390 the better card for longevity over 970?

lightsout

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
1,211
I am going to buy one of these two cards. I have always preferred nvidia I seem to have less issues driver wise.

But it seems the amd cards lately age much better. I was set on going back to green (I have crossfire 270's) but now I think 390 is the way to go.

My budget is $300 and I play @ 1440p.

I know this is not a huge upgrade from my current setup but I want to go back to single card.
 
I don't think there will be any longevity difference between these two cards, possible with the 8gb of ram yeah that might give you a bit more, but outside of that, nope, the 970 you can get around $250 on sale which I don't think you will be able to get the same price on the 390, you maybe able to get them for 290ish.
 
The ram might help you out in some cases but if you get a 970 for $50 less than the 390 it would hardly be worth extra ram.
 
It seems like AMD cards get better over time with drivers.

I have to buy the card from newegg. So used 970 is not an option. So in that case the 390 is a little cheaper.
 
If it is cheaper, you are great with the 390. the 8gb will surely help you out in case you Xfire someday.
I think you have a 550W+ PSU already so that won't be a factor in costs?
 
It seems like AMD cards get better over time with drivers.

I have to buy the card from newegg. So used 970 is not an option. So in that case the 390 is a little cheaper.


Only because they have rebranded items for 3 gens now, so 4.5 year old GPU's from AMD are still relevant in driver optimizations. That is not going to happen with the next generation chips the entire line up for AI is new. The gtx 970 from Newegg, you can get for ~280, black Friday and cyber monday is coming up they might have sales on it then that will give you more.
 
How long do you plan on keeping the card? the 290X still has the same benchmarks as a 390 so go for that if it's cheaper unless you plan on keeping it for like 3 - 5 years then the 8GB might be beneficial in the future
 
It's a smart play going for an 8GB card if you're @ 1440P.

I just don't think the 4GB cards will hold up very much longer at anything past 1080P given dev consoleitis. Some games out there max out 4GB ram right now, even at 1080P. The old rule of 2GB is good enough for 1080P is changing.

However, as others mentioned, a 970 @ $250 is mighty mighty tempting. It's a tough one. If you can score a 390 under $300, then you're golden. Otherwise, that 970...
 
I'd hope so, most of their "current" cards have been out since 2013 with different names and stickers.

What would be the point for them to release a new card instead of rebranding the existing ones?
it would be a retarded move on AMDs part to NOT rebrand, when they already have a product to compete in that price range... ( and they are getting poorer by the day anyways )
They will need a new one when the old shit ain't good enough. Still don't know why people cried over rebrands.
 
Maybe they are "getting poorer" because they are selling 3 year old tech as new instead of trying to make advancements.
 
Nobody cares if it is 10 year old tech, if intel sold Ivy Bridge unlocked i5s 30% cheaper than skylake and we had mobos for it, skylake would never be the recommended CPU for gaming.

AMD probably cannot afford to make advancements on anything except their flagships, and that is completely fine for consumers and competition till they get a product that can compete at the same price range.
 
there is nothing wrong with rebrands as long as they remain competitive, the problem is people that have already purchased those cards just won't upgrade unless there is incentive too, that's where the Fury line comes in, but the performance increase for the Fury over the 390x/290x wasn't enough for the price tag they wanted, Fury X on the other hand was a good upgrade but for the same price the 980 ti was a better buy.
 
If it is cheaper, you are great with the 390. the 8gb will surely help you out in case you Xfire someday.
I think you have a 550W+ PSU already so that won't be a factor in costs?
Yeah I have a 750w psu so I should be good. Its an older xfx but it was highly rated in its day on johnny guru. Its actually the oldest thing in my system. *knocks on wood*
Only because they have rebranded items for 3 gens now, so 4.5 year old GPU's from AMD are still relevant in driver optimizations. That is not going to happen with the next generation chips the entire line up for AI is new. The gtx 970 from Newegg, you can get for ~280, black Friday and cyber monday is coming up they might have sales on it then that will give you more.
Yeah thats true. The egg is having decent sales on 970's.
If the BF leaked ad is correct they have an
Evga 970 for $289 (4 phase vrm version)
XFX DD 390 $259 after $30 MIR so really same price.

I am not a big fan of xfx and heard that card is not great.
Also trying to stay away from the 4 phase evga cards ugh. But I do love EVGA

I'd hope so, most of their "current" cards have been out since 2013 with different names and stickers.
Good point
What would be the point for them to release a new card instead of rebranding the existing ones?
it would be a retarded move on AMDs part to NOT rebrand, when they already have a product to compete in that price range... ( and they are getting poorer by the day anyways )
They will need a new one when the old shit ain't good enough. Still don't know why people cried over rebrands.
Yeah for all the rebrand hate, which I totally get they sure hang with nvidias newer stuff in the same range.
 
