Buying new card, asking for opinions GTX 780 vs R9 290

[railven]

Asking for some opinions. High chance I might go and pick up a new card tomorrow. Done with SLI (who ever said it is better than Crossfire, I hope you choke on your propaganda pamphlets!)

I know this isn't even a big upgrade, but if I can get rid of the headaches associated with mGPU then I'm willing to spend money.

The cards I'm looking at are:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/429293/R9290_Gaming_4G_AMD_R9_290_4GB_PCIe_x_16_30_Video_Card
vs
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...e_GTX_780_3072MB_GDDR5_PCIe_30_x16_Video_Card

As far as I can see from review sites, the R9 290 seems to be the better deal. As of now, Mantle is not something I'm concerned with, as for PhysX I can always do a Hybrid setup (have done so successfully in the past.)

My main concern is driving a 1440p monitor. SLI 660 Ti's run out of VRAM in certain applications (1.5GBs of usable VRAM on a 2GB card, really NV?).


So basically to anyone who owns a 290, have custom coolers really satisfied the noise/heat issues? That was my main concern with even looking at a Hawaii based AMD card. Thankfully the price gouging seems to have settled a bit why I'm even entertaining the thought.

I have $200 in Microcenter GC so before you start linking me to "you can get x-card cheaper here" those are my two options.

I keep leaning towards the 780, but it's a stock cooler, not sure how it will handle versus the TF cooler that comes with the MSI.

Rest of the system is in sig. Thanks for any feedback.

 

[Techhog]

How far in the past are you talking with hybrid set-ups? Because that's not allowed anymore without workarounds.

Anyway, the 780 overclocks way better than the 290, so if you want to overclock the choice is obvious.

 

[wand3r3r]

I'd take the 290 and here's why.

It's equal or faster.
Custom cooler fixes the only two flaws the reference card has (noise/heat).
XDMA crossfire if you get the urge later on. I know you are sick of dual gpu but bf4 and the new crossfire + mantle = bliss.

Side benefits:
Ever so slightly cheaper.
512 bit bus (future thoughts)

Bonus: Mining if you ever get the urge or if BTC hits $10k.

The 780 is a decent card, it just doesn't have anything over the 290 except the price, and possibly slightly with overclocking but I don't think the reference card is the best 780 ocer anyway.

I just noticed [h] reviewed the 290x gaming.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/03/31/msi_radeon_r9_290x_gaming_4g_video_card_review

 

[blake0812]

I'd go with Nvidia on this, personally because I had a miserable experience with ATI drivers and I haven't had any problem with my GTX 760.

But hey, to each his own, right?

 

[desprado]

i would take Nvidia any time .I have both R9 290 and GTX 780.

R9 290 only runs Sleeping Dogs and BF4 better other that Nvidia takes all leads.
Nvidia pros
Better overclocking
Better Driver
Better Cooling
Less noise
but it is expensive.

Only pro of Amd in my mind is that it is cheaper.

 

[Liquid_Static]

I had an r9 290 and let me tell you, it was the most OBNOXIOUS card I have ever had. Ever. My SLI 780 system is quieter, even when overclocked...While the 290 is faster, the trades to get there just aren't worth it.

 

[tviceman]

With the recent drivers, the 780 is generally faster and it will more than likely overclock better (if that's something you are considering). However, the gaming 290 has an excellent cooler on it and should be quieter, assuming your case has decent airflow. I have a 780 running 24/7 at 1189 core / 6900 mem (without adjusting voltage) and it's about 5% faster on average than reference-reviewed gtx 780 TI's. I am very happy with it.

For the price difference, though, it truly is a toss up. Go with your gut.

 

[Attic]

Generally the 290 vs 780 is a fairly even comparison.

A 290 with non reference cooler alleviates the biggest problem with the original 290, heat and noise. Sapphire and Powercolor have the best non reference coolers for the 290. With prices coming back to earth now I'd take the 290 over the 780 and would consider a 290 vs 780ti if I wanted more power than the 290 has on tap.

Prices between the two are roughly the same with the 290 being slightly cheaper. The 290 has more VRAM, has more mem bandwith, offers true audio/mantle/xdma crossfire.

780 uses less power, has great overclocking potential, and offers physx and some people swear that drivers are better.

Hard to go wrong with either card, but i'd give an edge to the 290.

 

[Subyman]

Nvidia. I went from an R9 290 to a 780 due to a few driver issues and the over clock potential of the 780. I've bounced back and forth between AMD and Nvidia and end up liking the Nvidia cards more each time.

 

[blackened23]

Performance wise, toss a coin. They both perform great. The aftermarket 290s should be fairly quiet and mitigate any issues that were found on reference.

