970 vs 290x 1080p gaming

S

Stanfiem

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
364
I want to know what will be better Im looking at these 2 cards. Ive looked at reviews and such but I just want to know if going for an older 290x is worth the jump at 1080p
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832 =970
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127773= 290x

Games i play are skyrim fully modded. Assassins creed unity far cry 4. All on a 42 inch tv. Right now with my 660 and 2500k at 4.3 ghz I get around 20 fps in assassin creed unity and 30-50 with a fair amount of graphics mods In skyrim. I want to be able to load skyrim up with a ridiculous amount of mods as it has been my dream for years now. WIth just every texture mod i can find. This will also be for the new GTA 5. While it is all speculation at this point I am just going to assume it will be fairly demanding.

My rig is accurate in my signature. I do not plan to sli or crossfire as i have said i would with my previous 2 cards but ended up going for a new one card version.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the 290x won't even run with that PSU, or at least I could foresee problems as the PSU's life degrades.
The 970 (which is essentially as fast as the 290x) will run fine with that PSU.
 
WildMonkey said:
I don't think the 290x won't even run with that PSU, or at least I could foresee problems as the PSU's life degrades.
The 970 (which is essentially as fast as the 290x) will run fine with that PSU.
Click to expand...
PSU aside. What would you suggest.
 
The 970 will be faster and can OC 20%+ And.. Farcry 4...
 
Stanfiem said:
PSU aside. What would you suggest.
Click to expand...

Essentially they're the same card, the 970 is much more efficient in just about everything, but the 290x is a bit more powerful and better at higher resolutions.

It's a toss-up, it really depends what you want. I would personally go the 970 route if I was only going to use it on a single 1080p monitor for gaming, anything higher, the 290x. If money is a concern, you can find 290s at around $250 with games that you can sell.
 
If the latest games are any indication of future titles I would steer clear of AMD gpus. ACU, CODAW, TEW,A:I and lets assume FC4 all run vastly better on nvidia. Hell Ubisoft is even trying to shift blame to AMD about certain titles. It's either a driver issue on AMDs part or poor optimization for GCN but I would still go with Nvidia for now.
 
Last edited:
naticus said:
If the latest games are any indication of future titles I would steer clear of AMD gpus. ACU, CODAW, TEW,A:I and lets assume FC4 all run vastly better on nvidia. Hell Ubisoft is even trying to shift blame to AMD about certain titles. It's either a driver issue on AMDs part or poor optimization for GCN but I would still go with Nvidia for now.

*inb4 AMD shoot me -- but the evidence is here and recent AAA releases are tanking on AMD hardware.
Click to expand...

I kinda of wish i had a GTX 980 to be honest over my r9 290x... the AMD drivers are pissing me off... i have COD AW running better after upgrading off the 8350 to a 4790k.. I just want off AMD now... however i am seeing alot of coil whine threads with those new nvidias.
 
Stanfiem said:
I want to know what will be better Im looking at these 2 cards. Ive looked at reviews and such but I just want to know if going for an older 290x is worth the jump at 1080p
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832 =970
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127773= 290x

Games i play are skyrim fully modded. Assassins creed unity far cry 4. All on a 42 inch tv. Right now with my 660 and 2500k at 4.3 ghz I get around 20 fps in assassin creed unity and 30-50 with a fair amount of graphics mods. I want to be able to load skyrim up with a ridiculous amount of mods as it has been my dream for years now. WIth just every texture mod i can find. This will also be for the new GTA 5. While it is all speculation at this point I am just going to assume it will be fairly demanding.

My rig is accurate in my signature. I do not plan to sli or crossfire as i have said i would with my previous 2 cards but ended up going for a new one card version.
Click to expand...

GTA V would be highly speculative.

AC:U currently runs better on Nvidia. Farcry 3 would likely be the same. You also can get 1 or the other for free as part of the bundle.

Skyrim is a bit tricky. The only review site I'm aware of tested Skyrim as being faster on the 290x over the GTX 970. The issue here is most people are of course referring to running with mods and likely with ENB which is not how it was tested and would affect the results. Also from my experience with owning a 7950 (albeit a different architecture than the 290x) Skyrim still had issues with it (and not just the micro-stuttering) and this was after the driver update that supposedly addressed this and a wide variety of tweaks were attempted to address the issue. The other problem with this is how it plays will be very subjective if you ask user opinions, especially if there is no control over what relative comparison point they have and their individual sensitivity level to the issues. In my case I did have Nvidia hardware to cross compare.

Also in our case the 970 would slot better in with your existing PSU.

naticus said:
If the latest games are any indication of future titles I would steer clear of AMD gpus. ACU, CODAW, TEW,A:I and lets assume FC4 all run vastly better on nvidia. Hell Ubisoft is even trying to shift blame to AMD about certain titles. It's either a driver issue on AMDs part or poor optimization for GCN but I would still go with Nvidia for now.
Click to expand...

