So, GTX 780 or 970? They're both going for about the same price on ebay.
how in the holy hell is a few dbs twice the noise? I guess compared to 1db, 2 db is twice the noise, but otherwise the well made card is going to be silent.
You are paying for less DX12 support and less VRAM with the 970, not to mention less performance.
You can get 390s new for around $300
>drivers not a problem
So tossing between buying Kepler who's drivers Nvidia purposely fucked up to make you buy Maxwell or a product that was fucked on release which Nvidia tried to keep secret. None.
Unless you specifically want a reference card, all aftermarket coolers perform at the same temperatures no matter if it's a 390 or 970.
Only buy one of those if you are really desperately trying to save cash otherwise you'd really be much better off with a R9 390 or a new GTX 970 only if you love Nvidia so much. It's not worth saving a bit of cash and not having 2 or 3 years warranty you get with a new card.
That's what I find shocking actually. After all the fuck ups from Nvidia, everyone still bashes AMD for problems that are either insignificant or don't exist.
No one cared about efficiency and temps when it was fermi vs HD6xxx series, but now GCN vs maxwell and everyones jumping on that shit.
but if they're still under warranty you can get it replaced?
AMD graphics cards work better with intel processors m8.
something about driver overhead, but that won't be a problem for much longer.
it wasn't part of why I chose amd the price
I chose the cpu to match brand
for the price of how much amd cpu is they preform nice but I think they should try to do better cpus next time
I consider the people buying 970s as conscious consumers who want a good product with an alright longevity and superior support.
I consider the people buying a 390 as complete morons who cannot comprehend they're buying 50$ worth of 3fps over a 290.
>still on and on with the 3.5 drama
>even though it gets the same fps as AMDshits 8 gig cards
I think it's sadder that a card with a full 8 gigs and a supposed wider bus can't do better than a card with 2.8 times less the ram and a gimped bus.
>doesn't realise that a card with high fps can still stutter
>supposed wider bus
>shilling a card advertised as 256 bit and 4GB
>Is actually 3..5+0.5GB and 224+32 bit.
Yeah, yeah your rebranded piece of shit is the best card of the century.
>290 Watts under load
It's a refresh, the chips are new and made with an improved process which is why they have higher stock speeds , much like with intel's devil's canyon CPUs
notice how the stock 390 beats out a 290x
Also the 980 in that picture had to have been heavily overclocked unless there was a CPU bottleneck in the system
>The card that performs better and has more VRAM has a higher TDP
Stop the fucking presses anon, the TDP difference between the cards is 100W.
Also the saphire 390 overclocks like shit apparently.
>3 fps for 50$
>1fps over the 3.5GB card
>by showing a 970 easily beats out 390
>390 only can OC for a 4fps gain
1fps over the 3.5gb card at 1440p, what happens if you want to crossfire your cards and run games at 4k?
The point is it's 3fps, with less cores, on a lower binned chip, the difference between a 290x and 390x is a bit wider than that, and the 300 series are going to overclock better giving you more headroom
What happens in GTAV when the 970 hits it's limit?
The sapphire cards do not overclock well, the MSI cards can get up to 1150 Mhz compared to 1070 on average
the VRAM on the MSI card is being properly cooled while the sapphire card is not touching it
here, have that as comparison
>oh no, the better performing card uses more power
>the one and only game that has an AMD logo in it's intro matters in benchmarks
Does it really?
>Still beats the more expensive 970 in performance
yeah, you'll have to excuse me as I purchase an AMD card instead, feel free to throw your money at Nvidia so they squat over you and feed you premium shit though.
>almost 20 FPS performance gao
Also check out this gtx 980 I found online lmao
I have a similar problem, would you recommend me a 970 or 780Ti?
I have a 680 and have massive issues because I play @4K. Need a solution to play Warframe and games like BF4 until Pascal comes out.
Tending to a Ti, because it has true VRAM and 384-bit, which usually leads to a better highres performance.
Tried that, looks blurry like shit. It seems my 2 GB VRAM causes the problem even in mid settings.
>only shadow of mordor
>not combinated bench of 23 games
Nop, the 390 is a super oc 290 with extra vram
Is AMD the way to go about 6 months down the road or so? I'm being told porting games to DX12 is actually easier than DX11, and that AMD blows nvidia out of the water for DX12. Is this true?
