GTX 960 vs R9 380

[rul3s]

Hello, comrades!!

I had a GTX 660 2GB from August '13, but it died in its last month of warranty and now at pccomponentes they will probably refund me the price so I can buy another since that model is discontinued.

I'm debating between a GTX 960 or the new AMD R9 380:

From NVIDIA, I'm drawn to the fact that almost everything is designed for NVIDIA, and the drivers seem more "stable".
From AMD, according to reviews, it's more powerful with the same consumption and temperatures, and the 4GB version is cheaper.

I still doubt a bit whether to get 2GB or 4GB, but between these it would be a matter of:

GTX960:
Gigabyte Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 OC 2GB WindForce DDR5 209€
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 OC 4GB WindForce DDR5 263€

AMD R9 380:
XFX R9 380 Dual Fan 2GB GDDR5 210€
XFX R9 380 Dual Fan 4GB GDDR5 239€

What would you do? The rest of the equipment is an i7 4790k+z97 gaming 5+16GB+SSD

Considerations, the use is mostly CS:GO and LOL, but I also have pending GTA V, Project Cars, etc... All this added to a Benq screen of 144Hz, which I have pending to make a mini review, you don't know how noticeable this is!!

Greetings, comrades!

P.D: Review:

[whoololon]

I would go for AMD, but not the 380 and not the XFX.
See if you can stretch and get a 290 (Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X OC UEFI is very well priced), which is about 50 € more but worth it.

As for the amount of VRAM, a minimum of 4 GB "of course". ;D

[rul3s]

@whoololon:

Well, I would get the AMD, but not the 380 and not the XFX.
See if you can stretch and get a 290 (The Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X OC UEFI is very well priced), which is about 50 € more but worth it.

As for the amount of VRAM, a minimum of 4 GB "of course". ;D

Something like this for example?

Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU OC 4GB 312€

The thing is that compared to the 380 with 4GB it's almost 100€ difference… and I don't think I should spend that much.

Between the 380 vs the 960, which one would you choose? And why not XFX? I remember from a while ago that it was one of the good assemblers with NVIDIA...

Greetings, friend, and thanks for your opinion!

[rul3s]

Even now that I look at it, I have also found a 290 with 4GB for 280€... but no idea about this manufacturer, any reference?

http://xtremmedia.com/VTX3D_Radeon_R9_290_X_Edition_V2_4GB_GDDR5.html

[whoololon]

Well, XFX "used to be" good, but it has dropped a lot.
From what I've read about VTX3D, it often suffers from "coil whine" (electrical whine).
The 960 only performs a little better than the 760 I have, compared to the 380 it is much less powerful.
The DirectCU is a good cooler, but some users find the Asus 290 "hot". The Sapphire (despite being Sapphire) I recommended is much cooler.

The 380 will run well on those games you mentioned, but take a better look at the Sapphire.
If you have expectations of playing new titles, I would save a little more and go for the 290.

[rul3s]

@whoololon:

Well, XFX "used to be" good, but it has dropped a lot.
From what I've read about VTX3D, it usually suffers from "coil whine" (electrical whine).
The 960 performs only a little more than the 760 I have, compared to the 380 it is much less powerful.
The DirectCU is a good cooler, but some users find the Asus 290 "hot". The Sapphire (despite being Sapphire) that I recommended is much cooler.

The 380 will run well on those games you mentioned, but take a better look at the Sapphire.
If you have expectations of playing new titles, I would save a little more and go for the 290.

Now another variable appears in the equation... It turns out that nVidia has "lightboost", which together with monitors that support 120hz is noticeable in FPS games, while AMD has nothing like it for now... Do we know anything about this?

[whoololon]

It is basically an improvement in the way image elements are drawn and refreshed.

It's not that the graphics improve fps, it just makes it easier to see certain objects by eliminating motion blur, which is why some people translate that into an improvement in fps, when it's not.

On the other hand, transitions are less smooth and the color and brightness of the image degrade a bit, not to mention that this feature cannot be activated on all monitors.

In my opinion, it is not a superfluous function, but not indispensable either.

[Handrox]

GTX 960 MUCH less powerful than the R380, I understand correctly?

[whoololon]

@Handrox:

GTX 960 MUCH less powerful than the R380, did I understand correctly?

Hic quoque, fili? :facepalm:

[Handrox]

"The 960 delivers just a little more than the 760 I have, compared to the 380 it is much less powerful."

[wwwendigo]

Clearly much less powerful:

Here is the 380 before the renaming and they tightened the screws a bit, read R9 285. If someone likes to make "fair" comparisons, let them take a GTX 960 with a factory OC that's pretty good, I'm not even talking about a G1 that's going too far, and not the reference one used on TPU!, let's see what happens.

In total, we already know that the GTX 960s don't go up one bit with OC of course, and the 380s are "overkill". :troll:

Myths, myths everywhere.:wall:

[whoololon]

• If you're going to respond to Rules about his query, that's not the way to do it.

@nadie:

_"I would go for the _____ because ______, _______, _______ and _______. Plus it has ______ and that affects ______."

