Is the 290(x) Going to Outlive a GTX 970?

[poofyhairguy]

So one thing that kinda sticks out to me as someone who has only recently gotten into PC gaming more the last year or so is how (with full 20/20 hindsight) much better the 7970 was than its competition for current games. The GTX 680 was very highly regarded when it was released, I can find more than one review from then recommending it over a 7970 GHz and defending the 2GB of RAM, and yet here we are in 2015 and that 2GB of RAM is a hindrance even at 1080p and the GPU compare tool shows the 7970 to be a CLEAR longterm winner especially when you look at the 280x (which you have to assume is just the 7970 GHz with newer/better drivers right?):

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1348?vs=1041

Why I bring this up is I feel there is an similiar situation with a GTX 970. When you look at current game benchmarks the 970 pretty much always beats a 290 and often beats the 290x, especially at 1080p. I haven't found a solid example of a current game that uses over 3.5 GB of RAM but not over 4GB at 1080p (that has settings that run at playable rates), which shows me that currently there is nothing to really put the 290 or 290(x) over the 970. But then I look at the history of the 680 vs the 7970 and I wonder: Will the 290 win out long term? Will the 290x?

I know there are a lot of other things that go into this equation that makes the current battle a little different than the one from yesteryear: Does Gameworks cut into a future AMD edge? Does the fact that the 390 is kinda a rehash almost guarantee future driver optimizations for a 290(x) that a Maxwell GPU won't get in the Pascal era? Do the consoles hold back 1080p gaming to current levels making it a wash? Does better tessellation performance win over asynchronous compute as the thing to have in abundance going forward?

Thank you in advance for any input.

 

[wand3r3r]

My guess is that GCN in consoles + the optimizations AMD keeps making will make the 290/x out perform the 970 in the long run.

I also question how long they will manage the 3.5 GB limitations once the next architecture comes out. Looking at kepler falling behind rapidly doesn't look inspiring for the 970, imo.

It's hard to say, that's just my guess.

 

[poofyhairguy]

My guess is that GCN in consoles + the optimizations AMD keeps making will make the 290/x out perform the 970 in the long run.

Does the console boost really help this generation like it did the last one? You have to figure Nvidia designed Maxwell with what works with the current consoles in mind, benchmarks at least seem to show that. I get that part of the reason that the 7970 pulled ahead was because the Kepler in the 680 didn't jive with the direction gaming went because of consoles. I have to assume that if Maxwell had the same issues then current ports would play poorly.

What I wonder more about is the other side of your guess- will the 390 and the 390x boost the 290 and 290x long term with new optimizations? How much of the 7970's long-term victory was the fact that Tahiti it was in the market longer than the 680/770?

I also question how long they will manage the 3.5 GB limitations once the next architecture comes out. Looking at kepler falling behind rapidly doesn't look inspiring for the 970, imo.

Is it something that is very hard for them to manage? At some level just treat it like 3.5 GB of ram right? I know people got REALLY bent out of shape about the whole 3.5 gigs thing, but now that it's known is there any real reason to think that some game will use over 3.5 gigs but under 4gb at playable framerates (outside of SLI)? On the Kelper thing, I thought that was basically a few games that got later patches which are optimized for Kelper? The worst I see in that is that Nvidia didn't fix the problem until the community pitched a fit (Warner Bros Style), but you have to figure with how popular the 970 is that they won't be able to abandon it any time soon. Or am I wrong?

Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it!

 

[wand3r3r]

Does the console boost really help this generation like it did the last one? You have to figure Nvidia designed Maxwell with what works with the current consoles in mind, benchmarks at least seem to show that. I get that part of the reason that the 7970 pulled ahead was because the Kepler in the 680 didn't jive with the direction gaming went because of consoles. I have to assume that if Maxwell had the same issues then current ports would play poorly.

I think the consoles sporting GCN is a substantial feature for AMD to benefit from. Consoles will continue to be optimized further until they are far more capable then they were at release, especially with such long lifespans. These optimizations will almost certainly carry over to GCN on the PC as much as possible.

What I wonder more about is the other side of your guess- will the 390 and the 390x boost the 290 and 290x long term with new optimizations? How much of the 7970's long-term victory was the fact that Tahiti it was in the market longer than the 680/770?

Yes. They are the same GCN version. The 7970 was in market by only a matter of months longer. Age generally doesn't favor GPUs. They buck the trend and turned out to be capable of more than they were at release.