Overclocking? I feel GK110 has an edge. And this is obviously subjective, but I really do feel nvidia's software is much better than AMD's with more value added features. I use driver FXAA, downsampling, adaptive vsync and some other things all the time. Some other folks may not care though.

But it's up to you. Since you've used both green and red before you're well aware of the software pros and cons and whatnot, so just find the best sale price you can. I've seen 780 cards on sale recently (in fact, the MSI gamer 780 is on sale for 450$ after MIR) and there are tons of 290 cards that are at very good price levels now, since scrypt mining profitability has tapered off significantly. I think I saw an XFX 290 DD for like 440$ a few days ago. Performance wise you can't go wrong with either choice, so just pick based on whatever you can get on sale, software, features, etc etc etc. I personally would go with NV, but like tviceman said...go w/ your gut.

 

[Techhog]

I had an r9 290 and let me tell you, it was the most OBNOXIOUS card I have ever had. Ever. My SLI 780 system is quieter, even when overclocked...While the 290 is faster, the trades to get there just aren't worth it.

Only the reference cooler is loud. The MSI Gaming cooler is reasonable.

 

[railven]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I need to find a review with more recent drivers (I should have expected AMD to fall behind.)

If I had to use a "driver" experience as my deciding factor I wouldn't even have posted since my SLI 660 Tis have been nothing but issues (BSOD just updating the drivers, BSOD's from turning SLI on/off.) But I'm not saying anything bad, just tired of the SLI/CFX issues, personally.

I'm probably going to get a 780, I haven't had a high end Nvidia in my rig since 8800. It seems AMD still has a bunch of kinks to work out.

 

[railven]

One last question, while I'm sure it is a moot question: 3GB vs 4GB?

This card is most likely going to replace once Intel usher's in Broadwell, so I doubt I would saturate even 3GBs by then.

Resolution is 1440p, any AA where I can muster it otherwise not needed. 3GB is more than enough, right?

 

[blackened23]

Yeah. 3GB is fine, especially at 1440p. Unless you up SSAA, resolution scale, or SGSSAA to unreasonable levels. Then again, if you do that, you can make a 4 or 6GB card run dry as well.

To put that in context, I've seen 2GB VRAM usage from OGSSAA alone. Switching to FXAA removes that 2GB of VRAM from being used at all. Anyway, If you're just doing normal stuff 3GB is more than fine for 1440p, 1600p, and even surround. If you were doing something like..........triple 1440p or 4k then i'd suggest a 4 or 6GB card, but the reality is you could just use lower AA settings and be fine even then with lower amounts of VRAM.

I don't think you'll have any hitching issues that you noted from the 660ti sli setup.

 

[wand3r3r]

Bf4 crossfire = 4GB full @1200p.

If you ever drop in a 2nd card, or up the resolution it will certainly make a difference. I'd be surprised if 1440p isn't filling 3GB in the latest games with max settings.

 

[Mtt]

I prefer MSI R9 290 personally. Its cheaper, quieter and cooler. If you are lucky it could be unlocked to 290X.

I think you wont notice a difference between 3GB and 4GB unless you do mining.

 

[railven]

Yeah. 3GB is fine, especially at 1440p. Unless you up SSAA, resolution scale, or SGSSAA to unreasonable levels. Then again, if you do that, you can make a 4 or 6GB card run dry as well.

To put that in context, I've seen 2GB VRAM usage from OGSSAA alone. Switching to FXAA removes that 2GB of VRAM from being used at all. Anyway, If you're just doing normal stuff 3GB is more than fine for 1440p, 1600p, and even surround. If you were doing something like..........triple 1440p or 4k then i'd suggest a 4 or 6GB card, but the reality is you could just use lower AA settings and be fine even then with lower amounts of VRAM.

I don't think you'll have any hitching issues that you noted from the 660ti sli setup.

That's good to hear, since I don't plan on keeping this card for another two years (my upgrade cycle got all whack with Intel's delays). I haven't found the need for too much AA going to a 1440p panel. Only game that crushed VRAM was Skyrim but that is fixable haha.

Bf4 crossfire = 4GB full @1200p.

If you ever drop in a 2nd card, or up the resolution it will certainly make a difference. I'd be surprised if 1440p isn't filling 3GB in the latest games with max settings.

I don't play BF and I have zero interest in mGPU, at least for now. Both AMD and Nvidia's options have left a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm hoping by the time 3GBs isn't enough for 1440p 4GB+ is standard for the next generation cards. THis upgrade is more of a impulse pulling hair out buy than a methodical "this card has to last me 48 months."

 

[Face2Face]

Yeah. 3GB is fine, especially at 1440p. Unless you up SSAA, resolution scale, or SGSSAA to unreasonable levels. Then again, if you do that, you can make a 4 or 6GB card run dry as well.