• If you want to dismiss me as ignorant (which is not difficult by the way), demonstrate that you have a grasp of the subject and also want to come across as a gentleman, that's not the way to do it.

@nadie:

" Is the 380 less powerful? At most the 960 and it's on par, however the 960 supports more OC and consumes much less, which makes it a better option.
I don't know what your sources are, but maybe you should check the data before you write.
Best regards."

• If you want to derail the thread, you're doing a great job.

[Handrox]

No, I'm not here to cause problems. It's just that I had just read that review from Techspot and it seemed strange to me what you were saying, there are more reviews that corroborate what Techspot says, but well, everyone says what they want.

"Finally, we have the R9 380 at $200, a price point AMD has previously smothered with products. For the same price as the R9 285, the R9 380 is on average 8% faster and 6% slower than the R9 280X while matching the GTX 960. Picking between the R9 380 and GTX 960 will come down to personal preference, and again the Nvidia card has an edge in power consumption, cooling and overclocking."

Answering Rules' question, I would get the GTX 960, I don't think the 3% or 5% in favor of or against the R380 justifies its purchase and being a shameless rebrand of the R200, I don't think it will receive significant performance improvements in future drivers.

Regards

[rul3s]

Come on guys!! This is a forum to help us

I edit, in the end I got excited and went for a GTX970, this one: http://www.pccomponentes.com/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_970_windforce_3x_oc_4gb_ddr5.html

:wall: :troll:

[whoololon]

If you are up to date with the problem with its memory, then go ahead champion: ¡A juegaaaar! ;D

[rul3s]

@whoololon:

If you are aware of the problem with its memory, then come on champ: ;D

Yes, I had heard something, but well, my monitor is 1080p, I doubt I will use more than 3.5GB lol ;D

Thanks for the warning!!

[rul3s]

@whoololon:

If you are aware of the problem with its memory, then there's nothing left to do champion: Time to play! ;D

Wow, they have just lowered the price of the Asus 290 OC by a few euros… and with what you're telling me, I don't know what to do if the 970 or the 290 OC is Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II OC 4GB GDDR5 Graphics Card

Which one would you choose?

Best regards!

[Handrox]

@Rules:

Ostia, now they have just lowered the Asus 290 OC by a few euros…. and with what you tell me I don't know what to do if the 970 or the 290 OC is Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II OC 4GB GDDR5 Graphics Card

Which one would you choose?

Regards!

Between R290 and GTX 970? Without a doubt the GTX 970 is a better product… That one can be said to be much superior to the other option.

Regards.

[wwwendigo]

@whoololon:

If you're up to date with the problem with its memory, then go ahead, champion: />;D

I can't believe it... does this come from the same person who said this a few comments back?:

If you're going to answer Rules about his question, that's not the way to do it.

If you want to dismiss me as ignorant (which isn't hard to do, by the way), demonstrate that you know the subject and also act like a gentleman, that's not the way to do it.

If you want to derail the thread, you're doing a great job.

You can't be that cynical. First complaining because they make a rebuttal showing that what he says isn't true, and then after complaining because it seems to bother him that he's being ridiculed (which isn't true, here no one has called him a "champion" or anything like that, although it would be better not to drop bombs like the R9 380 is much faster than the GTX 960 and he'd see that no one would reply pointing out that huge mistake), he goes on with the thread but dropping jokes that are just as bad as the ones he's complaining about.

By the way, what problem do you say the GTX 960 have with their memory? Enlighten me (until this comment we're not talking about the GTX 970, but about the GTX 960 and the 380, you know, since you care so much about the question and the topic asked by Rules, STICK TO IT).

By the way, even if it hurts his very soul, the GTX 970 even with the memory issue as he tries to push (not the GTX 960), it turns out to be a bullet with plenty of memory. Someone who tests and knows well the things we're talking about here. :ugly:

[wwwendigo]

@Rules:

Ostia, now they have just lowered the Asus 290 OC by a few euros…. and with what you tell me I don't know what to do if the 970 or the 290 OC is Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II OC 4GB GDDR5 Graphics Card

Which one would you choose?

Best regards!

Personally, I wouldn't even take a barrel of wine for that price for an R9 290, a card that is clearly slower than the GTX 970, with worse power consumption and less prepared for future functions, not to mention the OC potential which with the GTX 970 is wide and very easy to exploit without drawbacks like monstrous increases in power consumption, etc., besides the fact that Asus seems to have had problems specifically with that model in the cooling system and its assembly. I would prefer it to a Sapphire, but from the forums it seems there are complaints with this model.

If I'm only going to save 40€ compared to a GTX 970, the option is…. the GTX 970. Oh yes, even being 3.5 GB + 0.5 GB. If the Fury can use 4 GB in the style of the GTX 970 (as if they were 3.5 GB), it will be more justified in graphics cards with less power, right, right?:troll:

A 290 that is not close to 250€ nowadays, shouldn't be an option.

PD: Even with the Windforce 3x as an option, which is a very good card within the "entry-level" GTX 970. A colleague of mine has one and enjoys it a lot.