Is it something that is very hard for them to manage? At some level just treat it like 3.5 GB of ram right?

I don't know. They said they were actively mitigating the VRAM problem. Whether they need to continue to do so depends on whether it's a game by game basis.

I know people got REALLY bent out of shape about the whole 3.5 gigs thing, but now that it's known is there any real reason to think that some game will use over 3.5 gigs but under 4gb at playable framerates (outside of SLI)?

Had they not locked it down it probably would be a noticeable problem. It was demonstrated by end-users so it's not like people didn't notice.

On the Kelper thing, I thought that was basically a few games that got later patches which are optimized for Kelper? The worst I see in that is that Nvidia didn't fix the problem until the community pitched a fit (Warner Bros Style), but you have to figure with how popular the 970 is that they won't be able to abandon it any time soon. Or am I wrong?

They are still trailing on benchmarks relative to the 290/x. I haven't seen any credible evidence that they got the lost relative performance back.

Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it!

Since this is mostly opinion and a little intuition based on history I doubt I have much more to add. I don't think anyone is capable of answering these questions, we can only speculate based on what we've seen.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think the consoles sporting GCN is a substantial feature for AMD to benefit from. Consoles will continue to be optimized further until they are far more capable then they were at release, especially with such long lifespans. These optimizations will almost certainly carry over to GCN on the PC as much as possible.

Good point, I can see that. I keep forgetting that Directx 12 is basically the Xbone's API and that the PS4 shown features that GCN on the PC doesn't use yet. There might still be gold in those GCN hills.

I don't know. They said they were actively mitigating the VRAM problem. Whether they need to continue to do so depends on whether it's a game by game basis.

Good call, I didn't know that.

Had they not locked it down it probably would be a noticeable problem. It was demonstrated by end-users so it's not like people didn't notice.

There have been a lot of words spilt on the subject since it broke and I have been trying to research to figure out if it actually effects normal gameplay. So far the only games that maybe go past 3.5GB at 1080p are Mordor and GTA5, but to get there you have to use settings that drive a 970 to unplayable territory otherwise IMHO. I just wonder where the extra .5 is going to help long-term. Seems like if late-gen PS4 games start just blowing up the textures to maximize that 8GB of DDR5 that you would need a card greater than 4GB to be really "futureproof." 390 or bust territory.

They are still trailing on benchmarks relative to the 290/x. I haven't seen any credible evidence that they got the lost relative performance back.

Isn't some of that the fact that AMD improved their drivers as well? I have to give them credit, seeing a 290 regular match a 970 in Witcher is what made me post this thread.

Since this is mostly opinion and a little intuition based on history I doubt I have much more to add. I don't think anyone is capable of answering these questions, we can only speculate based on what we've seen.

I really really appreciate your input, and I think you added a lot! Maybe no one here is a insider or nothing, but I feel many here have good insight on this question. Yet so many of those people are focused on what Fury is going to beat what Titan, so again I appreciate you taking your time to reply!

 

[thesmokingman]

Nvidia cards don't seem to age gracefully especially given recent examples.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Nvidia cards don't seem to age gracefully especially given recent examples.

Agreed, I think that is clear to see when we look at recent history. The strange part is that on the secondary market this isn't really reflected: something like a 670 or 770 goes for more (sometimes much more) than a 7970 or a 280x. Despite lower gaming value long term the Nvidia cards keep a higher relative real world value longer. I honestly don't know what that tells me about the gaming market, or what it means for the 970 vs the 290 in the future other than the fact that there is a value safety net for 970 owners.

Thank you for the input.

 

[thesmokingman]

Agreed, I think that is clear to see when we look at recent history. The strange part is that on the secondary market this isn't really reflected: something like a 670 or 770 goes for more (sometimes much more) than a 7970 or a 280x. Despite lower gaming value long term the Nvidia cards keep a higher relative real world value longer. I honestly don't know what that tells me about the gaming market, or what it means for the 970 vs the 290 in the future other than the fact that there is a value safety net for 970 owners.

Thank you for the input.

Nvidia has stronger brand awareness and cache. The market is willing to go for with a slower card with a stronger brand in the used market at least. It's like the Apple effect.

