Sapphire R9 290X 4GB TRI-X vs Sapphire R9 290 VAPOR-X 4GB vs Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 4GB

[kennyreid95]

Which of these 4 graphics card is the best for 1080p and 1440p? Which of these graphics cards is the most powerful enough to run The Witcher 3, Far Cry 4, Fallout 4, or GTA V at 1080p 60fps and 1440p above 30fps? Which of these graphics cards would you guys buy? BTW I want to upgrade my current graphics card the MSI R9 280X Twin Frozr 3GB.

 

[MrTeal]

At 1440p, the 290X is a hair faster. All of them can play those games* above 30fps @ 1440p. I would buy none of them as an upgrade to a 280X right now, unless you're getting an amazing deal on the 290(x). It won't be enough of an upgrade unless your cost is really low, just wait to see what happens with the 14/6 nm GPUs.

*CPU dependent

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yeah, I'd say any of those cards are fine (I'm guessing the 290 is the cheapest of the bunch, and hence the best buy) but while these cards are definitely faster than the 280x, I don't know if the value proposition is really there with a node shrink and arch change for both vendors by the middle of next year.

If money is burning a hole in your pocket get any of those three and you'll be fine.

 

[Techhog]

You shouldn't upgrade right now. You already have a good card, so you should just wait 6 months for the next generation. You'll get a much bigger upgrade in that time.

 

[Silverforce11]

If you can get R290X for a good price, towards $200, it's not gonna be beaten for bang for buck even with next-gen, IMO.

These custom R290X run at >1Ghz, no throttling clocks, and are close to the 390X on performance, which is 980 level, beyond the 970.

The Tri-X runs very quiet and cool. I would lean to that.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

If you can get R290X for a good price, towards $200, it's not gonna be beaten for bang for buck even with next-gen, IMO.

These custom R290X run at >1Ghz, no throttling clocks, and are close to the 390X on performance, which is 980 level, beyond the 970.

The Tri-X runs very quiet and cool. I would lean to that.

-Unless driver support for current gen cards becomes tenuous when AMD begins to focus on its new line-up and arch. The decline in performance may be precipitous in that case.

I guess the question to ask is "Are you keeping this GPU for the next 3 years or are you just looking for better performance now the-future-be-damned?"

 

[3DVagabond]

OP: Since you have specific models mentioned, what are the prices you are looking at?

 

[Silverforce11]

-Unless driver support for current gen cards becomes tenuous when AMD begins to focus on its new line-up and arch. The decline in performance may be precipitous in that case.

I guess the question to ask is "Are you keeping this GPU for the next 3 years or are you just looking for better performance now the-future-be-damned?"

I feel safer in GCN if you're talking about driver support for the next 3 years.

Polaris is GCN based. Consoles are still GCN 1.1 based.

Will Maxwell get optimized drivers once Pascal is here? Look at Kepler. The 970 is the Maxwell that requires special optimized drivers due to its 3.5GB vram too.

 

[Seba]

I don't know if the value proposition is really there with a node shrink and arch change for both vendors by the middle of next year.

This year, not next year.

 

[Mezzanine]

I've had 2 G1's and they were both horrible overclockers, now I have 2 Gigabyte Windforce 970's which both do 1550mhz and they were cheaper than the G1.

But of those 3 I would take the 290x Tri-x.....I had the 290 version and it was a great card.

 

[tential]

I feel safer in GCN if you're talking about driver support for the next 3 years.

Polaris is GCN based. Consoles are still GCN 1.1 based.

Will Maxwell get optimized drivers once Pascal is here? Look at Kepler. The 970 is the Maxwell that requires special optimized drivers due to its 3.5GB vram too.

This. I wouldn't get a 970 unless it was 30 cheaper than a 290. Especially since the 290 is now faster.

The only reason I'd buy the 970 is if I was partial to nvidia, and knew that my 970 would magically drop in performance and require an upgrade once pascal hits.

Otherwise, the 290s are only going to improve. Gcn cards have only improved on bench chart overall comprasions.

I'll buy nvidia if I give up on freesync and will just realize I need a new gpu every year. Otherwise, amd is the best value right now easily in every price bracket except the gtx 980ti.

 

[guskline]

My 2 Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290s in CF with EK waterblocks are rock solid.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

This year, not next year.

We'll be in November before I get that sorted out...

 

[Stuka87]

I vote the Tri-X.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I vote the Tri-X.

For a good price, yes i agree
Sapphire R9 290X 4GB TRI-X has a solid cooler, good for 1080p and higher res

 

[Tweak155]

I'd stick with the 280x for now given your upgrade options.

 

[kennyreid95]

I think the Sapphire VAPOR-X R9 290 4GB is a huge upgrade from the MSI R9 280X Twin Frozr 3GB. Take a look at this video. The Sapphire Vapor X R9 290 4GB completely blows the R9 280X (7970) out the water. Now do you guys think the Sapphire Vapor X R9 290 4GB is a huge upgrade from the MSI R9 280X twin frozr 3gb? Is the Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 4GB a huge upgrade from the MSI R9 280X Twin Frozr 3GB? The Sapphire VAPOR-X R9 290 4GB and Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 4GB should be huge upgrades from R9 280X and should play higher frame rates at 1440p than R9 280X.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQy1gp3k9Q

 

[brandonmatic]

I upgraded from a 7950 (identical to a 280) to a tri-x 290x and it was a pretty good jump. In modern games like Witcher 3 it allows me to use mostly ultra/high settings at 2560x1080, which is a nice jump in performance. A big thing for me was also pairing it with a FreeSync monitor, which isn't supported on the older GCN cards like the 7950. That's a big deal for games like the Witcher where you can run at 60 fps most of the time but in some areas it dips down to 45 fps. With Freesync it's still very smooth and I don't notice frame rate drops much at all.