290x vs 970

A

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
Hi,
i can grab a 290x for ~$220 used [+$80 for power suppply upgrade to 999999w]
and EVGA 970 for ~$415 with backplate new
and ~$370 for used 970 [any brand]

Is the 290x almost same as the 970? because every video ive seen has the 970 performing WAY better than the 290x. [the youtube videos where they show split screen four cards running and fps at the same time]

I've always noticed around 15 fps more on 970 for most games, which doesn't qualify for "almost same performance"

It seems like 970 is closer to 980 than it is to 290x

so my question is which is a better value?
the performance difference is the only thing holding me back from a 290x

prices are CAD so dont think im getting ripped lol
 
Get a 970. The 290X doesn't have a RAMDAC, so you will be forever stuck with a crappy monitor.
 
I've had both. Interesting thing is the 290x benched higher in 3d mark type tests but the 970 performed better in every game I play.
 
a3venom said:
Hi,
i can grab a 290x for ~$220 used [+$80 for power suppply upgrade to 999999w]
and EVGA 970 for ~$415 with backplate new
and ~$370 for used 970 [any brand]

Is the 290x almost same as the 970? because every video ive seen has the 970 performing WAY better than the 290x. [the youtube videos where they show split screen four cards running and fps at the same time]

I've always noticed around 15 fps more on 970 for most games, which doesn't qualify for "almost same performance"

It seems like 970 is closer to 980 than it is to 290x

so my question is which is a better value?
the performance difference is the only thing holding me back from a 290x

prices are CAD so dont think im getting ripped lol
Click to expand...

thing as way better than the 290X isn't true.. for 1920x1080 the 970 its a better performer, at 2560x1440 and anything higher than that show generally better results for the 290X.. of course that apply for stock settings.. when overclocking the 970 its able to show a considerable advantage due the great overclocking potential of maxwell cards and the good scalability they have with clocks and of course as you may know most 970 are high clocked out of the box so that's why you will see the 970 always performing better than 290X. personally I think the GTX 970 offer a better value and a favorable gaming experience due to noise, temp, power consumption, driver support, and most of the time better performance than the 290X without the need of a high overclock.. so even if its more expensive my choice would be the GTX 970.


iRUSH said:
I've had both. Interesting thing is the 290x benched higher in 3d mark type tests but the 970 performed better in every game I play.
Click to expand...

AMD cards tend to score better in 3dmark than nvidia, as nvidia tend to score better in unigine benchmark (heaven and valley).. than AMD.. the true answer its always the real world gameplay and as you pointed the 970 perform better in games which what really matter..
 
rabidz7 said:
Get a 970. The 290X doesn't have a RAMDAC, so you will be forever stuck with a crappy monitor.
Click to expand...

This won't apply to 99% of users. However this is exactly the reason why I had to order a GTX 970 even though I wanted a 290x or 3xx.



At those prices, getting the 290x should be a no-brainer. After the GTX 970 launched the AMD cards, especially the 290 and 290x have received meaningful performance updates. If you were to review them now (compare them in newer GTX 960 or brand new Titan X reviews for example) the GTX 970 and 290X are tied with the 290 not far behind
 
Mokkat said:
This won't apply to 99% of users. However this is exactly the reason why I had to order a GTX 970 even though I wanted a 290x or 3xx.



At those prices, getting the 290x should be a no-brainer. After the GTX 970 launched the AMD cards, especially the 290 and 290x have received meaningful performance updates. If you were to review them now (compare them in newer GTX 960 or brand new Titan X reviews for example) the GTX 970 and 290X are tied with the 290 not far behind
Click to expand...

do you have any latest benchmarks that I can see?
it sounds very tempting since i am essentially getting the 290x at 1/2 the price of 970.

and is the DSR on the maxwell GPUs really great too? for a game like dota 2
 
a3venom said:
do you have any latest benchmarks that I can see?
it sounds very tempting since i am essentially getting the 290x at 1/2 the price of 970.

and is the DSR on the maxwell GPUs really great too? for a game like dota 2
Click to expand...

Something like http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page5.html. In some of the recent reviews the GTX 970 takes the lead more often, in some the 290X, but generally they're tied.

I wouldn't know, I haven't received the card I ordered yet. Keep in mind AMD's VSR does the same thing.
 
Performance wise they are pretty much even. From what I've seen the 290x has slightly higher avg fps in some games but the 970 has more consistent frames (less spikes).

Price wise the edge would go to the 290X but I'd still go for the 970 for overclockability, temp, power draw and MFAA.
 
a3venom said:
do you have any latest benchmarks that I can see?
it sounds very tempting since i am essentially getting the 290x at 1/2 the price of 970.

and is the DSR on the maxwell GPUs really great too? for a game like dota 2
Click to expand...

TechPowerUp usually have very nice performance summary charts. Here's one example.
 
I went from a 290 (non-x) to a 970 open box deal on newegg. The open box deal was so good I couldn't resist, was able to sell my 290 for a decent amount, so my 970 Strix was a nice cheap upgrade. Been very happy with it
 
First, what kind of 290X you can get? If it's reference, don't even touch it. It will be noisy and hot as hell - they pull over 65Db in "uber mode" and 57 in "quiet". I couldn't even stand the 290X DD from XFX, because it was emiting over 50 dB noise, and was unbearable for me (my 970 GTX can't be heared even when gaming). Then there is also heat and power issues.