There are recent releases that favor Hawaii over GM204 as well. Such as Ryse, Shadows of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition. Also I'm not sure what your acronyms are referring, if A:I is Alien: Isolation the data shows it favors AMD over Nvidia, albeit the difference is largely academic at 1080p with cards of this class.
 
limitedaccess said:
There are recent releases that favor Hawaii over GM204 as well. Such as Ryse, Shadows of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition. Also I'm not sure what your acronyms are referring, if A:I is Alien: Isolation the data shows it favors AMD over Nvidia, albeit the difference is largely academic at 1080p with cards of this class.
Click to expand...

Beyond earth using Mantle, godlike experience.
1080p any card at these classes will run well.
I am going to play dragon age inq so utlizing my 290 for that game going to be a treat.

It depends on games you play, I would check that before you decide what card to buy.
 
You wont see a difference between the two cards, simple as that. Unless you are a synthetics whore, otherwise no difference whatsoever!
 
Igroock said:
You wont see a difference between the two cards, simple as that. Unless you are a synthetics whore, otherwise no difference whatsoever!
Click to expand...

Performance wise yes - but he will feel the diffrence beetween his pc dumping 300 watts with gtx 970 and 450 Watts into his room with 290X.

Stuff like physX, easy to use DSR and drivers that require less cpu power are also on Nvidia side.
 
Michaelius said:
Performance wise yes - but he will feel the diffrence beetween his pc dumping 300 watts with gtx 970 and 450 Watts into his room with 290X.

Stuff like physX, easy to use DSR and drivers that require less cpu power are also on Nvidia side.
Click to expand...

Oh please, enough with the heat. Unless he lives in a closet then you might have a point. I have two R9 cards and it only gets hot during summer days if I game for hours, which is rare. Less power is another moot point, its a few dollar savings in the entire year, marginal savings.
 
not to mention if its starting of winter for where you live right now heck the heat is not a bad thing at all:)
 
Last edited:
For 1080p and the games you play go with the GTX 970 G1 Gaming or ASUS GTX 970 Strix.
 
Two factors: 1080p (1) and 520w PSU (2)

Get the 970. I only got a 290X because I just upgraded to it last month so I was able to buy one used and $100 cheaper ($250) and I didn't have to change my PSU.

If you had a 750w PSU and were above 1080p it could be debated, but you're not and you don't so the answer IMO is no brainer.
 
For peoples' performance reference: 970 vs. the 290X "Uber" mode.

Pretty even across the board @ HD resolutions, but the 290X does have the edge at HD+ levels.

My personal recommendation would be the 290X. I feel it provides a better experience than the 970 above HD resolutions.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the same boat as OP and have been bouncing back and forth over which one for a couple weeks now. When the 290X's were around $40 cheaper a couple weeks ago it was a lot easier to want them. Now that they're evening out pretty much the GTX 970 is what I'm leaning to the most. It is slightly faster although I'm not sure you'd actually notice the difference in real world play. However it sucks down a lot less juice and that's always a nice perk. The heat of the 290x will be a little more but with aftermarket coolers like the MSI Gaming or especially the Powercolor PCS+, you can get temps down on the low 70's which is still warmer than the mid 60's you'll get with the 970.

So bottom line for me is that with their prices being about the same, the GTX 970 is the better card. Slightly faster, cooler and more power efficient. But I may change my mind tomorrow. That MSI 290X Lightning for $350 sale on Newegg yesterday almost had me pulling the trigger. Can't go wrong with either but I think the 970 is a little better card all around.

Also, your PSU will be fine. It's the bare minimum you'll want as a 290X can draw near 400 watts from the wall under max load.
 
MacLeod said:
I'm in the same boat as OP and have been bouncing back and forth over which one for a couple weeks now. When the 290X's were around $40 cheaper a couple weeks ago it was a lot easier to want them. Now that they're evening out pretty much the GTX 970 is what I'm leaning to the most. It is slightly faster although I'm not sure you'd actually notice the difference in real world play. However it sucks down a lot less juice and that's always a nice perk. The heat of the 290x will be a little more but with aftermarket coolers like the MSI Gaming or especially the Powercolor PCS+, you can get temps down on the low 70's which is still warmer than the mid 60's you'll get with the 970.

So bottom line for me is that with their prices being about the same, the GTX 970 is the better card. Slightly faster, cooler and more power efficient. But I may change my mind tomorrow. That MSI 290X Lightning for $350 sale on Newegg yesterday almost had me pulling the trigger. Can't go wrong with either but I think the 970 is a little better card all around.

Also, your PSU will be fine. It's the bare minimum you'll want as a 290X can draw near 400 watts from the wall under max load.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, I have a XFX DD R9 290x and i havent been like, holy shit that thing is on fire.. last night i gamed on it for 3 - 4 hrs.. thing kept pretty cool..
 
atp1916 said:
Red vs Green fanboy flamewar in 3....2....
Click to expand...

