GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 390 vs 970 among Desktop GPUs

Gaming

Radeon R9 390
6.6
GeForce GTX 970
7.5
GeForce GTX 1060
n.d.
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

Radeon R9 390
8.6
GeForce GTX 970
6.5
GeForce GTX 1060
5.4
T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more

Computing

Radeon R9 390
8.9
GeForce GTX 970
7.2
GeForce GTX 1060
8.6
Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Radeon R9 390
7.8
GeForce GTX 970
8.1
GeForce GTX 1060
8.3
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Value

Radeon R9 390
n.d.
GeForce GTX 970
6.9
GeForce GTX 1060
n.d.
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

Radeon R9 390
7.7
GeForce GTX 970
8.9
GeForce GTX 1060
9.1
TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more
8.1

Overall Score

Radeon R9 390
8.1
GeForce GTX 970
7.3
GeForce GTX 1060
7.5

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970  based on its benchmarks, compute performance and noise and power.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD Radeon R9 390

Front view of Radeon R9 390
Front view of GeForce GTX 970

Nvidia GeForce GTX 970

GPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 390

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon R9 390

Report a correction
Significantly more memory 8,192 MB vs 4,096 MB 2x more memory
Better floating-point performance 5,120 GFLOPS vs 3,494 GFLOPS More than 45% better floating-point performance
Higher texture rate 160 GTexel/s vs 109.2 GTexel/s More than 45% higher texture rate
Significantly more shading units 2,560 vs 1,664 896 more shading units
Significantly more texture mapping units 160 vs 104 56 more texture mapping units
Much wider memory bus 512 bit vs 256 bit 2x wider memory bus
More render output processors 64 vs 56 8 more render output processors
Better face detection score 120.3 mPixels/s vs 105.04 mPixels/s Around 15% better face detection score
Front view of GeForce GTX 970

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970

Report a correction
Higher effective memory clock speed 7,012 MHz vs 6,000 MHz More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed
Slightly better PassMark score 8,563 vs 7,942 Around 10% better PassMark score
Higher memory clock speed 1,753 MHz vs 1,500 MHz More than 15% higher memory clock speed
Significantly lower TDP 148W vs 275W More than 45% lower TDP
Higher metro: last light framerate 83.8 vs 75 More than 10% higher metro: last light framerate
Better PassMark direct compute score 4,375 vs 3,904 More than 10% better PassMark direct compute score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 390 vs GeForce GTX 970

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
607.36 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 970
212.39 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
120.3 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 970
105.04 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
3,168.89 frames/s
GeForce GTX 970
1,225.93 frames/s

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R9 390
72.81
GeForce GTX 970
72.7

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R9 390
418.55
GeForce GTX 970
428.4

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R9 390
21.89
GeForce GTX 970
22.23

Bioshock Infinite

Radeon R9 390
59
GeForce GTX 970
112.8

Metro: Last Light

Radeon R9 390
75
GeForce GTX 970
83.8

Reviews Word on the street

Radeon R9 390  vs GeForce GTX 970 
8.6
read review
9.7
read review
Today, we're reviewing the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SuperClocked ACX, a non-reference design, factory-overclocked GTX 970 graphics card, which comes with a custom-design PCB, and the company's signature ACX cooler, which features an aluminium stack heatsink that uses a trio of copper heat pipes, to draw heat directly from the GPU die, and dissipate it under the airflow of two 80 mm fans.
GeForce GTX 970

