I have a gtx 980 in my main rig right now, and looking back, I really should have gotten the 390x. It is much cheaper, while faster than the gtx 980 and 970 in some games. A reason to choose a gtx 9xx series card over the r9 2xx/3xx series would be better overclockability and lower power draw.
Well said, i think the same but oh well, sure that nvidia performs really well in old games (until fallout 4, newer games are performing bad in the 970) but right now, nope 0 future proof, i wont take that mistake again in the future. 3.5gb sucks.
There were always some games which performed better on AMD than NVIDIA (Shadow of Mordor, FarCry 4). So why the sudden gloom? Besides, man, you have a GTX 970 OC'ed that is better than a stock, reference 980. You should celebrate money well spent
I'll skip next gen but if things go like that, it seems AMD is far more future proof and nvidia is short terms GPU. they might do it on purpose to milk and cash more and more. I'll go red next time, really starting hate nvidia, despite the fact that 980TI is the best card, i have no idea how future proof it is vs Fury.
In my opinion current offerings from both vendors will become obsolete as soon as pascal & Polaris hit the market. There's no such thing as future proofing in pc gaming. I believe that in 1-2 years time neither 980ti nor Fury X will be able to handle games at 60fps in FHD without dropping details to medium/high. Just look at 680/770 or 7970/280x. 3 years ago these gpus were top tier offerings... Now none of them can provide smooth experience in current AAA titles without lowering graphic details.
yet 280X is leagues ahead of 770 which dropped of radar long time ago, it aged way better and now equal to 780, which costed 650$ when 7970 was half price from it. 780TI costed 200$ more than 290x, and 290x spanks it at every single game, even if 780ti will be faster by 1 or 2 fps or equal in performance, it's a big win for 290X which was the better gpu all along. AMD cards age better nvidia does not, but you right there is no future proof.
Well I can agree that GCN aged better than Kepler. But what aged better: Fermi or Terascale? We're yet to see how the whole 'ageing' goes for Maxwell vs GCN. Will check in 2 years time (and something tells me that both you & I will then own Polaris or Pascal rebrands. )
From a future, resale, to upgrade, stand point. I would say the AMD card would be a better choice, simply due to the amount of Mem, as well as the potential Async Compute being heavily used in future games. Personally, I try to sell as much old gear as possible to reduce upgrade costs as much as possible.
Come on, be happy with your 980ti, its a best card at the market. Saying that i think 980ti is only card that actually worth buying from nvidia atm. 980/970/960 are bellow their competition. 390X/390/380X are a better equipped and a better choice.
R9 390 won vs gtx 970 on Gear of Wars DX12, by a large margin (15-20fps in some scenes). goo.gl/2qwvM4
a few times the 970 had upper hand, Gears of war is bad game to base your judge on, but i would go for 390 any day, 970 and 980 lost their value already. In fact all the cards lost their value as next gen almost here.
I don't even get how some guys would consider the 970 to be the better choice, those 3.5GB are just not enough for 2016.
You're starting to get annoying. I don't give a **** if it wins in any one game. My point is if you overclock a 970 it trades blows with a 390X, provided you're not memory limited. Even if a 390 outperforms a 970 in GoW, it doesn't in most other games, and if you factor in the oc the 390's lead dissipates. You ignored all the benchmark numbers from the OP, you ignored my explanation for the OC argument and you continue cherry picking results in which a 390 beats a 970 at stock
I'm not, i know the 970 can match the r9 390 with OC, but the breach is like 15-20fps in most of the games (new ones, not absolution, fallout 4, which are from the 2015). 2016 games. So you will have to OC your card to win 10-15fps to match the r9 390 stock, again, 2016 games. I already did the math: floating-point performance: R9 390 = 5,120 GFLOPS stock 1000mhz GTX 970 = 3,494 GFLOPS stock 1050mhz So OCed will be: R9 390 = 1190mhz x 2560 x 2 = 6,092 GFLOPS GTX 970 = 1560mhz x 1664 x 2 = 5,191 GFLOPS You have to keep in mind that most of the new if not all are using Async which is helping AMD and also games are made for GCN architecture in consoles. Nice comparison, would like to see something like that but with Gear of Wars, Hitman 2016, Need for Speed 2016, Ashes, The Division, Rises of the Tomb Raider, Farcry primal. Those games and the games that Ieldra is showing we already know the 970 its a good match.
I will continue to buy nvidia because have found less driver issues over the yrs and I just dont think AMD are as good in terms of support etc. Whether or not a 390 is faster than my current gpu is irrelevant to me. The whole AMD vs Nvidia argument will go on and on but I believe with nvidia you are getting the better product. Of course I would love to spend less money but I'd rather pay more as it stands.
I dont think nvidia is better than amd with driver support Nvidia are forced to make driver for every game to optimize the shaders for there gpu wail AMD need to optimize the cpu work for the games with cpu overhead with out driver optimization