Another thing is that nvidia has a game code, which is always nice. I would probably go for rainbow six.
 
Normally I'd go with the 970. But the extra 4gb (or 4.5) will probably make a difference in the long run.
 
And don't get me wrong, I don't dislike AMD at all. Most of my favorite cards to date have been ATI/AMD. I just would like to see something new from them and I have been disappointed in the direction they have been going with both their mid-range cards, and new flagships.
 
Normally I'd go with the 970. But the extra 4gb (or 4.5) will probably make a difference in the long run.
Yeah it probably would, but running a single card I'm not so sure its that big of deal. I will probably keep the card for a year or so, so might not be a big deal in the long run.

And don't get me wrong, I don't dislike AMD at all. Most of my favorite cards to date have been ATI/AMD. I just would like to see something new from them and I have been disappointed in the direction they have been going with both their mid-range cards, and new flagships.
Mid range is still competitive though, its crazy with how old they all are.
 
^ Well their inferior CPUs have crushed the image ATI had before AMD acquired them.
Probably it has crushed their money too, and now i dont expect them to afford making new technologies at Nvidia pace.

The FX line crushed their image in my eyes too, selling something that their competition had ~6 years ago till today. I hope they get a great leader and make it back.
 
If the XFX DD 390 is anything like my 290 it will not disappoint. I went straight to 1100 core no voltage adjustment (has it just don't see the point in tempting fate, I know my luck) and have been stable and error free for 1 year now since purchase.
I redid the paste but have to admit the VRM thermal tape was not as subpar as I expected. I still replaced it with fujipoly but what they used was sufficient.
 
The new AC:Syndicate uses more than 4gb at some settings. The days of 4gb are numbered let alone the 3.5gb of the 970.

The 390 may be classed as old tech but it has a full hardware DX12 support for async compute unlike the partial software based support in the Maxwell architecture. AMD's GCN architecture was designed with the future in mind and so far it has paid off with DX12.
 
I would buy the 970. It overclocks better and is built better. The RAM on the 390 is nice, but it's the only advantage. AMD is so cheap that they don't bother putting HDMI2 or a RAMDAC on their cards! Imagine how shitty the VRM must be on a 390 or other device.
 
I would buy the 970. It overclocks better and is built better. The RAM on the 390 is nice, but it's the only advantage. AMD is so cheap that they don't bother putting HDMI2 or a RAMDAC on their cards! Imagine how shitty the VRM must be on a 390 or other device.

Wow so you are making your round now huh. Just commented on another flaming post of yours. Just to help you out here, either card is built well. Ofcourse the 3.5gb Vram issue, or segmentation rather, could be argued but in real world use it will matter little. The 390 or any AMD card tend to be well built. Besides AMD doesn't really make them, the AIB partners do. HDMI2.0 may mean a lot to you but to many others it means precious little, and when I say others I mean a hell of a lot more than those that do care.

In this case and because of facts, the question at hand would lend in favor of the 390. Not simply from a Vram perspective but also from examples like the 7970 which to date still plays quite well.
 
Wow so you are making your round now huh. Just commented on another flaming post of yours. Just to help you out here, either card is built well. Ofcourse the 3.5gb Vram issue, or segmentation rather, could be argued but in real world use it will matter little. The 390 or any AMD card tend to be well built. Besides AMD doesn't really make them, the AIB partners do. HDMI2.0 may mean a lot to you but to many others it means precious little, and when I say others I mean a hell of a lot more than those that do care.

In this case and because of facts, the question at hand would lend in favor of the 390. Not simply from a Vram perspective but also from examples like the 7970 which to date still plays quite well.


The only advantage the r390 has is vram, don't even need to mention the longevity of these cards, because the 970 is newer it will have the same legs as the 390 form a driver perspective, since they aren't going to rebrand this series again. Unless you would like them to? I don't want to see them again......

The 970 could be gotten for less too. So that even outs the less vram.

Saying someone is flaming while you do the same is hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
The only advantage the r380 has is vram, don't even need to mention the longevity of these cards, because the 970 is newer it will have the same legs as the 390 form a driver perspective, since they aren't going to rebrand this series again. Unless you would like them to? I don't want to see them again......

The 970 could be gotten for less too. So that even outs the less vram.

Saying someone is flaming while you do the same is hypocrisy.

Ok where did I flame? I pointed out facts and rational statistical probability. Maybe you missed the part where I said either card is built well and wasn't out right sayin only one is the only option as he did.

So what do you base the 970s legs on? I gave the 7970 in an effort to show some fore experience.