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Dan Kennon (08:41 AM, November 16, 2018)
Io credo poco che una 970 a 256 bit possa essere migliore di una 8 gb a 512 Bit
Ibrahim Hapat (06:30 AM, January 17, 2017)
Most sense maker comment.... Even if its so much expensive i would go for low TDP high performance cards. GTX 1050TI would be great for it is just 75 watt. Should check WATTAGE that indicates the least HEAT. Temperature is not a great indicator to heatage, but the power consumption, TDP is. A 300W heater is smilar to this R9 card!
Ibrahim Hapat (06:18 AM, January 17, 2017)
I would go for high performance per Watt Cards, even if it is more expensive. Because this R9 390, 300W+ would incerase your electricity consumption dramatically, to a point of probably +100$ per month more... Saving by buying a 180W GTX1080 would just do fine. OR THE BETTER, You may find insteresting that my favourite is GTx1050TI, ridiculously highest PERFORMANCE/TDP rates ever. And better than R9
agello24 (09:22 PM, August 15, 2016)
its still the same chip. just revamped. AMd clearly told people this at CES 2016. Your comment is also correct.
Frank Daniel Boguszewski (05:34 AM, June 15, 2016)
Why is it always bias? I read a lot of comparisons, I'd say there is an AMD bias..... where is this bias TOWARDS Nvidia, that you speak of? The GTX is the winner..... The r9 390, may be more powerful in many areas, but it's more expensive, and the gtx 970, despite being "less" in many ways, produces higher frame rates.
soham sengupta (03:01 PM, June 8, 2016)
the temp in r9 390 is not that low also, the stat here is wrong
Macj one (04:28 AM, June 8, 2016)
Hey , What about GTA5, Battlefield 4 etc. R9 390 performs better in these games as compared to the GTX 970
Jack Tanton (01:22 PM, May 30, 2016)
I feel like I'm biased toards Nvidia even though I respect AMD far more as a company
Ilia Sadagishvili (07:15 AM, May 21, 2016)
59 FPS on bioshock was it tested with Vsync I had more than that on r9 270X
Chris Cahill (07:12 AM, May 4, 2016)
so in other words a refresh a rebrand means it would be the same card with minor chipset improvements not x2 the vram and all that extra power you get with the 390
Chris Cahill (07:11 AM, May 4, 2016)
yeah also i dont see the power consumption as a factor its a negligible difference imo it would take a few months of life full load to make a real difference on your power bill and i agree with you also i dont like biast ratings at all has to be impartial
INeverCheckMyNotifications (11:24 PM, May 2, 2016)
Okay, but remember that GPUboss is flawed in every single way. It's nowhere near as good as www.userbenchmark.com
Tate Johnson (04:25 PM, May 2, 2016)
They actually did make the first dedicated gpu; the GeForce 256.
tom (08:52 AM, May 1, 2016)
honestly the 390 performs well despite the heat and if your botherd about a few dollars on your bill each month then i dont see how you can afford a PC in the first place that sounded really harsh lol its not im just indicating for people reading just in case haha
NinjaNate2000 (10:44 PM, April 30, 2016)
No, it is equal at 4K, which is where they excel. Read the article if you didn't.
INeverCheckMyNotifications (10:42 PM, April 30, 2016)
You're slightly wrong. It is technically the spiritual successor to the 290, as some features of it are very VERY similar imo
INeverCheckMyNotifications (10:41 PM, April 30, 2016)
I wouldn't stretch the truth that far, my friend. It's cheaper than a 980, therefore it is slower. I would say it's a close runner-up, but it doesn't beat it.
muhanad (09:00 AM, April 26, 2016)
do people know the difference between power consumption and heat? can you really be that stupid ? http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sapphire-Nitro-380-390-Charts-Temps.jpg
p-tates (09:19 PM, April 25, 2016)
Maxwell cards OC better than GCN as of now. You can buy factory overclocked Maxwell GPUs at 1.2GHz.
p-tates (09:11 PM, April 25, 2016)
That's TDP, not average usage.
p-tates (09:07 PM, April 25, 2016)
TBH: the people parroting the stories about the Nvidia drivers crashing some systems is done by AMD fan boys. It might be blown out of proportion (as was done with ATI/AMD back in the day)
James (07:59 AM, April 25, 2016)
Well, look at their CompuBench 1.5 scores and compare them to this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1594?vs=1595 Same trend. Differences section simply lists data points on each card. People are so upset about minuscule differences in a gpuboss score. Then then they go and mention other sites where the same thing is shown that is shown here. Here are two answers from Tom's which basically say buy whichever is cheaper: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2800413/390-gtx-970.html http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2707555/390-geforce-gtx-970.html
phenomgamer (06:20 AM, April 24, 2016)
well, both sides have advantages, and disadvantages, nvidia is more power efficient, but too expensive....on the other hand, amd is too power consumer, but cheaper....and the performance on both brands is more or less the same....
TessellatedGuy (01:35 PM, April 23, 2016)
I don't need to. Because my point is pretty clear and maybe you should use some common sense to get what I said. Dumb kid.
CompetitionLover (01:32 PM, April 23, 2016)
lol you cant think asychronously.
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

GPUBoss