 

[PG]

I like AMD, but I think using consoles as a good reason to buy AMD cards could be a mistake. Look at Arkham Knight. You won't get smoke/fog and the paper affects unless you have Nvidia, and a good one at that. Nvidia and Gameworks are putting AMD owners at a big disadvantage.

 

[sm625]

Nvidia has a financial motive to gimp the 970 drivers as soon as the 1070 launches. (Or whatever the heck it will be called.) Since they encounter no negative market feedback for doing this you can bet they will continue to do it.

 

[Mondozei]

Neither of us has a crystal ball, but it's a safe assumption that AMD will support a 290X better than NV will support a 970. GCN arch is a ripple-down construction in a way that isn't the case for NV. That was true in the last 2 years and will be true in the next two.

Even if the Fury cards get all the glory, most AMD cards being sold are sub-500 dollar propositions and it's all very similar there and AMD knows that.

TL;DR we can't know for sure but most probably yes.

 

[tential]

Nvidia has stronger brand awareness and cache. The market is willing to go for with a slower card with a stronger brand in the used market at least. It's like the Apple effect.

Yup and it's hilarious that 290x is fighting the gtx 970 with ease and even the 980.
The same card to derail the Titan is still years later giving nvidia an annoyance.

The 200 and 7000 series were amazing picks. Fury may even be better later down the road too I wouldn't be surprised is we see normal fury up with the 980ti next year.

 

[Jeff007245]

AMD cards tend to mature better in the long run as history has shown. Kepler to Maxwell was a huge architectural change, which crippled driver optimizations for older cards. If Pascal is developed with a similar architecture as Maxwell, then I don't think we'll have a repeat of the 780ti. Time will tell, but we should enjoy the products as they are now.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Have you guys looked carefully at the Fury review AT just put out? The 7970 seems like it's aging better due to it having lackluster drivers at launch.

Another thing to note is that the 7970 is maintaining performance a bit better at higher resolutions in some games, a trend that was apparent when the cards were the flag ships. This is due to it having 3GiB of RAM and having far more bandwidth. Had AMD's drivers been better at launch I think people would have seen these cards as equal instead of the 680 being faster.

It's obvious there is a driver regression for nVIDIA in this game considering it's an nVIDIA sponsored title (pretty embarrassing really).

Kepler still holds up well just as long as it gets driver optimizations. Driver optimizations are key for Kepler to keep hardware resource utilization high and nVIDIA for the most part has done a good job but in a few recent games these optimizations have been delayed in favor of prioritizing Maxwell. This is part of the reason nVIDIA decided to limit the amount of CUDA cores per SMX to 128 instead of 192 in Maxwell among a few other key decisions.

Historically nVIDIA cards have always received better and longer support. Just take a look at how long NV4x/G7x were supported compared to R5xx and G8x/G8x/GT2xx compared to R6xx/RV7xx hell, nVIDIA still technically supports Tesla products 'till 2016. Remember AMD has been on GCN this whole time which has made support easier for them (not an accidental decision I'm sure).

 

[Sabrewings]

It's a shame Nvidia cards don't age as well as they used to. I was rocking a GTX 275 up until May of this year for pretty much all of the current games (at 1080p, of course). I only had to turn a few settings down occasionally, but that card served me extremely well.

I'll rock this 980 Ti well into next year, but if it seems like it's not cutting the mustard for my uses then I will just go to the next big thing.

Regarding the 970, as a Maxwell architecture example the most memory usage I've been able to eek out of my 980 Ti is about 3800MB. That's in Elite: Dangerous with DSR on at 2.0, so I'm essentially rendering at 4k and downsampling to 1080p. It looks gorgeous but definitely puts a memory load on. I feel like for the 970 that as long as you treat it as a 3.5GB card you're fine. That extra 0.5GB is still faster than going to system RAM. It's pretty crappy how the ROP/memory controller connection gimps it in such a way, but it's still a very functional card even when it's hitting the limits. As long as Nvidia's drivers understand in general how to manage memory around the two partitions it'll be fine. I don't feel these need to be game specific optimizations either as it's a general memory management strategy. Nvidia could simply report to the game it only has 3.5GB to play with and make use of the slow-ish 0.5GB before going to system RAM.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe. If that was a deciding factor, the 290 would be the safer bet. However, it would still be a bet and could prove to be the wrong one.

 

[Majcric]

The 7970 didn't outlast the 680. I expect the same fate for 970 vs. 290.