I cant make a statement on the 970 longevity because there isn't a precedence. As I somewhat stated the 970 plays fine now, as does the 390.

You may want to edit the 380 to a 390 by the by.
 
Ok where did I flame? I pointed out facts and rational statistical probability. Maybe you missed the part where I said either card is built well and wasn't out right sayin only one is the only option as he did.

So what do you base the 970s legs on? I gave the 7970 in an effort to show some fore experience.

I cant make a statement on the 970 longevity because there isn't a precedence. As I somewhat stated the 970 plays fine now, as does the 390.

You may want to edit the 380 to a 390 by the by.

If you didn't flame he didn't flame....

What do I base the legs for the 970, it has much better pixel shader performance than Kaplar, which is needed for newer games, it has better compression which helps it with bandwidth intensive games which comes in handy for newer games as well.

The 7970 while its a good card has been rebranded 3 times, you think its going to keep up with newer games the same way as 970? It has even less ram than a 970 which will keep it from pushing games as well. I think it won't because there are places where you can foresee where it won't.
 
If you didn't flame he didn't flame....

What do I base the legs for the 970, it has much better pixel shader performance than Kaplar, which is needed for newer games, it has better compression which helps it with bandwidth intensive games which comes in handy for newer games as well.

The 7970 while its a good card has been rebranded 3 times, you think its going to keep up with newer games the same way as 970? It has even less ram than a 970 which will keep it from pushing games as well. I think it won't because there are places where you can foresee where it won't.

Man you are terrible at this. Ok maybe you just don't understand what I am saying so I will break it down.

Lets start with the 7970. It came out years ago. Next: it still performs quite well with decent settings today, nearly 4 years later for those that purchased early. CONCLUSION it got extremely long use and is still going strong therefore adds to the recommendation of newer AMD cards assuming past experience with the 7970 hold true in the 390 case. Based on probability... looks good for recommending for longevity. Same architecture so parallels are easy.

The 970: Great card even with segmented Vram. However despite any technological niceties it has there is really no previous example in its architecture with which to base longevity. We have Kepler that seems to have stalled (reason not worth discussing to keep this at least on topic and somewhat civil), so that doesn't help with probability. This doesn't say it wont or cant as you seem to infer I am saying. It simply states there is not enough info to make that assertion in this case at this time.

And wasn't really comparing the 7970 to the 970 directly, obviously the 970 is stronger, more Vram and advancements. It was just attributing the findings to 390 based on previous models. Simple as that.

And in my opinion in this case between the 970 and 390, given the criteria, YES the 390 is the safer bet. Not guaranteed but based upon the last 5 years of data the 390 has more info and probability supporting its recommendation.
 
Man you are terrible at this. Ok maybe you just don't understand what I am saying so I will break it down.

Lets start with the 7970. It came out years ago. Next: it still performs quite well with decent settings today, nearly 4 years later for those that purchased early. CONCLUSION it got extremely long use and is still going strong therefore adds to the recommendation of newer AMD cards assuming past experience with the 7970 hold true in the 390 case. Based on probability... looks good for recommending for longevity. Same architecture so parallels are easy.

The 970: Great card even with segmented Vram. However despite any technological niceties it has there is really no previous example in its architecture with which to base longevity. We have Kepler that seems to have stalled (reason not worth discussing to keep this at least on topic and somewhat civil), so that doesn't help with probability. This doesn't say it wont or cant as you seem to infer I am saying. It simply states there is not enough info to make that assertion in this case at this time.

And wasn't really comparing the 7970 to the 970 directly, obviously the 970 is stronger, more Vram and advancements. It was just attributing the findings to 390 based on previous models. Simple as that.

And in my opinion in this case between the 970 and 390, given the criteria, YES the 390 is the safer bet. Not guaranteed but based upon the last 5 years of data the 390 has more info and probability supporting its recommendation.


I'm not terrible at this, its just you state things that are not valid because you seem to rub people the wrong way because you want to do it. Well your no basis of why something has lasted as long as it did is the way it is, is because you have no technical basis of how a GPU functions based on newer applications.

Its not like AMD and nV are stupid, they don't know how to design their GPU's are they?

Oh great the g80 lastest 3 gens too but it showed it couldn't keep up with the same games the 4870 could play with ease or the gtx 280 did.

As I stated, you are so keen on saying many people make blanket statements, you just did yourself. Not even a blanket statement its an inference based on something that doesn't hold much to this generation of GPU's because of next generation of GPU's. Don't make blanket statements without understanding why what happened happened.

The landscape has changed and your statements don't reflect that. This is why you can't infer or parallels from past if the elements of what is happening now are different.
 
The new AC:Syndicate uses more than 4gb at some settings. The days of 4gb are numbered let alone the 3.5gb of the 970.

