been an issue until my 780ti got whomped in witcher, for no reason other than shady driver decisions.

Having said that, i also run all my games at max, 1440p, and get annoyed if i have to turn one slider down. Gameworks cripples older cards, even nvidias cards. You likely wont be pushing this, its just my personal pref.

So, do you want a card that in many games will last as long or longer, but completely crap out on some titles (many aaa) then get the 390. Its got more ram, and otherwisea very similar card to a layman.

If you get annoyed that you can't play title x because its one of those non-amd games, and dont want to wait 6-9 months for a possible driver that will let you play it, get the 970.

Take it as you will.
 
It was already gimped due to its name 970, it's been a gimped 980 the entire time. I will agree some of the newer games use quite a bit of memory. It's probably the consolitis



regardless of the crossfire method, there are several types, split frame, alternate frame etc. Both gpus memory pools are the same, They do not combine, they mirror one another. The reason you want more VRAM with multiple cards is because you now have the performance to put the settings higher which will use more VRAM.

I never stated they combined, AA and AF aren't not part of the "same pool" as for scene assets, the method used for multicard doesn't affect this either ;)



no having multiple cards will not help you if you run out of vram. The game will lag spike so hard it's like hitting a brick wall. The advantage of multiple cards is being able to have the gpu power to drive higher settings, which in turn uses more vram.. Maybe in the future with DX12 games this will be a non-issue, as it's said the GPU memory pool will combine then.

If the card is running out of vram by itself, multi card won't help you, I wasn't talking about that, and I did state that.

No it eats up more, but it doesn't double if you are using SLi or Crossfire. Since its being done a per frame basis, that doesn't change. I think you need to have your reading glasses checked.

You can actually get away with less vram per card with multiple cards, as long as the resolution and settings of the game itself doesn't push the bounds of the amount of vram.

See the part in red?
 
I was planning to buy a 970 until the ram issue came to light.. so buying my time I picked up redesigned 290x for $259 and the card has been amazing and now looking forward I am not as gimped as I would be with Nvidia because I can add that $229 R-9 290 someone linked for crossfire or any of the new 390/390x will also work.

VRam is not an issue moving forward under DX 12 if all pans out as two AMD cards both having 4Gb of memory each would yield 8Gb under crossfire or one having 8Gb and the other having 4Gb would yield 12Gb under DX 12... Now will this also work for Nvidia?

Also linking a AMD and Nvidia card together is in the works but I am sure Nvidia will block this somehow.
 
VRam is not an issue moving forward under DX 12 if all pans out as two AMD cards both having 4Gb of memory each would yield 8Gb under crossfire or one having 8Gb and the other having 4Gb would yield 12Gb under DX 12... Now will this also work for Nvidia?

Do you understand that this will only occur when game devs optimize a game to support VRAM pooling? It will work the same for Nvidia as it does for AMD: very rarely. As rarely as the multi-vendor MGPU you refer to.
 
And with multi GPU you have the grunt to push more, that was the point, we are done.


So why did you even post than? My stance hasn't changed from my first post. What you don't want to do the calculations for AA?

When using multi GPU, that amount doesn't change. Unlike each separate GPU needing individual asset sets.
 
I was planning to buy a 970 until the ram issue came to light.. so buying my time I picked up redesigned 290x for $259 and the card has been amazing and now looking forward I am not as gimped as I would be with Nvidia because I can add that $229 R-9 290 someone linked for crossfire or any of the new 390/390x will also work.

VRam is not an issue moving forward under DX 12 if all pans out as two AMD cards both having 4Gb of memory each would yield 8Gb under crossfire or one having 8Gb and the other having 4Gb would yield 12Gb under DX 12... Now will this also work for Nvidia?

Also linking a AMD and Nvidia card together is in the works but I am sure Nvidia will block this somehow.


Won't work like this all the time, depends on how the renderer is set up and even then you don't want assets being shifted between the cards, so its a fairly complex task to do the pitfalls are you end up shifting from system ram. Which many engines already have this feature, but its far from being ideal.
 
So why did you even post than? My stance hasn't changed from my first post. What you don't want to do the calculations for AA?

When using multi GPU, that amount doesn't change. Unlike each separate GPU needing individual asset sets.



Because you were implying that noko was saying that Multi GPU uses more Vram for AA when he was not at all.
 
Because you were implying that noko was saying that Multi GPU uses more Vram for AA when he was not at all.


That was not what I was stating, when using AA, AF multi gpu's don't need to double the vram as the assets do. So you can get away with using cards with less vram in those configurations as long as they aren't already page flipping on a single card.
 
Yes and yes.

