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

Gaming

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more

Computing

Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Value

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

8.5

Overall Score

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

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
More shading units 2,560 vs 1,664 896 more shading units
More texture mapping units 160 vs 104 56 more texture mapping units
Slightly more render output processors 64 vs 56 8 more render output processors
Wider memory bus 512 bit vs 256 bit 2x wider memory bus
Front view of GeForce GTX 970

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970

Report a correction
Better PassMark score 8,666 vs 7,421 More than 15% better PassMark score
Higher clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 1,000 MHz 5% higher clock speed
Higher effective memory clock speed 7,012 MHz vs 6,000 MHz More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed
Significantly higher bioshock infinite framerate 107.6 vs 59 More than 80% higher bioshock infinite framerate
Higher memory clock speed 1,753 MHz vs 1,500 MHz More than 15% higher memory clock speed
Better particle simulation score 1,016.2 mInteraction/s vs 854.23 mInteraction/s Around 20% better particle simulation score
Better PassMark direct compute score 4,302 vs 3,492 Around 25% better PassMark direct compute score
Significantly lower TDP 148W vs 275W More than 45% lower TDP

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

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
595.4 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 970
189.15 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
112.42 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 970
148.75 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 390
3,046.61 frames/s
GeForce GTX 970
1,576.36 frames/s

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Bioshock Infinite

Metro: Last Light

Reviews Word on the street

Radeon R9 390  vs GeForce GTX 970 

8.6
9.7
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.
59 FPS on bioshock was it tested with Vsync I had more than that on r9 270X
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
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
Okay, but remember that GPUboss is flawed in every single way. It's nowhere near as good as www.userbenchmark.com
They actually did make the first dedicated gpu; the GeForce 256.
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
No, it is equal at 4K, which is where they excel. Read the article if you didn't.
You're slightly wrong. It is technically the spiritual successor to the 290, as some features of it are very VERY similar imo
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.
LUL to people that use this website. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_390_Nitro/23.html http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_primal_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_division_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
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
Maxwell cards OC better than GCN as of now. You can buy factory overclocked Maxwell GPUs at 1.2GHz.
That's TDP, not average usage.
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)
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
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....
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.
lol you cant think asychronously.
The power difference is massive and it's in favor of Nvidia. Even if the performance was similar, the performance per watt is so different. It's almost like using a beefed up older technology on the AMD side (judging from the power efficiency comparison).
bullshit comparison don't buy gtx 970 http://i.imgur.com/Wcq4OBo.gif
This is a pathetic website.
dx12 390 surpasses 970 greatly with almost any title. DX11 equal or better with the latest driver. So yea. if you buy a graphics card now (which you shouldn't with Polaris / Pascal coming) then you should buy a 390 instead of a 970
Im not a fan boy, I have both AMD and Nvidia, I actually use to hate Nvidia as a company but when I got the gtx 970 I choose because of its lower powerdraw and around the same performance as AMD at the time. I have 5770, 6970 7770 AMDs I have like 8 computers in a lan and I just shuffle old cards into the other machines the 970 was a good combination of performance and power draw from 1080p gaming. If AMD had a similar card at the same price that drew less power then I would have got it. Nothing against AMD.
uh....where did you get that from? look up who made the first GPU it was not nvidia technically it was Intel and AMD who first started making CPU's then iGPU's where created now Graphics cards are now a thing (nvidea did not make them first though)
AMD is actually more efficient than nvidea go look at the chip-set of nvideas cards over the years compared to AMD's chip-sets in cards AMD's are smaller and pack a big punch while nvidea has been making the size bigger and bigger thought the years
comments powered by Disqus