>believing anything either company says about the future
Everyone fucking lies and exaggerates their claims. Who knows. AMD supposedly has better DX12 support and this is where they placed all their bets on. But considering AMD has had a terrible track record for drivers for 10 years I wouldn't hold my breath. They'll fuck something up for sure.
Nvidia on the other hands will just nickle and dime you to buy their new Pascal GPUs with "full DX12" support.
You're fucked either way, just choose a red or green cock and sit on it.
>people actually buy furys
Can't stop myself from smh irl to tell you the truth.
Just as bad as Titanshills.
>tfw i like to play lots of games
>some games are rigged by nvidia
>so i buy an nvidia gpu instead of an amd and pretending that synthetics matter
AMD users cucked again
What do you tell your friends when they want to play an Nvidia game? "Sorry, I'm an AMD cuck"?
Their TDPs are 148 and 275 watts.
I know. I'm currently on SLI'd 560 Ti 448s, but for cash reasons I want to replace them with a single card and then down the line SLI that card when the price drops under a hundred bucks. It worked well for my 560ti 448.
Also according to this random forum post this guy was getting stuttering with his 970
>It's a refresh, the chips are new and made with an improved process which is why they have higher stock speeds
That "improved process" is simply applying an overclock.
There's next to no 290/x that couldn't reach 1100mhz.
Yeah, that's the rub. On benchmarks my current setup looks very nice, actually beating some 970s in Heaven with a 1450 and getting about 25% less in 3dmark 11 with a score of 11,000. However, some games just run like dogshit inexplicably. ARK won't go above 22fps on medium, The Forest on medium runs at about 38fps, Planet Explorers on medium does a good 45fps.
I would go with the 970. It has a few newer features that are going to be taken advantage of in new games that will make the difference between it and the 780 more noticeable as time goes by.
Additionally, the GTX 970 draws far less power, has .5gb more VRAM, and will run cooler. Overall it is a nicer and more advanced card.
The 780 still has quite a bit of brute strength left in it to play demanding games, but if you can go with the newer card I'd do it.
Is this actually real?
this post was me and I started this shit storm
>all these shills defending AMD's drivers
>CCC silently crashes when opened and no amount of uninstalling and reinstalling, updating or manually removing all references to AMD drivers or CCC causes the issue to be fixed. the only solution is to reinstall OS.
>CCC ignores your settings changes when you click 'apply', sometimes it crashes instead
>gaming on linux: extreme stuttering, and when it 'works' it's still 50% of window's perf
>no support for any GPU older than 5000 series despite GPUs before it, back to the 2000 series, being the same architecture
>no DX12 support for 5000 or 6000 series
color compressions been a technique used for over a decade now by both sides to save memory bandwidth, it's nothing new or cutting edge.
AMD hasn't made good CPUs in over a decade, everything since phenom has been a disaster.
Okay? Can you now show the unshielded processor die?
If it was a rebrand it would preform exactly the same at stock, it's generally around 10% better due to higher stock clock speeds, it also has double the VRAM at stock
It's the inherent overhead in AMD's DX11 implementation that AMD refuses to acknowledge or fix because it makes their cards look better in DX12 benchmarks.
>it's generally around 10% better due to higher stock clock speeds
a factory OC does not make it a refresh
>it also has double the VRAM at stock
there were 8gb 290s and 290x's being sold before the 300 series
>But the 290 is not an 8gb card at stock
not sure what you mean, IHVs can't just put more vram on the card, AMD designed them and sold them alongside the 4gb variants
>and it's not really a factory OC when the card can run at higher stock clocks on average because the chips are better made
the default core clock for a 390x is 1050mhz, the default for a 290x is 1000mhz, any 290x would be able to achieve the same clock.
they also perform the same, clock-for-clock: http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1434612549l1GBQzJE5q_9_1_l.gif
I've never had ccc crash on my laptop fam, you must be doing something wrong.
Have you tried hitting your head against the wall until you see the light? That should cure the disease you have known as Nvidiocracy
True, it must be winter over there, or being very close to it
Oh fuck I should mentioned I am Canadian so the prices are a bit higher over here (.77 to the Us while in 2011 it was .93 to the U.S).
This link has what available to me in that price range.