 

[tential]

How didn't the 7970 outlast the 680? It's a new product that people are still buying now.....

Did you not just see the latest drive from AMD improve performance on this card too? This card still is getting regular speed improvements... I don't know what you're talking about.

The R9 290 took on it's competitor in teh GTX 700 series, then went on to continue to take on Nvidia's next gen competitor? I can't even understand the logic you're trying to use to explain how that isn't a lasting product... AMD used 1 card to play against 2 generations of nvidia's cards lol.... and that's a loss?In all reality if AMD can continue the 290 as the 390 and still compete with the GTX 970 then that's a major business win to be able to use the same design to compete against 2 designs of your competitor.

I don't care either way, you just don't make any sense....

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

The 7970 didn't outlast the 680. I expect the same fate for 970 vs. 290.

Forget the 680, it is / comes close to nipping the heels of the 780/Ti in more recent titles.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

How didn't the 7970 outlast the 680? It's a new product that people are still buying now.....

Did you not just see the latest drive from AMD improve performance on this card too? This card still is getting regular speed improvements... I don't know what you're talking about.

The R9 290 took on it's competitor in teh GTX 700 series, then went on to continue to take on Nvidia's next gen competitor? I can't even understand the logic you're trying to use to explain how that isn't a lasting product... AMD used 1 card to play against 2 generations of nvidia's cards lol.... and that's a loss?In all reality if AMD can continue the 290 as the 390 and still compete with the GTX 970 then that's a major business win to be able to use the same design to compete against 2 designs of your competitor.

I don't care either way, you just don't make any sense....

That's not a good thing you know...
AMD would rather be doing what nVIDIA is doing right now, releasing newer cheaper cards that they can make more profit from. AMD is stuck with a mixture of old and new designs out of necessity. It wasn't a good thing that AMD had the 290X "compete" against the 980 for so long (it didn't really compete with it either).

For the topic at hand the definition of a card lasting long has nothing to do with how long it has been on sale either, in this case it's about how relevant the performance is after product release. I'm not sure if you saw the charts I posted or not but they are self explanatory in regards to Kepler.

 

[shady28]

Have you guys looked carefully at the Fury review AT just put out? The 7970 seems like it's aging better due to it having lackluster drivers at launch.

Another thing to note is that the 7970 is maintaining performance a bit better at higher resolutions in some games, a trend that was apparent when the cards were the flag ships. ...

The 7970 was a competitor to the GTX 680 when the 7970 launched.

From your own charts, in the first 4 bench's it lost to the 680. The next 4 it wins, then loses 1, then wins 1.

That looks like a tie to me, and it actually beat the 680 in most games at launch. So based on that, it's actually gone backwards.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-19.html

Advantage longevity for 7970 vs 680 not found.

 

[dn7309]

I think (and hope) that the 290x will outlive the 970. If AMD will continue to optimize the 390, it likely it will trickle down to the 290.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The 390 seems pretty competitive.

 

[Face2Face]

This is a little bit off topic, but we're talking about aging of GPUs and Kepler came up. So I'm wondering what core clock speeds AT's GTX 780 maintains? I just fired up Shadow of Mordor @ Ultra settings with the texture pack installed and i'm seeing some odd results.

Anandtech's GTX 780 ???/??? - 47.9 FPS
My GTX 780 down-clocked to @ 1006/1502 - 53.49 FPS
My GTX 780 Stock out of the box @ 1124/1502 - 56.89 FPS
My GTX 780 Gaming overclock @ 1306/1656 - 64.65 FPS

Now I know we don't have the same system setup, but if anything Ryan has a much better system than mine. If I had to guess looking at these numbers, AT's GTX 780 doesn't even boost into the 1Ghz range on the core. I guess it's something to keep in mind when reading through the benchmarks. I guess it's good to see my overclocked 780 is keeping right up with a stock GTX 980 @ 1440p In this title at least...

 

[hawtdawg]

As a 780 owner, I'm going to have to call you out on the fact that 780's don't have enough ram to run Mordor smoothly with ultra textures at 1440p. there is clear hitching. The framerate looks fine, until you flick the camera, then there's some obvious stutter. It can do it at 1080p alright as far as i can tell, but not 1440p. High textures have to be used in order to avoid it.

I mean sure, the game is [poorly optimized], but still.

Infraction issued for inappropriate language.
-- stahlhart