For the most part on a single card by the time you are using 3.5gb of memory, frame rate would probably be in the unplayable zone. For multiple cards having more memory is better since you have the capability to effectively use the added memory asset. The 8gb on the 390 comes more into play with two or more cards, Eyefinity/4K resolutions and maxing out quality features which even then you may run out of performance before ram. For single card 3.5gb on the 970 is plenty, later on though it can be limiting if you pick up a second card dirt cheap and up your resolution.

Err not really, dual cards you don't need more vram per card, they will run just as well, AA and AF don't need any extra vram on a per card basis, since samples are done on a per frame bases.

That was not what I was stating, when using AA, AF multi gpu's don't need to double the vram as the assets do. So you can get away with using cards with less vram in those configurations as long as they aren't already page flipping on a single card.

Sorry but you were implying that and implying that noko was implying that it needs double the Vram just because he mentions the 8gb AMD card in multi GPU and you were trying to correct him on things he was not implying.
 
Sorry but you were implying that and implying that noko was implying that it needs double the Vram just because he mentions the 8gb AMD card in multi GPU and you were trying to correct him on things he was not implying.


The problem is neither of these cards are good for 4k gaming with any amount of AA, period, unless we are talking about older games. So it doesn't matter if they are in SLi or Crossfire config. So I kinda excluding those things out of my statement and he stated the same thing, you will run out of GPU horsepower before vram constraints.
 
The problem is neither of these cards are good for 4k gaming with any amount of AA, period, unless we are talking about older games. So it doesn't matter if they are in SLi or Crossfire config. So I kinda excluding those things out of my statement and he stated the same thing, you will run out of GPU horsepower before vram constraints.

The 8gb on the 390 comes more into play with two or more cards, Eyefinity/4K resolutions and maxing out quality features which even then you may run out of performance before ram. For single card 3.5gb on the 970 is plenty, later on though it can be limiting if you pick up a second card dirt cheap and up your resolution.

He did not say will and it more than just about AA as he said, even GoldenTiger got rid of his 970 SLi setup because it was running out of vram before the grunt.
 
Last edited:
He did not say will and it more than just about AA as he said, even GoldenTiger got rid of his 970 SLi setup because it was running out of vram before the grunt.


Newer games they will definitely run out, specially when you start looking at the new types of bump mapping that are being used now, which are two to three times more expensive than POM. POM uses around 600 to 700 instructions and could be more based on the quality you are going for, that on itself hurts these cards. And this is just one aspect, still have to consider the newer lighting models.
 
Newer games they will definitely run out, specially when you start looking at the new types of bump mapping that are being used now, which are two to three times more expensive than POM. POM uses around 600 to 700 instructions and could be more based on the quality you are going for, that on itself hurts these cards. And this is just one aspect, still have to consider the newer lighting models.

Yes GPU grunt does run out over time with newer games like it always has been that's nothing new, im sure 99.9% of gamers know that already.
 
Newer games they will definitely run out, specially when you start looking at the new types of bump mapping that are being used now, which are two to three times more expensive than POM. POM uses around 600 to 700 instructions and could be more based on the quality you are going for, that on itself hurts these cards. And this is just one aspect, still have to consider the newer lighting models.


Well, AC:Syndicate on ultra with 4xMSAA uses 4,4 GB VRAM, Even if you drop MSAAx2, you still need full 4GB. Only by lowering settings a bit to PCSS and HBAO+ (- ultra), you need 3,75 GB... and that's just for 1440p. I believe 4K might be even more taxing.
 
Yes GPU grunt does run out over time with newer games like it always has been that's nothing new, im sure 99.9% of gamers know that already.


So is it smart to get SLi or Crossfire, as an upgrade path? In my view any multi gpu setups have too many issues to be even considered as a good option, so as an upgrade path, I wouldn't even think its remotely good, a single card upgrade is better, you might end up spending more but you will have that single card longer than an old generation dual card setup, and once these cards go to EOL driver support for multi GPU will be on at the bottom of list for these companies.
 
Well, AC:Syndicate on ultra with 4xMSAA uses 4,4 GB VRAM, Even if you drop MSAAx2, you still need full 4GB. Only by lowering settings a bit to PCSS and HBAO+ (- ultra), you need 3,75 GB... and that's just for 1440p. I believe 4K might be even more taxing.


4k in that game will crush these cards at ultra settings, the game itself, textures and assets take up around 3 gigs of buffer space regardless of the resolutions.

@1920p the buffer size for 4xaa is 65mb, and 4k its 4 times that, 250 mb. AA buffer sizes aren't that large comparative to the assets and what screen resolutions need for just rendering.

Now even a 980ti at 4k will have issues with that game and it isn't the buffer amount that is hurting it. Its the pixel shader throughput.

yeah here

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2195-assassins-creed-syndicate-gpu-fps-benchmarks

Did the 8gb vram for the r390 help this game in any way nada.
 
Back
Top