If you can stand the heat/noise and such, and pay $100 less, then buy 290X, if you value silence, then go for 970 gtx.
 
Can't really go wrong with either, I'd say nvidia has better driver support for games but AMD is not far behind.
 
First off, if you are going to be playing games at at resolutions no higher than 1440p and of course no anti aliasing then go for the 970. If you want to run games with AA then go With the 290x. Thus heat, noise and power consumption is just a repeat from what reviewers said. If you have real hands in experience on a reference set the fan to 50 is no louder than a Nvidia reference 980gtx at 100%. 50% keeps it at 83c.power consumption is not differnt than a gtx 780ti, yes the gtx 970 consumes less but in all honesty its weaker. I game in nothing but 4k and use AA in every game the 290x still kicks ass in this regard.
 
I don't like the concept of the 3.5GB + 0.5GB of VRAM on the 970 if trying to DSR a game to 4K. It just seems like a bad idea conceptually for there to be 0.5GB of slower VRAM on a card. It's probably why the 970 loses out at higher resolutions to the last generation 290X. No, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse as some reviewers have mentioned that 970 SLi sometimes stutters @4K resolutions possibly because of this.

I wish Nvidia had a 975 or something with 4GB of VRAM like the 980.
 
Draconian said:
Have had both cards and they both seemed pretty on par with each other to me.
Click to expand...

I've had both as well and you cannot go wrong with either really. Actually sold my 980 for the 290X as the performance deficit with both overclocked was so small at 1440p with the games I play that the 980 just did not make sense.
 
Thanks for the inputs guys.

I think since im gonna be gaming at 1080p only, 970 will be great, i am getting a new strix for ~
USD 290

MorgothPl said:
First, what kind of 290X you can get? If it's reference, don't even touch it. It will be noisy and hot as hell - they pull over 65Db in "uber mode" and 57 in "quiet". I couldn't even stand the 290X DD from XFX, because it was emiting over 50 dB noise, and was unbearable for me (my 970 GTX can't be heared even when gaming). Then there is also heat and power issues.

If you can stand the heat/noise and such, and pay $100 less, then buy 290X, if you value silence, then go for 970 gtx.
Click to expand...

I was going to get the windforce 3x 290x [~ $179 USD], i have heard a lot of bad things about that model on newegg.
 
a3venom said:
Is the 290x almost same as the 970? because every video ive seen has the 970 performing WAY better than the 290x. [the youtube videos where they show split screen four cards running and fps at the same time]
Click to expand...

You literally answered your own question....
 
a3venom said:
Does waiting for 390x seem like a good idea though?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if the value cards moved at all. The 980 might get a little cheaper. That's really up to you if you want performance between the 980 and Titan X (my assumption) and have $700+ to drop on a card.

By then you may ask, "should I wait for Pascal?" :)
 
a3venom said:
Does waiting for 390x seem like a good idea though?
Click to expand...

For the 390x probably not it will just affect the 980's pricing if it demolishes it. I dunno when the 380x is getting released, but that would be the one to wait for to compete with the 970.
 
>> Ended up getting a R9 290 for about $160 USD , runs great got 2 year warranty too!

PS - i am running it on 500w CX 500m, am i going to kill it? ran Furmark fine
 
Rest of the system specs would help to know, but in general terms yes, that low wattage bad quality PSU unit with that card I think its gona die soon.. for a 290 i would with a quality 620W-650W Unit to be somewhat safe..
 
rabidz7 said:
Oh, it is. But just like vinyl, analog display connectors are better.
Click to expand...

lol :p biggest. comeback. ever. /s :D

96jP9FB.jpg
 
rabidz7 said:
Looks like sales since 2008 have been steadily going up.
Click to expand...

Given the number of available formats now, it is perhaps more of an accomplishment for vinyl to be making the showing that it is recently.

Nice catch on the 290 OP. They are solid budget cards.

Depending on the age of your PSU, the rest of your system components and the workload that you are putting the card through, the CX 500 may not be able to deliver enough power. In a best-case scenario it will probably be fine, but consistently pushing that supply to 80% or greater loads may end badly in the not-too-distant future.
 
rabidz7 said:
Analog has no fixed bandwidth limit, Digital doesn't. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Analog has limits just like digital. When referring to video signals, the maximum frequency of the DAC is a limit. And I can't even find any notes on the DAC on any modern video card. The highest I've seen back in the good ol' days of ridiculous-resolution CRTs was about 400 MHz. Modern 4K displays can beat that for total pixel bandwidth, and DisplayPort 1.3 will blow that away completely.

"Analog has no fixed bandwidth limit" the same way digital has no fixed bandwidth limit - the wire has no limit, it's solely based on what you've got at both ends of that wire.

If you plug an IBM XGA adapter in to an IBM 8514 monitor - you'll have a pretty firm limit.

For reference, I have an old Sun high-end CRT that I use through BNC connectors to multiple systems via adapters (including VGA.) This sucker can do high high resolutions (2048x1536 @ 85 Hz,) at amazing quality.

But my cheapo 1440p LCD still looks better for many uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top