A little lat for that as you are on page 2 already.Plus everyone has been pretty civil.

I went with the MSI gaming 970 card on newegg. Should get here by Wednesday Considering they are about the same in performance and one is about 20 dollars cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

As I posted the link I now see it is out of stock. Good thing I ordered it last night
 
Last edited:
Stanfiem said:
A little lat for that as you are on page 2 already.Plus everyone has been pretty civil.

I went with the MSI gaming 970 card on newegg. Should get here by Wednesday Considering they are about the same in performance and one is about 20 dollars cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

As I posted the link I now see it is out of stock. Good thing I ordered it last night
Click to expand...

Great choice! Incase you don't know:
For DSR it's in the nVidia control panel, turn it on and select your multipliers. Then in the game you'll see higher resolutions than your monitors native. You just select the resolution you want and the card will automatically downscale to the native res.

There's BIOs mods out that pretty much remove the TDP limit and allows you to up voltage to 1.3ish volts. It also removes voltage throttling (which can cause instability with high OCs) I swear I've seen a lot of 970s hit mid 1500s they seem to OC a little better than the 980.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Ok so I got it installed today and am pretty satisfied. It overclocks nicely so i am happy about that.

Im stable in unigine Heaven benchmark at 1556 gpu clock and 3915 (7830) memory clock. Or +240 gpu +410 memory. I can clock to +500 memory but when i try to add the gpu clock the drivers crash. So i am going to leave it at this for right now. The only game I have tested it on is far cry 4 and i am pretty satisfied with the performance. The powerlimit is set to 110% with no voltage overclock. If i get a better PSU in the future i am going to try and overclock the voltage but for right now ill just leave it at that.

In far cry 4 with everything maxed and SMAA I get around 50-60 fps with dips in the 40's some times. WIth my 660 I was getting 15-30 fps. So it is pretty nice. I have not tested it with my overclock yet. So we will see the perofrmace increase with the overlcock
 
Last edited:
Good choice, in these situations, I usually end up getting the one with the best free game (FC4 in this case). Plus nVidia tends to have better drivers.
 
techspot just made a performance review of far Cry 4 and nvidia really sucks on driver performance. as of now for FC4 AMD is the way to go, based on their conclusion.
 
63jax said:
techspot just made a performance review of far Cry 4 and nvidia really sucks on driver performance. as of now for FC4 AMD is the way to go, based on their conclusion.
Click to expand...

Because nVidia led in all the charts? A little strange since it's nVidia sponsored... but it released yesterday. Give it a few weeks. Saying AMD is the way to go is jumping the gun. OC vs OC the new nVidia cards still pummel AMD.

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page4.html
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
Because nVidia led in all the charts? A little strange since it's nVidia sponsored... but it released yesterday. Give it a few weeks. Saying AMD is the way to go is jumping the gun. OC vs OC the new nVidia cards still pummel AMD.

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page4.html
Click to expand...

Why would they not use the highest settings in a benchmark? They didn't use any of the Gameworks options in the test. Can't AMD cards still utilize Gameworks settings? Who on a high end Nvidia GPU would not use the Gameworks settings? LOL.

Rather a fail benchmark comparison IMO.
 
Here an example of my issue with how people interpret avg fps (and raw performance) results in general.

The OP is playing at 1080p60fps (1080p TV as display). The closest test on the techspot review is 1920x1200, which shows both the 970 and 290x as over 60fps but the 290x is faster. This is being interpreted as the 290x is the better experience, but is this the case? Both cards have FPS well into the playable threshold for the OPs display. However the 970 can enable certain settings, such as HBAO+ and PCSS, that is not available to the 290x.
 
DSR is just plain awesome. I run at 2X which essentially turns my 1080 monitor into a 1440. So nice.
 
toddw said:
Two factors: 1080p (1) and 520w PSU (2)

Get the 970. I only got a 290X because I just upgraded to it last month so I was able to buy one used and $100 cheaper ($250) and I didn't have to change my PSU.

If you had a 750w PSU and were above 1080p it could be debated, but you're not and you don't so the answer IMO is no brainer.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. OP, good choice going with the 970.
 
Not to derail but what about 780 vs 970?
Maybe even 780ti since they are coming down in price.

I've been looking at the 290's since I've seen them dip below $200. The 4GB is inticing. But if the 780/ti is within $100 of the $200 and below price should I buy?
 
Igroock said:
Oh please, enough with the heat. Unless he lives in a closet then you might have a point. I have two R9 cards and it only gets hot during summer days if I game for hours, which is rare. Less power is another moot point, its a few dollar savings in the entire year, marginal savings.
Click to expand...

I had a single 580 gtx and that thing heated my room up noticeably moreso than my 980 gtx does. Seriously it was a major difference. And no i'm not "living in a closet".
 
If you can get a 970/980 there is no reason to get a 780 or a 780ti - as far as I can tell.
They perform similar and with the new options available in the 9xx series the 7xx series is almost obsolete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top