The 390 may be classed as old tech but it has a full hardware DX12 support for async compute unlike the partial software based support in the Maxwell architecture. AMD's GCN architecture was designed with the future in mind and so far it has paid off with DX12.

Relevant points made here. You folks in the 'omg rebadge = crap' crowd pay attention.

I'll pile on with my 2 cents as well:

Slapping a card (i don't care if it's a rebadge) with an "old tech" label when it fully supports (and even more-so than its direct competitor) the current and even next-gen DirectX is not just criminally stupid, it's pure fanboi tactic. Feel free to sit in the corner with your stupid hat on for that infraction.

Back to the thread point: the 390 is already an equal for the 970 in the performance category across the board by and large, has that 8GB ram, and also has better DirectX12 support than the 970.

Why would the OP go with a 970 if he could get the 390 for nearly the same price?
 
Back to the thread point: the 390 is already an equal for the 970 in the performance category across the board by and large, has that 8GB ram, and also has better DirectX12 support than the 970.

Why would the OP go with a 970 if he could get the 390 for nearly the same price?


"if" he can, right now the 970 is cheaper, by 15% possibly more at times.
 
"if" he can, right now the 970 is cheaper, by 15% possibly more at times.

People need to stop acting like the GTX 970's price bracket is below that of a 390's bracket. Just because someone spotted a $250 970 does not at all mean that the 970 is suddenly a $200-$300 segment card and thus automagically always the go-to value-oriented choice over anything AMD has in that price range.

Truth to the matter is that 970s are every bit a $300+ card like the 390 because both occupy the $300-$400 MSRP range. Both are also found under $300 right now. Both are found way over $300. Enough with the $250 970 stuff though. That is a sale price.

Now, if i am paying $10-15 bucks more for a 390, i'd do it given the reasons i outlined in the my post you quoted from above. Those features are worth an extra 15% or maybe even more given passage of time.
 
Last edited:
People need to stop acting like the GTX 970's price bracket is below that of a 390's bracket. Just because someone spotted a $250 970 does not at all mean the 970 always presents a more value-oriented solution.

Truth to the matter is that 970s are every bit a $300+ card like the 390 because both occupy the $300-$400 MSRP range. Both are also found under $300 right now. Both are found way over $300. Enough with the $250 970 stuff though. That is a sale price.

Now, if i am paying $10-15 bucks more for a 390, i'd do it given the reasons i outlined in the my post you quoted from above. Those features are worth an extra 15% or maybe even more given passage of time.


Dude just last week, people could have gotten the 970 for $250 with rebates, the cheapest 390 was around $310 (with rebates), that's not a few bucks and 20% difference, now the same 970 is $280 with 2 games (with discount no rebate).....
 
Buy the right card for the games you want to play right now. Trying to predict futureproofedness is a fun hobby in its own right, but not a good way of buying consumer electronics.
 
now, and the 970 has the 2 free games though, if those games are something a person is looking for that's a good deal, you aren't going to find the r390 for less than the 970 because AMD priced it because its got 8 gigs of ram which won't be that usefully for this card, because games that will require more than 4 gigs will need more push shader performance too. this is why I stated the 8 gb might come in handy, most likely it won't if we are talking about more that a year down the road.

These cards are equal it comes down to price, of course you still need to look at power consumption too, which the x390 is quite a bit higher than the 970.

Now if we are talking about 4k gaming, neither of these cards are good for that period.
 
^ Well their inferior CPUs have crushed the image ATI had before AMD acquired them.
Probably it has crushed their money too, and now i dont expect them to afford making new technologies at Nvidia pace.

The FX line crushed their image in my eyes too, selling something that their competition had ~6 years ago till today. I hope they get a great leader and make it back.

I agree, they should have kept the company in Canada instead of running it into the ground. However they brought back the guy behind the k7/k8 and I loved those. The clock for clock battles with Intel.
 
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'm not terrible at this, its just you state things that are not valid because you seem to rub people the wrong way because you want to do it. Well your no basis of why something has lasted as long as it did is the way it is, is because you have no technical basis of how a GPU functions based on newer applications.

Its not like AMD and nV are stupid, they don't know how to design their GPU's are they?

Oh great the g80 lastest 3 gens too but it showed it couldn't keep up with the same games the 4870 could play with ease or the gtx 280 did.

As I stated, you are so keen on saying many people make blanket statements, you just did yourself. Not even a blanket statement its an inference based on something that doesn't hold much to this generation of GPU's because of next generation of GPU's. Don't make blanket statements without understanding why what happened happened.

The landscape has changed and your statements don't reflect that. This is why you can't infer or parallels from past if the elements of what is happening now are different.

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.
 
Back
Top