To put that in context, I've seen 2GB VRAM usage from OGSSAA alone. Switching to FXAA removes that 2GB of VRAM from being used at all. Anyway, If you're just doing normal stuff 3GB is more than fine for 1440p, 1600p, and even surround. If you were doing something like..........triple 1440p or 4k then i'd suggest a 4 or 6GB card, but the reality is you could just use lower AA settings and be fine even then with lower amounts of VRAM.

I don't think you'll have any hitching issues that you noted from the 660ti sli setup.

Just curious what game are you seeing that much vram usage with SSAA? Tomb Raider? I have noticed with Metro LL @ 4XSSAA, @ 1440p the vram usage less than 1.7GB, and that's rendering at 5K.

 

[spinejam]

I've been really pleased w/ my Asus gtx780 DC2OC. Overclocked to 1200 core 6800 memory -- never a hiccup! Runs cool and quiet too - something I appreciate now that I game w/o a headset.

 

[blastingcap]

4GB is preferable to 3GB but otherwise it's a tossup unless you absolutely must have Mantle/TrueAudio or PhysX/CUDA/GSync or some other vendor-specific thing.

People say 3GB is enough, but that's for current console ports. It's not clear to me what games developed SOLELY for next-gen consoles will require in terms of VRAM. PS4 has 8GB shared RAM pool for instance, for system/VRAM. PS3 had what, 256MB/256MB system/VRAM?

So it's not inconceivable that next-gen console ports will require much more VRAM at 1440p than old-gen console ports, given that Playstation video memory will increase by an order of magnitude. And by "require" I don't mean bare minimum literally, but rather, what minimum VRAM is necessary for turning details to reasonably high settings.

I guess time will tell..

 

[bystander36]

Just curious what game are you seeing that much vram usage with SSAA? Tomb Raider? I have noticed with Metro LL @ 4XSSAA, @ 1440p the vram usage less than 1.7GB, and that's rendering at 5K.

Are you sure that wasn't SMAA? I also doubt you could have gotten both Downsampling from 5k and SSAA to work together. 1 or the other is likely not happening. The OG version of SSAA is pretty much the same thing as downsampling 5k.

 

[Face2Face]

Are you sure that wasn't SMAA? I also doubt you could have gotten both Downsampling from 5k and SSAA to work together. 1 or the other is likely not happening. The OG version of SSAA is pretty much the same thing as downsampling 5k.

I am using SSAA within the game. See below -

For Last Light, 4A has replaced Multisample Anti-Aliasing with Supersampling Anti-Aliasing (SSAA), which creates a significantly smoother, more detailed image by internally rendering every element of the screen at a higher resolution. In other words, on a player's 1920x1080 monitor, 2X SSAA renders Last Light at 2688x1512 on the GPU before resizing the image to 1920x1080, increasing the amount of detail per pixel. At 3X SSAA the downsample resolution increases to 3264x1836, and at 4X SSAA it is 3840x2160, the resolution of next-gen “4K” monitors and screens.

2560x1440 * 4 samples = 5120x2880

 

[SimsReaper]

I would normally have voted for the 780 without a thought, and I run one right now. I have actually purchased 2 780's, both reference models, and both from different manufacturer's. It did take me probably 10 hours of setup and fiddling, but they are finally running in SLI and Surround without any hiccups (knock on wood). It took me BIOS updates of the cards, the mobo, and two Display Driver Unistaller runs with new driver re-installs, as well as 2 new cable purhases for my monitor, so I definitely understand the frustration with your SLI setup.

That being said, I still vote green. I have not had a good Radeon experience for a very long time. You will always find little issues and nitpicks about any card you buy, no matter the brand, but in my personal experience, Nvidia has always seemed a little quicker to fix their issues. If you can wait a month, they have announced a 6GB GTX 780 that is on the way. EVGA's site may have more info on that, but definitely worth a though if you are running 1440p.

For 2-3 FPS performance difference you may run into, the ONLY thing to base your decision on here is your personal feelings towards the brand, and how you feel they support their products. That is what will make you happy (or mad) in the end, not getting 2 more FPS in-game.

 

[toyota]

"1.5GBs of usable VRAM on a 2GB card, really NV"

that is not true at all. a 660ti has 2gb of ram and can use it all. performance does not trail off when going over 1.5gb on a 660ti. I know this because I owned one for a year and tested the crap out of it. I also had a 192 bit gtx560 se 1gb and it scaled fine passed 768mb too.

 

[escrow4]

Gigabyte Windforce 780 GHz (or the Ti version if you want to spend). Quieter, cooler, and yes I prefer Nvidia's drivers. I seriously doubt "next-gen" (HA) consoles with a tablet SoC will demand that much vRAM or that many threads. Just look at the dumbing down of Watch Dogs.